BFM: F-15 vs. F-16

[simtex]

I was just reading the Falcon 4.0 manual and encountered the the following sentence in a chapter covering BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers): "Other head-on BFM mistakes are [...] not lead turning or trying to BFM an F-15 Eagle against an F-16 (which is especially stupid)".

 

Could someone shed some light on this, please?

 

Why would it be especially stupid to BFM an F-15 w/ an F-16?

[mvsgas]

Why would it be especially stupid to BFM an F-15 w/ an F-16?

Are you referring to page 8-14 to 8-15 "Options at the pass"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63308668/f4-manual

My guess is;

- Because it is the writers opinion

- Because the F-15 has a bigger radar

- Because the F-15 has more missiles

- Because the F-15 has more bullets

- Because they are both on the same side and will help avoid fratricide

etc

 

Probably the same reason head on passes would be a bad idea versus many others.

Look at the context, the section is talking about head on passes.

[mikoyan]

looks like author opinion. Probably because the eagle will dominate up high against the f-16? maybe because the f-15 is a bit less of a energy fighter and less aoa limited? we would have to pull the charts to find out.

[vanir]

Look over a site called F-16.net, there's a couple of articles on there by an ex flight instructor at USAF advanced weapons/tactics school, qualified on F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16 and MiG-29.

 

I remember him discussing the sheer strength of the F-15 structure in thick air, down at the deck there's really nothing shy of a Flanker that can turn with one (Fulcrums can out turn them with some altitude, but not on the deck due to structural strength).

The Eagle is really right at the very knife edge of maximum BFM capabilities at low altitude, whilst the F-16 varies in handling qualities by production Blocks. Some have analogue controls, thrust/weight varies, the very best can match an Eagle on the deck maybe, most can't.

 

At higher altitudes the control system of the Viper limits usable alpha so as far as I know with its twin engines the Eagle can bring its nose around as quick and has all the installed equipment advantages.

 

There's some Red Flag footage of Eagles and Vipers mixing it up in BFM that's probably on Youtube, look that up. It's a pilot skill contest, they're neck and neck through the sparkling manoeuvres.

[hitman]

I remember that phrase. When that book was written, the baddest dog on the block was the F-15, there was nothing around that could hold its own against one, including an F-16. So, trying to BFM an F-15 with an F-16 is essentially a stupid idea.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Uh... you guys are reading it wrong. "It's stupid to BFM an F-15 against an F-16" literally means it's stupid to try and BFM against an F-16.

 

The F-15 was in interceptor; the F-16 was a pure dogfighter. Nothing could match the F-16 onset rate or sustained turn rate, especially not an F-15.

 

The author is conceding that the Eagle will eat the Viper's lunch BVR, but at the merge, the Viper reigns supreme.

[vanir]

BlueRidgeDx, do I really need to post the FX and LFX engineering requirements?

 

The F-15 was a pure dogfighter...and the F-16 was a pure dogfighter. So was the F-20 and the YF-17 that also competed for the LFX contract.

 

High transonic performance and emphasis on subsonic BFM was part of the requirements for both, the main difference is cost caps, and ferry range for the FX (for euro deployment, to be used from major bases), high turnaround short range operation for the LFX (for frontal airfield deployment near the combat zone).

 

The FX added a 2.5 mach requirement and twin engine requirement, the speed capability was cheated though and achieved through an override of the engine management system, usable only in emergencies since the engines require full tear down maintenance if this is used. They're otherwise speed restricted to 1.78 Mach.

The high speed requirement was in response of course to the Foxbat of which little was known, it was assumed that it couldn't handle well as a fighter at combat height but was high altitude specialised, but just in case it was good at combat heights, the speed requirement was added to the FX requirement. Generally the Eagle is a 1.8 Mach range fighter, same as a Viper or a Hornet.

 

In air-air form, no tanks the wing loading is about the same, the Eagle is 20 tons to the Viper's 12 tons combat loaded, depending on the production block it's got up to double the Viper's thrust.

 

Let me find an article by a pilot I've seen before, rating the F-15 supreme in low altitude BFM among the teen series.

 

 

edit, I managed to glean some interesting technical points after some searching, it's a pretty random collation from various sources,

 

Again using the F-14 as a comparison, the F-14A was an underpowered G-limited piece of crap; there was no doubt in my mind when I was in maneuvering fight whether the KittyKat was an A model or a B/D model; there was a significant difference in performance. The F-14A is the only jet I've gone pure on at 12.000 feet and gunned. If I had tried that on an F-15/16/18 I would have had my lunch handed to me. The public conception of the F-15's maneuverability was generated early on when it was only a 7.33G aircraft. With the OWS, the F-15 was a 9G jet, and once two 9G aircraft face each other the difference in the fight will be determined most often by pilot skill (see points one and two above) and sustained maneuverability. Sustained maneuverability, though, will take an eternity (in air combat terms) to make a difference though, so pilot skill is the more important of the two factors.

 

F-15A non OWS : 7.33g at full air-to-air weight (OWS= Overload warning sytem)

F-15A and F-15C OWS equiped: 9g at full air-to-air weight

F-15 operationnal AOA envelope: 45 deg full air-to-air load wirhout external tanks.

F-16 operationnal AOA envelope: 28 deg air-to-air config.

 

As you know, the F-16 is only unstable below Mach 0.8/15 °AOA(whichever came first), above this values it is neutrally stable. The F-15 is statically stable at low speed. At high subsonic speed the position and shape of its intake ramps have a destabilizing effect and unload the tail by 10%. At supersonic speed their unloading effect is 30%. It's why without CAS the F-15 is very limited. The wing is optimized for maneuvering under high g, NOT for top speed(secret of which is on variable intakes ramps/engine optimization).

I mean you talk about Ps(specific excess thrust). Throughout the flight envelope the F-15 has higher values (particulary above Mach 1.5),largely compensating for the slight incrase in drag.

Upper body lift of the F-15 is no less impressive. This, combined with the awesome power control of its tail surfaces( both vertical and horizontal) saved an Israeli F-15 years ago in a well known accident. Not sure an F-16 in similar circumstances would have survived.

 

G limit advantage of the F-16 is only in a very very small part of the flight enveope.(though it can be decisive in some case). Full authority FCS has its advantages and drawbacks. It will take much more time and training to an F-15 driver to master the full flight envelope, no question about this, but it can give him the edge in some( but rare) conditions. You don'nt need to monitor the g or AOA, you just need to listen. OWS will provide you with cues(two tones beep rate) to not overstress your airplane. Now you can take F-15 flight manual from first page to last page, AOA limitations are provided only for specific cases:

- external tanks

- out of limits weight lateral asymmetry

- CAS-off operation or default(any axis)

- above 60°/s yaw rate

 

About LEF I would just say that F-15 wing is optimized for maneuvering( to the detriment of cruise drag). They are few available data about L/D concerning the two aircraft, but the only available show that F-16 has much higher L/D at low AOA/g combination, the F-15 wing closing the gap as you get to high AOA/g values. The F-15's wing is a masterpiece of engineering. Sukhoi and Tsagi tried to emulate it on the first T-10 prototype but never succeeded, reverting to LEF design(and successful)

 

This is one of the reasons why the F-15/F-16 combination was so succesfull in the 1982 Lebanon conflict. The two aircrafts are so close in flight envelope that they can conduct cooperative attacks with impressive results.

Edited June 4, 2012 by vanir

[104th_Maverick]

F-15 will eat an F-16 in BVR AND BFM .... at altitude.

 

In the weeds or below 10,000ft the F-16 has much MORE of a chance of killing an Eagle... but it is certainly not guaranteed.

 

Anyone trying to turn with an F-15, American jet or not above say 15,000ft is going to get a very nasty surprise.

 

Yes the F-16 is a pure dog fighting machine... and there is an argument that the F-15 is not so much.

