Eurofighter grounded!

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 17 Oct 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
been, within the USAF

It was designed as a low-cost airv superiority fighter to counteract
the USSR's large fleet of fighters and fighter bombers.

That was only during its very early stages of design; it was developed
for multi-role use before it ever entered into operational service.
The USAF was smart enough to realize that the usefulness of an
aircraft restricted to day light air superiority use was rather
limited, and design changes were implemented during the prototype/EMD
stages to rectify the situation and make it a multi-role platform.


(with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role.

That's because the USSR doesn't exist any more, and the USA has
tended to fight enemies with less capable air forces.

Nope. The F-16 was spending more of its training time in the mud
moving role from the day it entered into active service, while the
USSR was still a going concern. Stop trying to revise history to suit
your less than accurate analysis. The F-16 entered operational use in
1980, but:

""...The General Dynamics YF-16 being declared the winner in January
1975 [of the LWF competition], but even at that early stage customers
were asking for more capability. As a result, a Westinghouse APG-66
multi-mode radar was added, as well as carrying capacity for
air-to-surface weapons, while wing and tail area were increased, and
the fin made taller and the fuselage longer...by the 1980's what had
started as a lightweight fighter had become a multi-role
middleweight." (Modern American Weapons, ed. David Miller, 2002)


At the
very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
gestation.

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).

Your "look like" criteria just does not cut the mustard.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...

snip

No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).

I'll have to disagree. The Europeans used the F-16 primarily as an interceptor/air superiority a/c in the early days
while they still had squadrons of other types available for A/G work, with a secondary A/G role (there were individual
variations between different nations as to emphasis; some had F-16s in dedicated A/A squadrons, some used them for
both missions, some had squadrons for each), and other countries have also used it as their primary air superiority
a/c if they couldn't afford F-15s (which is to say, almost every customer). And while the Israelis used F-16s to bomb
Osirak (in 1981, not 1982), it was because the a/c had the range to get there and back unrefueled, along with
sufficient accuracy with dumb bombs; they'd previously planned to use F-4s with smart bombs and buddy-tank them at
low-level over SA/Iraq, not an idea that anyone could get very enthusiastic about. In 1982 over the Bekaa, along with
F-15s the F-16s were the primary air superiority a/c (and scored more kills than the F-15s did), while A-4s, F-4s and
Kfirs handled most of the strike missions. The Israelis have always wanted multi-role fighter a/c (they were the
first to use the F-15 for A/G); for instance, the main reason they took the A-4 was to get their foot in the door with
the U.S., hoping to get F-4s later. Only afterwards did they discover that the a/c suited their needs very well, and
they ordered a lot more.

F-16s were forced into the swing-fighter role by the USAF, so as not to compete directly with the F-15 in the air
superiority business. The USAF was afraid that Congress would stop production of the F-15 (a better place to start if
you want multi-role) in favor of the F-16 for cost reasons if the two a/c went head-to-head in A/A, so they eliminated
the A/G part of the F-15 training syllabus as well as stopped A/G weapons compatibility testing in 1975 or 1976
(problems of a/c availability owing to F100 engine problems and shortages in the early days was also a factor in
eliminating the A/G syllabus, as pilot shortages were occurring owing to an inability to generate enough training
sorties), and made the F-15 a dedicated A/A-only bird while the F-16 was shunted off to be the F-4 replacement and was
not, repeat NOT, to be considered a direct competitor to the F-15. The F-16 has done an excellent job in that role,
and its capabilities in that area have received more and more emphasis over the years, its A/A performance naturally
decreasing as a result. The F-15 is clearly better suited as a multi-role platform owing to its size, but that's kind
of irrelevant if most potential customers can't afford to buy, maintain or operate them.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...

snip

No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).

I'll have to disagree. The Europeans used the F-16 primarily as an interceptor/air superiority a/c in the early days
while they still had squadrons of other types available for A/G work, with a secondary A/G role (there were individual
variations between different nations as to emphasis; some had F-16s in dedicated A/A squadrons, some used them for
both missions, some had squadrons for each), and other countries have also used it as their primary air superiority
a/c if they couldn't afford F-15s (which is to say, almost every customer).

From what I have read, the european partners were also asking for the
multi-role capability from the get-go. I can buy into some of them
focusing a bit more on the air-to-air role than the USAF did, but only
so far, as I don't recall any of them pressing for a BVR capability as
would have been available with even the USAF's early ADF versions.

And while the Israelis used F-16s to bomb
Osirak (in 1981, not 1982), it was because the a/c had the range to get there and back unrefueled, along with
sufficient accuracy with dumb bombs; they'd previously planned to use F-4s with smart bombs and buddy-tank them at
low-level over SA/Iraq, not an idea that anyone could get very enthusiastic about. In 1982 over the Bekaa, along with
F-15s the F-16s were the primary air superiority a/c (and scored more kills than the F-15s did), while A-4s, F-4s and
Kfirs handled most of the strike missions. The Israelis have always wanted multi-role fighter a/c (they were the
first to use the F-15 for A/G); for instance, the main reason they took the A-4 was to get their foot in the door with
the U.S., hoping to get F-4s later. Only afterwards did they discover that the a/c suited their needs very well, and
they ordered a lot more.

Which goes to the point that the F-16 was a multi-role platform.


F-16s were forced into the swing-fighter role by the USAF, so as not to compete directly with the F-15 in the air
superiority business. The USAF was afraid that Congress would stop production of the F-15 (a better place to start if
you want multi-role) in favor of the F-16 for cost reasons if the two a/c went head-to-head in A/A, so they eliminated
the A/G part of the F-15 training syllabus as well as stopped A/G weapons compatibility testing in 1975 or 1976
(problems of a/c availability owing to F100 engine problems and shortages in the early days was also a factor in
eliminating the A/G syllabus, as pilot shortages were occurring owing to an inability to generate enough training
sorties), and made the F-15 a dedicated A/A-only bird while the F-16 was shunted off to be the F-4 replacement and was
not, repeat NOT, to be considered a direct competitor to the F-15. The F-16 has done an excellent job in that role,
and its capabilities in that area have received more and more emphasis over the years, its A/A performance naturally
decreasing as a result. The F-15 is clearly better suited as a multi-role platform owing to its size, but that's kind
of irrelevant if most potential customers can't afford to buy, maintain or operate them.

I can see the point about the internal politics of the decision, but
not exclusive of all other factors. If this had really been simply and
only a matter of protecting the F-15, then why has the A/G function
never been significantly redressed in the past few years, when it was
no longer a factor? The Navy did so with the F-14 (witness the
Bombcat). I'd imagine that more went into these decisions than just
budget-fights; the F-15 is without a doubt the better of the two in
the air superiority role when you include the BVR capability, greater
AAM load, and better radar (IIRC, though there may not be much
difference today between the latest F-16 blocks and the F-15C in this
regard).

To summarize, you seem to disagree with the bit about mud moving being
more important to *all* of the initial users from the beginning of
operational use--OK, I can grant that some of the Euro users placed a
higher degree of importance on the AA role than the USAF did. But in
toto, all of the users wanted a multi-role aircraft (strangely, this
is not true today, as we have seen the Italians lease thier older ADF
variants exclusively for the AA role), and that was the major point of
my argument.

Brooks


Guy

In article ,
wrote:

On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.

A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
direct cannon fire at a target.

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

You're right and wrong. The F-16 was designed as an air-superiority
fighter. The "low" side of the "high/low" mix, with the F-15 of
course being the high side. But the F-16 proved so poor at the mission
that it was re-designated as a CAS/A-G/AI/EW/kitchen sink fighter
and the F-15C does primarily all A-A.

Being intimately familiar with the radars on both a/c, one of the reasons
this is so is because the F-16's radar is TOO SMALL and too low performance
to do good A-A (at least on the models I'm familiar with).

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur