Military Review

F-16 War Falcon: How Good Is It Apart from the Numbers?

112

Yes, now we will delve into the "Abschussbalkens" in relation to such an iconic aircraft as the F-16A "Fighting Falcon", aka "Fighting Falcon". And the purpose of this study is to determine how "Falcon" really is an eagle, as is usually shown by the American specialized media.


There is no need to doubt that the F-16 is a really good aircraft. I would say that from the cohort of single-engine fighters, he is generally the best.

Sebastian Roblin of The National Interest we know has exactly the same point of view, which is not surprising.

And we can agree with him that the F-16 really has a lot of advantages. For example, it is lightweight, agile, reliable engine and has an excellent thrust-to-weight ratio. A decent set of weapons.

There are also disadvantages. Due to the fact that the aircraft is light, and the engine is one, the range is not brilliant and the payload is also very limited when compared to twin-engine fighters.

Makes this the F-16 the best fighter in the world? No. It's just an aircraft with a set of characteristics. It is not only figures that are at war, but facts as well.

But with the facts we have a very specific situation. To begin with, some statistics on the combat use of the Falcon. It should be noted right away that different real experts have a different approach, but our V. Ilyin and V. Markovsky, as persons completely uninterested in numbers, seem to me the most trustworthy.


So, the combat use of the F-16. Here it is worth looking not even at how many planes were shot down and lost, but to whom they belonged. This, in my opinion, is the most important point.

1. War in Lebanon


The Lebanese War in 1982 marked the F-16's debut as a combat aircraft.

According to V. Ilyin's research, Israel lost 6 F-16 aircraft in this war. The Israeli F-16 accounts for 43 downed Syrian Air Force aircraft and 1 helicopter, that is, in fact, half of all aircraft shot down by Israeli pilots.

The opponents of the F-16 were MiG-21 and MiG-23 of various modifications.

In addition to this war, the F-16 was constantly used as a fighter-bomber against targets in Syria, which ultimately resulted in the loss of another F-16I, shot down by a Syrian missile with an S-200 air defense system.

2. Venezuela


During the 1992 putsch, government-loyal F-16 pilots shot down two OV-10 light attack aircraft and one rebel AT-27 combat trainer.

During the war with drug lords between 2013 and 2015, F-16s of the Venezuelan Air Force shot down three light aircraft carrying drugs.

3. R®РіРѕСЃР »Р ° РІРёСЏ


In 1999, the F-16s were used in Yugoslavia throughout the NATO contingent, and here the first collisions with the MiG-29 took place. F-16 pilots (American and Dutch) shot down two MiG-29s.

The F-16's own losses amounted to 1 aircraft from the S-125 air defense system.

4. The Gulf War


Here, the F-16s performed mainly combat missions, more characteristic of attack aircraft and bombers. Therefore, the losses were mainly from anti-aircraft missile systems.

One F-16 was shot down by a missile launched from a MiG-23; in response, an Iraqi MiG-16PD was shot down with a missile from an F-25.

In general, the losses of the F-16 in that war are remarkable in that, in addition to one air loss, 6 more "Falcons" were shot down by air defense systems, and 7 were irretrievably lost for technical reasons. That is, in half.

The ensuing Iraqi war was without victories and losses due to the fact that the Iraqi Air Force did not come to the war.

5. Afghan War / Pakistan


The Pakistani Air Force took a very active part in the war in Afghanistan, constantly “protecting” its air lines from encroachments by Soviet and Afghan aircraft. F-16s of the Pakistan Air Force won several victories from 1986 to 1988.

The first victory - an F-16A missile shot down an Afghan Su-7b, which ended up over the territory of Afghanistan.

Over the territory of Afghanistan, 2 Su-22 aircraft and an An-26 passenger aircraft were shot down.

The only Soviet Su-25, shot down in 1988, should be considered separately.

The Pakistani Air Force lost one F-16A aircraft shot down by an air defense missile system.

6. Indo-Pakistani conflict


On February 27, 2019, an air battle took place between aviation groups of the Indian Air Force and the Pakistan Air Force. From the Indian Air Force, 8 fighters took part in the collision: four Su-30 MKI, two MiG-21UPG, two Dassault Mirage 2000. A total of 16 aircraft were present from the Pakistani Air Force: eight F-16, four Dassault Mirage III, four JF- 17 Thunder. And another 8 aircraft in the form of a cover group did not participate in the battle.

One Pakistan Air Force F-16 and one Indian MiG-21 was shot down.

7. Greek-Turkish conflict


A sluggish series of conflict situations in which F-16s were used on both sides. Three planes were lost by the Turks, the same number were lost by the Greeks.

On October 8, 1996, a Turkish F-2000D was shot down by a Greek Mirage 16 fighter. On May 23, 2006, 15 km from the island of Karpathos, there was a collision of a Greek and Turkish F-16, both aircraft crashed.

8. The civil war in Syria


There was a civil war in Syria, which did not prevent Turkey from getting bogged down in it up to the spars. In May 2013, a Turkish F-16 crashed under unclear circumstances near the Syrian-Turkish border. On March 23, 2014, Turkish F-16s shot down a Syrian MiG-23ML fighter that allegedly invaded Turkish airspace. The wreckage of the plane was found in Syria.

In a similar situation, on November 24, 2015, a Russian Su-24 was shot down, which fell in Syria.

In general, during the civil war in Syria, F-16s lost many countries.

On December 1, 2014, an American F-16C fighter plane crashed in Jordan after a combat mission in Syria, the American pilot was killed.

On December 24, 2014, a Jordanian F-16 fighter was shot down over the Syrian city of Raqqa, the pilot was captured by international terrorists and was killed.

On February 10, 2018, an Israeli F-200I was shot down by the Syrian S-16 air defense system.

According to official statistics from the US Air Force and NATO, the F-16 scored a total of 8 aerial victories. All victories were won in Iraq and the Balkans. Official information from the Israeli Air Force says that Israeli F-16s won about 40 air victories over Syrian Air Force aircraft.


To summarize all of the above, it turns out that the F-16 pilots from the United States, Israel and NATO countries shot down about 50 aircraft.

4 604 aircraft manufactured in 40 years.

Let's just say, a little in general, but the F-16 was used not only as a fighter. But this is not the main thing. The main thing is against whom this aircraft was used. And here the field of nuances begins, on which, in principle, the reputation of the "best single-engine" aircraft somewhat "does not take off."

We judge ourselves based on the list of victories given. Particularly interested in aircraft made in the USSR, why - will be seen below.

Su-7b. Produced from 1957 to 1972.
Su-22, which is Su-17. Produced from 1969 to 1990.
Su-25. Produced since 1975.
MiG-23. Produced from 1969 to 1985.
MiG-25. Produced from 1969 to 1982.
MiG-29. Produced since 1982.

In general, if you look at the list, it becomes clear: the F-16s fought not just with outdated aircraft made in the USSR, but also with crews, let's say, not of the highest quality.

You can, of course, say something about the training of Syrian pilots who took it in Soviet schools. Flight schools in the USSR are good educational institutions. The Syrians are simply not the best students. This applies to anti-aircraft gunners, tankers, and pilots.

It is very difficult to say and predict what would have happened if the F-16 in maneuverable combat had met with more modern aircraft (like the same MiG-29, only with letters or Su-27), in the cockpits of which graduates would sit, say, from Borisoglebsk, Volgograd or Armavir. It could well have been the result of a slightly different plan.

In fact, the pilots on the F-16 fought on equal terms not even in one conflict, but in one battle, when the Turkish and Greek pilots turned around to a collision in the air. Well, something similar to a battle performed by Indians and Pakistanis.

In any case, both things look ... rather weak.


The fact that the Israelis chopped up Arab MiGs is, of course, yes. First of all, he says that the training of pilots of the Israeli Air Force is much higher than that of the Syrian. However, I have already voiced my opinion about the level of combat training of the Syrians.

As a result, American pilots and their Israeli counterparts are arguably taking the world's best aircraft. But the real proof is not victories in battles with Arab pilots from Iran, Iraq and Syria on aircraft of the older generation, but on classmates, with colleagues, say, from Russia or China in the cockpits.

Then it would be possible to compare. In the meantime, the F-16 "Battle Falcon" can be considered quite a good aircraft with a lot of advantages. Which can be very effectively used against the air forces of the countries of the third and fourth worlds.


But since real planes are still fighting with real pilots, the performance characteristics can not be taken as the ultimate truth. The numbers show well, but fly very badly.

"Battle Falcon" from the F-16 turned out. But you should not categorically declare that this is one of the best aircraft in the world. Such claims usually require real evidence.
Author:
112 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 12 October 2020 05: 26
    36
    As a result, American pilots and their Israeli counterparts are arguably taking the world's best aircraft. But the real proof is not victories in battles with Arab pilots from Iran, Iraq and Syria on aircraft of the older generation, but on classmates, with colleagues, say, from Russia or China in the cockpits.

    Flimsy logic turns out.
    Because their planes and pilots have been tested in real battles. In fact.
    Where did our or Chinese pilots and airplanes test in real battles?

    Of course, I'm not against us and the Chinese, by default, consider hoo, but still we must always remember that in real battles our fighter aircraft was not even tested by Arab pilots.

    The rest is from crafty patriotism.
    1. Letun
      Letun 12 October 2020 14: 17
      +3
      Quote: Engineer Shchukin
      The rest is from crafty patriotism.

