Huh? That’s a serious question. There are lots of countries out there who fly F-16s. Very few US pilots have flown Rafales and Typhoons. It’s also pretty rare for a USAF pilot to go to medical school. That’s why I asked.
INCREDIBLE POST! I love hearing about the differences and nuances between different fighters. Thanks for posting!
Hannibal, I will live vicariously through you Let me ask you...how would you rank (best to worst) US Fighters as far as close-in dog fighting/maneuverability goes....say from the F-14 to the F-35. Not their standoff and shoot from beyond visible range effectiveness but in a fur-ball. I always wondered about this
That’s a fun question...again. And I would think Taz could weigh in on it very well too as the F-14 is not a platform I know much about and I’ve never dueled against one. Putting a F-14 against an F-15c is an interesting question. I’m only guessing that the F-15C would have the advantage. Taz may have actually seen the F-14 performance diagrams as they are likely related to the F-111 because of design similarities. I just don’t know. F-15s will lose to F-16s and F-18s all things being equal. F-16 v F-18 comes down to pilot skill, at what altitude and airspeed the engagement begins, and any errors made. An F-16 should be able to take an F-18. I admit I’m not the greatest fighter pilot, and I’ve been popped like a grape by an F-18 on more than one occasion. I’ve had my way with Hornets many times as well. In my hands...they’re a draw overall. F-35 and F-16, and this is by report from buddies I drink with, though experience in the F-35 is mounting fast, was a draw in BFM. The F-22...or F-35 v F-22 I really don’t know. Fun question.
Thanks SO MUCH for the reply Will! As I said I love learning about aircraft and I have always loved the F16 more than any other Fighter. Yes hopefully others in the know will chime in as well!
This question is more difficult to answer than you would think. To get a complete answer and understanding of the capabilities for various aircraft, you have to refine the question and narrow its scope. It's kind of like asking which car is better, the 488 or the F12 TDF? They both have strengths and weaknesses relative to the other. Hannibal gave an overview based on his experience with various aircraft. I'll give you some of the basics that result in the bottom line. Close-in maneuvering is referred to as Basic Fighter Maneuvers or "BFM". An aircraft that is more "maneuverable" than another aircraft is typically better at BFM. But...what is "maneuverability"? In fighter terms it boils down to turn rate, turn radius, and how much thrust the aircraft has available to generate those turns. Each aircraft has capabilities that are captured in rate/radius diagrams that show the radius required for a turn and how many degrees per second the nose is sweeping across the horizon. A smaller diameter turn is a "tighter" turn and a higher nose rate turn is a "faster" turn. The airplane that can generate the most G force at a given airspeed generally "turns better" than an airplane it is being compared with. Thrust vectoring makes that previous statement inaccurate, however. Roll rate also has to be considered when discussing maneuverability (faster is better) but it's not that much of a factor. There are two types rate/radius diagrams - one for sustained turns and one for maximum performance turns. Sustained means the aircraft is not losing airspeed. A maximum performance turn means the airplane is bleeding airspeed to sustain the G. This concept can be translated into "Specific Excess Power" (Ps) curves for each fighter. Those curves can be overlayed to indicate where one fighter will have an advantage over another. In this way you can see one airplane may have an advantage at high speeds (typically F-15/F-16) or an advantage at low speeds (F-18). Knowing this information, if you fly an F-16, you will want to drive a high speed fight against an F-18, where the Hornet driver will do everything he can to draw the Fighting Falcon into some kind of scissors. Of course, this is all theory...lines on paper with real-world implications, but there is much more to the story.
When comparing fighters you have to define the terms to get an apples-to-apples comparison. The diagrams I described in the very boring previous post are all drawn with the jet at a particular altitude, power setting, configuration, and fuel load. They also assume a level turn which is often not the case when fighting. It's helpful to look at the performance at different airspeeds. Some jets are great at low speeds and not great at high speeds. That's not to say they don't perform well overall or they're "not as good" as another airplane, they just have different strengths and weaknesses. I'll break down the current fighters using three airspeed ranges: High: >400, Medium: 250-400, and Low, >250. I'm going to assume sustained turns but I'll comment on max performance turns as well. I'll assume altitude around 15,000 MSL. Disclaimer: I'm going to do all this from memory and round off some numbers to make things easy. Scoffs are therefore welcomed. F-16 performance assumes block 30 or block 50 GE -129 engines. F-18 refers to C or E models; the E has more power but is heavier so the resulting performance is about the same. High speed: 1. F-22. Huge Thrust to Weight (T/W) ratio and 9+ G capable. 2. F-16. Good T/W ratio and 9G capable. 3. F-15. Good T/W but less than big motor F-16s, 9+G capable. G limit decreases as speed approaches supersonic. 4. F-18. So-so T/W and limited to 7.5G. 7.5 is a Navy training limit which could certainly be exceeded in a combat scenario. There's not a big difference between and max and sustained turns at high speeds and there's not a much of a difference between F-16s and F-15s above 400 knots. Medium speed: Same order but there's a bigger difference between maximum and sustained performance turns for the first three jets. The Raptor's thrust vectoring will start working as Angle of Attack (AOA) increases and airspeed decreases and it will significantly outturn the other jets. The F-16 and F-15 have similar sustained turns (F-16 a little better due to T/W ratio) but the max performance turn will favor the F-16 since it can generate more G at the same airspeed. F-18 is still limited by T/W and 7.5 G restriction. Low speed: 1. F-22. Still huge T/W ratio, thrust vectoring and advanced flight control system. 2. F-18. Sustained performance not great due to lower T/W ratio but a max performance turn very close to a Raptor since it has huge flaps and a great flight control system. 3. F-15/F-16 tie. Sustained turn F-16 is better, Max performance turn, F-15 is better. The F-16 flight control surfaces (leading and trailing edge flaps) combined with a good T/W ratio will produce a good low speed turn but the computer won't allow the pilot to "cash it all in" the way an F-15 will at slow speeds. One aspect of slow speed maneuvering the charts can't capture is the ability to yaw the airplane around. Sometimes it's quicker to use a high AOA (loaded) roll to move the airplane rather than a straight pull - these maneuvers can be jaw dropping when performed properly. The F-16 flight control system doesn't really allow this. These types of maneuvers also normally result in the loss of altitude - sometimes a lot of it. I didn't include the F-35 in any of this because I don't know what the charts look like. I've flown against them but only long-range setups that didn't result in any turning. Raptor guys I know say they are "not that good" at BFM. But then again, they fly Raptors...
I had the great fortune to get to ride along in the back seat of a block 30 F-16 "big mouth" jet that was clean, no external fuel tanks. While I'm not the greatest expert I think this is probably one of the best performing jets (think turning dog fight) especially considering the configuration, of the F-15/F-16/F-18 group of fighters. We did setups against some F-22s. I'll start by saying no one, F-16s or GCI had any idea where the F-22s were. The Vipers were all dead before the merge with little to no SA as to the location of the F-22s. To make things more interesting towards the end of the mission we set up to do some visual setups. In one of the setups the we ended up in a climbing scissors. To see the nose rate on the F22 was eye watering. It probably gained close to 25 degrees on us on each pass. Made it look like we were in a Cessna 150. lol!
And of course in close with somebody chewing on your tail the plane to have would be a Mig 29. Better than F16 in a real tight furball. Better turn rate and AOA limits. And the R73 missile they carried with the off bore helmet sight would ruin any fighters day. Of course at BVR you were at a big disadvantage in a Mig 29, versus most US fighters. But don't start doing any dancing with a Mig 29. And of course your other option would be to just wait until the Mig ran out of fuel. Which would be real fast as they were (are) very short legged beasts.
