6600kb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Forsyth F. Forsyth) (05/17/91)
From: 6600kb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Forsyth F. Forsyth) Somewhat on this same thread, how would an F-16 fare 1 on 1 with an F-18? Again, assuming pilots of roughly equal skill, etc. Also, what is the main criteria that these outcomes are based on? Armament? Agility? I remember reading somewhere that pilots valued straight out speed as much as, if not more than, agility in the air. -Forsyth
U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (05/17/91)
From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> I would say that the F/A-18 and F-16 would be somewhat on equal ground. Both are fly by wire. Both can perform outstanding maneuvers. The thing that may seperate them, however, is the fact that the F-16 cannot fire a Sparrow missile, while the F/A-18 can, which means the Hornet has a longer kill range than the Falcon and can conceivably kill the Falcon before the Falcon can tally him. This does not include the AMRAAM though, which the Falcon and Hornet can both fire. Bones u38956@uicvm.bitnet SN0517911202
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/19/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> >The thing that may seperate them, however, is the fact that the F-16 cannot >fire a Sparrow missile, while the F/A-18 can... Correction: the F-16 can carry and fire Sparrows. It's been done. However, production aircraft are not normally equipped for it. (On my cynical days I think the only reason we don't see plenty of Sparrow-armed F-16s is that the USAF thinks it would undermine AMRAAM and consequently has every reason to keep the idea quiet.) Any aircraft which can carry AMRAAMs ought to be able to carry Sparrow, albeit perhaps in smaller numbers; Sparrow is heavier, but not *that* much heavier, and otherwise the missiles are (by design) mechanically compatible. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (05/21/91)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> >>...the fact that the F-16 cannot fire a Sparrow... the F/A-18 can... >Correction: the F-16 can carry and fire Sparrows. It's been done. However, >production aircraft are not normally equipped for it.... Sparrow is heavier, >...and otherwise the missiles are (by design) mechanically compatible. This brings to mind a minor (near) historical event. Iran & Iraq both had F-14's, They both also had Anti-Ship missles from various sources. I clearly recall expert after expert swearing up and down that the F-14 COULD NOT be used to (attempt) deliver these weapons against either the U.S. Fleet or friendly tankers in the Gulf. The basis of this was that the U.S. Navy hasn't done it, there isn't a 'module' in production that plugs in that does it, and a complete module (read that as semi-idiot-proof black box that starts up the missle and fires it) is quite complicated, and would cost the U.S. millions to develop. To further this, they claimed that these governments were stupid in buying weapons because they couldn't be used from any fighter size aircraft that they had (meaning old{er} jet migs or piston fired craft). A little later the 'real' truth did finally get published, that they DID have a delivery system for EVERYONE of these classes. What our safety margins were was the low 'skill' level of the pilots, the failures of the 'manual' launch system, and the high effeciency of our air crews, ageis cruisers, and radar operations. -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (05/21/91)
From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >This brings to mind a minor (near) historical event. Iran & Iraq both >had F-14's, Wrong. Iran has F-14s (sold to them during the Shah's days). It's questionable whether any of them are still flyable, due to lack of spare parts and technicians. [LOTS of people pointed out Iraq has never had F-14s. --CDR] >They both also had Anti-Ship missles from various sources. Iran and Iraq both have ground-launched Chinese Silkworm missiles. Iraq has French Exocet missiles which they launched from Mirage F.1 Fighters against tankers during the Iran-Iraq war. >I clearly recall expert after expert swearing up and down that the F-14 >COULD NOT be used to (attempt) deliver these weapons against either the >U.S. Fleet or friendly tankers in the Gulf. The basis of this was that >the U.S. Navy hasn't done it, there isn't a 'module' in production that >plugs in that does it, and a complete module ...... [deleted] >A little later the 'real' truth did finally get published, that they >DID have a delivery system for EVERYONE of these classes. I'd certainly like to see just what was "published" where. It was never in doubt that Iraq had Exocets or that Iraq could launch them from its Mirage F.1s. (It had been in doubt that Iraq's Mirages could carry two Exocets per plane, as opposed to one, but the Stark incident proved that long before the Gulf War.) It's also never been in doubt that Iraq has never had any F-14s. To my knowledge, US F-14s haven't carried or fired an Exocet missile. I don't believe Iran has ever acquired any Exocet missiles, and if they had, I question whether they have the capability to modify the F-14 to carry them. If you have any "published" information to the contrary, I think that we'd all like to see your references. But I believe that your posting is very much in error. -- Jared L. Nedzel nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com (05/21/91)
From: daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen)
AJM> This brings to mind a minor (near) historical event. Iran & Iraq both
AJM> had F-14's, They both also had Anti-Ship missles from various sources.
