F-15 vs F-16


F-15 and F-16 are two fighters that came out of programmes started after the Vietnam war demonstrated clear inadequacy of BVR-only designs then in service. When it became obvious that high agility is a necessary characteristic of modern fighter aircraft, F-15 project was revamped in order to give it better agility. LWF project was also started, and resulted in F-16 and F-18. F-16 was designed around John Boyd’s energy maneuverability theories, with low drag and high sustained turn rate. However, USAF did not want a dedicated dogfighter, especially since it could steal light from high-cost F-15; as a result, they turned F-16 into a multirole platform despite it being far less suited for the role than the F-15 (which was later acknowledged with the F-15E). This led to weight increases and loss of maneuverability. Currently, main variants in service are F-15C and F-16C, and these two will be compared by default, unless noted otherwise.


Impact on pilot’s skill

Most important factors in fighter design are ones that directly affect pilot: sortie rate / maintenance downtime, operating cost, user interface and reliability. Good enough pilot will compensate for aircraft’s weaknesses and focus on strengths, and even if aircraft is inferior across the board, he will be able to beat the opponent through tactics. How important training is was shown clearly in Vietnam: early on, USAFs F-4s achieved negative 2:1 exchange ratios against NVAF MiG-19 and MiG-21. Once USAF put some effort into pilot training, they started regularly achieving positive 2:1 exchange ratios. This is despite the fact that in dogfight, angles fighter (MiG) has no inherent advantage over the energy fighter (F-4) – or the opposite. In fact, MiGs had advantage in Vietnam due to smaller size and less smoky engines.


F-15 can fly 1,1 hour every day. Fuel consumption is 2.722 kg/h cruise, 9.072 kg/h at dry thrust and 72.575 kg/h in afterburner. Direct operating cost per hour of flight is 19.000 USD. F-16 can fly 1,2 hours every day. Fuel consumption is 5.610 kg/h dry and 30.336 kg/h in afterburner. Direct operating cost per hour of flight is 7.000 USD.

It is necessary for pilots to fly at least 30 hours per month. At 33 and 36 hours per month, respectively, both F-15 and F-16 are just above the limit. Direct operating cost will be 627.000 USD for F-15 and 252.000 USD for F-16. Overall, two F-16s can be operated for the price of the single F-15, with funds to spare. However, F-16 pilots are seriously disadvantaged when compared to F-15A-D ones due to having to incorporate air-to-ground training in addition to air-to-air training. This disadvantage is lessened by the fact that the F-16 is, based on pilots’ comments, significantly easier to fly.


Situational awareness

Since neither aircraft has internal IRST, in most cases they are incapable of reliably surprising the opponent (in standard configuration, at least). Both aircraft typically use RF MAWS and RWRs, providing spherical coverage. F-15s canopy provides 360* horizontal and 196* vertical visibility, including 16* over the nose, 0* over the tail and a maximum of 42* over the side. F-16 has 360* horizontal and 195* vertical visibility, including 15* over the nose, 0* over the tail and 30* over the side visibility.

Neither aircraft has an internal IRST as part of the standard configuration, though USAF has unveiled plans to (finally) equip F-15C with internal IRST. No such plans currently exist for F-16C. F-15Cs AN/APG-63v3 AESA has detection range of 144-185 km vs 1m2 target. F-16C has AN/APG-68 radar with 70 km vs 1m2 target and 120* coverage, though one of newer versions achieves 93 km vs 1m2 target.

Overall, neither has significant advantage in situational awareness at beyond visual range as radar signals will be detected long before radar itself detects the aircraft. Within visual range, F-15 has advantage in maximum cockpit visibility, but F-16 has less framing.



Stealth can be divided into several areas: visual, radar and IR. Visual stealth refers to how easy is to to see the aircraft with Mk.I eyeball. Radar stealth can refer to two things: aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS), and aircraft’s radar emissions (EMCON). IR stealth refers to aircraft’s IR signature.

In terms of visual signature, F-16 is much smaller and thus harder to notice. Its plainview area is cca 500 ft2, compared to F-15s 1.000 ft2. Typical cruise speed for both is around Mach 0,8, but combat cruise speed is at Mach 0,9-0,95. F-16 is likely to have advantage in combat cruise speed due to less draggy single-engined configuration.

