F-16's in Digital Camouflage? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - F-16's in Digital Camouflage? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:13:37 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

A, B, or C shop? 2A3X2 right? I'm a B shop guy myself, I had to go pick up some lawn dart chunks on the Nellis range a couple of times, I think they planted about three of them the first year I was there (93). No doubt getting a ride in a -16 is a good time, so was my F-4 ride. They aren't bad airplanes, really, just second best to the F-15, and always will be. If they retained their original role (defensive air to air only) they would be fine, but after they strapped all the garbage on them they need to do the air to mud mission they don't maneuver worth shit. I love all the uneducated maroons that love them cause they are "so sexy" when they have no clue what the hell capability, redundancy, the "high-low" fighter mix, or anything else are.

yeah, I got to go to KY one time and pick up ittle bitty pieces from one we lost up there.

that airframe was never meant for the air-mud role, but hey, somebody's gotta do it.

I take it you work on 15's?

I started out life as a B shopper too!! 452x2B then they switched the afsc to 2A3x2 right before I got my 5 skill level and we became "Integrated Avionics Specialists"

never was much work for us B shoppers, other than swapping a DFLCC on a redball or changing a FQCU. I really was a A shop kind of guy at heart.

cool thing about my ride, was that since we were overseas the flight restrictions were different. I got to go supersonic, plus pulled 9.2g's

we just had a center bag if I remember correctly. my flight was only about 65minutes long but felt like 5 minutes. got to take the stick and do some aerobatics. it was VERY cool.

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:16:49 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.

The address to send the $10 can be found in this thread.

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.

Oh, I thought he was talking about me,

2A573B, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Instrument and Flight Control Craftsman, F-4G, RQ-1A, U-2S, C-130E, HH-60G, C-17A

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:17:29 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.

oh gawd, now the thread is officially ruined, a crew chief has showed up! you a APG guy?

next thing you know some load toad will show up.

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:17:52 PM EDT

[#4]

Has the USAF considered using the saddle bag fuel and avionics that was tested at Edwards for the IDF's 16s? I admire how the IDF takes a US product and makes it even better.

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:18:36 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.

The address to send the $10 can be found in this thread.

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.

Either way you are not a Pilot like i claimed.

Because only pilots can have credible opinions about aircraft, and they aren't biased towards the one they fly either...

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:19:24 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Oh, I thought he was talking about me,

2A573B, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Instrument and Flight Control Craftsman, F-4G, RQ-1A, U-2S, C-130E, HH-60G, C-17A

how many years you have in?

I sometimes shudder when I think of how many years I'd have in if I hadn't gotten out. probably be an E-7 by now. LOL

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:19:32 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.

The address to send the $10 can be found in this thread.

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.

Oh, I thought he was talking about me,

2A573B, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Instrument and Flight Control Craftsman, F-4G, RQ-1A, U-2S, C-130E, HH-60G, C-17A

I know there's a pilot around here somewhere... Just can't remember who!

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:22:19 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Oh, I thought he was talking about me,

2A573B, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Instrument and Flight Control Craftsman, F-4G, RQ-1A, U-2S, C-130E, HH-60G, C-17A

how many years you have in?

I sometimes shudder when I think of how many years I'd have in if I hadn't gotten out. probably be an E-7 by now. LOL

Just went over 13, testing for E-7 next month.

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:24:01 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.

The address to send the $10 can be found in this thread.

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.

Either way you are not a Pilot like i claimed.

Because only pilots can have credible opinions about aircraft, and they aren't biased towards the one they fly either...

I cuss my Skyhawk while flying it all the time. (she and I have a special relationship)

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:40:34 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.

And, no matter how you look at it, the F-16 is a classic design that has been proven several times over. The F-16 is the P-51 of our time

More like a P-39, and ill conceived poorly performing POS that we just couldn't seem to stop buying. The "great fighter" lineage is easy to follow, and it doesn't include that one engine wonder. P-51>F-86>F-4>F-15>F-22

The AF safety center screwed their site up so I have no idea where the stats are anymore, but I'd be happy to compare class A mishaps, losses per total flying hours, etc. from any single engine lawn dart POS to any dual engine main line fighter. The F-16 has a class A mishap rate almost twice what the F-15s is btw.

But keep in mind there are almost double the number of -16's in service as compared to -15's. And of all those class A mishaps, a majority are pilot error and poor maintenance. Take that into account, and suddenly the -16 doen't have such a bad record, and isn't such a bad airframe.

That all may be true. But my jet has a latrine on it.

I seriously feel sorry for the little guys on our wing while crossing the pond.

Yeah, you feel sorry for the fighter guys.

That's why I always saw C-141 and C-5 pilots making hand-gesture dogfights at the Frankfurt Officer's Club.

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:43:45 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Oh, I thought he was talking about me,

2A573B, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Instrument and Flight Control Craftsman, F-4G, RQ-1A, U-2S, C-130E, HH-60G, C-17A

how many years you have in?

I sometimes shudder when I think of how many years I'd have in if I hadn't gotten out. probably be an E-7 by now. LOL

Just went over 13, testing for E-7 next month.

11 1/2 for me and I'm leaving right now to go test for Master. Be back after I'm done testing.

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:49:03 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

That's why I always saw C-141 and C-5 pilots making hand-gesture dogfights at the Frankfurt Officer's Club.

When our guys do "so there we were" it's one hand a few inches below and behind the other.

Yeah, tankers aren't that exciting.

Posted: 2/23/2006 12:52:52 PM EDT

[#13]

Tag for when I have more time.

-K

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:01:14 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
We'll have the same problem with the F-35 when it gets into production, watch the Navy wish they had stuck with their promise to never buy another single engine fighter.

Why does it matter whether the plane has a single or double engine? Is there something inherently wrong with single engine planes?

Um, yeah, there's quite a bit wrong with single engine aircraft, particularly in naval service. You lose an engine on take off, you will go into the drink. On a multi-engine platform you have some chance (admittedly small) of making a successful takeoff.

Another problem, and I'll just use two words; Ramp strike. Again, lose your engine on a single engine aircraft on landing, you have no power to land, or go to an alternate airfield. If it happens too late in the landing sequence, the pilot has moments to eject before becoming a charcoal briquette.

Naval aircraft fly over water more freqently than USAF aircraft do (at least blue water). The pilot of a multi-engine aircraft has some chance of making it back to the ship if an engine is lost, while the single engine pilot is going to be swimming with the sharks. In a hostile environment rescue may be impossible.

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:01:30 PM EDT

[#15]

Looks good to me.

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:07:34 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Either way you are not a Pilot like i claimed.

Indian Giver

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:11:10 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

A, B, or C shop? 2A3X2 right? I'm a B shop guy myself, I had to go pick up some lawn dart chunks on the Nellis range a couple of times, I think they planted about three of them the first year I was there (93). No doubt getting a ride in a -16 is a good time, so was my F-4 ride. They aren't bad airplanes, really, just second best to the F-15, and always will be. If they retained their original role (defensive air to air only) they would be fine, but after they strapped all the garbage on them they need to do the air to mud mission they don't maneuver worth shit. I love all the uneducated maroons that love them cause they are "so sexy" when they have no clue what the hell capability, redundancy, the "high-low" fighter mix, or anything else are.

Why try to edjumacate all these internet fighter jocks who obviously know more than the guys who work on them day in and day out.

Go WOLFPACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and for the record when I was at Kadena we had 72 F15's (the flying chickens ZZ) and nobody in the world could touch those birds when it came to air to air, not even the super de duper F16

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:21:16 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
...Can you refute the F-16's combat record? I doubt it.

F-16: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.
F-15: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

KC-10: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

Combat record in Air to air vicotries:

F-15: 104+ to no losses in AAC (at least 38 in GW1 including Saudi scores)
F-16: 72 (0 in GW1)
A-10:

2 (in Gulf War One)

Looks like the F-15 has the '16 beat. And the A-10 simply embarassed the '16 during GW1. Imagine that, the old unwanted A-10 outscoring its "replacement" in AAC.

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:33:17 PM EDT

[#19]

considering the F-15 was the predominant Air-to-Air platform in GW1 that isn't a surprise.

+ya forgot to mention over HALF of those 104 kills are from Israeli F-15's.

and I'm pretty sure both those A-10 kills (the only two ever, btw) were flying CAS , and were helo shootdowns. hardly air-to-air combat.

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:33:44 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.

The address to send the $10 can be found in this thread.

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.

Either way you are not a Pilot like i claimed.

Usually Maintenance guys know more about, well, maintaining aircraft than pilots do.

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:36:49 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I always did like the Charcoal Lizards.

www.habu2.net/vipers/lizard/096-01.jpg

Now, the US Army, on the other hand, tried it out back in the pre MERDC days.
www.uniteddynamics.com/dualtex/M60_DUAL.JPG

Problem there was that it was considered too much bloody trouble, so only 2nd ACR did it.

NTM

The Berlin Brigade also did it in black, grey, and white. It was VERY time consuming to apply, and I think only one Company actually completed the project. Shortly thereafter, they got all green and brown again!

I like the Lizards too!

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:46:06 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
considering the F-15 was the predominant Air-to-Air platform in GW1 that isn't a surprise.

+ya forgot to mention over HALF of those 104 kills are from Israeli F-15's.

and I'm pretty sure both those A-10 kills (the only two ever, btw) were flying CAS , and were helo shootdowns. hardly air-to-air combat.

And IIRC, one of those was shot down with a bomb!

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:46:40 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...Can you refute the F-16's combat record? I doubt it.

F-16: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.
F-15: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

KC-10: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

Combat record in Air to air vicotries:

F-15: 104+ to no losses in AAC (at least 38 in GW1 including Saudi scores)
F-16: 72 (0 in GW1)
A-10: 2 (in Gulf War One)

Looks like the F-15 has the '16 beat. And the A-10 simply embarassed the '16 during GW1. Imagine that, the old unwanted A-10 outscoring its "replacement" in AAC.

Where did the 16s AAC kills take place? Is that just USAF or combined for the platform with IDF and others? Either way they are both impressive. I do believe the A-10s kills where on Mi-8s helios if i remember correctly with AIM-9s. Its nice to know that the brass has not reverted to the mistakes of Vietnam on letting technology replace training.

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:53:51 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.

well put

Posted: 2/23/2006 2:09:38 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...Can you refute the F-16's combat record? I doubt it.

F-16: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.
F-15: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

KC-10: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

Combat record in Air to air vicotries:

F-15: 104+ to no losses in AAC (at least 38 in GW1 including Saudi scores)
F-16: 72 (0 in GW1)
A-10: 2 (in Gulf War One)

Looks like the F-15 has the '16 beat. And the A-10 simply embarassed the '16 during GW1. Imagine that, the old unwanted A-10 outscoring its "replacement" in AAC.

Can you imagine what happen to those helicopters when the du 30mm hit them.

Posted: 2/23/2006 2:10:48 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...Can you refute the F-16's combat record? I doubt it.

F-16: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.
F-15: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

KC-10: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

Combat record in Air to air vicotries:

F-15: 104+ to no losses in AAC (at least 38 in GW1 including Saudi scores)
F-16: 72 (0 in GW1)
A-10: 2 (in Gulf War One)

Looks like the F-15 has the '16 beat. And the A-10 simply embarassed the '16 during GW1. Imagine that, the old unwanted A-10 outscoring its "replacement" in AAC.

Can you imagine what happen to those helicopters when the du 30mm hit them.

They were AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM kills not gun kills

Posted: 2/23/2006 2:42:36 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.

i1.tinypic.com/ofakwz.jpg

Lawn Darts Banned

I could have used that sign at my old drop zone. Friggin lawn darts get in everybodys way.

Posted: 2/23/2006 2:48:27 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

They were AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM kills not gun kills

at least one of them was a gun kill.

Posted: 2/23/2006 2:59:55 PM EDT

[#29]

This is my favorite type of arfcom thread. The strange thread that turns into a semi-technical discussion by people with experience. Kinda like the 'Falklands' thread did.

PS: Lawn Dart, lol.

Posted: 2/23/2006 3:19:40 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

They were AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM kills not gun kills

at least one of them was a gun kill.

I could have sworn one was an LGB. Just happened to blast close enough to a hovering chopper that it brought it down. Still counts as an AA kill, much like the EF-111 (Unarmed) was credited with an AA kill by causing a pursuing jet to crash.

NTM

Posted: 2/23/2006 5:06:22 PM EDT

[#31]

actually, both were gun kills.

http://www.warthogpen.com/walloffame.html

Posted: 2/23/2006 5:22:01 PM EDT

[#32]

Just watched the new show on Military channel about "raid on the reactor"

Very interesting to learn that the IDF did some crazy shit to make the 16s go 1200 miles round trip to bomb the shit out of that reactor. They did a hot refuel on the runway, dropped the wing tanks with the bombordance still on board which was also a no no, and few 100 ft over the boat of King Huessin of Jordan by mistake enroute to Iraq.

One of the pilots joked about the single engine part, he said we are use to twin engine planes, what happens if the engine fails, oh yeah it is twin engine, there is a rocket in the seat lol

Posted: 2/23/2006 8:28:08 PM EDT

[#33]

They used F-15s for the Tunisia raid though. I wonder if they learned something from the F-16 raid that made them change their mind on the aircraft to use?

NTM

Posted: 2/23/2006 9:53:53 PM EDT

[#34]

That attack did not effect the power of the PLO whatsoever, so i guess you can say it was a failure in the grand scheme of things unlike the '81 raid. They also had refuel the F15s on the way there and back, pussies.

Posted: 2/23/2006 9:55:11 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

They were AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM kills not gun kills

at least one of them was a gun kill.

I could have sworn one was an LGB. Just happened to blast close enough to a hovering chopper that it brought it down. Still counts as an AA kill, much like the EF-111 (Unarmed) was credited with an AA kill by causing a pursuing jet to crash.

NTM

It was an F-15E that shot down a helo with a LGB.

www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf15_2.html

Also unsurprisingly, two Strike Eagles were shot down by ground fire. One Strike Eagle actually scored a kill on a Iraqi helicopter with a laser-guided bomb on 14 February 1991. The helicopter had been targeted while on the ground but took off after the launch of the LGB. The WSO, undeterred, kept the helicopter in the crosshairs of his LANTIRN pod until the bomb went home. At last notice, this was the only air-to-air kill of the Strike Eagle.

The WSO was then Capt Bakke. When I left Seymour Johnson AFB in 2000 he was a Lt Col and was my squadron commander.

Here's a list of US air-to-air kills against the Iraqi AF.

users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/gulfusa.htm

Posted: 2/23/2006 10:57:37 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The IDF has no issues with the 8 F16s they sent to bomb the hell out of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in '81. That is probably one of the single most important air raids of since WW2.

Then why do they still fly F-4s, and fly the hell out of F-15s?

Cause they can't afford enough F-16's and F-15's. And noone's saying the -15 isn't a hell of a fighter.

Actually, the IDF stopped buying F-15E's in favor of F-16I's.

Where is our resident F-16 driver, anyway? I know we've got one...

I used to fly them on my gateway when I lived in the barracks, theres no telling how many times I raped N.Korea from the air in Falcon 4.0.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - F-16's in Digital Camouflage? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us