      What apt wording! hi
      1. Couchexpert
        Couchexpert 12 October 2020 21: 47
        10
        He is not crafty and not onion, but the most banal, "leavened". Comparison of what was produced / fought / knocked down / fell with what "could" "and then for sure." The classic reception of our journalists. It is impossible to check or dispute the subjunctive mantras.

        You come up with a thesis (F-16 is a superplane: why / how / why - it doesn't matter!), You fight with it yourself (and it turns out that they also fell / broke / controlled by woodpeckers! Surprise surprise!), You yourself take a pie from the shelf. At the same time, the F-16 managed to shoot down something only when "bearded men" were sitting in the cabins of the opponents, the sun shone treacherously in their eyes, and the plane was unfinished, without missiles, with one wing and the last bucket of fuel. While impercapitalist products were waxed before departures, and pilots, who have been spliced ​​with cockpits in secret laboratories since the age of 3, received information about their targets using hours of hypnosis (read zombies, "mk ultra", yeah). BUT if there would be "ours" against them ... "If only", then "at least, and maybe even"!

        "High school student Vasya often kicked the boys' heads from elementary school with impunity. But if the boxing champion Nikolai Valuev, who studied at this school, stayed for the second year some 10-15 times, everything would have ended differently."
    2. Dmitry Makarov
      Dmitry Makarov 13 October 2020 20: 57
      -10 qualifying.
      And in real battles, our pilots destroyed thousands of American F-type fighters on the MiG-15 and MiG-21
      And the Americans in real battles with the Russians suffered only a crushing fiasco.
      1. Python 57
        Python 57 26 November 2020 17: 49
        0
        Blessed are those who believe! Https: //www.google.com/amp/s/amp.topwar.ru/28353-sovetskie-letchiki-protiv-vvs-izrailya-pobeda-s-suhim-schetom.html
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 October 2020 15: 35
      0
      The Syrian Air Force was very numerous, and what results did they have and what do we have? Moreover, even in helicopters and Su-25, our losses are negligible, although the electronics will not save the turntable from the ZSU-23-2.

      The Americans have not been tested for a long time either, they always had a numerical superiority.
    4. Woland
      Woland 19 October 2020 12: 41
      0
      The counter question is where, when the F-16 pilots faced in real battles with the pilots of Russia and China?
    5. roll
      roll 1 November 2020 21: 08
      0
      The only real test is 1972. Air combat of the latest versions of the mig-21 with Israeli mirages III. Out of 8 MiG-21s, 5 were shot down, four pilots were killed. In general, the training of "teachers" is no better than their Arab pupils, whose features are attributed to unpleasant numbers. Despite the fact that among the Arabs, the pilots are the elite from the upper strata of society, and not dekhans like tankers.
      1. Abel
        Abel 6 November 2020 11: 37
        0
        I am somewhat confused by the "elite from the upper strata of society." Do you sincerely think that the kids of our "handymen" and "friendly oligarchs" fly better? They hardly know which side of the "Kalash" the bullet flies
        1. roll
          roll 17 November 2020 20: 52
          0
          The question is in the level of education and general intellectual development. It is difficult to expect the success of pilots who have graduated from the dekhan or collective farmers. The lack of a general cultural level for complex spheres of activity is clearly manifested among people from the bottom, not only among the Arabs, remember the nonentities like the army poisoners of the chepiga and mishkin.

          The power in the Arab countries and Russia is organized, though similar, but in different ways. In Arab countries, the army is often a social lift to the very top, and in the Russian Federation, the role of the army is played by the special services, and the army is not a social lift, it’s a gray cattle. However, in the Russian Federation now it will be more important to belong to 100-110 families ruling the country than anything else.
  2. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 12 October 2020 05: 38
    23
    A strange set of letters.
    What did the author want to say?
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 12 October 2020 05: 58
      16
      Xs, incomprehensible excuses that even if these falcons crumbled our moments and drying, it does not count. On the other hand, the author could also write in more detail the Yugolavian Mig-29s (as about equal to f16 aircraft) that they flew practically "blindly"
  3. Vitaly gusin
    Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 06: 43
    +9
    The fact that the Israelis chopped up Arab MiGs is, of course, yes. First of all, he says that the training of pilots of the Israeli Air Force is much higher than that of the Syrian

    Dear author!
    Such information could pass at a time when there was no Internet.
    Before writing this article, you need to type operation "RIMON-20" in a search engine and read:
    "Soviet MiGs were surrounded by Israeli planes. In a short battle that lasted only six minutes, four MiGs were shot down. Four Soviet pilots were killed.
    Zhuravlev Vladimir Alexandrovich - captain, senior pilot. He was awarded (posthumously) the Order of the Red Banner and the Egyptian Order of the Star of Military Valor.
    Yurchenko Nikolay Petrovich - captain, flight commander. He was awarded (posthumously) the Order of the Red Banner and the Egyptian Order of the Star of Military Valor.
    Yakovlev Evgeny Gerasimovich - captain, flight commander. He was awarded (posthumously) the Order of the Red Banner and the Egyptian Order of the Star of Military Valor.
    On August 1, 1970, Marshal Pavel Kutakhov, commander of the USSR Air Force, flew to Cairo. He ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the armed clash with the enemy. On August 2, Kutakhov gave the order to stop the flights of Soviet pilots in the Suez Canal zone... The Marshal forbade his pilots to engage in combat with Israeli fighters. The leadership of the USSR notified the Egyptian side that it could no longer provide assistance to the Egyptian government in ensuring the inviolability of the Egyptian air lines.
    1. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 12 October 2020 07: 01
      +9
      Quote: Vitaly Gusin
      Before writing this article, you need to type in the search engine operation "RIMON-20" and read

      And the Israelis were on the F-16? And what about the article?
      1. Vitaly gusin
        Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 08: 28
        +7
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        And the Israelis were on the F-16? And what about the article?

        What the Israelis chopped up Arab MiGs, - this, of course, yes. First of all, he says that the training of pilots of the Israeli Air Force is much higher, than the Syrian
        I will explain.
        This offer contains Arab MiGs and Syrian pilots but not a model of an Israeli aircraft, although at that time MiGs were the most advanced aircraft and surpassed the aircraft that the Israelis had.
        The author simply did not need to insert this sentence.
        Correctly wrote [b] Engineer Shchukin [/ b] The rest of the crafty patriotism.
        But if you want the truth about the F-16, then 4 F-16 aircraft participated in the destruction of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. In the destruction of a nuclear reactor in Syria, 4 F-16 aircraft took part.
        Israel is launching airstrikes in Syria using F-16 aircraft, destroying facilities belonging to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist group.
        But writing this was not part of the author's plans.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 09: 00
          +7
          Quote: Vitaly Gusin
          although at that time the MiGs were the most advanced aircraft and surpassed the aircraft that the Israelis had.

          Was the MiG-21 superior to the Mirage 3 and Phantom? Are you seriously?
          I will give a small example from about the same period - the MiG-23M radar, having slightly worse characteristics compared to the station on the Tiger, weighed 580 kg, and the American one is three times lighter.
          And in the part of avionics, I somehow wrote how, for example, the export Osa-M differed from ours. Of course, I will not comment on later samples.
          1. Vitaly gusin
            Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 09: 26
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Was the MiG-21 superior to the Mirage 3 and Phantom? Are you seriously?

            And still read, the article is a little one-sided, but truthful enough. Most important section
            After battle
            Four points, but they did not indicate the superiority of either Mirages or Phantoms. They didn't leap the fight.
            https://topwar.ru/28353-sovetskie-letchiki-protiv-vvs-izrailya-pobeda-s-suhim-schetom.html
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 11: 16
              +6
              Quote: Vitaly Gusin
              They didn't leap the fight.

              So it is quite obvious that that battle was won by people and not by iron, and in general and above all at the stage of planning the operation. Several years of war is a great boost to the ability to think.
              I read the Israeli version a long time ago. They took into account psychology, geography, and weather.
              1. Vitaly gusin
                Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 12: 45
                -2
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                They took into account psychology, geography, and weather.

                I agree with you, the country is very small, a couple of mistakes and everything is in the sea.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 20: 33
                  0
                  By the way, can you tell me if there is a detailed description of the naval battles of the Israeli Navy in 1967-1973. Russian or English.
                  1. Vitaly gusin
                    Vitaly gusin 14 October 2020 07: 06
                    0
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    By the way, can you tell me if there is a detailed description of the naval battles of the Israeli Navy in 1967-1973.

                    The question is not entirely clear.
                    THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
                    For example, this
                    http://militera.lib.ru/h/dotsenko/06.html
                    UNDERSTANDING ANTI-ISRAEL CHARACTER.
                    But discarding propaganda, one can understand what was happening. And who lost and who won.
                    Egypt and Syria were preparing for the liberation of the occupied lands began to prepare almost immediately after the 1967 war.In the Egyptian armed forces by the beginning of the war, there were about 833 thousand people, 2200 tanks, 590 aircraft, 190 helicopters, 122 warships, and in the Syrian - 332 thousand people, 1350 tanks, 321 combat aircraft, 21 ships. Thus, in the armed forces of Egypt and Syria, there were a total of 1165 thousand people, 3550 tanks, 1011 aircraft and 143 ships. The armed forces of the Arab states outnumbered the armed forces of Israel in the number of personnel and ships by almost 3 times.

                    During the 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli Navy seized complete dominance at sea. On the night of June 5-6, the Tanin submarine with naval saboteurs on board entered the carefully guarded waters of the naval base in Alexandria. Naval saboteurs sank enemy missile boats of the Osa type right at the quay walls. During the action, the Israeli submarine was discovered by the enemy, who was continuously striking with depth charges. However, the Israeli sailors, despite the damage to the submarine, managed to escape from the trap.
                    On the same night, a detachment of Israeli ships consisting of the destroyer "Jaffa" and three torpedo boats struck the naval base in Port Said. The next morning on June 6, the Arabs, in fear of Israeli attacks, hastily withdrawn their fleet from the war zone. The attack by Israeli warships, which complemented the continuous air strikes, achieved another important goal: it prevented the bombardment of Tel Aviv from the sea by missiles with a range of 35 miles, equipped with 1000-pound warheads. These missiles were equipped with 18 Russian missile boats transferred from the USSR to Egypt.

                    On January 9, 1968, the Dakar submarine without weapons, with 69 crew on board, left the British port of Portsmouth for Haifa. It was one of three submarines acquired by Israel from Britain. The Israeli crew was mastering the new equipment and was now returning to their base on a new submarine. On January 15, there was a refueling in Gibraltar. The Dakar submarine with all the crew on board disappeared without a trace. For more than thirty years nothing was known about the fate of the submarine that did not return to base.
                    There are various versions of the sinking of the Dakar submarine. According to one of them, an unarmed Israeli submarine was treacherously attacked by the ships of the Russian 5th operational squadron (commander - Vice Admiral B. Petrov, chief of staff - Rear Admiral V. Platonov), who were in the area.

                    On the night of June 5-6, 1969, the submarine "Tanin" with naval saboteurs on board entered the carefully guarded waters of the naval base in Alexandria. Naval saboteurs sank enemy missile boats of the Osa type right at the quay walls.
                    On the same night, a detachment of Israeli ships consisting of the destroyer "Jaffa" and three torpedo boats struck at the naval base in Port Said.

                    On the night of June 21, 1969, Israeli naval commandos in landing boats attacked the Russian Ra'as Adbia radar station in the northern Gulf of Suez. The battle lasted twelve minutes - several dozen enemy soldiers were destroyed, a radar station was blown up, after which the Israeli troops returned to their base without losses.

                    On the night of 19-20 July 1969, Israeli paratroopers landed on Green Island, in the northern part of the Suez Canal, where the enemy's naval base was located, which included coastal artillery batteries, a boat dock and a radar station. In the course of the fleeting battle, all objects and the garrison of the naval base were destroyed. The losses of the Israeli paratroopers amounted to 6 people.

                    On the night of September 8, a naval commando unit attacked an enemy naval base in Ras Saadat. During the battle, two Russian missile boats of the Komar S-183 type were sunk

                    On October 6, 1973, on the second day of the Yom Kippur War, a squadron of Israeli missile carriers left Haifa and moved in two wake columns towards the Syrian coast. The purpose of the Israeli squadron, sailing under the flag of Rear Admiral M. Barkai, was to destroy enemy ships in the area of ​​the Syrian naval base Latakia.
                    The first to be sunk was a Syrian torpedo boat patrolling long-range approaches to Latakia. He was shot with artillery pieces.
                    ... Rocket attacks sunk three Russian-built Komar and Osa missile boats, one minelayer and a torpedo boat. Several more enemy ships, fearing a direct collision with the Israeli fleet, simply washed ashore.
                    Thus ended this first battle in world naval history, in which both sides used surface-to-surface anti-ship missiles. The results of this naval battle speak for themselves - all five Syrian ships were destroyed, the Israeli fleet suffered no losses.

                    On the night of October 17, 1973, a group of combat swimmers was delivered by a submarine to the waters of the Egyptian naval base in Port Said. The scuba divers managed to secretly penetrate the closely guarded territory of the base and blow up enemy warships built in the USSR and under the command of Russian officers. Then the missile carrier and two torpedo boats were sunk.
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 08: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Vitaly Gusin
                      UNDERSTANDING ANTI-ISRAEL CHARACTER.
                      But discarding propaganda, one can understand what was happening. And who lost and who won.


                      Dotsenko is an obvious mess - they managed to teach at the Higher Military Medical University already in the 90s. Am I interested in documents and memoirs of participants in the battles of missile boats? There is something like that in Israeli historiography. Not the general course of events.

                      During the battle, two Russian missile boats of the Komar S-183 type were sunk


                      They are like Egyptian. The USSR Navy did not suffer any combat losses during that period.

                      There are various versions of the sinking of the Dakar submarine. According to one of them, an unarmed Israeli submarine was treacherously attacked by the ships of the Russian 5th operational squadron (commander - Vice Admiral B. Petrov, chief of staff - Rear Admiral V. Platonov), who were in the area.

                      unreal version.

                      The target of the Israeli squadron flying the flag of Rear Admiral M. Barkai,

                      The Israeli Navy has combined-arms ranks, doesn't it?
                      1. Vitaly gusin
                        Vitaly gusin 14 October 2020 09: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        The Israeli Navy has combined-arms ranks

                        Yes, but they are equated, so that it would be clear. article in Russian.
                        Admirals and officers
                        http://militera.lib.ru/h/dotsenko/06.html
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        They are like Egyptian. The USSR Navy did not suffer any combat losses during that period.

                        But, they had advisers from the USSR.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        unreal version.

                        Possibly, but presumptive, there was a hole from the rocket during the ascent.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Am I interested in documents and memoirs of participants in the battles of missile boats? There is something like that in Israeli historiography. Not the general course of events.

                        A bit of a strange request.
                        I try not to refer to Israeli sources as at this moment "patriots" write
                        ALWAYS! Israel is a tiny country 70% desert, no water, no technology and nothing at all.
                        If you are interested, I will try to find it.
                      2. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 11: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Vitaly Gusin
                        A bit of a strange request.


                        From what. We have a fact - the death of the RCA Ebipta and Syria. The reasons are not entirely clear to me.
                        Here are the questions. The Israeli Navy, as I heard, used the electronic warfare station "Collected on the knee" (p.) And improvised PU RS with dipoles. So, did the Arabs use the P-15 with IKGSN. Was the preparation of the anti-ship missiles at the RTB carried out properly.
                        - Did the Israelis use the method of forming a false order by placing dipole reflectors on the rafts.
                        This is for example.

                        But, they had advisers from the USSR.

                        It is extremely dull here and at the level of naval folklore and a number of memories - advisers were at the headquarters. With extremely scanty possibilities. However, there is one evidence of how a friend ended up in port aboard a minesweeper under the BSHU .... But he was not there permanently. We arrived on business.

                        during the ascent there was a hole from the rocket. Therefore, it is assumed.

                        Here is the question, such cases cannot be hidden even by selection of subscriptions. All this in the Navy would have reached the level of legends. And I heard a couple of them about that period ... In my opinion, if a hole is the most likely variant of an unintentional collision.

                        By rank, in my opinion, above the facts. Well, except for the case with the hieroglyphics of the Nippos and the Chinese. There it is necessary to adapt the same.

                        Thanks for the link.
                      3. Vitaly gusin
                        Vitaly gusin 14 October 2020 12: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        The Israeli Navy, as I heard, used the EW station "Collected on the Knee" (p.

                        Perhaps you will find the answer.
                        https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/37386.html
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltim
                        https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-ldquo-rooster-rdquo-december-1969
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        but in my opinion, if a hole is the most likely variant of an unintentional collision.

                        https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-feared-soviets-sunk-sub-in-1968-papers-reveals/
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        It is extremely dull here and at the level of naval folklore and a number of memories - advisers were at the headquarters.

                        The USSR delivered 30 ships, submarines, missile boats, etc. to Egypt. all this was the most modern at that time. Instructors and advisers were in the headquarters of the troops in training centers and quite possibly took part. I have not seen such concrete evidence as in the Air Force and Air Defense.
                      4. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 12: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: Vitaly Gusin
                        Instructors and advisers were in the headquarters of the troops in training centers and quite possibly took part. Such concrete evidence

                        Well, I did not come across. And I have never met such people ...
                        On the Air Force and ZRV, the picture is somewhat different. In the fleet. for example, I have never heard of our specialists participating in the attack of Eilat. Although it would seem !!! But no.
                        Thanks for the link to Granovsky. I will read..
                      5. Vitaly gusin
                        Vitaly gusin 14 October 2020 12: 58
                        0
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Well, I did not come across. And I have never met such people ...
                        On the Air Force and ZRV, the picture is somewhat different. In the fleet. for example, I have never heard of our specialists participating in the attack of Eilat. Although it would seem! But no.

                        I do not mind.
                        It's just not logical, yes there, but no here.
                      6. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 13: 04
                        +1
                        Yes, I do not argue.
                        It is certain that the Advisers were in the command structures of the Navy, and even then not for the entire period. On boats, unlikely. With the squad leader, maybe. But silence, besides, the Israeli Navy in some cases had to take prisoners, at least for the purpose of interrogation. Considering that Gabrielle is weak and the boats were finished off with artillery.
                2. Abel
                  Abel 6 November 2020 11: 54
                  +1
                  The boat is generally incomprehensible. First, the "unarmed boat". What were the Israelis buying? And what were you going to put on? Arming with machine guns? Secondly, they "pounced on an unarmed boat." And how to determine at sea whether the boat is armed or peaceful?
              2. Abel
                Abel 6 November 2020 11: 49
                0
                "Israel is a tiny country with 70% desert, no water, no technology and nothing at all.
                If you are interested, I'll try to find it. "
                You are apparently not familiar with Israel, even on the Internet. About the desert. The Israelis are slowly mastering the desert with drip irrigation. I saw - stunned. Israeli villages are small and green, Palestinian (Arab) - cottages and dust.
                Israel's production facilities are only high-tech.
            2. Vitaly gusin
              Vitaly gusin 14 October 2020 10: 37
              +1
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Am I interested in documents and memoirs of participants in the battles of missile boats?

              https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-the-cherbourg-boats-bested-a-superpowers-weapons-and-changed-naval-warfare/
    2. akarfoxhound
      akarfoxhound 13 October 2020 20: 24
      -1
      Absolutely, I agree with you, people out there won outright. And on what technique in those specific circumstances was it secondary. Somewhere in 1992, I watched the air battle of the Su-15TM and Su-27P over the point. Su-15 from .. swept the enemy in front of the "amazed audience" as he wanted. And the most interesting - why? The explanation is simple - in the office of the Su-15 there was a major who mastered both types and knew the strengths and weaknesses of the materiel (if simplified, these are not the "numbers" that review local article "analysts" like Damantsev like to write), in the 27th the captain, flying as an officer only on this "super-duper". During the service, battles of similar results with aircraft that were incompatible in these conditions for an ordinary man in the street were regularly encountered in the west and east of the country. But, I beg your pardon, I will not talk about this here, VO with the Internet is not the right place for such "conversations" with a full disclosure of the topic.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 20: 31
        +2
        Thanks. I have no doubts about this outcome of events ... People are fighting.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 October 2020 15: 45
    0
    As for the worst characteristics, I don't know, the MiG-23 had a very good radar, and in the Iran-Iraqi war, the F-23 did not have any chances against the MiG-5. MiG-21bis, as it were, from the same category as the F-5.
  • MMX
    MMX 12 October 2020 08: 30
    -3
    Kutakhov gave the order to stop the flights of Soviet pilots in the Suez Canal zone. The Marshal forbade his pilots to engage in combat with Israeli fighters. The leadership of the USSR notified the Egyptian side that it could no longer provide assistance to the Egyptian government in ensuring the inviolability of the Egyptian air lines.


    Oh, these Jewish tales wassat
    1. Vitaly gusin
      Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 09: 06
      +1
      Quote: MMX
      Oh, these Jewish tales

      Wow these tamikhnetm all broke / vem
      1 The dead pilots are listed and can be found in official documents of the Ministry of Defense.
      2 Well, if something bothers you, you don't have to look far:
      https://topwar.ru/28353-sovetskie-letchiki-protiv-vvs-izrailya-pobeda-s-suhim-schetom.html
      “The battle that we have been waiting for so long and for which we have been preparing so tensely. In a number of Russian sources this event is referred to as the“ Battle over El Sokhna. ”The official Israeli name is Operation Rimon-20.
      Most importantly, its tragic results - on that day, several MiGs with Soviet crews were indeed shot down. "
      As a result of the air battle, four pilots were killed (list above)
      We were born to make a fairy tale come true! (C)
      1. MMX
        MMX 12 October 2020 14: 09
        0
        Wow these tamikhnetm all broke / vem

        As a result of the air battle, four pilots were killed (list above)
        We were born to make a fairy tale come true! (C)


        I did not deny the fact of the air combat, which took place as a result of the arranged ambush.
        But regarding this:
        Kutakhov gave the order to stop the flights of Soviet pilots in the Suez Canal zone. The Marshal forbade his pilots to engage in combat with Israeli fighters. The leadership of the USSR notified the Egyptian side that it could no longer provide assistance to the Egyptian government in ensuring the inviolability of the Egyptian air lines.

        ... here is clearly a Jewish fairy tale lol
        1. Vitaly gusin
          Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 16: 15
          -5
          Quote: MMX
          here is clearly a Jewish fairy tale

          Then read the Russian truth.
          https://ru-aviation.livejournal.com/3431173.html
          1. MMX
            MMX 12 October 2020 18: 40
            +3
            I read it.
            Here is your link:
            On August 1, 1970, Marshal Pavel Kutakhov, commander of the USSR Air Force, flew to Cairo. He ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the armed clash with the enemy. On August 2, Kutakhov gave an order to stop the flights of Soviet pilots in the Suez Canal zone. The leadership of the USSR notified the Egyptian side that it could no longer provide assistance to the Egyptian government in ensuring the inviolability of the Egyptian air lines.

            The sentence has surprisingly disappeared:
            Marshall forbade his pilots to engage in battle with Israeli fighters.


            Strange, right? laughing
            Did he say so or did he not?

            There are more cranberries

            1. Vitaly gusin
              Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 23: 23
              -3
              Quote: MMX
              Did he say so or did he not?

              Not me, not you were not standing next to me, different sources say differently.
              But if you leave this proposal aside and take this, with the fact that you agree, based on the Russian version.
              On August 1, 1970, Marshal Pavel Kutakhov, commander of the USSR Air Force, flew to Cairo. He ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the armed clash with the enemy. On August 2, Kutakhov gave an order to stop the flights of Soviet pilots in the Suez Canal zone.
              Everyone understands order to terminate flights of Soviet pilots no flights, no battle.
              SUCH ORDER ITSELF IS A RECOGNITION OF DEFEAT!
              1. MMX
                MMX 13 October 2020 12: 07
                0
                Not me, not you were not standing next to me, different sources say differently.


                Well, yes, they didn't. And there are fairy tales. Do you feel the difference? laughing

                But if you leave this proposal aside and take this, with the fact that you agree, based on the Russian version.

                What Russian version?

                In August 1970, the commander of the USSR Air Force, Marshal Pavel Kutakhov, flew to Cairo. He ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the armed clash with the enemy. On August 2, Kutakhov gave an order to stop the flights of Soviet pilots in the Suez Canal zone.


                He may have appointed an investigation, but the marshal did not give any order to stop flights.
                Everyone understands the order to stop the flights of Soviet pilots, no flights, no battle.
                SUCH ORDER ITSELF IS A RECOGNITION OF DEFEAT!


                In a Jewish fairy tale, everything is so. yes
          2. MMX
            MMX 12 October 2020 18: 58
            +3
            Uh-huh "Russian truth". Only here in the sources are all entirely Israeli storytellers:



            1. Vitaly gusin
              Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 23: 24
              -3
              Quote: MMX
              Only here in the sources are all entirely Israeli storytellers:

              It's written on the fence too!
              1. MMX
                MMX 13 October 2020 12: 18
                +1
                Quote: Vitaly Gusin
                Quote: MMX
                Only here in the sources are all entirely Israeli storytellers:

                It's written on the fence too!


                Do you think that Joffe and the reporter wrote it wrong? laughing
                1. akarfoxhound
                  akarfoxhound 13 October 2020 20: 32
                  -2
                  No, with Vitalik Guzin everything is simple - where it is necessary and convenient for him - there is practically a certified "document", albeit from a newspaper, and if catachreza is observed, then it is immediately written on the fence laughing
      2. LastPS
        LastPS 12 October 2020 14: 10
        +3
        In fairness, Israeli pilots at that time were the best in the world and, perhaps, the only ones who had serious combat experience in the use of modern aviation. They would have killed the Americans in similar conditions.
      3. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 23: 59
        0
        Quote: Vitaly Gusin
        We were born to make a fairy tale come true! (C)


        It was unnecessary ...
  • Sidor Amenpodestovich
    Sidor Amenpodestovich 12 October 2020 10: 05
    -5
    Quote: Vitaly Gusin
    The leadership of the USSR notified the Egyptian side that it could no longer provide assistance to the Egyptian government in ensuring the inviolability of the Egyptian air lines.

    How ironic!
    If something like this happened now, it is easy to imagine what would have risen in Voshniy comments, hehe!
    "The scoundrels have chickened out! Compradors! Limitrophs! The states said:" kych otseda "- this government has taken it under its cap, because all the money and children are tam!"
    In general, they would be sophisticated in contempt for the top of the comments two hundred, if not more.
    1. Vitaly gusin
      Vitaly gusin 12 October 2020 10: 11
      -1
      Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich
      If something like this happened now, it is easy to imagine what would have risen in Voshniy comments, hehe!

      It was easier then.
      Radio, newspapers Pravda, Izvestia, Krasnaya Zvezda.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 16: 55
      0
      Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich
      In general, they would be sophisticated in contempt for the top of the comments two hundred, if not more.


      Take more for sure would have reached a thousand ...
  • yehat2
    yehat2 12 October 2020 17: 57
    +1
    and the wiki says that only 3 moments fell, and 1 pilot was exactly ejected alive.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 October 2020 15: 38
    -1
    And what does one specific operation of the Jews with the participation of 40 planes, aimed at catching one Soviet link, have to do with the Arab-Israeli showdown? You don't need to write nonsense. But the Air Force commander had questions about how our planes ended up in combat, undoubtedly.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 12 October 2020 07: 08
    +5
    As it turned out, the concept of "the most" ... is rather ephemeral. Therefore, you need to immediately sweep it aside. Applies to any weapon or equipment. There are too many factors, from the application to who is at the helm.
    Well, if the author wants to still use the term "the most", and even challenge it, then he must substantiate - who then is the most, the most? Or at least compare with peers, classmates. The only problem is that they are not observed. Either released earlier, or did not take part in hostilities.
  • atalef
    atalef 12 October 2020 07: 19
    10
    In fact, the pilots on the F-16 fought on equal terms not even in one conflict, but in one battle, when the Turkish and Greek pilots turned around to a collision in the air. Well, something similar to a battle performed by Indians and Pakistanis.
    In any case, both things look ... rather weak.

    article, sorry, generally complete bullshit.
    maybe if you present such statistics on the Russian (Soviet Air Force), then it is generally zero.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 08: 39
      +2
      At least some conclusions about the level of technology IMHO can be drawn purely on the example of the Iranian-Iraqi. Where the level of users was about the same ...
    2. Livonetc
      Livonetc 12 October 2020 08: 57
      +7
      The article is not about anyone else's Air Force
      The article is about F16.
      The figures are given in relation to specific events.
      Part of the considerations, the personal view of the author.
      Normal article.
      Write your own version in opposition.
      We honor.
      hi
  • Professor
    Professor 12 October 2020 08: 47
    +9
    According to V. Ilyin's research, Israel lost 6 F-16 aircraft in this war.

    Roma, there were no F-16 losses in that war. Not a single one at all. How much wishlist can you retype?
  • Avior
    Avior 12 October 2020 09: 01
    +5
    ... But you should not categorically declare that this is one of the best aircraft in the world. Such claims usually require real evidence.

    Yeah ...
    And if Roman writes Russian planes, will he have the same criteria?
    Next.
    The author determines the success of the F-16 only in air battles, and takes into account the losses from fire from the ground, and not only in air battles.
    Although it is known that F-16s work successfully on the ground.
    As it is necessary, or both, or take into account or not.
    Why not just write - from among those who have proven combat effectiveness in air battles, modern f-15 and f-16 fighters have the best results.
    Even if it does not sound very patriotic.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 12 October 2020 09: 20
    +4
    "One F-16 of the Pakistani Air Force was shot down" - from this moment I would like to learn more. EMNIP, only the Indian MIG-21 was reliably shot down there.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 October 2020 09: 23
    +8
    Of the downed types, half are bombers and attack aircraft. They also did not note that in addition to the war with fighters a generation lower, the F-16s were also used in cooperation with AWACS ..... But in any case, sales speak of good characteristics of the machine, and sales of used aircraft also speak of reliability and quality of products. And the shortcomings of earlier versions are corrected in modern ones: both AFAR and turbojet engines appeared and new tanks and long-range weapons. Let's compare Mirage2000 with it .... but France, not the USA in terms of sales. It is a pity that we have no analogue with the turbojet engine Al31. If we followed the "path" of the Su35S .... then we would have a modern light mass fighter. As the Chinese are doing now with the J-10.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 16: 57
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      .... but France, not the US in terms of sales. It is a pity that we have no analogue with the turbojet engine Al31. If we followed the "path" of the Su35S .... then we would have a modern light mass fighter. As the Chinese are doing now with the J-10.


      It's a pity that this did not happen ...
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 12 October 2020 10: 39
    +1
    The article did not make an impression.
    The Pakistani Air Force lost one F-16A aircraft shot down by an air defense missile system.
    There was unofficial information that our MiG-23s shot down a Pakistani F-16 over Afghanistan with cannons.

    It is incorrect to believe that the MiG-23 and MiG-29 without letters are inferior to the F-16, since the first F-16s were not designed for combat at medium distances and the MiG and could well withstand the F-16. And in terms of maneuverability, the MiG-29 was definitely not inferior to the F-16.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 12 October 2020 11: 34
      0
      Pakistan has lost a couple or three F-16s. One watched a group of MiG23, which flew to bomb .... and the roofing felts fell under the bombs, and then someone from the cannon shot him down ....... But the explosive missiles were all in place upon arrival.
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 12 October 2020 10: 42
    0
    I think the Saab would be better if it were not for the terrible lobbying of the f-16 would have been released in a much smaller volume, somewhere they wrote (not a fact) that they generally cost Israel for nothing, since they wanted more f-15
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 12 October 2020 11: 35
      +4
      Creepy not creepy ..... but an unsuccessful plane in such quantity and for so many years would not have produced
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 16: 58
        +2
        So he fights in black ... Unlike the same Needles
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 13 October 2020 18: 36
          -1
          .... and it flies many times more and there is more of it in pieces, and unlike F15, a lot of countries use it
          1. akarfoxhound
            akarfoxhound 13 October 2020 20: 50
            -2
            Incorrect conversation, despite your proximity of housing to my alma mater and your interest in aviation wink ... In the statistics of the materiel for flight safety, the number of accidents for the 2nd group of factors (equipment failure) is considered for the number of flight hours. Aircraft manufacturers, for example, keep these statistics very meticulously., The number of operated, resource, operating time, failures, which failures, etc. And there is an average number of accidents, catastrophes, in what time period of the hours worked an accident occurs, etc. And you and your opponent finally talk about nothing No.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 13 October 2020 20: 55
              0
              Well. In the press f16 is not marked with anything outstanding in terms of disasters.
              1. akarfoxhound
                akarfoxhound 13 October 2020 21: 08
                -3
                Well, the press is not a design bureau, not everything gets into it. For me, thank God
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 14 October 2020 07: 38
                  0
                  Moreover, the press of not one state and not only about the new F-16s ... there is, in itself, a stable market for used cars. And there are no massive disasters.
                  1. akarfoxhound
                    akarfoxhound 15 October 2020 12: 23
                    -2
                    You don't understand, the manufacturer of aircraft, no matter where it is located, keeps strict records. This is not a cart, but an airplane. Therefore, they go to the operators of express bulletins - there was a failure of such and such a piece of iron with such and such consequences, the investigation established that the reason ..., check, fix, send to the plant (or a "team" of workers from the company comes to base, etc., regardless of the country. Therefore, there are radical modifications of technology, only in close connection with the operators. The plane is not a Lada or a Lexus, it is monitored inside and out during operation, you are still far from this topic, forgive me, and a well-read opinion for the starting point of "truth" in aviation cannot be enough, despite the wishes of the reader. Therefore, your "not observed" from a professional point of view looks, to put it simply, childish
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 15 October 2020 13: 00
                      0
                      I do not pretend ... but there are statistics on the production. The raid and the fallen .... there is, and recently, a fashionable indicator of combat readiness in%. Flight hour cost ..... versatility of the aircraft.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 12 October 2020 12: 02
    -2
    "Excellent thrust-to-weight ratio?")))) As soon as they received the F - 16, Israeli pilots noticed that the actual acceleration characteristics did not correspond to those indicated in the Instructions. Because of the puddle, they were told that the "book" indicated the characteristics, with incomplete fueling and with incomplete suspension of the BC)))) but in general - yes, the airplane is excellent))))
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 October 2020 13: 01
      0
      This topic always pops up in comparison with Soviet and Russian aircraft ... ... Rafal takes from them the same way as Su30mki and flies on.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 12 October 2020 12: 05
    +4
    MiG-29 versus F-16. NATO pilot's opinion
    http://mass-destruction-weapon.blogspot.com/2014/04/29-f-16.html
    original http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=168581
    MiG-29 Fulcrum vs F-16 Viper

    I have flown over 500 hours on the MiG-29 and 2000 hours on the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A / C and the F-5E). The article below is an excerpt from my master's thesis in aerospace engineering based on the modification of the MiG-29A (with the exception of tanks that hold 200 kg more fuel and built-in electronic warfare equipment, the MiG-29S is no different from the MiG-29A ), as the most massive. In part of the F-16, a modification of the F-16C Block 40 was taken. Although this is a more advanced and powerful version of the F-16C, it was produced and used simultaneously with the MiG-29.

    The MiG-29 has a speed advantage at high altitudes with a 2,3M limit. The F-16's speed at high altitude is limited to 2,05M, but this limitation is mainly due to the design of the air intakes. The MiG-29 has variable geometry air intakes to control the shock wave at the inlet and protect the engine from supersonic flow. The F-16 has a simple, fixed geometry air intake with a sharp top edge that extends forward compared to the bottom edge.


    Both the MiG-29 and the F-16 are designed for a maximum overload of 9g. Before the outboard fuel tank is exhausted, the maximum overload for the MiG-29 is limited to 4g, and for the F-16 - 7g. The MiG-29 also has a maximum overload of 0,85g at speeds above 7M, while the F-16 with an empty (or discarded) outboard fuel tank has a 9g limit regardless of speed or M. For the MiG-29, this limitation is dictated by strength vertical tail. According to MAPO, the MiG-29 can withstand overloads up to 12g without damaging the airframe. This statement is likely wishful thinking. The German Luftwaffe, which operated the MiG-29 in a very aggressive aerobatic manner, encountered cracks at the base of the vertical tail. The F-16 can indeed exceed 9g without damaging the airframe. Depending on the configuration, instantaneous overloads of up to 10,3g were allowed.


    Management

    Of all four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has the worst control system. The hydraulic control system uses a combination of springs and pulleys to simulate changes in the forces on the controls at different speeds and altitudes. There is a stability enhancement system that makes it easier to control, but makes the aircraft's response to the pilot's actions too sluggish. In my opinion, disabling this system makes the fighter more responsive.


    Combat scenario
    In 1991, Benjamin Lambeth published an article in Jane's Defense Weekly, which stated that the German MiG-29s were defeated in a training battle with the F-16 with an imitation of medium-range missile air combat at a distance of more than 60 km. How was this possible if the maximum launch range of AA-29A Alamo missiles for the MiG-10 is 25 km? The real capabilities of the MiG-29 to conduct air combat at medium distances turned out to be the biggest disappointment for me. ...

    If the MiG-29 and F-16C come face to face in aerial combat, their radars will be able to detect each other at comparable distances. F-16s armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM will be able to fire first at ranges more than double the maximum launch range for the MiG-29. One F-16 is capable of tracking multiple targets simultaneously. The MiG-29 radar does not provide such an opportunity.
    If more than one F-16 is involved in a battle, the MiG-29 pilot will not be able to determine which radar has captured him, and will only be able to act against one of the rivals.
    The F-16 pilot, already on the first pass, can launch AMRAAM missiles at several MiGs and accompany the missiles until their homing systems are activated.
    He can disrupt the grab and leave, or continue to approach to eye contact to deploy infrared-guided missiles and cannon. The MiG-29 pilot must get close to the enemy at a distance of about 24 km, from which he can use his medium-range missiles. The Alamo is a semi-active guided missile that must be escorted before hitting a target. In fact, by the time the MiG-29 gets close to the enemy at the Alamo launch range, there will be only a few seconds before it will meet with AMRAAM. The advantage is on the side of the F-16.
    1. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 12 October 2020 12: 10
      +4
      What if both pilots decide to fight in close combat? The F-16 should have an initial lead as it knows the exact altitude of the Fulcrum and has a target mark on the HUD in addition to its visual view. The MiG-29's engines smoke heavily, making it easier to spot. Another benefit of the F-16 is the 360 ​​° drop-shaped flashlight. The MiG's HUD does little to help the pilot locate the F-16, which is also small in size and has a smokeless engine. The pilot of the MiG-29 sits too low in the cockpit, and there is practically no visibility between 4 and 7 o'clock.
      The diagrams showing the comparison of the actual maneuvering characteristics of these aircraft are classified. However, experience shows that they have comparable initial turn rates. However, the MiG-29 suffers from a higher rate of speed loss due to the higher inductive resistance of the airframe when maneuvering with high G-forces. F-16 pilots flying against the MiG-29 confirm that the F-16 is capable of maintaining high g values ​​longer. As a result, the turning speed advantage translates into the positional advantage of the F-16.

      In addition, the F-16 is much easier to fly and more responsive at low speeds. The maximum roll speed of the MiG-29 is 160 ° per second. At low speed, it decreases to 20 ° per second. This, combined with the long stick travel, makes the Fulcrum very sluggish at low speeds. It is very difficult to maneuver to aim from a cannon at low speed on it. By comparison, the F-16's roll rate at low speeds is slightly over 80 degrees per second.
      Much has been written and theorized about the so-called "cobra" maneuver, which delights the audience at air shows. The MAPO argued that no Western fighter is capable of repeating it. ... Western pilots will be happy to provide the MiG-29 with the opportunity to lose speed itself while performing this maneuver. ...

      Another maneuver that was performed on the MiG-29 during its demonstration in the West is the so-called "tail slip". The nose of the aircraft rises to the vertical, while the speed of the aircraft decreases. Eventually the Fulcrum begins to slide down on the tail until the nose is lowered to a horizontal position and the aircraft continues to fly normally. The Soviets boasted that this maneuver demonstrates the reliability of the engines, since any western engine would surge with such a maneuver. The first maneuver I was shown during training on the F-15 was "tail slip". No engine surge was observed.
      The MiG-29 has its own strengths. The pilot can overpower the angle of attack limiter. This is especially useful when maneuvering vertically or in the last desperate attempt to reach an enemy or avoid hits. The helmet-mounted targeting system and the AA-11 Archer make the MiG-29 a deadly enemy in close combat. The AA-11 is much better than the American AIM-9M. Only by turning his head, the MiG pilot can direct the Archer to the target. The only limitation is that the pilot doesn't really know where the Archer head is currently pointing. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the missile has captured a target, or a heat trap, or some other hot spot in the background (note: AIM-9X, which is armed with F-15C, and since 2007 and F-16, is much better than AA-11).
      Using a combination of helmet-mounted guidance system and Archer missiles, the MiG-29 pilots enjoyed victories in most one-on-one training battles. In such a sterile environment, when the aircraft are within visual range from the very beginning, the MiG-29 has a great advantage. Not because it's more maneuverable than the F-16. The integration of weapons / sensors with a helmet-mounted guidance system and Archer makes it much easier for the MiG-29 pilot to use missiles in close combat. My only one-on-one air combat against a MiG-29 (on something other than the other MiG-29) was on an F-16 Block 52 against a German MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 had the advantage both in acceleration and in maneuvering, in any situation.
      The MiG-29 cannon is very accurate as long as the target does not try to evade. In the case of a maneuvering target, large adjustments are required to re-catch it. Given the inaccurate reaction of the aircraft to the pilot's actions, the task becomes more complicated. This is very important when using a cannon. Although the Fulcrum is equipped with a 30mm cannon, the muzzle velocity is the same as the 20mm F-16 cannon. The effective firing range of the MiG-29 cannon is actually less than that of the F-16, since the 20-mm shells have better aerodynamics and lose speed to a lesser extent.
      If the battle lasts long enough, the MiG-29 is at a disadvantage. He must quickly destroy the enemy or find a way to get out of the battle. The internal tank capacity of the MiG-29 is only 135 kg more than that of the F-16, and the two engines consume fuel very quickly. There are no fuel meters in the cockpit. Using a watch and a fuel level sensor, you can measure that at full afterburner the MiG-29 consumes fuel 3,5 - 4 times faster than the F-16. My shortest sortie on a MiG-29 was 16 minutes from releasing the brake to landing.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 12 October 2020 12: 14
        +6
        In multi-aircraft scenarios, such as a standard four-by-four training mission, the side with the best situational awareness takes precedence. In such missions, the F-15 and F-16 always outperform the MiG-29. In such conditions, they have practically no opportunity to use the potential of the combination of the helmet-mounted target designation system and the Archer. The design of the MiG-29 was the result of the Soviet take on tactical aviation and reflected the level of technology available to their aviation industry. It was assumed that the pilot did not require knowledge of the tactical situation. Guidance from the ground was considered the main control method. The pilot's job was to follow instructions. Even the data transmission system in the MiG-29 was not intended to increase the pilot's situational awareness. He simply received target parameters from the ground controller. If communication with the controller was interrupted, his ability to act autonomously was very limited. Western pilots have all the tools they need to make independent tactical decisions. The mission commander is the pilot. Everyone else can help him, but not command him. If an F-16 pilot loses contact with support assets such as the E-3 AWACS aircraft, he has all the assets needed to complete the mission autonomously.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 October 2020 13: 31
          0
          Very interesting. Mig 29 was delayed in development and modernization.
    2. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 12 October 2020 22: 52
      +2
      And what is all this multi-page quotation for? To be absolutely objective, we need to start with the fact that the MiG-29 appeared when there was still no F-16C, AIM-120 and a multipurpose attack with a view. Let's start with a comparative analysis with the F-16 of the early 80s, with the AIM-7, and one targeted attack! Everyone apparently forgot that the transition to missiles with an active radar seeker is not just a change of missiles, but essentially "revolutionary" changes, new radar and combat modes. And the above quotation is essentially an empty banality, proof that a modernized aircraft is better than an unmodernized one.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 13 October 2020 12: 27
        0
        Quote: Hexenmeister
        And what is all this multi-page quotation for?


        Roll speed at low speeds 20 deg sec and 60 deg sec doesn’t tell you anything?
        The loss of speed for a maneuver - as a student of aerodynamics, says a lot to me, these are the disadvantages of the integrated circuit of the airframe adopted on the MiG-29 (the formation of two turbulent ridges, to improve the lift, the disadvantage of which is the large inductive resistance of the airframe flow).

        The F-16 is also well observed (in this photo). But due to the smaller fuselage area, it allows you to maintain speed longer.

        Fuel consumption that determines battle tactics? What does he say?
        Can't read data?
        From this article, the expert will learn a lot about the aerodynamics and control at subsonic speeds of both fighters.

        Of course, the author of the description touched on tactical missile weapons and the article says that the MiG-35 has more advanced weapons, but you were not honored to read the translation or the original.
        If you do not understand the above quotation, do not demonstrate your ignorance.
        1. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 13 October 2020 13: 08
          -3
          I am indifferent to all this aerodynamics, from a certain moment it will not allow dodging an air-to-air missile, but in your lengthy quotations there is also a "section" of combat on medium-range missiles. And it makes no sense to compare the aircraft that underwent modernization in terms of combat use "under the 90s" with the aircraft "remaining in the 80s", the changes were too "revolutionary". Plus, the author of the cited opus himself has absolutely no knowledge of Soviet missiles of that period, well, they were not in the GDR, from where these MiG-29s actually appeared. Therefore, I was asked to compare for the beginning of the F-16A of the early 80s and the Mig-29 in the Soviet version!
          1. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. 13 October 2020 13: 34
            +1
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            I don't care about all this aerodynamics, from a certain moment it will not allow

            So I thought - a technical ignoramus signs his own illiteracy.
            1. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister 13 October 2020 13: 52
              0
              An ignoramus is more likely about you, they tell you about combat use, which is primarily associated with weapons and their control systems, and you talk about aerodynamics.
  • Crabong
    Crabong 12 October 2020 12: 51
    +2
    The F-16 is a great car. Everywhere: in the Middle East, Yugoslavia, in the Persian Gulf, let's say, the Western Air Force had an advantage in battle (small, big - not the point) not because of the best fighters and crews (which everyone likes to repeat), but because of -for the best radar for reconnaissance, combat control and electronic warfare. Massive use of Hawkai, Sentry, etc. ALWAYS put them in a winning position.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 12 October 2020 12: 58
    +1
    This was confirmed by data from other sources.
    Translation of the article Polskie MiG-29 vs polskie F-16
    https://war-tundra.livejournal.com/3660377.html
    MIG-29; not very experienced Polish pilots, who have been flying for 3 years on the former German MiG-29. Obviously, we did not want to simulate air combat with experienced pilots of Polish MiG-29s flying in another squadron, since that would be unfair to inexperienced pilots of Polish F-16s.
    Polish pilots operating F-16s for only a few months, and American instructors with a flying time of several thousand hours.


    There are also interesting tactics used by Polish pilots on the MiG-29

    Polish pilots learned to use the flaw of the MIG-29 (smoky tail behind the aircraft). During the battle, one of the pilots separated from his group and switched on the afterburner mode (meaning the afterburner was turned on), which caused a smoky trail behind the aircraft. After that, turning off the afterburning mode, it retired in a different direction. The F-16 pilots, including American instructors, were deceived several times. They were guided by the smoke trails and did not trust the radar readings. When the F-16 flew to this place, MiG-29s were setting in their tail from the direction of the sun.


    Maneuverable battle:

    The MiG-29 has a great advantage over the F-16 in maneuverable combat (dogfait) since it does not need to go into the tail of the enemy aircraft to launch missiles. It is enough that the enemy aircraft is 60 ° to the right or left of the aircraft axis. The F-16 can attack targets. In other words, an F-30 pilot in a maneuverable battle in order to attack an enemy aircraft needs to go right into its tail.

  • Beringovsky
    Beringovsky 12 October 2020 17: 18
    -3
    Well, Israeli figures should not be taken into account. These guys will lie inexpensively, I think.
    Personally, I don’t trust their data for a penny.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 12 October 2020 17: 49
    +4
    I would like to correct the author about the kroshev Arabian moments

    if you look at the moments and details, it turns out that almost ALWAYS the situation was the same - the Israeli side acted with a multiple numerical superiority, often with a pre-planned and pattern of the battle and even a planned expected enemy, was coordinated from the ground or AWACS aircraft and most often acted by luring the group ambushes.
    But their opponents did not see anything behind the golans, they did not see anything near the ground, they flew out on alarm very vaguely representing the situation, and, let's say, the atmosphere at the airfields was also not quite healthy.
    And they usually took off in pairs.
    So in such conditions it would be difficult even for super races to cope.
    This is me for the fact that it was not the training of pilots that became the main reason and not fully the aircraft (although new versions and the latest missiles did not arrive immediately)

    second moment about the practice of the plane

    the f-16 really fought mainly not as a fighter,
    but this does not negate the huge number of sorties with a whole range of missions.

    Well, the last

    The armament of the F-16 is being updated very quickly, unlike our Air Force.
    How old is the AIM120 rocket? it is even used by Pakistan in clashes with India.
    1. surfdude
      surfdude 12 October 2020 18: 10
      +3
      "often with a pre-planned and patterned battle and even a planned anticipated enemy"
      Interestingly, these were defensive wars for Israel.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 13 October 2020 02: 59
        +2
        and what did Israel defend in Egypt and Syria, where she constantly flew to bomb?
        Is the Golan the land of Israel?
    2. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 15 October 2020 10: 06
      0
      Quote: yehat2
      The Israeli side acted with a multiple numerical superiority, often with a pre-planned and patterned battle and even planned by the expected enemy, coordinated from the ground or AWACS aircraft, and most often acted by luring ambushes to the group.


      That is, Israel was preparing for hostilities and imposing its tactics on the enemy, the USSR Armed Forces were preparing for the last war ...
      Vorozheikin, in his book "The Sky of a Fighter", recalls that when he worked as an inspector after the war, for a long time there was an instruction during the exercises - to attack bombers with fighters in dense formation. This recommendation migrated into the instructions from the pre-war manuals on fighter tactics. Although Khalkhin Gol showed the fallacy of this technique.
      The result of post-war maneuvers to intercept Tu-2 nines in a dense formation of fighters, was always the same - the leaders and deputies - shooting perfectly (with a machine gun), the rest were unsatisfactory or performed (i.e., perhaps one or two hits on the wing, which did not lead to the defeat of the bomber).

      And this is the years 1947-1949, when the experience of the Second World War should have been revised and implemented.
      How much Vorozheikin fought with this instruction, who during the war years introduced an open pair system (flush along the front and at a distance of up to 100 m from each other, so that one could observe the air situation without the risk of collision).
      But you, Comrade Vorozheikin, - he switched to an official tone, - are not shooting as expected. Why?

      - I, - I say, - did not understand. Do you condemn my shooting technique or are you wondering why I worked out my cone approach maneuver?

      “Answer to the point,” Savitsky remarked dryly. - Why did you break the shooting rules?

      “The method of shooting has been approved a long time ago and is out of touch with combat reality,” I said resolutely. - It is necessary to bring shooting at a target as close as possible to shooting at an enemy aircraft. Many [157] pilots shoot in my way. It's time to legitimize it. Why do we use the methods of the twenties in cone shooting? Didn't the war teach us anything in this matter?

      The general wanted to say something harsh, but changed his mind, became alert, as if listening to something. Then, in thought, slowly, which was not his characteristic, he said:

      - Maybe you are right.


      and that's from the moment of post-war teachings
      I soon saw an impressive picture. Each nine Tu-2 was attacked by two squadrons of fighters. The air grew crowded. It was difficult for the pilots to maneuver, which made it difficult for them to aim well. But the power of the Yak-3 is in maneuver and fire. This nimble aircraft is well armed with a 20mm cannon and two large caliber machine guns. It was also bad that the two attacks continued for an unreasonably long time - over the course of 75 kilometers of the bombers' flight.

      The second group Tu-2 appeared five minutes after the first and was not attacked. The regiment, raised to intercept, passed the target in the blinding rays of the sun, and while it was turning around and catching up with the "enemy", he was already over the airfield. The third group of bombers managed to attack, but the attacks turned out to be protracted and ineffective.

      When I landed, the August sun, although setting below the horizon, was still hot. Both this heat and the red sky in the west reminded me of the hot summer of battles on the Kursk Bulge. We acted successfully there. Here, no one interfered with the fighters to beat the "enemy": he did not even have cover fighters. But the attacks were indecisive, and the results of the photographic shooting were unsatisfactory. Even the group leaders did not complete all the exercises. But the division accurately conducted the flight, as envisaged in the "Temporary instructions ..." prepared by us. I became more and more convinced that the technique of attacks in large groups in close formation was wrong, that a pair of fighters should become a tactical fire unit. It was necessary to resolutely break down the bureaucratic obstacles. Because of them, during the war years there were many unjustified losses.

      And this is only 2-3 years after the war!
      Paradoxically, colossal individual experience was accumulated by individual pilots, but it was not used to develop effective tactics - it was not generalized!
      The experience of the WWII aces was useless for the bulk of the post-war pilots - with the exception of a few individual aces. Cause?
      The methods were drawn up by the bureaucratic apparatus or by flightless generals - the same Savitsky was largely mistaken in the tactics of using fighter aircraft, despite the fact that he commanded a large fighter formation in WWII.
      Someone was a good pilot, but a bad tactician, someone was versed in tactics, but did not have combat experience, and therefore his tactics were indispensable for real combat clashes.

      By the way, DGSS Vorozheikin is almost the only one (well, Pokryshkin has something) who describes the tactics of building a fighter battle depending on the situation.

      The war in Korea did not take into account the tactics of building a battle of the Second World War - the maximum they used was primitive echeloning, which was not always in place. Air battles of the Korean War - according to tactics took place at the level of Khalkhin Gol - when groups of fighters scattered into an individual dog-fight with a tactical unit - a pair.
      Kozhedub as a pilot is an excellent fighter, but as a tactician - he did not show himself and the people who control the battle in the air - did not train. Hence the losses.
      Thank God, the Americans did not shine at all in any kind of control in battle, a tactical unit of more than one flight, and turned out to be a cut weaker than our home-grown air combat tacticians.
      Although we tried different variants of tactics - but also at the level of individual links, not groups.
    3. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 15 October 2020 10: 33
      0
      Quote: yehat2
      The Israeli side acted with a multiple numerical superiority, often with a pre-planned and patterned battle and even planned by the expected enemy, coordinated from the ground or AWACS aircraft, and most often acted by luring ambushes to the group.


      It is precisely in advance that they plan the operations and use the winning tactics.
      So they shot down a MiG-25 in 1981.
      This was the case in Operation Rimon-20, and so was the defeat of the Syrian air defense in the Bek Valley (Operation Artsav-19).
      In the same way, they are replaying the Syrian air defense now.
  • nonsense
    nonsense 13 October 2020 11: 38
    +1
    the author forgot one more small, but very important "feature" of the F-16 - it is carrier of nuclear weapons(bombs with nuclear warheads), but later ("modern") aircraft such as MiG-29 and Su-27 are NOT such. Feel the difference!
  • MKPU-115
    MKPU-115 13 October 2020 23: 56
    -2
    Conclusion: Israel does not have its own planes, they fly on American ones.
  • Alexey from Perm
    Alexey from Perm 14 October 2020 07: 18
    0
    I think the statistics could be even worse than with the Arabs, because in the 90s pilots did not study here at all, so 41 years could seem like a fairy tale.
  • Object.F7
    Object.F7 14 October 2020 15: 03
    -1
    In February 2019, in the Indo-Pakistani conflict, the second-generation fighter, the mig-21, was exchanged for the fourth-generation f-16 fighter ... With the theoretical paper advantage, the aim-120 somehow did not grow together in a real battle
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 October 2020 15: 32
    0
    Pakistani Air Force lost one F-16A aircraft shot down by an air defense missile system


    What SAM? The packs lost the F-16 during the next interception of the MiG-23, while everyone saw the fall, and no one knows what happened, the MiG pilots, of which only 2 were in cover, the rest were bombing, did not make applications. Either he shot down his wingman, or caught a bomb from MiGs, which had gone abruptly to the height before.

    One F-16 Pakistani Air Force was shot down


    According to the Indians. Where are the proofs?

    The F-16 in the US Air Force has long been a light bomber, and, in general, it is the T-34 among the fighters of the late 20th century, the most massive, and moderately poor against the background of thugs, like the F-15 and Su-27.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 15 October 2020 10: 18
    0
    Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
    That is, Israel was preparing for clashes and imposing its tactics on the enemy

    active deliveries from the United States went to Israel. Israel was not preparing - it was being prepared.
    When it comes to imposing tactics, it boils down to 3 points
    1. the participation of Soviet aviation was severely limited and limited - there were no rules in Israel.
    2. supplies were limited to a narrow range of machines. The Arabs did not have AWACS planes, high-level observation stations, a network of advanced observation posts. They fought half-blind.
    3. Relief. The Golan Heights provided a very convenient bonus for Israel to start air operations. The loss of this territory cost both our internationalists and the Arabs themselves dearly.
    And Israel did not impose any of this.
  • p164
    p164 15 October 2020 13: 15
    +1
    The author has a strange position.
    He himself wrote that real planes are fighting. So they are fighting.
    They beat up a lot of everything.
    And then he writes that they were stuffing old stuff under the control of some idiots.
    Guys, should we be proud that all our more or less allies are shit, and we armed them with old airplanes? And only poor students study in our military schools? I'm really proud !!!! But it is not clear why, in such cases, even Serbia crawled into NATO to ask? Is she really tired of living surrounded by enemies with a dozen outdated Soviet fighters in her arsenal? It's fun and romance. They do not appreciate anything !!!!
    And the coolest conclusion. Like a real war, this is not an indicator. The steepness of the plane must really (I repeat, really) be proved. What is it like? Stand up with all 140 million and chant: "Ole Ole Ole! We are cooler! Than everyone else!"
    No, I'm not saying that our technique is better or worse. I'm talking about the author's logic.
    By the way. If the F-16s collide with our modern aircraft. Will the author write something like what you lost because their planes are already outdated enough? And if they win, will he write that their aces have finished with the failing cadets from Borisoglebsk? And again you need to prove something using a different method? I doubt something.
    By the way. Insane means have been poured into the armament of our Arab allies. Were they so badly armed? Exactly one old thing? Did the author not embellish anything?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Lucy
    Lucy 16 October 2020 13: 08
    0
    Roman Skomorokhov is too lazy to read and compare the AN / APG-66 with the RLPK-29, if there is no admission to the tactics of the IA, in relation to the MiG-29 ser. 9-12?
  • Baba Sasha
    Baba Sasha 17 October 2020 11: 40
    0
    Russian sources cannot be trusted from the word at all.
    1. Baba Sasha
      Baba Sasha 17 October 2020 11: 43
      0
      Sohu named the number of F-16 victories in battles with Soviet and Russian-made aircraft - 65: 0. Sohu is not interested in the party. By the way, already 66: 0. The Armenian was shot down.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 17 October 2020 14: 01
    0
    "but ours are V. Ilyin and V. Markovsky." Storytellers. And the ancient ones.
    "According to V. Ilyin's research, Israel lost 6 F-16 aircraft in this war" - What's not 60? The F-16 is not a needle, the loss cannot be hidden, especially in so many years. Really - 0.
    "Pakistani Air Force lost one F-16A aircraft shot down by an air defense missile system" - what is this air defense system? What is this author about? There were no air defense systems in that area. The most likely reason was the "friendly fire" of the second F-16.
    "One Pakistan Air Force F-16 and one Indian MiG-21 was shot down." Where did the author see the downed Pakistani F-16? In the songs and dances of the Indian media? Well, let him continue to sing and dance.
    "On October 8, 1996, a Turkish F-2000D was shot down by a Greek Mirage 16 fighter" - and these are the songs and dances of Turkish politicians. You see, the Turkish pilot of the plane crashed while maneuvering against the Greek fighters after 16 (! Sixteen years!) "Remembered" that his plane was shot down! Considering that the surname of the second, deceased pilot was Erdogan, obviously someone "helped him remember."
    The list does not include the Greek Mirage F.1 that crashed into the sea on June 18, 1992 while maneuvering against a Turkish F-16 near the island of Agios Efstratios, the pilot Nikolaos Sialmas was killed.
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 25 October 2020 21: 10
    0
    The article is like in Zen. A bit of statistics and nothing. F-16 and F15 are the main enemies or rivals of our Su-27 and MiG-29 (and odious heaps of modifications) - here another talk about a bunch of different aircraft with one task, how to have three MBTs in service - a separate nightmare for the RF Armed Forces (in the world what idiocy did not take root). It is worth writing about the An-2, this is the most and so good.
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 27 October 2020 11: 52
    0
    "Our V. Ilyin and V. Markovsky, as persons completely uninterested in terms of numbers, seem to me the most trustworthy"

    - Is this a joke?
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 27 October 2020 11: 59
    0
    "There are also disadvantages. Due to the fact that the aircraft is light and the engine is one, the range is not brilliant and the payload is also very limited when compared to twin-engine fighters."

    What's this? It is necessary to compare it with single-engine ones. And take a closer look at the characteristics. There are very decent indicators. and for enlightenment it can be compared with the counterpart of the MiG-29, albeit with a twin-engine (it's no secret that it could be single-engine, if you had the same engine at hand in terms of performance characteristics as the F-16)
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 14 November 2020 19: 33
      0
      I love it when people don't even try to check the DOGMA.
      - firstly, such an engine was the R-35, and in the future, the Al-31. The performance characteristics are as follows - the R-35 is not boosted power 8550 kgf / 13000 kgf at afterburner. Serial engine. American Pratt Whitney F-100 7900 kgf / 12900 kgf, respectively. Was put on the F-16.
      - secondly, all 80s MiG-23s demonstrated higher operational reliability than MiG-29s with a pair of engines ..
      That is, the motor was. We needed a new 4th generation glider with all the bells and whistles.
  • Abel
    Abel 6 November 2020 12: 32
    0
    I read the arguments of the parties with great interest. However, doubts of a purely historical plan gnaw at me. Too much we broadcast about "unparalleled", "unique in the world", etc. Since I'm not an expert, I won't get into technical details, but I'll remember the story. In the 40s of the last century, we had the most lifting TB-3, the most maneuverable I-16, the highest MiG-1 and LaGG, the fastest and most jumping BT-7, the most protected T-35. As it turned out, all the records are sideways - the battle will show. And here the difficulties appeared. So it would be better to "call" less about the "best". The parade is not a fight. I served, I know: "the conditional enemy was conditionally killed."
  • C0BA
    C0BA 14 November 2020 12: 29
    0
    not a beautiful plane
  • TANKISTONE
    TANKISTONE 15 November 2020 17: 58
    0
    Roman Skomorokhov
    It should be noted right away that different real experts have a different approach, but our V. Ilyin and V. Markovsky, as persons completely uninterested in numbers, seem to me the most trustworthy.
    Ilyin Vladimir Evgenievich in a series of books on combat aircraft wrote about the victories of the "falcons", in addition to the listed reasons, also such factors as: support for AWACS and U aircraft + destruction of air defenses and oppressed airfields + the complexity of the landscape terrain of hostilities and the impact on the combat loss accounting rating interested parties. In my opinion, the single-engine IC aircraft is the best in its class, + electronics, + decent engines. It seems to me that our pilots not for nothing and not with bast shoes slurp soup: they teach to take into account the factor of confronting a strong enemy! (I hope and wish all those involved to train in a peaceful sky, only against a hypothetical enemy, despite the fact that we know the true one). And let the number of take-offs = the number of landings, and the ejection seat remains just a simulator! Health to all employees and your families!
  • true_rover
    true_rover 20 November 2020 20: 04
    0
    Particularly surprising is the downed subsonic Su-25, an attack aircraft for fighting any evil spirits at low altitudes and most likely did not even expect a "gift" in the form of a rocket from the F-16, moreover, it probably did not shoot down from close range, otherwise the battle that took place could repeat itself between the Iraqi Mi-24 and the Iranian Phantom
  • The comment was deleted.
  • k_ply
    k_ply 28 November 2020 17: 37
    0
    In short, judging by the meaning of the article, the main disadvantages of the F-16 are that the car is too often modernized and its pilots are too well trained.