F-16 Viper

[asianobserve]

Ever heard of
switch off/on test after landing, or
take-off with meaningful combat load at that altitude

If not then fighter jets is not your domain.

Too much gobbledegook. Just refute the data on minimum takeoff distance (with similar loads) between F-16 and Mirage 2000 whereby it is shown that F-16 needs shorter distance to take off than Mirage 2000. If so, then F-16 should be suitable for Ladhak ops since Mirage 2000 is already operating there.

 

[asianobserve]

No, thrust to weight ratio difference is not enough to make up for the lack of lift, because your acceleration on the runway is still limited due to practical reasons. You need greater lift at higher altitude airfields in tropical areas to take off with the same load, and the F-16 does not make the grade due to its higher wing loading.

Think of it this way: The bulk of what is lifting the aircraft at takeoff is coming from the wing area. The maximum speed that the F-16 and the Mirage 2000 can achieve on that runway is limited by practical reasons (like friction on the ground as well as runway length), and hence will be about the same. Thus for the same speed, the greater Mirage 2000 wing area will generate a greater amount of lift, thus allowing the Mirage 2000 to take off with a greater load. These things matter more at the higher altitude airfields in the tropical, thinner air of India during the summer. Thrust to weight ratio does not make as much difference due to practical reasons like friction between tires and the ground when taking off.

Why do you ignore the data on minimum take off distance I posted above whereby it's clearly shown that F-16 requires shorter take off than Mirage 2000? Note that I did not make up this data (as opposed to just mere say so and a lot of conflicting claims here), and note further that this data is from Dassault.

So again, given that Mirage 2000 can operate from Ladhak, don't you think the F-16 is equally if not better suited to operate there than Mirage 2000?

 

[Tang]

Man, man, man...

So you now understand that the reference to $110M in the Pogo article is not fly away cost but the cost of a combat capable F-35? You're welcome!

Now, going to your next point. What you're referring to in the Belgian F-35 and Taiwanese F-16 purchases are the costs of their country-specific combat ready aircrafts. We do not know what are included in these purchases.

A advice don't look stupid on the internet,
What made you think that IAF will not have add on and weapon and spares included, IAF has publicly said they want addition of certain indigenous system in the fighter jets like Astra missile, source code for integration etc.

Heck of you to think that combat capable F35 will cost only 110M$, if that's the case why would anybody buy F16 then.
The report does not include spare part, logistics,training and most probably major weapons.

 

[Tang]

Too much gobbledegook. Just refute the data on minimum takeoff distance (with similar loads) between F-16 and Mirage 2000 whereby it is shown that F-16 needs shorter distance to take off than Mirage 2000. If so, then F-16 should be suitable for Ladhak ops since Mirage 2000 is already operating there.

Why would I need to refute that? the trials were not on take off distance.
The trials were on combat capable load baring and switch of and on after landing capability

 

[johnq]

Why do you ignore the data on minimum take off distance I posted above whereby it's clearly shown that F-16 requires shorter take off than Mirage 2000? Note that I did not make up this data (as opposed to just mere say so and a lot of conflicting claims here), and note further that this data is from Dassault.

So again, given that Mirage 2000 can operate from Ladhak, don't you think the F-16 is equally if not better suited to operate there than Mirage 2000?

That data is at sea level. When you get to higher altitudes, wing loading becomes a lot more important than thrust to weight ratio.
Mirage 2000 is able to operate from Ladakh due to its lower wing loading; while the F-16 failed the hot and high trials in Ladakh during the MRCA competition. That is a fact. Look it up.

 

[asianobserve]

A advice don't look stupid on the internet,
What made you think that IAF will not have add on and weapon and spares included, IAF has publicly said they want addition of certain indigenous system in the fighter jets like Astra missile, source code for integration etc.

Heck of you to think that combat capable F35 will not cost only 110M$, if that's the case why would anybody buy F16 then.
The report does not include spare part, logistics,training and most probably major weapons.

The prices of fighters vary greatly due to customization by buyers. Hence, even for the same platform, like F-16, the price may vary from one buyer to another depending on the assortment of weapons and support packages. We simply do not know what are included in the Taiwanese F-16V buys.

POGO is an established independent US watchdog that analyzes US government programs. So it knows what is saying by talking about fly away cost and combat capable cost.

And as regards why buy F-16 when you can afford an F-35? Simple, not all countries are allowed to buy F-35's no matter how rich they are! America is not desperate to sell its fighter jewel.

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

Exactly.

I believe the same actually.

 

[asianobserve]

That data is at sea level. When you get to higher altitudes, wing loading becomes a lot more important than thrust to weight ratio.
Mirage 2000 is able to operate from Ladakh due to its lower wing loading; while the F-16 failed the hot and high trials in Ladakh during the MRCA competition. That is a fact. Look it up.

But, but, but...

