The Armory - Guns, Knives, and Axes

[Speaker to Animals]

An F-16 cannot fulfill the same role as their Tornadoes.

F-16 is not survivable. Single engine. No redundant systems. Terrible crash rate.

F-16 is basically a filler. It's a cheap jet you can use for niche roles. For things like SEAD the F-16CJ worked great.

In particular, you were not going to replace Tornadoes for interceptor and ECM with a bloody F-16. Dept. of Naganahappen.

Maybe interdiction roles, but even there the F-16 never performed as well as a true multi-role fighter.

Tornado is less survivable than F-16, Tornado is a bomb truck, F-16 can carry more bombs.

I disagree. There are different variants of them, and the ones that kept getting shot down were hit because of the missions they flew (almost all low-altitude).

It would be like saying the B-17 was a piece of shit compared to the Lancaster because most of the B-17 bombers got shot down. But the B-17 bombers were sent on all the daylight raids. Of course they got shot down more because their mission was completely fucked.

[Smitty-48]

High angle of attack:



He's almost traveling in a 90 degree angle from where his nose is pointing.

I am pretty sure that's a good way to get dusted if you have missiles bearing down on you.

You don't stall the plane, that Panther is in a lower energy state, that's not the only way to use high alpha.

That's literally a high angle of attack.

If you pitch up and move in a straight line in the direction your nose is pointed, then that's a neutral angle of attack. Angle of attack just means the angle at which your lifting surfaces are relative to the airflow (velocity vector).


Just pitching up and burning is not a high angle of attack at all. That's just vertical climbing. But an F-16 can't do that. F-15C can do that because it has a positive thrust-to-weight ratio. I am not sure about a Tornado. It has two engine bays, so I'd imagine it's at least theoretically possible if they install engines with enough thrust.

F-16 1.1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, Tornado 0.77 to 1

[Smitty-48]

An F-16 cannot fulfill the same role as their Tornadoes.

F-16 is not survivable. Single engine. No redundant systems. Terrible crash rate.

F-16 is basically a filler. It's a cheap jet you can use for niche roles. For things like SEAD the F-16CJ worked great.

In particular, you were not going to replace Tornadoes for interceptor and ECM with a bloody F-16. Dept. of Naganahappen.

Maybe interdiction roles, but even there the F-16 never performed as well as a true multi-role fighter.

Tornado is less survivable than F-16, Tornado is a bomb truck, F-16 can carry more bombs.

I disagree. There are different variants of them, and the ones that kept getting shot down were hit because of the missions they flew (almost all low-altitude).

It would be like saying the B-17 was a piece of shit compared to the Lancaster because most of the B-17 bombers got shot down. But the B-17 bombers were sent on all the daylight raids. Of course they got shot down more because their mission was completely fucked.

Combat loaded, both F-16 and F/A-18 have higher thrust to weight, are faster, and can go air to air as necessary, Tornado was a Vietnam era single role design, which was already surpassed by the American 4gens, the moment it rolled off the line.

[Speaker to Animals]

You don't stall the plane, that Panther is in a lower energy state, that's not the only way to use high alpha.

That's literally a high angle of attack.

If you pitch up and move in a straight line in the direction your nose is pointed, then that's a neutral angle of attack. Angle of attack just means the angle at which your lifting surfaces are relative to the airflow (velocity vector).


Just pitching up and burning is not a high angle of attack at all. That's just vertical climbing. But an F-16 can't do that. F-15C can do that because it has a positive thrust-to-weight ratio. I am not sure about a Tornado. It has two engine bays, so I'd imagine it's at least theoretically possible if they install engines with enough thrust.

F-16 1.1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, Tornado 0.77 to 1

The F-16 could not achieve vertical flight when I was in. We had a sister squadron with them. No vertical flight. Our squadron couldn't do it. But the 390th had F-15C which were pure air superiority fighters, and those buggers could pick up off the runway, retract their wheels, and pitch up in a 90 degree angle, and shoot all the way up into the sky like a rocket.

That, however, was definitely not a "high angle of attack". That was neutral.

[Smitty-48]

0.77 to 1 thrust to weight; Tornado was a flying dump truck. It just flies straight, and not that fast, not fast enough to escape a missile.

The Hornet uses its high alpha to increase the turn rate, against a missile which is low energy, while the Hornet is high energy, the Hornet's nose snaps around, the missiles doesn't, so it can't follow.

It's called cornering, you combine energy with alpha to execute a turn which no missile can follow, other than the latest generation thrust vectoring missiles, but those would kill Tornado effortlessly.

With F-16, you go into the 9g turn sustained, the missile just falls off trying to keep up, with Hornet, it's like a matador, as the missile closes, snap turn, missile flies right by.

Tornado can do neither. Can't run like the F-16, can't corner like the Hornet, so it just flies straight until the missile catches it.

[Otern]

Speaking of planes. Norway has gotten their first F35s now, so they have both the F35 and the F16 operational at this moment.

But I've noticed the only days I see the F35s, is on perfect weather days. No clouds, no wind, and no rain or snow. Are they really all weather fighters, or are we just pussying out because we don't want another scandal in case it goes bad?

The F16s keep flying when the weather is not all that perfect. So they're obviously all weather capable.

[C-Mag]

Speaking of planes. Norway has gotten their first F35s now, so they have both the F35 and the F16 operational at this moment.

But I've noticed the only days I see the F35s, is on perfect weather days. No clouds, no wind, and no rain or snow. Are they really all weather fighters, or are we just pussying out because we don't want another scandal in case it goes bad?

The F16s keep flying when the weather is not all that perfect. So they're obviously all weather capable.

Hey, hey, stop talking like that...………….. just keep buying our planes and spare parts for the next 50 years, or until we come out with the next big thing.

[Speaker to Animals]

F-35 works fine in adverse weather.

It's just not a very good airframe for it's price point. It's basically a supped up filler aircraft. The F-16 was at least cheap for what little you got. F-35 is not going to win any air wars against Russia, for instance. No range. Poor performance. Poor survivability.

We really need to consider building a new F-22 model where we put some upgraded avionics into that thing, and possibly work on extending it's range so that it is not nearly as dependent upon refuelers to project force over long distances.

[Hastur]

I want one.

[Speaker to Animals]

This dude is like, fuck gloves. Gloves are for pussies.