the F-15 was designed for air superioirty. It was made to counter any and everything in the air at the time.
And?
The Spitfire and Hurricane
3 Likes
Actually the su27 was made to counter the F15 which was made to counter the mig25
Because the spy’s saw the mig25 and thought a highly maneuverable aircraft made out Light materials and probably a new good Radar
Then Russia whent out and took every speed Related record(and enjoyed the over stated fame from the West just keep the plane far away from airshows and it should terrify the West enough similar to the su57 or su75 if it was in operation)
Then the Americans started to build the f15 to that spec highly maneuverable good Radar amazing top speed best Radar they could find
Then they got Thier hands on a mig25 realised it’s just a f104 and it’s made out of steel (explaining the large wings)
In the meantime the Russians had to build the Fighter they “promised” with the mig25 which was the su27
No worries, F16 will destroy balance in one specific region too.
So it’s realistic
I am skeptical about that maybe with Very good missiles
But in that su27+++ mig31 Meta
I dopt it doas much besides numbers
And the fact it would be extremely Easy to install other western equipment
Generally I am not surprise that an F-16C Block 50 and higher would beat the Mig29. In fact, even the older USAF were able to outperform the F35A in dogfight.
But, there is a huge but - These days we don’t talk about dogfights like in the good old days, as this is no longer realistic - In a war you are likely never going to be close enough - All goes beyond visual range (BVR) and as such WT is having some undoubtedly false elements. You end up in a skirmish which in reality you would never see.
F-16C Block 52 with HMD and AIM-120 Spamraam config you would not even see the boom of a Mig-29 or any other fighter.
GJ should stop arcade and realistic modes for BR11 upwards. You need a huge battlefield to become realistic and even then, people go base camping and some long range SAM should be added. This would increase separation of players.
Think even on the future, when they add Gen5 Fighter. In mixed battle this will be an unrealistic skirmish while in sim battle it will require the full scenery of Persian Gulf up to the mediterranean, similar to DCS. The maps will be too compressed otherwise. Take Falcon 4 as reference. The battlefield was all Korean Peninsula. A sortie, deep strike ATO, could be easy an hour flight to IP and another hour for RTB.
You will have much less encounters, may one or even none in the time of the battle.
didnt F16 outperformed a “test” version of the F35A?
No. Was F35A Block 3i. But the USAF argument is correct, you will never ever have a dogfight with an F35 otherwise something went terrible wrong before. The F16 vs F35A was a BFM mission, not BVR.
The Pilot did not have many hours on the F35A, of course, while the F16 Aggressor pilot probably was ace I assume ;-)
1 Like
The last time I looked into that test the F-35A was locked in a hyper limited FBW mode designed for emergencies/very heavy loads. So it was like F-16 with clean airframe in dogfight mode while the F-35 flew like it was dragging 2 Mk84 JDAMs and max fuel.
Not exactly a fair fight, reminds me of the times a Rafale “beat” an F-22 in a WVR fight. The Rafale started the fight on the F-22’s tail, not merged in a head-on.
Also isnt kinda the entire point of the tech in the F-35 meant to be so that you can look behind the aircraft, lock onto a plane on your 6 and fire a missile at it and it will go do a 180?
P.S I wonder what that would look like in game…
That wasn’t really possible before 9x block II.
Did someone try the obvious solution of mounting a Missile backwards?
I want to say they did that with the B52 or another strategic bomber
“But the USAF argument is correct, you will never ever have a dogfight with an F35 otherwise something went terrible wrong before.”
That’s true, because the USAF Tactic used, was to strike first (mostly unprovoked) with precision (i.e. Mass) bombardments onto key military and civilian infrastructure, where they wiped out the main enemy forces.
After that, their raiding strategicly - due to superior Intel - in an outnumbering force - their enemys in 30 years plus older technology.
But according to Murphys law, everything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
Additionally, “The future in Air-to-Air combat is the missile. No need for Guns anymore.” - someone right before the Vietnam War started.
Modern IR missiles didn’t care, if you’ve got 10% Heat-mitigation paint and materials on your jet. They already got the correct heat signature saved in their profile.
So… If everyone is flying in a way to avoid beeing shot at, (detected long range) could easily end up in a Dogfight.
5 Likes
Its off-topic but:
in warthunder, maybe? If the far future of warthunder goes the way of slinging missiles, we might just see a “shot->land->rearm-repeat” meta.
i dont see how anyone in Warthunder would go dogfighting in such a meta when any respectable digital ir seeker head missile will just kill you. Like it is allready the case at top tier that if you dump your energy into taking out one guy you should expect to be slammed by a radar missile.
well, its nolonger the 60s. We arent slinging Aim 9B/D/E`s anymore and 2/3 F35 variants probably for very good reasons dont include a gun anymore.
“We arent slinging Aim 9B/D/E`s anymore and 2/3 F35 variants probably for very good reasons dont include a gun anymore.”
Yeah, mostly because of weight and weight distribution.
1 Like
ah yes, the biggest F-35 really cares about that aspect.
more likely,
- uneccesary weight and space usage
- increased radar cross section from having a gun bump.
Honestly just seems like that someone in the US airforce really wants their jet to have a gun
"ah yes, the biggest F-35 really cares about that aspect.
more likely,
1. uneccesary weight and space usage
2. increased radar cross section from having a gun bump.
Honestly just seems like that someone in the US airforce really wants their jet to have a gun"
1.It’s far stretched to speak of unnecessary weight in regards to a build-in Gun.
The whole VTOL aspect is a very limited use case while adding tons of weight and mechanical complexity further limiting its effectiveness and upping the production cost as well as maintaining the fleet.
2.An increased Radar Section isn’t really a problem / wouldn’t really add any increase at all.
On the other hand, the limited internal fuel capacity due to weight and it’s VTOL capability is.
Making it necessary to carry additional fuel on its outer pilons - thus nullifing any stealth capabilities as well as overall flight performance.
Additionally, today’s “Stealthyness” is only a real occurrence, when those planes are up against Radar Sets build around the 70’s. (Like nearly everything present at the Iraqi Invasion on Iraqi side as a example)
If those B-2’s as well as F-22’s could be tracked from the start until it’s landing by a Civilian Air traffic Radar in Germany in the 2000s (build in the 90’s), modern military Radar Sets can and will detect them easily.
A drag chute allready had noted radar cross section increase on the F-35A, i dont see how a unnecessary bump on the aircraft fuselage wouldn’t do the same.
Also, disregarding the complaint about Vtol aircraft, i was actually reffering to the F-35C. Which is the largest F-35 being the carrier version.
It is funny to see complain about Vtol reducing capabilities when it has actuall utility. Meanwhile a gun, which is extremely unlikely to be ever used, is entirely justified.
Regardless of how good ones radar is, it does gave an effect. That being reducing detection/lock range.
And yes, military aircraft tend to be visible on radar when not doing military strike missions. Be it by transponders, radar reflectors or otherwise.