Desert Storm Air Warriors

[GHOST RIDER]

Islamic Republic Of Iran Air Force, IrAF?

Iraqi Airforce
Islamic Republic of Iran Airforce is IRIAF

 

[silko]

Iraqi Airforce
Islamic Republic of Iran Airforce is IRIAF

oh, started to wonder.

 

[Chogy]

The dedicated F-16 A-A guys can be excellent, because they practice it a lot, and also because some of those guard guys have thousands and thousands of hours. But there is still a hardware issue vs. the F-15. I can't overemphasize the beamwidth thing. There's nothing wrong with the F-16 radar, it's good, but there are inherent limitations that cannot be overcome with software or refinement.

It's like a rifle vs a pistol for long-ranged accuracy. You simply cannot make a pistol as accurate as a rifle at 200 meters. The big antennas have a tight beam, like a laser vs a flashlight. Shine a flashlight at some intruders at night, you light them all up; your software sees one entity, displays one blip at long range. With a laser, you can scan it back and forth and see there are three separate intruders, two in front, one lurking in the bushes. Kind of a bad analogy, but I don't know how else to explain it.

The net result is in air combat, without the ability to do a good sort, you have 4 defenders all shoot the most obvious target. One enemy takes four missiles, three enemy survive. With a good sort, you have all the enemy identified, targeted, and hopefully destroyed.

 

[bubble123]

Great Pics. Americans are a hard working nation

 

[Mosamania]

The dedicated F-16 A-A guys can be excellent, because they practice it a lot, and also because some of those guard guys have thousands and thousands of hours. But there is still a hardware issue vs. the F-15. I can't overemphasize the beamwidth thing. There's nothing wrong with the F-16 radar, it's good, but there are inherent limitations that cannot be overcome with software or refinement.

It's like a rifle vs a pistol for long-ranged accuracy. You simply cannot make a pistol as accurate as a rifle at 200 meters. The big antennas have a tight beam, like a laser vs a flashlight. Shine a flashlight at some intruders at night, you light them all up; your software sees one entity, displays one blip at long range. With a laser, you can scan it back and forth and see there are three separate intruders, two in front, one lurking in the bushes. Kind of a bad analogy, but I don't know how else to explain it.

The net result is in air combat, without the ability to do a good sort, you have 4 defenders all shoot the most obvious target. One enemy takes four missiles, three enemy survive. With a good sort, you have all the enemy identified, targeted, and hopefully destroyed.

Chogy I have a question for you if you don't mind so if you want an Air Superiority jet and had to pick between the F-16 and the F-15 you would always go for the F-15 right?? Which brings me to my other question. The main A2G jet of the RSAF is the Tornado would you choose it or the F-16?? And why please.

 

[Chogy]

Yes I'd go F-15 for the reasons I mentioned, but with the AIM-120, the F-16 can now be very effective in that role.

As far as the A2G mission, I don't know enough about the capabilities of the Tornado. My gut feel is that it can do the job as good as, or better than, the F-16, but it's not up to F-15E standards. It's a solid and very capable jet. I wish I could expand on this more... those are just opinions based upon what I do know, and have heard, about it.

 

[500]

Chogy I have a question for you if you don't mind so if you want an Air Superiority jet and had to pick between the F-16 and the F-15 you would always go for the F-15 right?? Which brings me to my other question. The main A2G jet of the RSAF is the Tornado would you choose it or the F-16?? And why please.

When you talk about F-16 u should keep in mind that F-16 block 10, block 30, block 40, block 50+, block 60 are whole different things.

F-16 block 10 had weak radar, it could carry only short range AAMs and unguided bombs for dailight attack.

F-16 block 60 has quite powerful AESA radar with SAR and GMTI modes, it can carry AMRAAMs, 3rd generation targeting and navigation pods, wide range of guided bombs, standoff missiles, CFT for much longer range...

 

[Mosamania]

When you talk about F-16 u should keep in mind that F-16 block 10, block 30, block 40, block 50+, block 60 are whole different things.