In terms of radar signature, F-15C has RCS of 15 m2, while F-16C has RCS of 1,2 m2 when clean. As noted before, F-15Cs radar achieves 144-185 km range vs 1 m2 target, while F-16s radar achieves 70-93 km range vs 1 m2 target. Consequently, F-15 will detect F-16 at 151-194 km, while F-16 will detect F-15 at 138-183 km. If jamming is used, F-15 will be able to attack F-16 from 0-37 km, while F-16 will be able to attack F-15 from 0-35 km. However, both aircraft will give away their presence at several hundred kilometers if they use radar for initial detection, and actual radar signature will be significantly higher. With weapons, RCS will be higher (20 m2 for F-15, 5 m2 for F-16?), so F-15 will detect F-16 at 215-277 km, while F-16 will detect F-15 at 148-197 km.

Neither aircraft has internal IRST as a standard, but both can be equipped with external IR pods, and there are variants equipped with internal IRST. However, IR signature is still significant against foreign IRST-equipped fighters. In this area, F-15 is disadvantaged, producing 11.793 kgf dry and 18.144 kgf wet, compared to F-16s 7.530 kgf dry and 12.700 kgf wet. F-16 also has marginally higher cruise speed, and may achieve Mach 1,1 with two wingtip missiles. This slightly increases difference in IR signature. When supersonic, F-16s smaller wing span will result in smaller shock cone, and IR signature from afterburner will be smaller, though still significant. Note that both size and temperature are important: while at low altitude atmospheric absorption and clutter mean that it is easier to notice hotspots, at high altitude lack of both atmosphere and clutter means that target size and sensor’s resolution play important role as well.


Cruise performance

As noted before, neither aircraft is realistically capable of supercruise, though F-16 should have slight advantage in maximum cruise speed. At maximum dry thrust, and assuming that both aircraft can spend 30% of internal fuel, F-15 can cruise for 8,93 minutes while F-16 can cruise for 10,19 minutes.

Maximum combat radius on internal fuel is 1.000 km for the F-15 and 925 km for the F-16. This is not surprising since F-15C has both higher fuel fraction (0,29 vs 0,27) and higher internal fuel load (4.500 vs 3.175 kg).



F-15C has 25,5 deg/s instantaneous turn rate and 13,1 deg/s sustained turn rate (other info gives 21 and 15-17 deg/s), compared to F-16Cs 26 deg/s instantaneous and 18 deg/s sustained. Since two degrees per second turn rate difference allows pilot to dominate adversary in dogfight, it is clear that F-15 is seriously outmatched in sustained turns. F-16 also has significantly faster pitch onset rate due to aerodynamically unstable design. Roll onset rate will be higher for the F-16 due to smaller wing span, presence of LERX vortices and single-engined configuration.

At 40.000 ft, F-15 can accelerate from Mach 0,8 to Mach 1,2 in 52 seconds, compared to 44 seconds for F-16. F-15 can climb to 30.000 ft in 60 seconds, and initial climb rate is 254 m/s. F-16Cs initial climb rate is also 254 m/s. As it can be seen, F-16 has slightly superior energy management abilities, allowing it to gradually gain an advantage over the F-15 during dogfight. It should be noted that aerodynamically clean configuration for F-16 includes two wingtip missiles, slightly improving its dogfight performance relative to the F-15. Further, span loading is 1.205 kg/m for F-15 and 1.098 kg/m for F-16, increasing latter’s advantage in lift/drag ratio during the turn.

(Note that the best way to escape either missile or gun shot is instantaneous turn in order to put the attacker at 3/9 o’clock followed by acceleration, and if necessary another turn. Sustained turns do not have much place in dogfight. In a multi-ship dogfight, no turn should be followed for more than 90 degrees).

F-15s higher wing sweep (45* vs 40*) also means slower drag rise with increased speed. Nose-to-wingtip angle is 65* for both F-15 and F-16, so in that area there is no difference. This, combined with variable intakes, improves F-15s supersonic maneuvering ability when compared to the F-16. F-16s lower wing sweep results in extended transonic region and much faster supersonic drag rise with Mach number.

During supersonic flight, aircraft will become more stable. Since F-15 is naturally aerodynamically stable, and F-16 is aerodynamically unstable, this means that F-16 may have advantage in lift-to-drag ratio at low supersonic speeds due to its tail providing upload, reducing angle of attack necessary to maintain level flight.



Both aircrafts’ primary missiles are AIM-120 for beyond visual range engagement and AIM-9X for within visual range engagement. AIM-120D is a RF BVR missile with 180 km maximum aerodynamic range. It has 40 g maneuvering capability at Mach 4. AIM-9X is an IR missile with 26-42 km maximum aerodynamic range and 50 g maneuvering capability at Mach 2,7.

Both aircraft also have the same gun. F-15 has standard loadout of 8,6 gun bursts, 4 AIM-9 and 4 BVRAAM, giving it a total of 3,16 onboard kills. F-16 has standard loadout of 4,7 gun bursts, 2 AIM-9 and 4 BVRAAM, giving it a total of 1,84 onboard kills. However, it can equip two additional BVRAAM, giving it 2,00 kills. As it can be seen, F-15 has advantage in number of onboard kills; otherwise, weapons used are identical. Both aircraft can use AIM-9X Block III as an IR BVRAAM, but they lack IRST to fully capitalize on that advantage.


Numbers in the air

F-15 allows 33 hours per month in the air, while F-16 allows 36 hours per month in the air. Direct operating cost is 627.000 USD for F-15 and 252.000 USD for F-16. If two F-16s are used, they will allow 72 hours per month in the air for 504.000 USD, a 2,18:1 advantage.

If initial costs are compared, F-15C costs 130 million USD compared to 70 million USD for F-16C, giving latter 1,85:1 numerical advantage. When combined with sortie rate advantage, F-16 has a clear 2:1 numerical advantage over F-15. F-16s fuel consumption is about half of the F-15s, which means that there will be no difference in logistical tail as far as fuel and engine spares are concerned.


Response to attacks

Neither aircraft is designed for operation from road bases or dirt strips. If forced, F-16 has significant advantage in road base operations due to smaller size, lower maintenance requirements and lower fuel consumption. As neither aircraft can supercruise with weapons load, there is not likely to be any significant difference in response time once in the air.


Engagement kill chain performance


Kill chain consists of following steps:

  • detect
    • detection capability
    • identification capability
  • engage
    • cruise speed
    • maximum speed / mach on entry
    • altitude on entry
    • lock on / firing solution range
    • missile seeker diversity
    • endgame countermeasures (inbuilt, towed, disposable; jammers, decoys, chaff, flares)
  • defeat the missile / disengage
    • airframe agility
    • sensors coverage
    • mach on egress / fuel reserves on afterburner
  • destroy
    • BVR missile seeker diversity
    • BVR missile agility
    • BVR missile warhead lethality
    • WVR missile agility
    • WVR missile warhead lethality
    • gun lethality


Detection range depends on target signatures and sensors used. With radar, F-15 will detect F-16 at 215-277 km, while F-16 will detect F-15 at 148-197 km. However, radar is an active sensor. Signal has to be sent out, reflected from the target and received. Even assuming that target is a flat plate and that entirety of the signal reaches it, radar will get back 1/16th of the signal – at best. However, RCS comparison shows automobile to have an RCS of 100 m2 (likely from the side; from the front, 25-50 m2 value can be expected). Consequently, radar will receive at best 1/200th of the signal sent out, which will give significant advantage in detection range to RWR. Since both fighters are likely to have RWR, radar is not likely to be used.

If radar is not used, both fighters will – in basic variants at least – have to rely on Mk.I eyeball. As noted before, F-16s plainview area is cca 500 ft2, compared to F-15s 1.000 ft2. This means that F-16 will be noticed at distance of 8 nautic miles, while F-16 will be noticed at 11,4 nautic miles. From front, detection distance will be smaller but difference will be of similar, or greater, magnitude. However, in order to carry out identification, fighters will have to come within 400-800 meters; here again F-16 has the advantage due to smaller size and better cockpit visibility. Radar-based NCTR is very unreliable (30% identification reliability at best) and can be disabled by jamming or by target maneuvering. Because of this, 82% of the enemy aircraft engaged during Desert Storm had to be identified with help of AWACS, which will not be avaliable against a competent opponents as comlinks will be jammed, and AWACS aircraft will not survive for long in a proper war.


Both aircraft have cruise speed of around Mach 0,9 with air-to-air load. However, F-15 has top speed of Mach 2,5 while F-16 has top speed of Mach 2,0, limited by air intake. F-15 also has service ceiling of 65.000 ft, while F-16s service ceiling is 50.000 ft. Peak altitude is cca 100.000 ft for F-15 and somewhere above 70.000 ft for F-16. Dash speed and altitude advantage will allow F-15 significant effective missile range advantage in a BVR engagement.

As shown before, F-15 will detect F-16 at 151-194 km, while F-16 will detect F-15 at 138-183 km. This means that F-15 will be able to attack F-16 from 120-155 km, while F-16 will be able to attack F-15 from 110-146 km. If jamming is used, F-15 will be able to attack F-16 from 0-37 km, while F-16 will be able to attack F-15 from 0-35 km. Both aircraft will receive IR BVRAAM once AIM-9X Block III enters service.

Both aircraft also have AIM-120D, with 180 km maximum aerodynamic range. However, missile range from the rear is 1/4 of stated missile range and effective range is 1/5 of aerodynamic range, effective missile range for BVR engagement will be 9-36 km. In other words, both aircraft will be able to utilize AIM-120Ds maximum effective range in spite of jamming.

Defeat the missile / disengage

Once warned of a missile launch, first reaction is to properly position the aircraft for evasion. At beyond visual range, it is oftentimes enough to turn the aircraft away from the missile. At shorter ranges (near-visual and visual range), pilot has to quickly position the missile to the aircraft’s 3 or 9 o’clock and then turn into the missile once close enough. Both of these require high instantaneous turn capability, as well as acceleration / climb to recover lost energy. F-15C has 25,5 deg/s instantaneous turn rate, 16 deg/s sustained turn rate and 52 second acceleration from Mach 0,8 to 1,2. F-16 has 26 deg/s instantaneous turn rate, 18 deg/s sustained turn rate and 44 second acceleration from Mach 0,8 to 1,2. Both have identical initial climb rate at 254 m/s, however F-16 has significantly superior transient performance due to aerodynamically unstable design, single-engined configuration and smaller wing span.

Both F-15 and F-16 has 360* coverage with missile warners, and radars which cover 120* in front of the aircraft. Consequently, when missiles are fired neither aircraft can initiate proper evasive maneuvers until missiles acquire the target themselves.

Fuel reserves for afterburner are also important. Assuming that both aircraft have 40% of the fuel avaliable for maneuvers, F-15 has enough fuel for 1,49 minutes of maximum afterburner while F-16 has enough fuel for 2,51 minutes of maximum afterburner. For more exact comparison I will assume 360* corner-speed sustained turn (or, rather, four 90* turns) followed by acceleration equivalent in time to M 0,8 – 1,2 acceleration. F-15 will use 22,5 seconds for turn and 52 seconds for acceleration, for a total of 74,5 seconds of maximum afterburner and 1,2 maneuvers. F-16 will use 20 seconds for turn and 44 seconds for acceleration, for a total of 64 seconds of maximum afterburner and 2,35 maneuvers. If 90* instantaneous turns are used, F-15 will need maybe 16 seconds for turns and 70 seconds of afterburner in total, for 1,04 maneuvers. F-16 will need maybe 15 seconds for turns and 59 seconds of afterburner in total, for 2,55 maneuvers. If equivalent of 10.000 m climb at maximum climb rate is used instead of acceleration, F-15 will need 56,9 seconds, giving it 1,57 maneuvers. F-16 will need 54,4 seconds, giving it 2,77 maneuvers. As it can be seen, F-16 has significantly higher combat endurance despite lower fuel fraction and lower total fuel load. This can be explained by F-16 having advantage of being unstable single-engined aircraft.

In terms of countermeasures, most modern versions of both aircraft can be expected to have chaff, flares and internal DRFM jammer. F-16s lower radar and IR signatures make usage of countermeasures more beneficial, though this is somewhat countered by the fact that smaller size and less engine power also means less power avaliable for jamming. Both arcraft, in variants equipped with AESA radar, can use radar for jamming. Radar only covers 120* forward cone and to do so it has to sacrifice frequency agility, making it vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles.


