Politics

[PHOENIX PHIL]

But if you lose 1/2 of the F16s plus some experienced pilots to 0 F15 losses in air combat, then the F16s are MUCH more expensive? Like the losses of the Navy's Wildcat fighter in WW2 (plus experienced pilots) at half price of the later Hellcats or Corsairs with minimal losses? Just the way my feeble mind works. LOL

I don't believe the differences in the aircraft are anywhere close to being that vastly different to create that kind of disparity in air to air combat success. The F-15 is faster overall, but the lighter/smaller single engine F-16 is much more maneuverable. The F-15 can also carry considerably more fuel, making it a better aircraft for longer range missions. The F-16 was developed as more of a duel role.... both a fighter and a strike aircraft. Unless Ukraine is planning missions to strike deep into Russia which I don't believe they are, I'm not sure what the advantage is of the F-15.

If the missions are meant to be primarily in their homeland striking the Russians on the ground, either can accomplish this. But the more expensive to purchase, operation and maintenance costs of the F-15 make the F-16 a better option.

The F-16 is a great aircraft. It has been a huge part of the USAF for many years and as I'm reading tonight will continue to be for still a number of years into the future. It has also been a big part of allied countries air forces, again see my comment about the Israelis.

Back to the F-15, as far as speed goes, well I can recall a pilot telling me that a faster airplane is fine if you're intention is to run away........

 

[CoElkHunter]

I don't believe the differences in the aircraft are anywhere close to being that vastly different to create that kind of disparity in air to air combat success. The F-15 is faster overall, but the lighter/smaller single engine F-16 is much more maneuverable. The F-15 can also carry considerably more fuel, making it a better aircraft for longer range missions. The F-16 was developed as more of a duel role.... both a fighter and a strike aircraft. Unless Ukraine is planning missions to strike deep into Russia which I don't believe they are, I'm not sure what the advantage is of the F-15.

If the missions are meant to be primarily in their homeland striking the Russians on the ground, either can accomplish this. But the more expensive to purchase, operation and maintenance costs of the F-15 make the F-16 a better option.

The F-16 is a great aircraft. It has been a huge part of the USAF for many years and as I'm reading tonight will continue to be for still a number of years into the future. It has also been a big part of allied countries air forces, again see my comment about the Israelis.

Back to the F-15, as far as speed goes, well I can recall a pilot telling me that a faster airplane is fine if you're intention is to run away........

Thank you! Between your and @Red Leg responses, I’ll quit asking any more stupid questions. But just on this topic. LOL

 

[Dewald]

 

[Red Leg]

Thank you! Between your and @Red Leg responses, I’ll quit asking any more stupid questions. But just on this topic. LOL

Another important data point will be the weapons systems provided. Top Gun aside, very, very few air-to-air engagements will be with guns. I am certain the aircraft will be equipped with short range sidewinder missiles. I further assume, in order to take full advantage of the F-16's radar and weapons management suite, they will also come with the AIM 120 AMRAAM which is a fire and forget medium range air-to-air missile that is now standard across NATO. It is capable of killing a SU 27 well beyond visual range.

It is a very good bombing platform as well. We have already provided Ukraine with the AGM-88 HARM missile and fitted it to the MIG 29. It is particularly effective when married to the F-16 as a "Wild Weasel" mission aircraft capable of suppressing enemy air defenses (SEAD) or destroying them (DEAD).

Handled correctly, operating out of Patriot protected bases, it is capable of achieving true air superiority over Ukraine.

 

[mdwest]

I don't believe the differences in the aircraft are anywhere close to being that vastly different to create that kind of disparity in air to air combat success. The F-15 is faster overall, but the lighter/smaller single engine F-16 is much more maneuverable. The F-15 can also carry considerably more fuel, making it a better aircraft for longer range missions. The F-16 was developed as more of a duel role.... both a fighter and a strike aircraft. Unless Ukraine is planning missions to strike deep into Russia which I don't believe they are, I'm not sure what the advantage is of the F-15.

If the missions are meant to be primarily in their homeland striking the Russians on the ground, either can accomplish this. But the more expensive to purchase, operation and maintenance costs of the F-15 make the F-16 a better option.

The F-16 is a great aircraft. It has been a huge part of the USAF for many years and as I'm reading tonight will continue to be for still a number of years into the future. It has also been a big part of allied countries air forces, again see my comment about the Israelis.

Back to the F-15, as far as speed goes, well I can recall a pilot telling me that a faster airplane is fine if you're intention is to run away........

Much of this depends on the variant of F15 and F16 we're talking about.. As a rule, eagles and their pilots run roughshod over falcon/vipers and their pilots in training engagements if we're talking air to air / fighter to fighter.. (I get this directly from numerous F15 and F16 pilots that all spent between 20-35 years in the USAF, are Weapons School grads (USAF version of "Top Gun"), retired between the rank of O5 - O10, etc..

Air to ground is a different story.. depending on the mission and the circumstance there are many scenarios where the 16 is the clear better choice..

FWIW in my "day job" I run a defense firm that was founded by a pair of USAF fighter pilots.. most of the work the company did for its first 10 years was in direct support of USAF fighter squadrons (the portfolio is much more diverse today).. when I first came on board, literally 50% of the senior leadership of the company were retired USAF fighter pilots.. most of whom flew 15's and 16's (some of the old dogs primarily flew F4's and 104's).. One of our board members is the former ACC commander that was responsible for initially fielding the F22, etc..etc...

While Im just an old Army dog... I have sat through hundreds upon hundreds of hours of "war stories" related to how my viper is better than your eagle.... or my eagle kicks your falcons ass... only to hear them all get laughed at by the current flock of F22 and F35 guys that work with us.. lol..

 

[Red Leg]

Much of this depends on the variant of F15 and F16 we're talking about.. As a rule, eagles and their pilots run roughshod over falcon/vipers and their pilots in training engagements if we're talking air to air / fighter to fighter.. (I get this directly from numerous F15 and F16 pilots that all spent between 20-35 years in the USAF, are Weapons School grads (USAF version of "Top Gun"), retired between the rank of O5 - O10, etc..

Air to ground is a different story.. depending on the mission and the circumstance there are many scenarios where the 16 is the clear better choice..

FWIW in my "day job" I run a defense firm that was founded by a pair of USAF fighter pilots.. most of the work the company did for its first 10 years was in direct support of USAF fighter squadrons (the portfolio is much more diverse today).. when I first came on board, literally 50% of the senior leadership of the company were retired USAF fighter pilots.. most of whom flew 15's and 16's (some of the old dogs primarily flew F4's and 104's).. One of our board members is the former ACC commander that was responsible for initially fielding the F22, etc..etc...

While Im just an old Army dog... I have sat through hundreds upon hundreds of hours of "war stories" related to how my viper is better than your eagle.... or my eagle kicks your falcons ass... only to hear them all get laughed at by the current flock of F22 and F35 guys that work with us.. lol..

My oldest surviving friend commanded one of the first operational F-15 squadrons. I think your consensus is correct about air-to-air superiority - but I would call it marginal rather than dramatic. Virtually all of our NATO partners concluded that the F-16 was the logical solution for their needs. The Eagle is big, expensive, and demanding both in maintenance hours and cost to operate. I think I am correct in saying it costs three times the F-16 to operate.

Were I commanding the Air Forces of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Japan three decades ago (!) where long range over desert/sea missions were likely, the F-15's greater range might be worth the extra cost. Over Europe, particularly for a European country adopting its first Western aircraft, the F-16 would seem to make all sorts of sense.

 

[Doug3006]

The F-15 has well over 100 air-to-air victories and zero combat losses. The Israelis have put them to good use over the years.

 

[mdwest]

My oldest surviving friend commanded one of the first operational F-15 squadrons. I think your consensus is correct about air-to-air superiority - but I would call it marginal rather than dramatic. Virtually all of our NATO partners concluded that the F-16 was the logical solution for their needs. The Eagle is big, expensive, and demanding both in maintenance hours and cost to operate. I think I am correct in saying it costs three times the F-16 to operate.

Were I commanding the Air Forces of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Japan three decades ago (!) where long range over desert/sea missions were likely, the F-15's greater range might be worth the extra cost. Over Europe, particularly for a European country adopting its first Western aircraft, the F-16 would seem to make all sorts of sense.

Agree with all…

Especially the cost factor… you can put a lot more 16s in the air… and more importantly, keep them in the air, for a whole lot less money than the 15…

At one point we (the company I work for) had a large contract that provided ground support for every conus fighter squadron in the USAF…

The challenge of keeping eagles maintained, the pilots up to speed, etc appeared to be significantly greater with the eagles than the falcons… (although the raptors were the greatest challenge… they were still pretty new in the system at the time)…

 

[spike.t]

Are China and Russia Bad for Africa? That’s the Wrong Question.​

Westerners should ask instead what kind of partnerships their own countries offer to the continent.

Are China and Russia Bad for Africa? That’s the Wrong Question.

Westerners should ask instead what kind of partnerships their own countries offer to the continent.

foreignpolicy.com

Mmm....

'In a lot of the world, the clock has hit midnight': China is calling in loans to dozens of countries from Pakistan to Kenya

Keeping schools open, the lights on and even food on the table is being threatened by debt payments from the $1 trillion Belt and Road program.

fortune.com

 

[PARA45]

 

[PARA45]

 

[geoff rath]

View attachment 535048

"Pink Batts" were a MAJOR safety issue Down Under; some deaths from asbestosis resulted, sadly

 

[CoElkHunter]

"Pink Batts" were a MAJOR safety issue Down Under; some deaths from asbestosis resulted, sadly

Thank God Townsend @Bob Nelson 35Whelen survived!

 

[Scott CWO]

The suburban independent women are too stoopid to know what a woman is (just ask the new supreme court justice) so to expect them to reach a logical conclusion on a 30 year old case is completely beyond reality.

Well, I said independent. The new Justice is quite a bit left of that.

 

[spike.t]

Looks like another real good deal by zim government ...well good for some people...............

US$320m helicopters likely dumped on Zimbabwe by Russia - claims aviation expert; aircrafts pegged at US$10 million each - NewZimbabwe.com

Spread This NewsBy Staff Reporter RUSSIA’s move to support Zimbabwe with 32 helicopters could just be its way of dumping the American-powered crafts, Ian Cox an expert in aviation and defence matters has suggested. President Emmerson Mnangagwa took delivery of 18 helicopters from Russia...

www.newzimbabwe.com

 

[spike.t]

How's this going to pan out?....

Marjorie Taylor Greene announces impeachment articles against President Biden

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., announced she will introduce articles of impeachment against President Biden, accusing him of "deliberately" compromising national security.

www.foxnews.com

 

[PARA45]

How's this going to pan out?....

Marjorie Taylor Greene announces impeachment articles against President Biden

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., announced she will introduce articles of impeachment against President Biden, accusing him of "deliberately" compromising national security.

www.foxnews.com

This is going to be interesting.

 

[mdwest]

More kabuki theater from DC.

Lots of tax dollars will be spent…

And zero will actually come from it…

 

[shootist~]

But if confirmed by the Senate, it would make Kamala the POTUS. Won't happen.

 

[Newboomer]

More kabuki theater from DC.

Lots of tax dollars will be spent…

And zero will actually come from it…

Yup. The dummerncraps tried it now the GOP gotta get their 2 cents in. And the circus plays on.