 

But at altitude its all about POWA.. Its power that gets your round that turn, not your one engine or your bubble canopy with the great view... but POWA!!! and the Eagle has that in abundance.

 

Yes the F-15 is NOT an out and out dogfighting aircraft. However this does NOT mean it cannot BFM with the lighter jets.

 

If you think you can out-turn an Eagle with a good pilot at altitude your wrong! ..... when he is ON CORNER...if he stays on corner..... your going to die, regardless of how nimble your little jet is!

 

If you try and stay high with an Eagle your going to get eaten very quickly.... If you are not in an F-15 and your fighting one.. your best chance is to try and drag him into a low altitude turning fight... bleed him out of energy... unload for a few secs... then go to the moon and pic your re-entry and kill him!

 

None of the above will work at altitude... because that's the Eagle's playground... everything that your trying to do to him low in the weeds... he can easily do to you at altitude, while at the SAME time accelerating if he chooses to do so.

 

A clean Eagle can maintain 7.5G at 15,000ft and STILL accelerate in a turn!

 

Eagle crews need to know their aircraft's strengths and weaknesses.

 

Turning with a Russian at low level is ... Stupid

Turning with an F-16 at low level is..... Dangerous

 

Turning with ANYTHING above 15,000ft is..... SHOWTIME!!!!!

 

Maverick

Edited June 4, 2012 by [Maverick]

[Cupra]

As an american agressor pilot told in an interview, they can beat any aircraft expecting the F-22. But all others they can defeat in a dogfight. But one of the reasons for this is maybe the extreme high knownlegde how dogfights run and hundets of hours training those guys have ;)

 

Also the newest jets are just as good as their pilots ;)

[BlueRidgeDx]

I'm not about to get in an Internet argument over E-M diagrams with a bunch of nerds. I'm just telling you that you interpreted the man's words incorrectly.

 

Read it again. A Viper pilot said it's stupid for an F-15 to try and BFM an F-16. Agree or disagree with his opinion at will, but that is what he said.

[john_X]

@[Maverick] and you are based on...what, for those statements? are you a pilot? You can say F-15 is the best fighter in the world, after de F-22, the europeans will say the same about their canards and so on...

i tell you the reality:

THE PILOT is the main brain and the plus thing for an AoA succes. with him, come the AWACS and/or the ground radars. also the terrain is very important. in the mountains, the maneuvrability becomes important with the factor of hiding being also imp.

[GGTharos]

What he said.

 

If you're in an F-15 and you BFM an F-16 to death in RL, you've just done something neat. For an F-16 to win that fight is basically expected. It has a lot of the traditional BFM advantages, and its pilots use them.

 

While it's true that generally and technically an F-15 behaves better at altitude, that isn't something that an F-16 pilot cannot overcome.

 

I'm not about to get in an Internet argument over E-M diagrams with a bunch of nerds. I'm just telling you that you interpreted the man's words incorrectly.

 

Read it again. A Viper pilot said it's stupid for an F-15 to try and BFM an F-16. Agree or disagree with his opinion at will, but that is what he said.

[GGTharos]

;1474473']If you think you can out-turn an Eagle with a good pilot at altitude your wrong! ..... when he is ON CORNER...if he stays on corner..... your going to die' date=' regardless of how nimble your little jet is![/quote']

 

He's not going to stay on corner because he wants to rmin those missiles. I can float and shoot missiles at your corner speed jet all day long. Every evasion you make brings you closer to /my/ fighting speed, not to mention death-by-missile.

 

Turning with ANYTHING above 15,000ft is..... SHOWTIME!!!!!

 

Maverick

 

Haven't run into a competent flanker pilot yet, have you?

[simtex]

I'm not about to get in an Internet argument over E-M diagrams with a bunch of nerds. I'm just telling you that you interpreted the man's words incorrectly.

 

Read it again. A Viper pilot said it's stupid for an F-15 to try and BFM an F-16. Agree or disagree with his opinion at will, but that is what he said.

 

You're right. I've got that mixed up. It should have been the other way round (as you said). Sorry.

 

And btw. guys, please calm down. I'm not talking about which one is better. I'm not talking about russian jets, neither european nor F-22 or F-14. Not even about BVR F-15 vs. F-16. I was only asking for some clues about head-on BFM between F-15 and F-16.

 

Let me rephrase my question: Given that an F-16 could outperform an F-15 in head-on BFM, why could that be?

Edited June 4, 2012 by simtex

[104th_Maverick]

Haven't run into a competent flanker pilot yet, have you?

 

Still waiting on the 'legends' coming out sir :smilewink: Any day now :pilotfly:...

 

My first example was for a Gun fight mate, sorry I should have made that more clear.

 

In all seriousness, I know lots of Flankers drivers who hands down eat me in the weeds (Stuge in particular) in a gunzo fight 7 or 8 times out of 10.

 

However the higher we get the stronger my chances get against a Flanker Gunzo, until the point comes where we reach a critical altitude and he can no longer turn with me (not Stuge specific there.. he doesn't 'try' to turn with me upstairs because he knows he can't, he'll then start flying smart and doing something else..... cretin!)

 

My general sort of point .... Gunzo

 

Below 10,000ft = Risky for F-15 to fight but not impossible to win (ask Stuge)

Above 10,000ft = Highest PK vs any opponent gunzo.

 

I always try and drag the fight upstairs if I have not killed the bandit within 10 seconds of the first merge when we are low... any more time turning and burning with him is simply pushing your luck

 

(just want to cover my back on the missile front... BFM F-15 with a Flanker is not great fun at all, in fact I think it is the most stressful type of engagement there is on FC2.... down low I have a 2 out 10 k/d against a Flanker with R-73s in BFM... so I have no doubt this makes things very different 'when' missiles are avail, my examples related to occasions when missiles were not available)

 

note:

noticed someone said 'calm down guys' none of my remarks have been made as an attack on anyone so I hope no one thinks they are.

 

I personally do not think it is a stupid idea for an F-15 to BFM with an F-16 .... at altitude. As GG mentioned earlier this however is not something a Viper driver cannot overcome, but I do not think it is as simple as the Eagle will always lose, no it's not as light as the F-16 but at altitude a thrust to weight ratio of around 1.6 certainly counts for something!

 

Fingers crossed we get a decent F-16 at some point in the future for DCS world so we can settle this the old fashioned way!

 

i tell you the reality:

THE PILOT is the main brain and the plus thing for an AoA succes. with him, come the AWACS and/or the ground radars. also the terrain is very important. in the mountains, the maneuvrability becomes important with the factor of hiding being also imp.

 

Thanks john I will keep that in mind!

 

Do you mean something like this?

 

 

And respectfully sir I did not say 'The F-15 is the best aircraft in the world second only to the F-22', you said I did!

Edited June 5, 2012 by [Maverick]

[mikoyan]

In lock on the eagle is a more stable gun platform than the flanker but it struggles to out turn the flanker down low. Where it shines is high and on acceleration; you can climb better than the flanker too. So to to kill a flanker down low you got to play with angles and distances. Now you guys should check Key publishing forums; they have a tread about the rafale and they claim that it almost beat the f-22! that the f-22 pilots had to put more effort than they expected to beat the french fighter.

[104th_Maverick]

they have a tread about the rafale and they claim that it almost beat the f-22!

 

F-22 is not 'all' that, despite what is 'sometimes' hinted at on these forums by people.

 

Our (RAF) Eurofighter is no joke! I like how some people give it a hard time for being so 'unstable' when it was designed to be just that.

 

BVR ... obviously our cousins across the pond have put in a lot of energy and more importantly money in to winning here.

But WVR the Eurofighter is more than capable of holding it's own with the F-22.

 

(not my only source)

http://eucitizens.eu/Forum/index.php?topic=166.0

[GGTharos]

Sounds like advertising for the Eurofighter ;)

 

I don't know /why/ the Tiffy pilots would even pretend to be surprised at outmaneuvering mudhens - they fly like turkeys.

 

As for the F-22's, that just reminds me of the whole harriers v f-15's thing. They've been 'shot down' by F-15's as well when wearing their lenses, but the moment they take'em off, all bets are off. As for WVR, here's the key thing: 'High Off Boresight weapons'. The Raptor doesn't have them yet. No AIM-9X's right at the moment.

[sobek]

The Raptor doesn't have them yet. No AIM-9X's right at the moment.

 

WTH? Is this a rerun of the play where they built fighters without guns in the 70ies?

[hitman]

The Raptor doesn't have them yet. No AIM-9X's right at the moment.

Actually they do have them now. They arent combat certified with them as of yet, but they are in flight testing at the moment.

[vanir]

At the end of the day they're still both 9G fighters, and the Eagle has spiked 11G frequently enough that it's even Youtubed from the cockpit recorder. The Viper is control system limited to 9G, you can't exceed AoA or G max ratings if you wanted to because the control system prohibits this. The Eagle's doesn't.

 

That said the capability of the viper to exceed it is there, for this reason pilots that have flown both Block 30 and Block 50 sometimes prefer the Block 30 for the ability to exceed to the limiters if you're quick on the controls.

In the MiG-29 you can just switch the limiters off, ie. the entire control system off (there's a swich to disable), it's generally stable.

In the Eagle the limiters are just warning klaxons, you don't have to listen to them.

 

It is worth looking at some Red Flag footage of Eagles mixing it up on the deck with aggressor Vipers. They're modified to act like MiG-29 but the Eagle still matches move for move and they're both trying for the kill with everything they've got. It comes down to pilot contest, clearly.

 

As they say, one of the biggest advantages of F-15C squadrons is they train air-air exclusively whilst everybody else trains multirole, so the telephone book sized training manual for Eagle drivers is A-A specialised and they're very, very good at it, in any plane. That's a huge advantage on its own.

Edited June 5, 2012 by vanir

[john_X]

@Maverick-"Do you mean something like this?

 

 

i don't really understand much of this video, maybe you can explain the action to me. of what i understand, it seems the F-16 is easily maneuvring around the F-15 that is struggling hardly to cope.

 

but what i meant, look at this:

 

 

and that's a MLU version

[Cali]

So many people have it wrong in here, F-16 up close and F-15 far away. Not saying the 15 isn't good up close, just that the 16 is better. Read a book about the light fighter mafia and learn a little about the 16 and some things they did to clip its wings some so the 15 would really be put to shame WVR.

[wilky510]

;1474985']F-22 is not 'all' that, despite what is 'sometimes' hinted at on these forums by people.

 

Our (RAF) Eurofighter is no joke! I like how some people give it a hard time for being so 'unstable' when it was designed to be just that.

 

BVR ... obviously our cousins across the pond have put in a lot of energy and more importantly money in to winning here.

But WVR the Eurofighter is more than capable of holding it's own with the F-22.

 

(not my only source)

http://eucitizens.eu/Forum/index.php?topic=166.0

Hold it's own against a F-22.. I agree (WVR anyways).. Sadly that site you linked makes it seem like the Eurofighter would do loops around an F-22.

 

I will agree the F-22 is not the best of aircraft in service right now. But there's so much hate going on it's quite pathetic reading it.

 

I heard the PAK-FA is having Cracking issues.. and not to mention it had an engine problem in the recent MAKS flight. Why does noone shed light on this; but they continue to hammer the F-22 problems?

[sungsam]

Come on people use your mind. F15 is a superiority fighter (BVR). It's size does not make it a better dogfighter (BFM) than F16. It's superior Radar is useless on BFM. It can be put easily on gun sites, It's double the size. It's thrust is better but also the weight is more. I dont think it gives much of advantage. Basicaly do not compare different Tools.

Edited June 5, 2012 by sungsam