In terms of agility, AIM-120D can both pull 40 g at Mach 4, giving maximum turn rate of 18,54 deg/s. As instantaneous turn rate is 25,5 deg/s for F-15 and 26 deg/s for F-16, it can be seen that both aircraft can easily evade it. AIM-9X can pull 60 g at Mach 2,7, for 41 deg/s ITR, which neither aircraft has a good chance of evading. That being said, kill is by nomeans certain, as in some conditions missile may need to have at least as much as twice the aircraft’s turn rate to hit.

If both aircraft are flying at Mach 0,9, 9 g limit results in 18,55 deg/s turn rate. Consequently, neither aircraft will be capable of defeating any of the missiles within their no-escape zones, barring less-than-ideal launch parameters for missiles.

In terms of gun lethality, both aircraft use M61A1. M61A1 fires 98 g projectile with 11% HEI content at 1.036 m/s muzzle velocity and crossectional density of 31,2 g/cm2, which gives them equal gun effectiveness, but far inferior to some of the foreign fighters.


Ground survivability

Ground survivability includes possibility of camouflage and ability to operate from road bases. Latter includes STOL capability, wingspan limits, fuel consumption and ease of maintenance considerations. Wingspan should not be greater than 8,74 meters.

F-15 can take off in 274 m (?) and land in 1.067 m without parachute, while F-16 can take off in 457 m and land in 914 m. Wingspan is 13,05 m for F-15 and 9,96 m for F-16, giving major advantage to the latter but placing them both well outside ideal wing span. F-15 has fuel consumption of 2.722 kg/h cruise, 9.072 kg/h at dry thrust and 72.575 kg/h in afterburner, while F-16s fuel consumption is 5.610 kg/h dry and 30.336 kg/h in afterburner.

Overall, F-16 has advantage in ground survivability due to smaller wing span. Lower fuel consumption and maintenance requirements also mean smaller logistical footprint and thus less vulnerable supply tail.



Overall, F-16 is significantly superior to F-15 in most important areas, such as pilot training, logistics and numbers. Technical characteristics are more or less similar, with F-15 having significant advantage in beyond visual range combat due to higher top speed and service ceilling, longer detection range. F-16 has even greater advantage in visual-range combat due to smaller visual signature, superior maneuvering ability and superior combat endurance.


27 thoughts on “F-15 vs F-16

  1. Pingback: Comparing modern Western fighters « Defense Issues

  2. Reblogged this on Mon Blog and commented:
    Very elucidative, dispels some myths about bigger being better. Incidentally, shows that the West won by default: we made several grievous mistakes because of stubbornness and trying to cover up former mistakes; it is only that the Communists made even more mistakes, and no one else could even enter the fray.

  3. Nice work Picard. Two greats (or almost greats). I still feel ill when I see an F-16 loaded with air to ground weapons …sacrilege!

    Kind regards! 🙂

    • Thanks. And yes, they screwed up the F-16 with air-to-ground requirements… too much weight increase, drag increase, for an aircraft never meant to perform ground attack. IIRC, Harry Hillaker mentioned how AtG loadout of 2 AAM, 2 bombs and 2 fuel tanks doubles the F-16s drag. Weight was increased by both 9 g requirement and by AtG requirement – especially with the C variant – which meant both increase in wing size and then increase in wing loading anyway. Which meant higher drag and more stable aircraft. There were other changes as well, larger nose – to accomodate the BVR/AtG radar – destroyed directional stability at high angles of attack. So now the F-16 is limited to max of 25,52 deg AoA, while maximum lift is achieved at 32 deg AoA.

      F-16 should have never carried bombs, but USAF is run by idiots. And it’s hardly unique in that regard. Stupid sees, stupid does, and everyone’s copying USAF… of course, what they are doing is extremely effective in fighting two wars that all independent air forces have been fighting since forever – first, making sure to stay separate from the Army and justify their own existence, and second, to secure as large weapons procurement budget as possible – but it makes huge sacrifices in the fighting effectiveness as a result. Not that the generals care anyway.

  4. One of the things that bothers me about your missile turn rate analysis is that you assume that the missile is flying at its maximum speed, or at the moment the motor runs out. This might be accurate for short range IR missiles like the AIM-9X, but BVR missiles would loose kinetic energy over their cruise to target.

    • Entirely correct. Even short range missiles might not be able to achieve maximum speed and turn rate if target is very close or they have been fired off-bore. For BVR missiles coasting towards the target it is positively impossible. Still, even BVR missiles have been predominantly used from within visual range, and modern ramjert BVRAAMs (such as Meteor) can keep up kinetic energy at distances up to 100 kilometers, so it is not entirely inaccurate.

  5. The bottom line is the F-16 was the better aircraft. It could have been even better with the original YF-16 configuration.

    I suppose that in theory, both aircraft could carry IRST pods and use them as a stopgap measure. It’s less than ideal (adds drag), but beats nothing.

  6. If you think about it, the US has been moving backwards rather dramatically since WWII. The F-16 bought a (temporary) respite, and arguably so did the F-15 but that is about it.

    • Indeed. What is interesting to note is that the best US aircraft – P-51, F-16, A-10 – were all procured outside formal USAF / Pentagon design and procurement system, and design teams had freedom of design with only limited number of goalposts.

    • “If you think about it, the US has been moving backwards rather dramatically since WWII. The F-16 bought a (temporary) respite, and arguably so did the F-15 but that is about it.”

      “Indeed. What is interesting to note is that the best US aircraft – P-51, F-16, A-10 – were all procured outside formal USAF / Pentagon design and procurement system, and design teams had freedom of design with only limited number of goalposts.”

      – I would reformulate this as: The US (and russians to some extent) has been moving backward especially since they became obsessed with long range strikers / long range interceptors.

      Long range requirement translate in fat aircraft, which in turns induce reduced performance, increased cost, and so logically reduced cost/performance ratio. Indeed aircrafts quoted by picard are among the rare birds which hadn’t long range requirement. I’d add A-4 and F-5 as a good platforms too.

      • Agreed, albeit the long range = large size conundrum is not always correct. F-16A had larger combat radius on internal fuel than F-15A, that is why F-15C had larger fuel tanks than the A version. However, combining long range with large radar or large bombload always means large to very large aircraft (one of reasons I didn’t want radar in FLX or much of anything in ALX; long range + small size = high fuel fraction = very austere design).

      • In theory one could build a large Su-27 sized aircraft with no radar and a delta winged design.

        Such an aircraft would be:

        1. Likely delta winged, perhaps either long-arm canard (super bomb interceptor) or double delta or perhaps canard with leading edges (if large dogfighter-bomber interceptor hybrid is desired). It would be dual engine, although probably spaced closer than Su-27 (to minimize boat drag). Ideal would be a very large single engine, but probably not practical.

        2. Very high fuel fraction >0.4 (Su-35BM even with radar was 0.42, so a larger aircraft without radar, a delta no less, could perhaps get in excess of >0.5 with severe design discipline). Combined with the large size, a good L/D ratio, and the fuel fraction, you are looking at a very long range aircraft. That could be useful for bomber intercepting too.

        3. You could carry a very lethal gun or multiple guns, maximizing pk per trigger squeeze.

        4. Could carry lots of missiles (which the Su-27 family does currency) – probably even more than Su-27 without any radar guided missiles.

        5. Could go faster too with the high fuel fraction, which minimizes the risk of being bounced because you can go fast with that extra fuel. You could also carry a somewhat larger IRST sensor too, which also enhances detection range. You might be able to simply outlast anything else in a dogfight.

        1. Transient performance would be worse due to larger wingspan.

        2. Not a good value against an FLX type of aircraft. There’s also the fact that losing even one would hurt.

        3. Square cube law would be an issue – you’d need a large wing to keep wing loading acceptably low, but the problem is that too large a wing adds drag.

        4. Supplying could be difficult for off road. It can run on roughly prepared air strips and maybe even roads (I think the Su-27 family can as austere bases in Siberia were the norm), but keeping it supplied in war will be harder.

        5. Even if austere, flight to maintenance could be an issue. You’ll need a larger crew too to take care of this compared to an FLX and probably more trained.

        The closest thing I’ve seen to this is the Mirage 4000 or perhaps the Mig 1.44 project that never took off.

        It would be a far better bomber interceptor though.

