"Bravo Sierra" check (was "China's Army on Combat Alert")

Baron Huntchausen wrote:

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article m,
on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:45:11 GMT,
Admin attempted to say .....


Actually, a little of both. The F-16 is cheap, does just about anything
short of Cargo duty and is still in production. But, the F-15 is long
on
the tooth and needs replacing. While the F-16 is second to none in a
knife
fight, it lacks the standoff capability of the F-15. The F-15 has lost
it's
superiority in the standoff. And, like most fighters will be relegated
to
the Attack role sooner or later.

They are both from approximatly the same vintage...

The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16 is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up. Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached to it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB, GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,
(PS to the Baron: it's "ratio" not "ration" %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar return as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc) Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.
They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Baron Huntchausen wrote:

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article m,
on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:45:11 GMT,
Admin attempted to say .....


Actually, a little of both. The F-16 is cheap, does just about
anything
short of Cargo duty and is still in production. But, the F-15 is
long
on
the tooth and needs replacing. While the F-16 is second to none in
a
knife
fight, it lacks the standoff capability of the F-15. The F-15 has
lost
it's
superiority in the standoff. And, like most fighters will be
relegated
to
the Attack role sooner or later.

They are both from approximatly the same vintage...

The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16 is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that
can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load
and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I
saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of
any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached to
it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB,
GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though
the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

Yes, put your troll in RAM while you are at it.


1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

And when did I say it was done while Ack Ack was shooting at it? Your
statement is a troll statement.



2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

More troll statements.




3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

Considering the A-10 is no longer in production, what would be the cost to
retool it again? That is only a minor Troll Statement from someone that
needs to stay on the ground.



your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,
(PS to the Baron: it's "ratio" not "ration" %-)

More trolling? Or are you now the official spealink cheker?

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Baron Huntchausen wrote:
snip


The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16 is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that
can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load
and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I
saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of
any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached to
it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB,
GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though
the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of weight,
and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide greater
thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the F-15's
have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.


2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the export
Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so much
better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder why (a)
the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force, and
(b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough merit
in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider the
F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also being
a major F-16 operator).


3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost (but
was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still are
not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a cost
of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.

Brooks


your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Baron Huntchausen wrote:
snip


The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16
is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that
can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load
and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I
saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of
a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of
any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached
to
it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB,
GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though
the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of weight,
and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide greater
thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the F-15's
have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.

And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16 costs
about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in production.



2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the export
Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so much
better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder why
(a)
the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force, and
(b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough
merit
in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider the
F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also
being
a major F-16 operator).

In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.




3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost
(but
was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still are
not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a
cost
of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.

Brooks


your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Baron Huntchausen wrote:
snip


The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The
F-16
is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena
that
can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent
load
and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters.
I
saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short
of
a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be
completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know
of
any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached
to
it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg
AB,
GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even
though
the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of
weight,
and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide greater
thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the F-15's
have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.

And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16
costs
about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in production.

So is the F-15 (in production, that is); sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and
Korea are keeping the line open, and it is still competing in Singapore last
I heard. And where are you getting the idea that the F-15 costs four times
what an F-16 costs today? The cost of the F-15K's going to the ROKAF is
about $100 million per, based upon total contract cost; the price of the
F-16C Block 50's sold to Chile is about $50 million per (total contract
cost), *not including the freakin' engines*!




2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the export
Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so much
better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder why
(a)
the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force,
and
(b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough
merit
in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider the
F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also
being
a major F-16 operator).

In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.

Again, why do the USAF and israel still fly the F-15 as their premier
air-to-air fighters? Why did the ROKAF select the F-15K? Note that all three
of those forces also operate F-16's.


3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost
(but
was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still
are
not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a
cost
of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.

Yep, and you add the other contractural services and you get that $50
million per copy cost, NOT INCLUDING ENGINES. So we can assume a total
flyaway cost of probably $60 million, versus $100 million for an aircraft
that you acknowledge has a better BVR capability. So how is the F-16 such a
hands-down better choice again?

Brooks


Brooks


your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)

Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of heading
at the cost of a large energy loss. This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock. It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do
that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar
return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)

Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of
heading
at the cost of a large energy loss. This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock. It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

I stated it appeared to come to a stop. It really didn't. The AC actually
never stopped. It just appears that way at the range it was noted. It did
come to stall speed but if you dump enough power to anything you can get
around that. But I can say this, that was either a balsy pilot or one
damned stupid one.


Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.



They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Baron Huntchausen wrote:
snip


The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter.
It's
even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The
F-16
is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena
that
can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent
load
and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters.
I
saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything
short
of
a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight.
The
Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be
completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight
up.
Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't
know
of
any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket
attached
to
it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg
AB,
GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even
though
the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of
weight,
and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide
greater
thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the
F-15's
have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.

And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16
costs
about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in production.

So is the F-15 (in production, that is); sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia,
and
Korea are keeping the line open, and it is still competing in Singapore
last
I heard. And where are you getting the idea that the F-15 costs four times
what an F-16 costs today? The cost of the F-15K's going to the ROKAF is
about $100 million per, based upon total contract cost; the price of the
F-16C Block 50's sold to Chile is about $50 million per (total contract
cost), *not including the freakin' engines*!

You are talking about export models. The F-15 doesn't have the same radar
among other things. The F-16C even exported is a complete package. Okay,
leave off the Engines but I doubt if a single engine will run up the bill
another 50 mil per copy.






2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the
export
Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so
much
better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder
why
(a)
the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force,
and
(b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough
merit
in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider
the
F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also
being
a major F-16 operator).

In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.

Again, why do the USAF and israel still fly the F-15 as their premier
air-to-air fighters? Why did the ROKAF select the F-15K? Note that all
three
of those forces also operate F-16's.

The USAF has a followon Model if the funds EVER become available. Again,
you use the Export model as an example.




3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost
(but
was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still
are
not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a
cost
of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.

Yep, and you add the other contractural services and you get that $50
million per copy cost, NOT INCLUDING ENGINES. So we can assume a total
flyaway cost of probably $60 million, versus $100 million for an aircraft
that you acknowledge has a better BVR capability. So how is the F-16 such
a
hands-down better choice again?

40 million savings. Plus, most countries have to keep their AC inside their
own borders. They have to get up quick, get the kill and return home. Any
old F-104 Jocks hanging around that would care to explain it to everyone
else? Just wondering, why was the F-104 still being purchased by small
countries (manufactured in Japan) while the more modern fighters were not
purchased in great numbers during that time frame? Could it be cost of
operation, Logistics in support, time to target and a host of other reasons?

I was talking about the US and not Chile. When you compare a NON Export
F-15, the price goes up since it gets the good stuff. The F-16C stays about
the same (maybe a little more).

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that
dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.


The AA6 was Acrid, AA-8Aphid was a short range IR missile

More Modern missiles such as AA-10 Alamo, AA-12 Adder
have sem-active or active radar seekers

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---