Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Debunking Myths Of The Infamous "Fighter Mafia"  
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9126 times:

A very interesting article titled "The Reformers" in a recent Air Force Magazine Online release:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2008/0208reformers.asp

The members of the so-called "Fighter Mafia" who are often quoted by some here and elsewhere to diminish the quality and superiority of American weapons systems in general, and America's front line fighters in particular.
Now, the other side of the argument, and the facts that the Pierre Spreys of the world don't want you to know about.

Interesting read for those on both sides of the debate...

Having served in a F-15E squadron, the criticisms made by the "Fighter Mafia" simply couldn't stand up to the realities of conflict in the 21st Century.

[Edited 2008-02-03 08:41:12]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9099 times:

Whats really interesting is that the Fighter Mafia wanted to go toe to toe with a numerically superior force that would not have been that far behind in technology if we had limited ourselves to visual range combat technology. The F-16 was the "Electric Jet" and it was the superior to the MiG21....but the MiG29 was already in development and the SU-27 would come no matter what. The F-15 proved it's value over a 30 year period like no other aircraft....ever. It's range, power-to-weight, weapons systems and maneuverability has kept it at the forefront over fighters developed after it. It's not until the operational capability of Typhoon that the F-15 is acknowledge to be bested. Hell, the SU-30 can basically hold it's own against the F-15 not using the latest radar and target acquisition tech. If the things weren't falling apart, and if the F-22 wasn't the world beater it looks like I'd support keeping it and rebuilding the fleet. As it is it'll probably be part of the fleet for another 10 or so years. The E model will be there for another 20.

Quality and technological edge is what allowed us to maintain the deterrence with numerically inferior forces, and it's what allows nations like Taiwan to defend themselves against a vastly larger force (albeit now improving it's position vis-a-vis tech) like the PRC.

One more thing....manpower to us is vastly more expensive than pretty much anywhere else. Imagine how much it'd cost to man 2500 F-5s and service them than it does for 250 F-15s...whose serviceability rates proved to be much higher than the fighter mafia wanted to admit...especially after proper funding was allocated for spares and overhauls. When thinking manpower remember that you have to have a maintenance crew, fueling crew, airfield crew...you have to provide housing for them, education for their children, hospitals (and housing and pay for all of those folks) plus you have to buy more airfields to house all of those airplanes. You'll have to buy and supply (two different issues) almost 8 times the fuel....and secure more ordnance and the accompanying troops and transport necessary for that.

And then you'll still be forced to fight at a numerical disadvantage against airplanes of fundamentally equal capability.

Lets just address their fallacy with their perception for the lessening need for bombers with the lessons learned from the Gulf War of 1991 and the various highly effective uses found for large and medium bombers in addition to small attack aircraft since then. Bones and BUFFS are in everday use in the Gulf now, and B-2s are the silent hand of doom that no nation really can stop (some may be able to track them upon delivery but it's damned difficult to stop unless you have intel showing when they leave and have an idea of their targets).

The only thing good that came from the Carter era of US military development was Delta.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9094 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
The only thing good that came from the Carter era of US military development was Delta.

Absolutely correct. Military programs that the Carter Administration were touting as examples of their Pentagon policies where in fact in development long before the Peanut man took the oath. And even that Administration didn't buy into the arguments of the Fighter Mafia.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9084 times:

very interesting article!

However I must conclude it has "politics" written all over it. Considering it is published by the Air Force it is hard to regard is objective.

Nevertheless, still very interesting


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9075 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 3):
Considering it is published by the Air Force it is hard to regard is objective.

It is in fact, NOT published by the Air Force... I was waiting for someone to make that point. Sorry my good friend F27Friendship.

It is independent of the DoD and is staffed by former and current Air Force personnel... Both military and civilian. The opinions are of those who are very familiar with the Air Force, as they are the people who work or who have, worked, for it in the past.

"FACT SHEET

The Air Force Association (AFA) is an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization promoting public understanding of aerospace power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the nation. AFA publishes Air Force Magazine, conducts national symposia and disseminates information through outreach programs. It sponsors professional development seminars and recognizes excellence in the education and aerospace fields through national awards programs. AFA presents scholarships and grants to Air Force active duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve members and their dependents; and awards educator grants to promote science and math education at the elementary and secondary school level. Additionally, AFA publishes a wide range of materials on www.afa.org. "


[Edited 2008-02-03 09:21:21]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9023 times:



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 4):
It is in fact, NOT published by the Air Force... I was waiting for someone to make that point. Sorry my good friend F27Friendship.

It is independent of the DoD and is staffed by former and current Air Force personnel... Both military and civilian. The opinions are of those who are very familiar with the Air Force, as they are the people who work or who have, worked, for it in the past.

thanks for clearing that up. I thought I should bring it up, as I read elsewhere that the Air Force and PoGo aren't the best of friends. That is the only reason.

For anything else, I can only confirm one thing: being that Boyd's energy maneuvrability theory was outdated from the moment aircraft like the F-16 were introduced (this is something I studied at University). It has been discussed in many other topics, and what this article indeed says, is that from the '80s on, agility and super maneuvrability (hence thrust vector control) have become more important.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8826 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 3):
However I must conclude it has "politics" written all over it. Considering it is published by the Air Force it is hard to regard is objective.

Already answered, but the Army Times as well as Navy Times are the same way. Independent and read by everyone in the military. Unafraid to criticize and generally accurate.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 5):
being that Boyd's energy maneuvrability theory was outdated from the moment aircraft like the F-16 were introduced

Not entirely. The value of speed and energy is still important in winchester fights....you just have to understand that the real impetus of modern combat is to choose the time and place of attack and be able to reach farther than your enemy. But, eventually guns may still come into play, and that's why I despise the idea of removing them from fighters. They're always handy, and the ground pounders want them on everything that flies.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 5):
It has been discussed in many other topics, and what this article indeed says, is that from the '80s on, agility and super maneuvrability (hence thrust vector control) have become more important.

Once the concept of thrust vectoring was proven (see the earliest example by the RN with their Viffing Sea Harriers outmaneuvering the Argentine Mirages and A-4s) it was then added to the power to weight ratio as must haves for superiority. The current Rhino is suspect due to loss of energy in turns and the idea that they won't survive up close dogfights (thankfully they can carry 10 or 11 AMRAAMs so getting close is a problem for enemies) and the F-22 was designed to be unbeatable in a scenario it's not really envisaged as being in all that often. BUt it's like insurance.....you don't need it until you REALLY need it.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8733 times:

What I find most interesting that while these guys were making their arguments against the F-15 and F-16s during the late 70s and early 80s, the Israelis were using these same weapons systems against Soviet supplied Arab air forces, and proving not only the "Fighter Mafia" wrong, but also the superiority of the aircraft themselves.

F-5s against MiG-21s? Nutty....



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8719 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 5):
PoGo

No there is an unbiased and non-political organization.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
F-5s against MiG-21s? Nutty....

It happened once 2 RVNAF F-5Es vs. 2 NVAF Mig-21s, final score was F-5Es=2, Mig-21s=0. RVNAF F-5Es also did well against the Mig-17s, with some kills and no losses.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
F-15 and F-16s

Originally the USAF called this the "high, low mix".

The most infamous action of the fighter mafia was the execution of SAC.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8642 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
It happened once 2 RVNAF F-5Es vs. 2 NVAF Mig-21s, final score was F-5Es=2, Mig-21s=0. RVNAF F-5Es also did well against the Mig-17s, with some kills and no losses.

I'm sure the training the South Vietnamese received from experienced USAF staff had a huge role in that, but thanks, I just learned a bit of history I didn't know before!  highfive 



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8602 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
Not entirely. The value of speed and energy is still important in winchester fights....

of course speed and energy are still important. Boyd wrote a mathematical equation (it's in my notes somewhere, should I try to dig it up?) to compare fighter performance.

This equation could show that a more modern aircraft like an F-16 would be inferior to an older aircraft, because the higher torsional agility of the F-16 was not taken into account.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8504 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 10):
This equation could show that a more modern aircraft like an F-16 would be inferior to an older aircraft, because the higher torsional agility of the F-16 was not taken into account.

The problem is that the F16 requires the other fighter to play on its terms for that agility to be worthwhile. If it gets into a knife fight with an A10 its going to get torn a new one. So it had damn well better not get into a knife fight with one. Guess what the same goes for older faster aircraft Vs F16. The real bitch for older aircraft is that they usually end up in a corner where the upkeep gets painful and the upgrades to mount the most modern arms is also expensive.

Might want to read up more on tactics in air combat, since its been well proven that proper tactics make maneuverability only a small piece of the puzzle. Winners quickly learn not to turn with smaller/ligher planes and to simply do "drive bys" on their opponents. use speed/altitude and dash in. hit them hard, and continue on keeping your energy high to distance the other opponents in that flight.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8486 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11):
Might want to read up more on tactics in air combat, since its been well proven that proper tactics make maneuverability only a small piece of the puzzle. Winners quickly learn not to turn with smaller/ligher planes and to simply do "drive bys" on their opponents. use speed/altitude and dash in. hit them hard, and continue on keeping your energy high to distance the other opponents in that flight.

Indeed, stated near perfect. "Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert L Shaw as a good place to start for anyone wanting a deeper understanding.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8445 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 10):
because the higher torsional agility of the F-16 was not taken into account.

dude....I can't even spell that......

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11):
If it gets into a knife fight with an A10 its going to get torn a new one.

even if it can outrun the thing and choose the time and place and angle of attack for the engagement? I would think that it could do passes with guns and then outrun the A-10 unless there's a wingman involved....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8380 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 13):
even if it can outrun the thing and choose the time and place and angle of attack for the engagement? I would think that it could do passes with guns and then outrun the A-10 unless there's a wingman involved....

A10's have done well in the war games in Air to Air where the actual fighters are forced by the "rules" to get down and play with the A10 in the mud. Missiles don't work for shit on targets flying extremely low, so you go for a gun battle. A10 at equal speed has about 1/2 the turning radius of a F16. So if you are in something fast and HAVE to get down and play with an A10 you are in trouble. Spray and pray with the GAU-8 is highly effective given high rate of fire to cover a volume of air with projectiles and a large amount of ammo to see that its more than just a one time deal.

You are correct that making firing passes is the way to go, but honestly IMO the real answer is to maintain altitude and separation and wait for them to gain altitude for their own weapons use (its hard to perform ground attack on the deck). Or wait for them to leave having done nothing. If the A10 comes off the deck, the radar signature is a serious liability as is the slow speed and low power. Suddenly its open season on a sitting duck. Though again expect frustrated pilots given the huge flare/chaff payload and tight turning of the A10 making them a pain to hit, even if they can't effectively counter something that is a real fighter handled properly.

In the end though I can't see an A10 not having proper fighter cover if there is a chance of opposing fighters, and if there isn't I would expect that commanders would leave them home if at all possible. Maybe I'm not thinking deep enough but I just can't see when an A10 would be sent knowingly out where it might get jumped without the jumpee getting some F15's or F22's returning the favor. So the tactics of how to shoot down something so annoyingly out of step with a modern fighter is moot.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8232 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11):
The problem is that the F16 requires the other fighter to play on its terms for that agility to be worthwhile. If it gets into a knife fight with an A10 its going to get torn a new one. So it had damn well better not get into a knife fight with one. Guess what the same goes for older faster aircraft Vs F16. The real bitch for older aircraft is that they usually end up in a corner where the upkeep gets painful and the upgrades to mount the most modern arms is also expensive.

I don't have the impression you understood what I was talking about. Because of excpetional torsional agility, the F-16 doesn't have to play by the rules an F-5 or MiG-21 are bound to. An A-10 is dead meat vs an F-16. It is simply to slow.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11):
Might want to read up more on tactics in air combat, since its been well proven that proper tactics make maneuverability only a small piece of the puzzle. Winners quickly learn not to turn with smaller/ligher planes and to simply do "drive bys" on their opponents. use speed/altitude and dash in. hit them hard, and continue on keeping your energy high to distance the other opponents in that flight.

nice description of AtA combat untill the 1970s. You might wanna read some AIAA publications on torsional agility


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8204 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 5):
Air Force and PoGo aren't the best of friends. That is the only reason.

If that isn't politics, I don't know what is. Let's face it, politics is part of everyday lives for most of us... office, gym, social gatherings, whatever... The point is that it IS political. But PoGo's agenda isn't supported by a majority of those in the Air Force. Everyday Jane's and Joe's.

Is that political? Sure looks that way to me.

In New York it's called office gossip.  Big grin



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8113 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):
I don't have the impression you understood what I was talking about. Because of excpetional torsional agility, the F-16 doesn't have to play by the rules an F-5 or MiG-21 are bound to. An A-10 is dead meat vs an F-16. It is simply to slow.

And you don't understand the limitations of the F16. ALL it has over the A10 is "speed". Well ok the avionics is better integrated to the missiles which is something I hope the latest A10 solves.