Wrong. Only Iran purchased F-14s. Currently they seem to be used
only as radar platforms, and approximately a dozen are expected to be
flying due to lack of parts and qualified maintenance personnel. Iran
purchased 87 F-14s, of which 86 were delivered. (the actualy number
might have been 83; it's been a while since I looked it up) Iran is
the only other country in the world to have F-14s besides the U.S.
Iran has (large quantities of) Silkworm missiles, and Iraq has been shown
to have Exocets. Iraq may also have Silkworms.
AJM> A little later the 'real' truth did finally get published, that they
AJM> DID have a delivery system for EVERYONE of these classes. What our
AJM> safety margins were was the low 'skill' level of the pilots, the
AJM> failures of the 'manual' launch system, and the high effeciency of our
AJM> air crews, ageis cruisers, and radar operations.
You could most likely adapt the weapons points on an F-14 to carry anything.
Hacking up a firing system isn't all that difficult either. What IS difficult
it providing targeting and steering information to the missile if you don't
have the proper "black boxes". THAT is what the Navy, etc. has said. Many
missiles can be fired blindly, and seek their own targets -- I think Exocets
can do this, and would suspect Silkworms can too.
By modifying the missile system as you suggest, you certainly DO lower the
safety margins involved. The F-14 in its present incarnation is not designed
to be an attack aircraft -- it can do it, but it's not in the manual. Tomcat-21
(or some of the other variants) will allow full attack capability.
--
"Look, folks, you can't save everyone. | Dave Goldblatt [daveg@clearpoint.com]
Just try not to be living next to | Software Engineering (Subsystems)
them when they go off." | Clearpoint Research Corporation
- Dennis Miller | 35 Parkwood Dr., Hopkinton, MA 01748anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (05/21/91)
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >This brings to mind a minor (near) historical event. Iran & Iraq both >had F-14's, They both also had Anti-Ship missles from various sources. Are you sure ? Iran is the only country other than the US to have purchased the F14. The Shah of Iran bought the F14s because of their Phoenix carrying ability. -- Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au TEL:+(61)-7-365-2697 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (05/22/91)
From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> In regards to the prior article stating that Iran and Iraq both had F-14 Tomcats. . . In actuality only Iran had F-14 Tomcats. When the Shah of Iran was still in power, he was being harassed by the Soviets' continued flyovers over Iranian airspace with MiG-25 Foxbats. To counter the problem, the Shah asked Iran's then-ally the United States for an aircraft to counter the problem. The answer was the F-14 Tomcat, which at the time was still relatively new (ca. 1975). As a result, a total of 80 F-14A's were ordered by the Shah, of which 79 were delivered along with support personnel, technicians, etc. The US, anticipating the political unrest in Iran, sub- sequently degraded the Iranian version of the Tomcat before delivery (To obvious good effect). A "lower" grade version of the AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Pheonix missile system was retained, however. You may have seen pictures of the Iranian Tomcats. They were painted in desert type camoflauge and were missing the door to the refueling probe. The sensor under the nose was different as well. The plane was still basically labelled in English, and even the tailhook was retained. When the Shah lost power and Khomeini was in, the Tomcats had IIAF painted on them for "Imperial Iranian Air Force". They were then pressed into service in the 9 year war with Iraq. Fortunately, the technicians and flight instructors for the Tomcat left Iran after the Ayatollah was coming into power, which made for Tomcats with no spare parts, poor maintenance, and a dwindling supply of Pheonix missiles, which were degraded to begin with and are probably all gone. Parts now come in by black market, but it still is not enough to keep up the Tomcat. Also, in the war with Iraq, the Iraqi have claimed to have shot down a great number of Iranian F-14's--whether or not the counts are as high as they claim (recall their claim in Operation Desert Storm for downed aircraft). In one particular instance, an Iranian defected to the Soviet Union in his F-14 Tomcat. After he landed, the Tomcat was impounded and neither him or the F-14 were heard from again. Good thing it was a degraded version, but I wouldn't put it past the Soviets applying what technology they could get out of that F-14 into their own (MiG-29, Su-27 possibly?) In terms of Iraq, well, no F-14's were ever ordered by Iraq, nor were any delivered. If some Iranian Tomcats were shot down by Iraq, I doubt the Iraqi are flying them today. ie, there are no Iraqi Tomcats. By the way, in terms of the F-14's from Iran carrying anti-ship weaponry there is some more support for that claim. When the USS Vincennes shot down that Iranian Airbus, they did so thinking it was an Iranian F-14 trying to attack them. So, I think they did anticipate its ability to carry air-to-ground weaponry. And in case you were wondering about the 80th Iranian Tomcat that was never delivered--it is being used today by the US Navy and from what I understand it still carries the desrt camoflauge. Check Six, Bones U38956@uicvm.bitnet SN0521911227
bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) (05/22/91)
From: bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) >This brings to mind a minor (near) historical event. Iran & Iraq both >had F-14's, Minor correction: Iraq has never been equipped with the F14 Tomcat. Only Iran apart from the US Navy purchased the aircraft. Iraq has never to my knowledge operated an American manufactured aircraft (apart from civilian helicopters purchased for civilian use and then re-equipped for use as military aircraft). -- Brian Ross
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (05/22/91)
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) >This brings to mind a minor (near) historical event. Iran & Iraq both >had F-14's, Not true. Iraq does not, and did not, have F-14's in its inventory. Some 80 F-14's were sold to Iran in the 1970's, but somewhat fewer of these remain operational. >...They both also had Anti-Ship missles from various sources. >I clearly recall expert after expert swearing up and down that the F-14 >COULD NOT be used to (attempt) deliver these weapons against either the >U.S. Fleet or friendly tankers in the Gulf. The basis of this was that >the U.S. Navy hasn't done it, there isn't a 'module' in production that >plugs in that does it, and a complete module (read that as >semi-idiot-proof black box that starts up the missle and fires it) is >quite complicated, and would cost the U.S. millions to develop. To >further this, they claimed that these governments were stupid in buying >weapons because they couldn't be used from any fighter size aircraft >that they had (meaning old{er} jet migs or piston fired craft). We are not talking about some adapter that allows a different weapon intended for a similar purpose (such as air-to-air) to be utilized, but a modification that permits utilization of a weapon by a platform that was not designed to carry out that mission (air-to-ground). The AWG-9 fire control system was not designed to provide targeting data to an anti-ship missile. To place an anti-ship missile on an Iranian F-14, and to effectively employ it, would require a new fire control system, not just a 'module'. The F1 Mirage, which Iraq does (did?) have, does have an anti-ship capability. >A little later the 'real' truth did finally get published, that they >DID have a delivery system for EVERYONE of these classes. What our >safety margins were was the low 'skill' level of the pilots, the >failures of the 'manual' launch system, and the high effeciency of our >air crews, ageis cruisers, and radar operations. If you are talking about physically firing an anti-ship missile without targeting data and target lock (shooting blind), I imagine it could be done, but I don't view that as a delivery system. -- Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
page@cod.nosc.mil (Ward C. Page) (05/23/91)
From: page@cod.nosc.mil (Ward C. Page) U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes: >I would say that the F/A-18 and F-16 would be somewhat on equal ground. >Both are fly by wire. Both can perform outstanding maneuvers. Not even close. In a close in dogfight the F-16 is much the superior aircraft. This was the primary reason the F-16 won the light-weight fighter fly-off. The F-18 really isn't set up for this anyway. >The thing that may seperate them, however, is the fact that the F-16 cannot >fire a Sparrow missile, while the F/A-18 can, which means the Hornet has a >longer kill range than the Falcon and can conceivably kill the Falcon before >the Falcon can tally him. This does not include the AMRAAM though, which the >Falcon and Hornet can both fire. Well, if you're gonna worry about the best out-of-visual-range aircraft, just strap a bunch of AMRAAMs and Sparrows onto an AWACS and shoot down anything that comes near. The F-4 and F-15 pilots I know hate going 1v1 with the F-16 because it's very hard to lock onto even if you can pick it up on radar. It's radar cross-section is very small for a non-stealth aircraft. Ward Page Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, CA
U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (05/23/91)
From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> I seem to recall in a dogfight over NAS Miramar circa 1987, a flight of USMC F/A-18 Hornets defeated a flight of USAF F-16 Fighting Falcons. I think there is some significance to that. Bones u38956@uicvm.bitnet SN0523910853
brian@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Douglass) (05/31/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Douglass) U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes: >I seem to recall in a dogfight over NAS Miramar circa 1987, a flight of USMC >F/A-18 Hornets defeated a flight of USAF F-16 Fighting Falcons. I think there >is some significance to that. Not really. Any jet jock will tell you, it's not the plane, its the man. I personally have seen jocks in F-5s with the 57th FWW Agressor Squadron wax F-15s, 16s, and 14s. All due to superior flight skills and training. A great plane does not make up for poor tactics. -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp
adam@ste.dyn.bae.co.uk (06/03/91)