But Mirage 2000 can only fly 17,000 meters while F-16 can fly a kilometer higher to 18,000 meters. So where is the wing loading advantage of Mirage, granting wing loading is the one all be all determinant of capability to operate from Ladhak? And how about Sepecat Jaguar that also operates from Ladhak, it too has high wing loading?

Again, if Mirage 2000 and Sepecat Jaguar can operate from Ladhak then more so the F-16.

 

[johnq]

But, but, but...

But Mirage 2000 can only fly 17,000 meters while F-16 can fly a kilometer higher to 18,000 meters. So where is the wing loading advantage of Mirage?

Again, if Mirage 2000 and Sepecat Jaguar can operate from Ladhak then more so the F-16.

Dude, stop looking at wikipedia entries and actually study some basic aerodynamics. Also those wikipedia entries are not apples to apples comparison in terms of aerodynamics and are different because they were measured using different parameters, not the same ones.
In any case, you are wasting your time because the IAF has already disqualified the F-16 once due to it failing its trials in Ladakh. I have tried to explain the reasons why with patience. But if you want to carry on and continue to waste your time, you go ahead. It's not going to change the fact that the F-16 cannot operate from the Indian high altitude airfield in Ladakh due to high wing loading.
PS, as I have already said, neither can the Jaguar, due to high wing loading.

 

[asianobserve]

Sepecat Jaguar
T/W ratio: 0.486
Wing Loading: 649.3 kg/m2

F-16
T/W ratio: 1.095
Wing Loading: 431 kg/m2

So the puny Jaguar can operate from Ladhak while the F-16 cannot...

 

[johnq]

Sepecat Jaguar
T/W ratio: 0.486
Wing Loading: 649.3 kg/m2

F-16
T/W ratio: 1.095
Wing Loading: 431 kg/m2

So the puny Jaguar can operate from Ladhak while the F-16 cannot...

Check out my PS in previous post. The Jaguar CANNOT operate with full load from Daulat Beg Oldi due to high wing loading.

 

[asianobserve]

Dude, stop looking at wikipedia entries and actually study some basic aerodynamics. Also those wikipedia entries are not apples to apples comparison in terms of aerodynamics and are different because they were measured using different parameters, not the same ones.
In any case, you are wasting your time because the IAF has already disqualified the F-16 once due to it failing its trials in Ladakh. I have tried to explain the reasons why with patience. But if you want to carry on and continue to waste your time, you go ahead. It's not going to change the fact that the F-16 cannot operate from the Indian high altitude airfield in Ladakh due to high wing loading.
PS, as I have already said, neither can the Jaguar, due to high wing loading.

Dude, you must have factual basis than mere say so. You're tying yourself up in knots just trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Just ask yourself why the ridiculously underpowered and high wing loading Jaguar can operate in Ladhak but the powerful F-16 cannot?

 

[johnq]

Dude, you must have factual basis than mere say so. You're tying yourself up in knots just trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Just ask yourself why the ridiculously underpowered and high wing loading Jaguar can operate in Ladhak but the powerful F-16 cannot?

No, the Jaguar CANNOT operate from Daulat Beg Oldi airfield in Ladakh.

 

[asianobserve]

Check out my PS in previous post. The Jaguar CANNOT operate with full load from Daulat Beg Oldi due to high wing loading.

At the end of the day, the Mirage 2000 and F-16 are essentially closely matched aircrafts in terms of overall performance. So there's no reason why one can say that Mirage 2000 can operate in Ladhak while the F-16 cannot.

 

[Tang]

[

The prices of fighters vary greatly due to customization by buyers. Hence, even for the same platform, like F-16, the price may vary from one buyer to another depending on the assortment of weapons and support packages. We simply do not know what are included in the Taiwanese F-16V buys.

POGO is an established independent US watchdog that analyzes US government programs. So it knows what is saying by talking about fly away cost and combat capable cost.

And as regards why buy F-16 when you can afford an F-35? Simple, not all countries are allowed to buy F-35's no matter how rich they are! America is not desperate to sell its fighter jewel.

Seriously if you don't want to understand, nobody can explain it to you.
Btw you are yet to reply to my questions.
I have also said show me any deal which include f16 weapon package spares infra etc and that price is near your quoted 68$M but you seems unable to do so.

2ndly F35 price with spare weapon package infra training is not at all 110M $ no matter what you believe, even pogo is not saying so.

3rdly I would say, let first Philippine air force have a fighter jet in the inventory, then maybe you would know any.

Btw the contract for 12 F16v is struck due to price negotiation. Isn't it?

 

[Tang]

At the end of the day, the Mirage 2000 and F-16 are essentially closely matched aircrafts in terms of overall performance. So there's no reason why one can say that Mirage 2000 can operate in Ladhak while the F-16 cannot.

No wonder you don't understand aerodynamics of fighter jets.

 

[Tang]

No, the Jaguar CANNOT operate from Daulat Beg Oldi airfield in Ladakh.

This guy cannot understand simple things,
No wonder Philippine do not even operate modern fighter jets.

 

[johnq]

At the end of the day, the Mirage 2000 and F-16 are essentially closely matched aircrafts in terms of overall performance. So there's no reason why one can say that Mirage 2000 can operate in Ladhak while the F-16 cannot.

You need to go back to school and learn about how difference in wing loading affects aircraft operating from high altitude airbases. Raw engine power is not enough for overcoming the limitations faced by higher wing loading aircraft when taking off from high altitude airfields. In any case, this discussion is moot because the F-16 failed its trial in Ladakh in the MRCA competition.
PS Even engine thrust suffers when an aircraft is taking off from a high altitude airfield due to less dense air.

 

[Abhay Rajput 02]

Agree with Meteor being the superior missile. But as far as the platform is concerned, Rafale does not seem to have a clear advantage over the F-16 Block 70.

and what do you mean by clear advantage. rafale has clear advantage in terms of ew ,sensor fusion, weapons . and i think it also has clear advantage in radar too. but lets say both radar offers more or less the same capability. even then f16 will loose in both wvr and bvr fight. f16 will loose against typhoon too. you have seen the swiss report right. thats was when rafale had pesa radar and it beat both typhoon and f18 c/d model . even f18 super hornet block 3 will be no match as they dont carry longer aam . until usa come up with long range missile which is in development rafale will beat most usa fighter jets , ofcourse except stealthy f22 and f35. rafale radar is capable enough to use full range of meteor missile against non stealthy fighter jets.

 

[asianobserve]

and what do you mean by clear advantage. rafale has clear advantage in terms of ew ,sensor fusion, weapons . and i think it also has clear advantage in radar too. but lets say both radar offers more or less the same capability. even then f16 will loose in both wvr and bvr fight. f16 will loose against typhoon too. you have seen the swiss report right. thats was when rafale had pesa radar and it beat both typhoon and f18 c/d model . even f18 super hornet block 3 will be no match as they dont carry longer aam . until usa come up with long range missile which is in development rafale will beat most usa fighter jets , ofcourse except stealthy f22 and f35. rafale radar is capable enough to use full range of meteor missile against non stealthy fighter jets.

Both Rafale and F-16 Block 70 have cutting edge EW, sensor fusion, and weapons. And we do not know and will not know the true extent of their capabilities since they will always be confidential perhaps for another 50 years.

I daresay that the F-16 Block 70 benefits from LM's experience with F-22 and F-35 from radar to EW to sensor fusions, both platforms having the most cutting edge offensive and defensive systems on any fighter right now. And don't even mention weapons for the F-16 has the longest list of any fighter for weapons options, just take a look:

F-16
Guns: 1 × 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon, 511 rounds

• Hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores,
• Rockets:
  • 4 × LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19/7 × Hydra 70 mm/APKWS[337] rockets, respectively)
  • 4 × LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19 × CRV7 70 mm rockets)
  • 4 × LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4 × Zuni 127 mm rockets)
• Missiles:
  • Air-to-air missiles:
    • 6 × AIM-9 Sidewinder
    • 6 × AIM-120 AMRAAM
    • 6 × IRIS-T
    • 6 × Python-4
    • 6 × Python-5
  • Air-to-surface missiles:
    • 6 × AGM-65 Maverick
    • 2 × AGM-88 HARM
    • AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
    • 4 × AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
  • Anti-ship missiles:
    • 2 × AGM-84 Harpoon
    • 4 × AGM-119 Penguin
• Bombs:
  • 8 × CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition
  • 8 × CBU-89 Gator mine
  • 8 × CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
  • 4 × Mark 84 general-purpose bombs
  • 8 × Mark 83 GP bombs
  • 12 × Mark 82 GP bombs
  • 8 × GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
  • 4 × GBU-10 Paveway II
  • 6 × GBU-12 Paveway II
  • 4 × GBU-24 Paveway III
  • 4 × GBU-27 Paveway III
  • 4 × Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series
  • Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD)
  • B61 nuclear bomb
  • B83 nuclear bomb

Rafale
Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.2 in) GIAT 30/M791 autocannon with 125 rounds

• Hardpoints:14 for Air Force versions (Rafale B/C), 13 for Navy version (Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg (20,900 lb) external fuel and ordnance,with provisions to carry combinations of:
  • Missiles:
  • Air-to-air:
    • Magic II
    • MBDA MICA IR or EM
    • MBDA Meteor
  • Air-to-ground:
    • MBDA Apache
    • MBDA Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG
    • AASM-Hammer (SBU-38/54/64)
    • GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-16 Paveway II, GBU-22 Paveway III, GBU-24 Paveway III, GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II
    • AS-30L
    • Mark 82[342]
  • Air-to-surface:
    • MBDA AM 39-Exocet anti-ship missile
  • Nuclear Deterrence:
    • ASMP-A nuclear missile