F-16 block 10 had weak radar, it could carry only short range AAMs and unguided bombs for dailight attack.

F-16 block 60 has quite powerful AESA radar with SAR and GMTI modes, it can carry AMRAAMs, 3rd generation targeting and navigation pods, wide range of guided bombs, standoff missiles, CFT for much longer range...

Tornado itself has a spec tree currently reaching the GR4 but when we talk airframes we talk how much can each airframe be pushed to its limit and which one's limit is the best?? For Instance let us compare the Tornado and the F-16 specs in terms of A2G.

Tornado: 4× light duty + 3× heavy duty under-fuselage and 4× swivelling under-wing pylon stations holding up to 9000 kg (19,800 lb) of payload, the two inner wing pylons have shoulder launch rails for 2× Short-Range AAM (SRAAM) each.

F-16:2× wing-tip Air-to-air missile launch rails, 6× under-wing & 3× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of payload.

Range of both:

Tornado:1,390 km (870 mi) typical combat. Maximum: 3,890 Km with drop tanks.
F-16:340 mi (550 km) typical combat Maximum: 2,280 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks.

Tornado: Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 (2,400 km/h, 1,490 mph) at 9,000 m / 30,000 ft altitude; 800 knots, 1,482 km/h, 921 mph indicated airspeed near sea level.
F-16: Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)[44]
At altitude: Mach 2+ (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h[1]) clean configuration.


The F-16 block 60 Radar is better however. But reading this you tell me yourself which is more capable A2G one of the two??

 

[blackops]

great pics loved them keep up the good work mate

 

[rockstarIN]

The F-15 vs. F-16 thing has gone on for a long time. The reality is pretty simple... the F-16 had a slight edge, very slight, in turning. It is not vastly more maneuverable. A well-flown F-15 can hold its own, or kill, an F-16, in a turning fight. But the huge difference is in the big stick and radar of the F-15, and very importantly, the fact that the F-15C pilots did not practice air to ground, ever. All they did was refine their air to air art. And they became very good at it.

The F-15 radar was (and remains) HUGELY superior to the F-16. It comes down to antenna area. To gain resolution, meaning you can break out and analyze individual aircraft within a formation, you need a tight beam width. And the only way to get that is with antenna diameter. This is why fighters dedicated for air to air tend to be large twin jets. Su-27, F-15, F-14, etc.

At 20 miles, the F-15 can see 4 separate targets, while the F-16 can see only one. We then "sort" those targets and assign targeting responsibilities to individual flight members. We arrive at the merge with much higher situational awareness.

If you get 300 hours a year, and the F-16 guy devotes 200 of 300 hours to air to ground, then they simply are not going to be as proficient.

When Desert Storm started, the USAF leadership, in its wisdom, said "The F-15's get the air to air missions. They are simply better at it. The F-16's get the bombing missions." The F-16's carried missiles and were authorized to defend themselves, of course, but they were not intentionally flown as counter-air forces.

Very informative, Thanks Chogy.. It is really nice to know the real adventage of big fighters.

Does USAF F-15s practice with its F-16s and share the adventage of situational to F-16s.

 

[500]

Tornado itself has a spec tree currently reaching the GR4 but when we talk airframes we talk how much can each airframe be pushed to its limit and which one's limit is the best?? For Instance let us compare the Tornado and the F-16 specs in terms of A2G.

F-16 has typical 4 gen airframe: its aerodinamically unstable, digital fly by wire, wing with changing profile, LERX, high thrust/weight ratio, low wing loading, 9 g limit (compare to 7.5 g for Tornado).

Tornado in terms of airframe is typical 3 gen (although its analogue fly by wire). Tornado is larger however, has two engines has biger radar dome (800 mm compare to 660 mm for F-16).

Tornado's radar had built in terrain following mode (F-16 got it only with LANTIRN on block 40) and SAR (F-16 got only on block 50+).

 

[Mosamania]

F-16 has typical 4 gen airframe: its aerodinamically unstable, digital fly by wire, wing with changing profile, LERX, high thrust/weight ratio, low wing loading, 9 g limit (compare to 7.5 g for Tornado).

Tornado in terms of airframe is typical 3 gen (although its analogue fly by wire). Tornado is larger however, has two engines has biger radar dome (800 mm compare to 660 mm for F-16).

Tornado's radar had built in terrain following mode (F-16 got it only with LANTIRN on block 40) and SAR (F-16 got only on block 50+).

So you agree with me that the Tornado is a more capable A2G than F-16s. My point was from the start that the F-16 is a jack of all trade master of none.

 

[gambit]

The F-15 radar was (and remains) HUGELY superior to the F-16. It comes down to antenna area. To gain resolution, meaning you can break out and analyze individual aircraft within a formation, you need a tight beam width. And the only way to get that is with antenna diameter. This is why fighters dedicated for air to air tend to be large twin jets. Su-27, F-15, F-14, etc.

The dedicated F-16 A-A guys can be excellent, because they practice it a lot, and also because some of those guard guys have thousands and thousands of hours. But there is still a hardware issue vs. the F-15. I can't overemphasize the beamwidth thing. There's nothing wrong with the F-16 radar, it's good, but there are inherent limitations that cannot be overcome with software or refinement.

Am going to expand on the highlighted a bit...

Definition: radar resolution cell

The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.

For ANY freq (or wavelength) the larger the antenna, the tighter the beamwidth and the greater the ability to distinguish multiple targets that are closely grouped together.

Sometimes what is 'closely grouped' may not be from physical spacing by these multiple targets but from aspect (viewing) angle by the seeking radar. For example, if one view a row of soldiers from the frontal aspect, each soldier will clearly and equally spaced from his companions, but if the viewing angle is from the row's end, then all soldiers will appeared to be closely grouped together. For the above illustration, the tighter the beamwidth, the lesser the chance of Doppler induced 'ghosting' because of these viewing angles.

The downside of an increasingly narrower beamwidth is increased search time over any given airspace volume and with a mechanically scanning antenna, that time for target information update is quite fixed and can affect tactical decisions. For an ESA system, target information update is well near instant and can be revised at any time, giving the user much more flexibility in any tactical situation as in how to deal with far/near targets.

There is an inverse relationship between beamwidth and antenna size. Can a smaller antenna produce the same beamwidth as the larger antenna's? Yes, just move the transmitting freq to a higher one, but the cost will be distance. Want to have the same distance as the larger antenna's? Move to a lower freq (longer wavelength) but the cost will be target resolutions. This relationship cannot be bypassed even with an ESA system, but an ESA system's advantages are so much more than the traditional mechanical scanning system that the move to the ESA system is inevitable -- if one can afford it -- regardless of size.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

So you agree with me that the Tornado is a more capable A2G than F-16s. My point was from the start that the F-16 is a jack of all trade master of none.

Except that the F-16 raised the bars of all those trades, making it still a highly desirable aircraft.

 

[500]

So you agree with me that the Tornado is a more capable A2G than F-16s.

F-16 block 40 is very capable A2G. Block 52+, 60 are better than Tornado, especially if we talk about value (F-16 is much cheaper to buy and maintenance).

My point was from the start that the F-16 is a jack of all trade master of none.

F-16 is a master of dogfight, scored some 40 kills with no loses over Lebanon 1982, it was good day bomber (baghdad reactor 1981).
block 40 became excellent A2G.
block 52+ and especially block 60 are good BVR fighters.

 

[Chogy]

500, you must remember and acknowledge that when the F-16 is loaded with iron bombs, things like range, G-available, all change dramatically. It was obvious to the naked eye in Red Flag exercises, where we'd see heavily loaded F-16's on a bombing mission staggering along, tapping burner just to keep the speed up to 420 knots. Any aircraft becomes a pig when loaded like that.

Gambit, good post on resolution cell. Tactics can be employed to take advantage of poor resolution, and the Soviets came up with a number of methods to attempt to defeat or confuse a sort.