From: adam@ste.dyn.bae.co.uk In article <1991Jun1.012622.27527@amd.com> >I seem to recall in a dogfight over NAS Miramar circa 1987, a flight of USMC >F/A-18 Hornets defeated a flight of USAF F-16 Fighting Falcons. I think there >is some significance to that. Yes - the conclusion you can draw is that the USMC pilots were better than the USAF pilots. The aircraft makes minimal difference. Remember the Red Flag exercise where RAF Jaguars (single seat ground attack aircraft with no fighter pretensions) shot down USAF F-15s? The pilot and his training count far more than the high tech whizz-bang he's strapped into. Adam
U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (06/03/91)
From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> I quoted earlier in the net a quote from the Red Baron: "The quality if the crate matters little. It is the quality of the man sitting in the crate that counts." I know that it is the person in the plane that counts most. To quote Adolph Galland as well: "Only the spirit of attack borne in a brave heart will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." When I brought up the USMC F/A-18s and USAF F-16 dogfight, and said there was some significance in that, this is one of the things I was considering. true, the F/A-18 and F-16 are both great planes, but it's whose flying the plane that makes the difference. Who can emply it to its potential, etc. I was not necessarily saying that the F-18 was better, but that it was employed better and used more efficiently Bones
jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (06/05/91)
From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Douglass) writes: >U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes: >>I seem to recall in a dogfight over NAS Miramar circa 1987, a flight of USMC >>F/A-18 Hornets defeated a flight of USAF F-16 Fighting Falcons. > > Any jet jock will tell you, it's not the plane, its the man. [deleted] >All due to superior flight skills and training. A great plane does >not make up for poor tactics. Also, don't discount the effects of the rules of the fight. For example, consider the following scenarios: Two F-16s armed only with sidewinders in a fight with two F-14s armed with phoenix, sparrow, and sidewinder missiles. First scenario: planes approach nose to nose and fights on when the pass each other. Second scenario: planes approach nose to nose from a distance of 100 miles. Fights on at 80 miles. There are lots of variables in these kinds of situations: plane, pilot, weapon systems, rules, luck, etc. It's hard to draw a conclusion based on the results of a single dogfight. -- Jared L. Nedzel nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
awillis@gara.une.oz.au (Andrew Willis) (06/06/91)
From: awillis@gara.une.oz.au (Andrew Willis) edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Douglass) writes: > Not really. Any jet jock will tell you, it's not the plane, its > the man. I personally have seen jocks in F-5s with the 57th FWW > Agressor Squadron wax F-15s, 16s, and 14s. All due to superior > flight skills and training. A great plane does not make up for > poor tactics. I read an article in an old aviation magazine, title unrecalled, about a flight of RAF Buccaneers that went to one of the Red Flag exercises and for entire duration, only TWO were seen by the opposing force and one actually attacked (It escaped with minor damage). By the end of the exercise, the opposing force had F-15, F-4, and F-16 after the RAF aircraft. I agree with the point that it is the pilot who makes the plane, not the plane who makes the pilot. -- Andrew Willis awillis@gara.une.au.oz
brian@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Douglass) (06/13/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Douglass) jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes: >Also, don't discount the effects of the rules of the fight. This is the whole point behind Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) that is performed on the Nellis Gunnery Range where the ROE are constantly modified to test these various scenarios. Crossover Initiation vs Called Fight are in general up to the referee that is watching the whole exercise. Almost all of this speculation about what will beat what has been answered through 1000s of sorties by Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Allied Fliers. At one time or another virtually every type of aircraft has defeated a technologically superior aircraft. The bottom line answer is if the Pilot forgets his situation, forgets the limitations or to use the advantages of his aircraft, he is dead meat. The ATF could just as easily get shot down by a P-51 given the just the right set of circumstances (ATF subsonic at 20,000 in level flight, P-51 diving in from the sun at 30,000 feet). There isn't a plane yet that can dog fight on its own. It still comes down to which pilot can get the most out of his airplane in a given situation. (It's great though when the referee overrides the computer and calls miss on every shot that a pilot makes!) As far as the situation goes about F-16s vs F-14s, F-14s have gotten kills at long range as well as missed. The F-16 gets into a position outside of the Phoenix performance envelope, and he's safe. Always its the pilot. -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp