Posted on 06/30/2015 11:52:34 AM PDT by Teflonic
“Old-timers: F-16s have flown in combat missions over Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Libya”
Looks like those may be the new Strike Eagle variant of the classic Viper/Lawn Dart.
John Boyd laughs from the beyond.
When the F-16 was built it was touted for its force multiplication capability. The Air Force pitted 2 F-16s against 5 F-5s flown by pilots trained to imitate Russian tactics.
The F-16s didn’t do well at all.
I’ve worked for a USAF SPO. They exist to keep the military employed and funnel money to conglomerate weapons manufacturers. They don’t exist to create great weapons at low cost.
Refusing to buy the F-20 Tigershark was proof enough.
Exactly. The F-16 was specifically built to dogfight better than other A/C, especially the F-4, F-14 and even the F-15 (which was thought to be too large).
“Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full”
The oxygen problem was the primary bug in the system along with the huge cost per unit. Prior to that, the leading edges of the wings had a habit of delaminating and there were problems with the canopy, which I can’t find a reference for right at the moment.
I once went to the golf driving range and was slogging balls 250-300 yrds out.
Guys kept coming up asking me what driver I was using, as they clutched their “Ping” and other fancy clubs.
Each time, I told them I was whatever I grabbed from the clubhouse and they would walk off pissed, insisting I was some kinduh A-hole for keeping a secret.
At the end of a few hours I quit and went to have a drink.
Asked the manager what kind of club I was using and replied some crazy old stick.
Turns out it was some beat up 30 year old Ben Hogan.
Same thing happens at the gun range. Guys complain aboit the gun, I pick it up and it shoots fine....
Goose got cooked for real in mad max.
Kind of a stupid story.
Yes the pilot makes a difference, but Chuck Yeager isn’t going to make a Cessna fly faster than the speed of sound.
Agreed. Not that the two were called competing against each other, but imagine if the F-20 had been picked instead of the F-16. There is no way the smaller F-20 would be able to carry all the stuff the F-16 has.
OK... enough..
the last gunfighter was the F-8...
put this thing up against an old F-8..
my guess.... it will lose
My dad used to used to say, “A poor workman always blames his tools.”
Don't get me wrong the T-38/F-5 airframe is very capable and nimble. But, like you said, it's a 1950's design that had already maxed out it's growth potential.
It is a tribute to the F-16/F-17 design teams that their respective planes evolved into domineering 4th generation fighters.
I’ve said from Day 1 that we will never see the F-35 Edsel in full production. We won’t. Maybe someone more enlightened than I regarding “stealth” could let me know how the Russians, Chinese, etc are doing reacting to it. Last I heard, the Russians had stealth beat with a new radar. (Sold it to Libya ?) It is only a matter of time.
Good analysis.
A couple of year back I happened to be in Antofagasta, Chile, where the Chilean Air Force stationed their newly acquired Squadron of F-16s (procured from the Dutch, I believe).
Their take off was often south over the city. More than once I had the pleasure to see these F-16 jet jockies take off, some going damn near straight up and another doing a roll, both in full AB. Impressive.
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.