        • I think Su-27 can run even from open fields, no air strip necessary.

          I actually had something similar to what you describe in mind, but unlike your proposal, it would have had a radar and two-man crew, as well as a shipload of sensors in general*. Basically, an idea was to replace the AWACS with a heavyweight fighter; not an ideal solution, but at least it would survive more than two or three days in an all-out war, unlike classical AWACS.

          *Nose, cheek and tail X-band radar arrays; leading edge L-band radar arrays; forward- and aft- -looking Skyward IRST sensors; extensive RWR/ESM array; as well as an LIDAR (preferably IR band LIDAR), if it could be fitted.

          It would have had a very high fuel fraction (at least 35-40%) and supercruise capability so it could keep up with the FLX. But in the end I just decided to punt several sensor pods onto an FLX so you can have a twin-seater FLX act as an AWACS.

      • “I actually had something similar to what you describe in mind, but unlike your proposal,

        high fuel fraction (at least 35-40%) and supercruise capability so it could keep up with the FLX. But in the end I just decided to punt several sensor pods onto an FLX so you can have a twin-seater FLX act as an AWACS.”

        That sounds very similar to these designs: http://www.gearsonline.net/series/yukikaze/super-sylph/super-sylph-bc.html , http://www.gearsonline.net/series/yukikaze/super-sylph/super-sylph-d.html from the Japanese anime Sentou Yousei Yukikaze. Tom Cruise is set to do the adaptation to film in the same vein as Edge of Tomorrow which was an adaptation of the Japanese Manga All You Need is Kill

      • There were a few variants of the su-27 family designed as command air craft and with added pod mounted sensors. I suppose that the size of the aircraft makes than viable.

  7. If a country A needs x expensive interceptors F (say 20 F16s), it is only normal that the generals will ask the x interceptors to double up as ground attack platforms: it is a matter of economics. Otherwise A would have to buy twice the planes (say 20 A10s). So that’s how the compromises appear.

    One reason? No really serious war in 70 years. The last time interceptors were involved in a serious, sustained struggle for life of a country was the Battle of Britain (where the British interceptors barely won), and the fortress without a roof Great Reich (where Anglo-American bombers and long range fighters won).

    • That is correct. But problem is, it is not a question of wether to buy 20 multirole fighters or 2×10 single role fighter (air superiority and CAS). It is a question of wether to buy 2×10 single role fighters, or to abandon CAS alltogether and in that way increase casualties in the army.

        • Yes, you could. On average, price of a multirole fighter is about equal to combined prices of single-role aircraft whose tasks it does. For example, F-16A costs 30 million USD, A-10 costs 20 million USD, for a combined price of 50 million USD. Yet F-16C costs anywhere between 50 and 70 million USD, depending on block version. Similarly, FLX would cost 40 million USD, A-10 costs 20 million USD, for a combined price of 60 million USD. Rafale C costs 90-100 million USD. So the argument that having multirole fighters saves money is incorrect, to an extent. IMO, too narrow specialization is as bad as too wide one, but you should always design for a single mission and then adapt the aircraft to do a range of related/familiar missions as well.

  8. Picard, while I don’t always agree with your conclusions I genuinely enjoy your analyses. What changes would you make in this comparison were the F16 in question to be replaced by the LockMart/Mitsu F2A? It’s not an aircraft with alot of available information.

    • “Picard, while I don’t always agree with your conclusions I genuinely enjoy your analyses.”

      Thanks. And besides, I wouldn’t want anyone to always agree with my conclusions… if everyone thinks the same, then it means somebody isn’t thinking.

      “What changes would you make in this comparison were the F16 in question to be replaced by the LockMart/Mitsu F2A? It’s not an aircraft with alot of available information.”

      Compared to the F-16C, F-2A has significantly higher empty weight, larger wing area and somewhat lower wing loading. It also has much lower thrust-to-weight ratio and lower wing sweep. It does have advantage of higher AoA limit (30 vs 26 degrees). Overall, its turning ability will be superior to F-16C, and it would likely still have OK transient maneuverability, though somewhat inferior to the F-16C. However, its energy maneuverability performance, especially acceleration, will suffer due to these differences. It would still be superior on all counts to the F-35 where maneuverability is concerned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s