The F16 that gets into a turning fight with an A10 is a dead F16. AT THE SAME SPEED the A10 has 1/2 the turning radius. So what you are saying is that the F16 has to use its speed to win. Well guess what ace. Thats how other fighters take on the F16. If you can't turn with it, DON'T. Hit and run. You seem to have some disconnect with reality. Also nice comparing it to the F5 or mig21, Whats next comparing it to the Meteor? I think its clear that you are not understanding that 1971 didn't have a sudden change in physics that had the F16 as the sole benefactor. Comparing it to obsolete or inexpensive bare bones aircraft is hardly a positive thing

While its true that every time someone has declared "dogfighting" dead they get proven wrong.... The F16 can't force a dogfight on anything faster. It has no stealth to force an enemy to come to knife range and stay there. Hell it doesn't even have the endurance to really last that long. The basics are that yes its good at what its designed to do... IF someone lets them do it. Which is where tactics come in. Tactics that have basically said that the F16 is a bomb truck/missile sled given the "full size" front line fighters won't ever dogfight it.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8106 times:



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 2):
And even that Administration didn't buy into the arguments of the Fighter Mafia.

I think Harold Brown, Carter's Defense Secretary bought into it. Zbiginiew Brzezinski, Carter's NSA, who was one of the few strong-defense advocates in the nut-farmer's administration, was able to keep everyone's eye on the big picture (although even then, as events would prove, he wasn't always too successful).



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8036 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
And you don't understand the limitations of the F16. ALL it has over the A10 is "speed". Well ok the avionics is better integrated to the missiles which is something I hope the latest A10 solves.

The F16 that gets into a turning fight with an A10 is a dead F16. AT THE SAME SPEED the A10 has 1/2 the turning radius. So what you are saying is that the F16 has to use its speed to win. Well guess what ace. Thats how other fighters take on the F16. If you can't turn with it, DON'T. Hit and run. You seem to have some disconnect with reality. Also nice comparing it to the F5 or mig21, Whats next comparing it to the Meteor? I think its clear that you are not understanding that 1971 didn't have a sudden change in physics that had the F16 as the sole benefactor. Comparing it to obsolete or inexpensive bare bones aircraft is hardly a positive thing

While its true that every time someone has declared "dogfighting" dead they get proven wrong.... The F16 can't force a dogfight on anything faster. It has no stealth to force an enemy to come to knife range and stay there. Hell it doesn't even have the endurance to really last that long. The basics are that yes its good at what its designed to do... IF someone lets them do it. Which is where tactics come in. Tactics that have basically said that the F16 is a bomb truck/missile sled given the "full size" front line fighters won't ever dogfight it.

I'm sorry you are not aware of how fighters are compared. Google for "Dog-House-Plots". An A-10 has a much slower stall speed yes. Hell, a glider can also outturn an F-16 while flying 30 knots. It's not about that.

BTW, there isn;t a 4th generation fighter aircraft that outturns the F-16 except the Su-27 and the Typhoon and MiG-29 OVT

It's about sustained and instantanious turn-rates at high G-loading. Your A-10 that could nicely turn on "a dime" would be a sitting duck while doing so.

I don't have the impression you are interested in learning something knew or even accept the fact that there are things that you don;t know about


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8024 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 10):
of course speed and energy are still important. Boyd wrote a mathematical equation (it's in my notes somewhere, should I try to dig it up?) to compare fighter performance.

It was Boyd's E-M theory that shaped the F-15 and F-16. Many called him the father of the F-15

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 19):
It's about sustained and instantanious turn-rates at high G-loading. Your A-10 that could nicely turn on "a dime" would be a sitting duck while doing so.

 checkmark   checkmark 

The A-10 can sustain the high turn rate for only so long before it runs out of energy. Backed into a corner the A-10 may be dangerrous to an opponent but in an open field it would be destroyed every time. Speed and energy will win out every time.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7947 times:



Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 20):
The A-10 can sustain the high turn rate for only so long before it runs out of energy. Backed into a corner the A-10 may be dangerrous to an opponent but in an open field it would be destroyed every time. Speed and energy will win out every time.

His argument is that the F16's greatness is manuvarbility. At equal speeds the A10 turns FAR tighter. So by his argument its a sure win for the A10.

As you say the A10's limited speed (and worse limited engine power) make it a sitting duck unless it stays nailed to the treetops. The F16 comparibly is a sitting duck for any of the large fast fighters out there that uses hit and run tactics on them. I would defy you to say that any sane and trained pilot in a F15, F14, Mig29, etc would get into a turning match with a F16.

If you want to make the argument against say.. the Saab's or other lightwieght fighters of actual modern vintage, then do so, but trying to say the F16 is a world beater because its manuverable is false at best.

Oh hey, when's the last time a F16 got a air to air kill?


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7938 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):
Because of excpetional torsional agility, the F-16 doesn't have to play by the rules an F-5 or MiG-21 are bound to.



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 19):

BTW, there isn;t a 4th generation fighter aircraft that outturns the F-16 except the Su-27 and the Typhoon and MiG-29 OVT

It's about sustained and instantanious turn-rates at high G-loading.

It's really a pity the Fighter Mafia's other "favorite" is no longer around to test and confirm all these theories through actual mock dogfights instead of "meaningless comparisons".....

http://www.f20a.com/f20mts.jpg
http://www.f20a.com/f20mts.jpg

http://www.f20a.com/f20greyvert.jpg
http://www.f20a.com/f20greyvert.jpg

http://www.f20a.com/f20bmwairshow.jpg
http://www.f20a.com/f20bmwairshow.jpg



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7907 times:



Quoting USAF336TFS (Thread starter):
Having served in a F-15E squadron, the criticisms made by the "Fighter Mafia" simply couldn't stand up to the realities of conflict in the 21st Century.

Long live the F-15, I was surprised the F/A-18 did not get any attention, in my view that is an example of the over use of technology.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):

The F16 that gets into a turning fight with an A10 is a dead F16. AT THE SAME SPEED the A10 has 1/2 the turning radius. So what you are saying is that the F16 has to use its speed to win. Well guess what ace. Thats how other fighters take on the F16

True radius is dependent on three things, speed, bank angle, and g loading. At the same speed, same bank angle, same g loading, they will have the same turn radius.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7906 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
True radius is dependent on three things, speed, bank angle, and g loading. At the same speed, same bank angle, same g loading, they will have the same turn radius.

That would mean the A10 would still be at an advantage because of it's lower speed, no? (I'm not trying to piss in your pot; just genuinely curious if that would be the deciding factor between the A10 and F16 if your statement is true.)



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
25 Zeke : The comment I was addressing was "at the same speed", naturally lower the velocity means a smaller the radius for the same bank angle. The radius cha
26 KC135TopBoom : Zeke is absolutly correct here. The difference here, F27Friendship, is the F-16 can never turn with the A-10 because it is so slow. The A-10 can make
27 Post contains images USAF336TFS : Very well said, my friend!
28 Curt22 : Choosing the time and place of battle is as old as Sun Tzu's Art of War (and maybe older)...this is not a NEW or unique concept for aviation or any f
29 RC135X : I would be interested in learning more about this event. I haven't seen it cited anywhere, and didn't find a reference to it in Torperczer's MiG-21 b
30 RC135X : The "Fighter Mafia" debate took place in the larger context of the decreasing faith in the belief of strategic airpower. Academic scholars, systems an
31 KC135TopBoom : IIRC, The first event, happened in very late 1968 or early 1969, that was the RVNAF F-5s agianst the Mig-21s, it was within 100nm of the DMZ, they we
32 F27Friendship : didn't you read the article? Hey was a strong opposer of the F-15 please read Zeke's explanation that must have been 1999, RNLAF F-16 vs Serbian MiG-
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Debunking Myths Of The Infamous "Fighter Mafia"
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"The Spirit Of Ronald Reagan" C-17 Pics Part 2 posted Sat Jan 14 2006 14:57:30 by Echster
"The Spirit Of Ronald Reagan" C-17 Pics posted Sat Jan 14 2006 14:54:35 by Echster
Misuse Of The Term "Air Force One" posted Mon May 16 2005 01:24:29 by AsstChiefMark
C-17 "The Spirit Of The Wright Brothers"? posted Wed Oct 17 2001 14:59:22 by Globemaster
"new" C130 For The Belgium Airforce posted Tue Apr 10 2007 19:47:35 by HeliflyerPDC
Time To Split Off The First "A" In Nasa? posted Fri Feb 2 2007 21:46:42 by N328KF
Is The U.S.C.G. Considered "Military" posted Sun Nov 12 2006 19:19:37 by UH60FtRucker
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program posted Fri Jul 21 2006 10:42:36 by AerospaceFan
Does The F/A-18 "Super Hornet" Have AC? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 22:36:49 by CX747
Boeing Gets The Nelson "touch" posted Thu Jun 29 2006 15:08:30 by Baroque

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format