Military Review

What can F-16 not do?

129



The United States Air Force prefers to use F-16 fighter jets whenever possible. F-16 is a good multi-purpose aircraft, but the main reason for its widespread use is its low operating cost. The flight hour of the F-16C costs the US Air Force $ 23'000. Other fighters are much more expensive: the flight hour of the F-22 will cost $ 68'000, F-15C $ 42'000, and F-15E $ 36'000.

The only aircraft that is cheaper to operate than the F-16C is the A-10C, whose flight hour costs $ 18'000. However, the A-10 is not a fighter and is optimized for ground support. F-16 can also be used for this, but not as efficiently. Hour flight of another ground support aircraft AC-130U will cost $ 46'000. That is why C-130 transport aircraft ($ 18'000 per hour) with special cargo containers equipped with sensors and armaments like the one on the AC-130 come to replace them.

F-16, like A-10, can also use smart bombs. Both aircraft are much cheaper to operate than bombers. B-52H cost $ 70'000 per hour, B-1B $ 58'000, and B-2 $ 169'000. The problem with bombers is that with smart bombs there is no longer a need for a large number of these bombs. Thus, the F-16 is capable of carrying a sufficient number of bombs (a dozen or more, depending on weight) for places such as Afghanistan. To attack, say, North Korea, the bombers will use their own bombs, at least during the first strike, when there are still enough targets to strike.

With suitable sensors, missiles and electronic weapons, as well as well-trained pilots, the F-16 can win almost any other fighter in the air. To combat low-profile fighter aircraft requires sensors that can detect them. However, subtle fighters are often also equipped with the best sensors and electronics. Thus, against the majority of enemies, the clever F-16 can do everything.
Originator:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20130421.aspx
129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 23 2013 07: 59 New
    17
    It would be interesting to know what the cost of one hour of flight of Russian aircraft costs?
    1. queen
      queen April 23 2013 08: 03 New
      +7
      Quote: VohaAhov
      But what does one hour of Russian aircraft cost?

      This is a business, nothing personal ... I think not cheaper (((
      1. Rider
        Rider April 23 2013 14: 17 New
        +2
        somewhere half as much.
        (I don’t know about the T-50)
        1. eagle11
          eagle11 April 23 2013 16: 02 New
          0
          The flight hour of Russian aircraft is definitely not cheaper, it’s just a different approach, many expenses are not taken into account (salary for all personnel of the base and support units + RTO, etc.). In the light of the work of "spectacular managers," we have an "hour" no less than that of our foreign comrades. And frankly, the MiG-31 flight hour is a lot.
        2. bereg
          bereg April 23 2013 17: 11 New
          0
          2500 bucks t 50 at first it seemed like they said, so somewhere 10000 or 12000, it was the year 2008 and now xs
    2. spanchbob
      spanchbob April 23 2013 20: 55 New
      -1
      The cost of the flight is also determined by the overhaul resource. At f 16 (and all amer-x), the engine resource is 2 times higher, and the airframe resource is 3-4 times higher than Soviet (Russian).
      1. Bongo
        Bongo April 24 2013 01: 33 New
        +5
        Resource glider in the F-16 and MiG-29, quite comparable. If you compare with the MiG-21, then it really is.
        1. spanchbob
          spanchbob April 24 2013 20: 36 New
          0
          This is what you think! I advise you to read.
    3. Retriever
      Retriever 3 May 2013 16: 38 New
      0
      And I would also like to know what it will do if it nevertheless fails our drying on distant approaches and they converge in close combat. Amer will eat up that our planes will be the first to notice and will shoot earlier. We will have nothing and long-range missiles, and our detection systems are in no way inferior to them.
  2. Bongo
    Bongo April 23 2013 08: 20 New
    18
    And how effectively can he withstand in air combat, for example, his closest competitor in the class of the MiG-29? With the same training pilots reasoned. It is no secret that in the "West" and in Israel, fly more.
    1. Russian
      Russian April 23 2013 09: 39 New
      +3
      In the 90s they flew more, in the early 2000s they flew more, I do not argue. But now the situation is straightening, so we fly about the same. And the skill of our pilots, as well as the quality of our aircraft was always at their best, so I think the answer to the question is clear)
      1. berimor
        berimor April 23 2013 13: 58 New
        12
        As for the skill of our pilots - this is a big question! I fought in 1970 - 1971 and 1973 in Egypt and Syria. So there, some time, our fighters showed themselves very, very poorly compared to the Israeli pilots (they acted in a stereotyped, ineffective manner, the flownness as a part of the group was weak, even the takeoff in pairs was poorly worked out, so there were accidents, at first they thought to throw their hats, but ... received), but the military operations of our S-125 air defense systems with our calculations deserve high marks. Today, by the way, there are fewer hours than in the seventies and not only in Ukraine but also in Russia! And training for what is needed in real harsh combat conditions is not provided. I had a lot of pretty tough clashes with the command about this, but there was an answer to everything: "Well, they will reproach me for simplifications in combat training, well, they will not punish me severely, but for emergencies, and even more so for disasters, they can take the least From here, from here simplified flight planning, from here and pilots' slackness, from here and the command’s inability to take the initiative and, say, apply tactical cunning in combat conditions.
        1. Argon
          Argon April 23 2013 21: 03 New
          +1
          Where else have you fought? And why are you talking about Egyptians and Syrians in the context of our pilots? Yours had accidents, and they themselves probably came from here and verbiage like that.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply April 23 2013 15: 53 New
        +1
        It’s one hundred hours now. In the West and in Israel - from 160 to 300
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus April 23 2013 10: 57 New
      +6
      Quote: Bongo
      And how efficiently can it withstand in air combat, for example, its closest competitor in the MiG-29 class?

      It depends on which F-16 and what kind of Mig-29. Both of them exist in a rather large number of modifications.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 23 2013 17: 13 New
        +1
        It makes sense to compare the modifications of the same time, or the latest modifications.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus April 24 2013 00: 18 New
          0
          Quote: patsantre
          It makes sense to compare the modifications of the same time, or the latest modifications.

          Yes, but from a practical point of view, IMHO needs to be compared as Tomket suggests.
      2. bazilio
        bazilio April 23 2013 18: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: Odyssey
        It depends on which F-16 and what kind of MiG-29.


        Also add here the characteristics of the missiles used and at least the radar.

        In close combat maneuvers, the MiG29 looks clearly better than the F16. It seems that at medium and long distances, the MiG will have an advantage due to its best flight characteristics and maneuverability, which increases the effectiveness of anti-ballistic maneuvers. But these are my guesses
        1. tomket
          tomket April 23 2013 19: 04 New
          +1
          I believe that the modifications that are most likely to meet each other should be compared, let's take our most battle-worthy regiments and look at their composition, what modifications are there, it is unlikely that the Americans will send f-16 from the national guard to the conflict zone, we have the possibility of meeting in a hypothetical conflict, for example, near Millerovo, on the border with Ukraine, MiG-29 of early modifications with Turkish or p ... m f-16 of the last blocks is not excluded, so you need to look what kind of modifications fly there.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus April 24 2013 00: 15 New
            +2
            Quote: tomket
            I believe that it is necessary to compare those modifications that are most likely to meet each other, let's take our most combat-ready regiments

            I agree, practically only this is important. But in this context, everything is rather sad. We have one combat-ready regiment on the Mig-29. These are SMT-shki in Kursk. Well, and 5-6 old-fit 9-12 old ones in Domna. That's all.
            The problem with the Mig-29 is that its development has been extremely slow due to well-known events in the late 80s, while the F-16 has been continuously modernized.
            1. eagle11
              eagle11 April 24 2013 01: 36 New
              +3
              9-12 have not been flying for a long time, in recent years (since 2009) they flew in the blast furnace 9-13 distant from Andreapol. Now everything is fun.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus April 24 2013 01: 43 New
                0
                Quote: eagle11
                9-12 have not been flying for a long time, in recent years (since 2009) they flew in the blast furnace 9-13 distant from Andreapol. Now everything is fun.

                OK, thanks. Is it after the September accident they no longer fly?
        2. patsantre
          patsantre April 24 2013 17: 14 New
          -1
          Quote: bazilio
          It seems that at medium and long distances, the MiG will have an advantage due to its best flight characteristics and maneuverability, which increases the effectiveness of anti-ballistic maneuvers. But these are my guesses


          Amers have much better radars and missiles. Yes, and dodging modern missiles is an extremely difficult task, maneuverability gives other advantages.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus April 25 2013 01: 42 New
            0
            Quote: patsantre
            Amers have much better radar and missiles

            EW tools crying
    3. silver_roman
      silver_roman April 23 2013 18: 51 New
      +5
      I don’t know about the F-16, but the F-18 blushed very strongly after the trainer battles against the MiG-29. MiGs remained on the other side of the Berlin wall and amers spets flown to Europe to "taste" the 29th ... in the end, they understood all the bitterness of truth for them!
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman April 23 2013 21: 56 New
        0
        kapets ... strange creatures. I write to you not from my head, but according to the facts, and you still minus .... no words ... like you have brains. one abomination!
  3. omsbon
    omsbon April 23 2013 08: 26 New
    19
    Is that a U.S. Air Force commercial? The address was not mistaken?
    And isn’t it that not one other aircraft can handle the F-16? I doubt it very much!
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko April 23 2013 08: 58 New
      14
      Quote: omsbon
      The address was not mistaken?

      Still, they were mistaken, so they stuffed all sorts of numbers with ZERO.
      Well and pearls of course: To combat stealth fighters requires sensors that can detect them.
      We are "Lyoha" all about AFAR and it turns out to be SENSORS. belay
      However, stealth fighters are often also equipped with the best sensors and electronics. So against most enemies fancy F-16 can do everything.
      And what now call the Fu-22 and Fu-35? wassat
    2. eagle11
      eagle11 April 23 2013 16: 10 New
      +6
      Yes, really ... This is where is the US Air Force? The photo shows Israel - Air Force Lockheed Martin F-16I Sufa.
  4. Vital 33
    Vital 33 April 23 2013 08: 34 New
    +9
    Did the student write an article?
    1. Canep
      Canep April 23 2013 08: 44 New
      17
      The professor translated the article.
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov April 23 2013 16: 59 New
        +5
        Reasonable remark laughing
  5. kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 April 23 2013 08: 44 New
    10
    American schoolboy apparently wrote, yeah and the professor translated laughing
  6. Canep
    Canep April 23 2013 08: 45 New
    +2
    And I wonder what kind of humps are on the sides of the cab
    1. Professor
      April 23 2013 08: 56 New
      14
      And I wonder what kind of humps are on the sides of the cab

      Conformal tanks.
      1. Hemi cuda
        Hemi cuda April 23 2013 08: 59 New
        +6
        Professor, the title of the article does not quite match the text and the information is not enough.
        1. Professor
          April 23 2013 09: 03 New
          14
          Professor, the title of the article does not quite match the text and the information is not enough.

          What is rich ... so it was in the original. IMHO, the main thing in the article is not about sensors and invisibility, but about how much it costs per hour of an airplane’s flight and how this affects the decision about which airplane to send to the mission.
          1. Hemi cuda
            Hemi cuda April 23 2013 09: 07 New
            +6
            This is the main info in the text.
          2. leon-iv
            leon-iv April 23 2013 10: 02 New
            +4
            By the way about the topic of the cost of flight hours. Recently there was a discussion about the use of civil piston aircraft in NAPs. For cheaper and the effect is the same.
            And here we get a bomb truck from a fast bird.
            1. eagle11
              eagle11 April 23 2013 16: 12 New
              +1
              In fact, this fast-moving bird F-16, in many countries the main attack aircraft (in the same USA)
          3. Papakiko
            Papakiko April 23 2013 10: 21 New
            +5
            Quote: Professor
            IMHO, the main thing in the article is not about sensors and invisibility, but about how much it costs per hour of an airplane’s flight and how this affects the decision about which airplane to send to the mission.

            MAY GAT.
            Herr Professor, I'm shocked.
            Tuffy yet, next time it will be better. Overcome the road going. winked (I didn’t even look at the beginning who the author is) repeat

            Do not forget our conversation about "Carrots", I hope to see material with photos and videos from the places of battles and production. winked
            1. Professor
              April 23 2013 10: 34 New
              +4
              Wipe your eyes and see who the author is, and there will be a carrot and a radish with cabbage. fellow
              1. Papakiko
                Papakiko April 23 2013 11: 37 New
                +5
                Quote: Professor
                Wipe your eyes and see who is the author

                Original source http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20130421.aspx
                Translation Professor
                What exactly in the eyes do I need to wipe, Herrrrrr Profssssssor?

                Quote: Hemi Cuda
                Professor, the title of the article does not quite match the text and the information is not enough.

                I saw this and after that, not believing my eyes, I raised the text and even more, looked into your "soul" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii I was even more surprised. You do not pay any places "write-write" good
                Quote: Professor
                and there will be a carrot and a radish with cabbage

                Waiting, waiting.
                1. Professor
                  April 23 2013 11: 52 New
                  +2
                  What exactly in the eyes do I need to wipe, Herrrrrr Profssssssor?

                  I didn’t even look at the beginning who the author is

                  Well, who is the author? Professor? wink

                  Waiting, waiting.

                  Now seriously, I won’t write about Merkava. hi
                  1. Papakiko
                    Papakiko April 23 2013 12: 58 New
                    +5
                    Quote: Professor
                    Now seriously, I won’t write about Merkava.

                    belay What immediately, categorically?
                    Personally, I am very interested in the enthralled clunker, to which many immigrants from the USSR put a lot of hands and heads.
                    1. Professor
                      April 23 2013 13: 49 New
                      +1
                      What immediately, categorically?

                      This is not grateful work. So, without reading a single line, you have already come to the conclusion that he is a "lauded clunker" and, moreover, to "to which many immigrants from the USSR put their hands and heads" and this was in the 1970s when immigrants from the USSR were piece goods, and those who were associated with the defense industry were generally refuseniks and could not even get to Israel theoretically. So thank you, what I know about Merkava will remain with me, including a photo from the second Lebanese. hi
                      1. ultra
                        ultra April 23 2013 15: 29 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Professor
                        what I know about Merkava will remain with me including a photo from the second Lebanese.

                        But in vain, I would like to see and read! hi
                      2. Gemar
                        Gemar April 23 2013 15: 30 New
                        +5
                        Quote: Professor
                        So fire

                        Right now, we ran away ... no
                        We require an article about Merkava! A photo from the second Lebanese is not as interesting as numbers and letters. yes
                        Quote: Professor
                        immigrants from the USSR were piece goods

                        People! Do not change Garni Lviv to faraway Tel Aviv! There they will consider you for the goods ... and no longer piece-wise - the times are not the same. wassat No offense, Professor, this is a joke! Okay? drinks
                        So we'll see an article or not?
                        PySy I suggest you, if you are translating an article, write at the very beginning, which, in the opinion of the author of this article ... etc. And not "F-16 is a successful multi-purpose aircraft" ... The fact that it is successful, I have no doubt! Otherwise, there would be hundreds of air crashes, dozens of pilots who did not want to fly on it, etc. Let the article not state the superiority of the F-16 over other aircraft of the same class, but for many this article is associated with the underestimation of domestic fighters. People simply forget that you do us honor and provide interesting data (such as the cost of a flight hour). Let me rarely agree with you (25%), but it’s hard to overestimate your work ... hi
                        Quote: http://www.strategypage.com
                        Thus, against most enemies, the fancy F-16 can do anything.

                        That's it ... Then the people will not even see that the article is a translation from another site! There are no minuses for you. And I am for the fact that you deservedly put the cons! Pluses too!
                      3. Professor
                        April 23 2013 15: 37 New
                        +1
                        So we'll see an article or not?

                        Not from my pen, I'm not a masochist. Until recently, the tank commander Merkava was working with me (though the two are true), so if there is a suitable topic and minor questions, then I can ask for the curious. And there will be no article from me.

                        That's it ... Then the people will not even see that the article is a translation from another site! There are no minuses for you. And I am for the fact that you deservedly put the cons! Pluses too!

                        I'm starting to get tired of repeating that I am not interested in the minuses and pluses - I have real, deserved epaulettes. soldier
                      4. ultra
                        ultra April 24 2013 14: 25 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        I'm starting to get tired of repeating that I am not interested in the minuses and pluses - I have real, deserved epaulettes.

                        good good good
                  2. Papakiko
                    Papakiko April 23 2013 17: 13 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    it was in the 1970s when immigrants from the USSR were piece goods, and those who were associated with the defense industry were generally refuseniks and could not even get to Israel theoretically.

                    This is you kind about "1-Carrot."
                    My zhzhzhzh excites and excites my interest in "4- and 3-Morkva."
                    To these purely concrete "necessary hands and heads" were added.
                    And of course, a "miracle factory" where they collect-produce "megatanketki".

                    Where do they do and how do Abrams and T-72 do we all saw video photos. Some are especially successful, they saw the whole process with their own eyes, and there are lucky people who do this modestly, with their own hands. With “Levopolds” and “Nags”, too, “apparently” was, only without a duplicate translation. But the "carrot" is "preserved" and you don’t have any information, but curiosity bursts, even the sub-most tonsils. winked
                2. Phantom Revolution
                  Phantom Revolution April 23 2013 20: 08 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Papakiko

                  belay What immediately, categorically?
                  Personally, I am very interested in the enthralled clunker, to which many immigrants from the USSR put a lot of hands and heads.

                  It will not prove) To be honest, it is suitable against the Palestinians, and even then not always.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply April 23 2013 15: 55 New
        -2
        On F-22 inaccurate infa. The numbers, as far as I know, are lower
      3. Gregazov
        Gregazov April 23 2013 19: 22 New
        +4
        One cannot but recall the winged words of Zhvanetsky. "How much is it worth burying? ... And if without a dead man?"
  7. hermes
    hermes April 27 2013 14: 40 New
    0
    This fighter is capable of anything
  8. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr April 28 2013 16: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    And I wonder what kind of humps are on the sides of the cab
    Conformal tanks.

    In my opinion, they should greatly change the maneuverability of the aircraft. Tanks stand in the zone of wing influx, where turbulences are formed that increase the stability of the aircraft (and lift) at large angles of attack.
  • vladimirZ
    vladimirZ April 23 2013 08: 55 New
    +2
    Who knows what the containers are attached to the articulation of the wing and fuselage of the F-16 and what are they for?
    1. Hemi cuda
      Hemi cuda April 23 2013 08: 57 New
      +2
      These are the tanks under the fuel)
    2. rero
      rero April 23 2013 09: 00 New
      +1
      CFT conform fuel tank. na f-16i (israel) est takie baki'ix mozno i ​​snimat pered vzliotom no ne sbrasivat v paliote.uvelichivaet dalnost paliota.naprimer f-16i s etimi bakami mozet deistvovat na dalnost 2300 km (primerno)
      1. Hemi cuda
        Hemi cuda April 23 2013 09: 14 New
        +2
        The driving range is like 4475 km, the combat radius of 1524 km is in the F-16E Block 60.
        1. rero
          rero April 23 2013 09: 25 New
          +2
          ia chital pro f-16i 2300 km s CTF izraelskovo praizvodstvo.'peregonnaia dalnost vishe kanechno.na f-16e staiat amerikanskie CTF
      2. Gemar
        Gemar April 23 2013 09: 27 New
        10
        Respected! Add a comment, write in Latin, if you wish. Only then press the [T] button (Convert selected text to Cyrillic).
        Thank you!
        I’m interested in how the EPR increases when using the "conform fuel tank" and how it affects the rate of climb and max. overload? It seems that in this configuration the aircraft will perform only strike functions in conditions of already suppressed air defense? Otherwise, with such “causals” no “sensors and electronics” will help to detect the “warrior” before the F-16 itself is detected.
        1. rero
          rero April 23 2013 09: 35 New
          +2
          vsia Philosopher CTP zakluchaetsia that he garazdo less then vliaet on aerodinamiku samaliota than hinged bins, with respect to f-he given a 16 atlichnii shock smaliot patamuchto ispozuet combination LANTIRAN systems and LITGHNING.PERVOE ETO sitemy KATORAIA PAZVALAET SAMALIOT LETAT very low Abigail RELIEF SURFACE OF A SYSTEM VTORAIA ABNARUSIAV OBJECTIVES ARE VERY FAR FROM SAMALIOT AND IMPLEMENTING ULTRA-PRECISION ARUESIA. PLUS IS DIFFERENT SYSTEM REB.F-16 AND VERY DIFFICULTLY ABNARUSE AND BEAT. IN MISSIONS OF VAZDUS ABARATI ANIETI
        2. Hemi cuda
          Hemi cuda April 23 2013 09: 40 New
          +6
          As far as I remember, with these tanks he has limitations on maneuver and overload.
          Conformal fuel tanks made of aluminum alloys are easily removable. After their dismantling, the F-16E / F Block 60 aircraft retains all the characteristics of F-16C / B Block 50 fighters in particular - the ability to maneuver with ninefold overload.
          1. rero
            rero April 23 2013 09: 46 New
            +1
            unconditionally, but on the other hand, it increases more than twofold the Bayevo radius of the samaliot in shock missions. In air defense paliots, they fly without CTF
            1. Gemar
              Gemar April 23 2013 10: 36 New
              +4
              Quote: rero
              but more than doubles the Bayevo radius of the samaliot in shock missions

              I wonder why Russian planes are not equipped with comfortable tanks? The thing is pretty useful! Still to come up with “folding” tanks, which after emptying could have less impact on the aerodynamics and EPR of the aircraft! what
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus April 23 2013 10: 55 New
                +4
                Quote: Gamar
                I wonder why Russian planes are not equipped with comfortable tanks?

                Come on, in fact, there was a conform on the MiG-15UTI))
                1. Gemar
                  Gemar April 23 2013 14: 52 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  in fact, there was a conform on the MiG-15UTI

                  This is already interesting. Now google ... winked
                  1. Professor
                    April 23 2013 15: 39 New
                    +3
                    Finally, the Germans were actively placing such tanks on their bombers, they were also under the wing on the Miga, but not as sophisticated as those of the F-16. On the other hand, the Mig-15 and F-16 are far from the same age.
                    1. Odysseus
                      Odysseus April 23 2013 16: 26 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Finally, the Germans were actively placing such tanks on their bombers

                      Yes, like the first were Germans. But I won’t say for sure.
                      1. Reserve buildbat
                        Reserve buildbat 31 May 2013 14: 57 New
                        +2
                        The Germans tested 300 conformal tanks on the Bf.109 and FW.190 fighters
                2. postman
                  postman April 24 2013 03: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  Come on, in fact, there was a conform on the MiG-15UTI))

                  Seriously?
                  CFTs-Conformable Fuel Tanks for F-16 Fighter were created by Lockheed in 1994. Initially, they were intended for installation on F-16 fighters, offered by the Israeli Air Force. The Israelis then preferred the Boeing (McDonell Douglas) F-15I Eagle (variant F-15E). Tank production was in demand only a few years later, when the United Arab Emirates Air Force needed a new attack aircraft capable of solving operational problems in the theater of operations, which, in turn, assumed a combat radius of about 1500 km.
                  After dismantling the aircraft F-16E / F Block 60 retains all the characteristics of type fighters F-16C / B Block 50 (in particular, the ability to maneuver with ninefold overload)
                  ========
                  Why they are called conformal-xs is essentially not true, these are overheads, and are unlikely to be related to the mapping of areas
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr April 28 2013 16: 22 New
                +1
                Quote: Gamar
                I wonder why Russian planes are not equipped with comfortable tanks?
                Why not complete? on the MiG-29 are used, only they are of a different form.

                This hump on the back is the tank
        3. Odysseus
          Odysseus April 23 2013 10: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: Gamar
          how the EPR increases when using the "conform fuel tank"

          It increases, but not very much. But still looking at what conformal, if like the F-15SE, it does not increase much.
          Quote: Gamar
          and how it affects climb and max. overload

          The stump is getting worse, but not critical.
    3. Pimply
      Pimply April 23 2013 15: 58 New
      -2
      Conformal tanks, can dramatically increase the distance at which the aircraft can operate. And - they can be reset.
      1. Professor
        April 23 2013 16: 02 New
        +1
        And - they can be reset.

        It seems to me you are mistaken. These are not cans.
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt April 23 2013 16: 10 New
          +3
          The US Air Force F-16 fighter dropped two bombs and two fuel tanks into the territory of Hill Air Base as a result of an emergency, the Associated Press reported. The incident occurred on October 22 in Utah.
          According to a Pentagon spokesman, after taking off from a base located 50 kilometers north of Salt Lake City, the plane had engine problems and the pilot had to make an emergency landing. The pilot decided to drop bombs and fuel tanks, each of which contained about 1135 liters of fuel, in order to reduce the weight of the aircraft.
          According to the local Fox13 channel (KSTU-TV), one of the dropped bombs fell into a booth located on the territory of the base and exploded. At the time of the explosion, there was no one inside. Thus, no one was injured in the incident: the emergency landing of the aircraft was also successful. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, as a result of the explosion, part of the air base was left without electricity.
          The publication also recalls that this is not the first incident at Hill Air Base; So, in December 2008, a fighter dropped two fuel tanks into the Great Salt Lake, as a result of which about 2000 liters of jet fuel fell into the water. A similar incident occurred last week: an emergency landing plane dropped tanks into Lake Champlain.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply April 23 2013 16: 14 New
          -1
          Confused. I thought that with the latest modifications this is possible. I re-read the article - and it said about the integrated use of them and cans
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus April 23 2013 16: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        Conformal tanks, can dramatically increase the distance at which the aircraft can operate. And - they can be reset.

        They increase, in general, a useful thing. But they are not dumped.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply April 23 2013 17: 25 New
          +1
          Yes, I read about mixed use in recent versions and incorrectly translated
      3. Papakiko
        Papakiko April 23 2013 18: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        And - they can be reset.

        laughing wassat laughing Laughed so laughed. good
        1. Pimply
          Pimply April 23 2013 18: 59 New
          +2
          AND? Not afraid to admit my mistakes.
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko April 23 2013 21: 06 New
            +1
            Quote: Pimply
            Not afraid to admit my mistakes.

            This is courageous and pattsansky! good
      4. postman
        postman April 24 2013 04: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        allow you to dramatically increase the distance at which the aircraft can act

        Same as with PTB.
        Quote: Pimply
        And - they can be reset.

        No. only dismantling on the ground
  • Fost325
    Fost325 April 23 2013 09: 34 New
    +8
    What can F-16 not do?

    After reading the article (I read it carefully) I still didn’t understand, WHAT CAN THE F-16 CAN DO? what
    1. rero
      rero April 23 2013 09: 39 New
      +8
      COFFEE BREWS FOR EXAMPLE: lol:
      1. Gemar
        Gemar April 23 2013 10: 29 New
        12
        Quote: rero
        COFFEE BREWS FOR EXAMPLE

        Why should he "cook"? If a long mission, with refueling in the air, you can pour coffee in one of the CTF tanks, cream in another ... and the pilot can drink a cappuccino the whole mission! wassat
  • Bashkaus
    Bashkaus April 23 2013 09: 47 New
    +8
    Well, if an American professor said that F16 is the best aircraft in the world and can defeat any other aircraft in aerial combat, then it is so.
    I am not opposed to the Americans thinking so, the main thing is that ours would really value their strength)))
    1. Gemar
      Gemar April 23 2013 10: 51 New
      +4
      Quote: Bashkaus
      american professor

      Maybe Israeli?
      Quote: Bashkaus
      can defeat any other aircraft in aerial combat

      Can! But this does not mean that “any other aircraft” cannot defeat the F-16 in a dogfight!
      Quote: Bashkaus
      I don’t mind that Americans think so

      I am generally opposed to the Americans thinking! wink Let them eat better ... They eat more - they think less!
      Quote: Bashkaus
      the main thing is that our people would really value their strength

      SUPPORT!
      But no one has canceled the advertisement! The car manufacturer always writes the consumption in mixed mode, because, to be honest, write only the consumption in the city, it turns out not so little! When buying a car, they always pay attention to this! And the honesty of the manufacturer / dealer is not at all welcome here! With military equipment a similar situation. Just like a technique, it’s sold (with the exception of Lightning II, there’s a complete divorce).
  • seller trucks
    seller trucks April 23 2013 10: 10 New
    +3
    Quote: Bongo
    And how efficiently can it withstand in air combat, for example, its closest competitor in the MiG-29 class? With the same training pilots reasonable. It's no secret that in the "West" and in Israel, fly more


    article here: http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/planes/compare/mig29-f16.htm

    As far as I understand, the talk about the MiG-29 (9-12А) is export, and the year of the article is 1998. 15 years have passed since then, but in any case, the opinion of the pros is interesting
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 23 2013 20: 58 New
      0
      In this article, the data on avionics and weapons for some reason are not relevant to the time. For example, the B-V R-77 missile is not used on the MiG-29, it was integrated only in the latest models of the type MiG-29SMT and MiG-35, and for the F-16 they indicated AIM-7 Sparrow, although F-16s already flew with AIM -120 AMRAAM. On the radar in general, laughter, for some reason, data from the ceiling were taken for the MiG-29, or from where, referring to the fact that “the radar system is difficult to evaluate, since the manufacturer almost does not publish the characteristics,” at the same time, the data on the AN / APG- radar 68 gave half undervalued. The pilot himself, who flew on both machines, did not give any concrete assessment; according to his impressions, it is difficult to draw any conclusions.
  • mogus
    mogus April 23 2013 10: 33 New
    +1
    only recently was an article about allegedly selling the SU-35 to China. And from the same resource "Strategy Page" ...
    1. mogus
      mogus April 23 2013 10: 41 New
      +3
      I asked and Yandex answered me what kind of "Strategy Page" this is. There are translations on InoSmi http://www.inosmi.ru/Strategy_Page/
  • T-130
    T-130 April 23 2013 10: 44 New
    +3
    Here's another opinion of the pilot flying on both machines http://warcyb.org.ru/news/mig_29_protiv_f_16/2012-01-05-412
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak April 23 2013 11: 01 New
    11
    Thus, the F-16 is capable of carrying enough bombs (a dozen or more, depending on weight) for places like Afghanistan.

    Come on?! Xnumx smart bombs ?? And even more? And where will he hang them? Or a couple in the cockpit still give the pilot?
    The article is right in the best American PR traditions. Half of the article lies, pi..zh and provocation on holivar.
    About the plane itself. In essence, only the cost of a flight hour justifies its use wherever it falls. But what the Americans did from a slender, even beautiful, light fighter ... Frankenstein is resting. It turned out some, whose performance characteristics fell sharply, despite the conformal tanks. And without them, F-16, without PTB, you rarely see. About the sensors, too, yes ... pearl on + 5.
    Thus, against most enemies, the fancy F-16 can do anything.

    Yeah, yep ... fresh tradition ...
    1. Professor
      April 23 2013 12: 18 New
      +3
      Come on?! Xnumx smart bombs ?? And even more? And where will he hang them? Or a couple in the cockpit still give the pilot?

      Here they are getting enough sleep from a pilot’s pocket. laughing
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 23 2013 12: 30 New
        +5
        Professor, these are ordinary OFs (it seems like our hundred parts). They are not smart, their adjustment after a reset is impossible.
        1. Professor
          April 23 2013 12: 31 New
          +7
          I know, I'm demonstrating that there is enough room for a dozen smart bombs.

          PS
          There is a kit with which in an hour these bombs become smart.

          1. Perch_xnumx
            Perch_xnumx April 23 2013 17: 09 New
            +2
            PS
            There is a kit with which in an hour these bombs become smart.
            The smart ones are the jam-ladies, and if the blizzard races through the FFS, they will fly by the inertial system, or the system is not smart enough.
            1. Professor
              April 23 2013 20: 43 New
              +2
              The smart ones are the jam-ladies, and if the blizzard races through the FFS, they will fly by the inertial system, or the system is not smart enough.

              Well, if only a blizzard. laughing It is hard to imagine how in reality the navigation satellites are demolished. In general, they have a laser guidance head, and the representatives of the "only democracy in the Middle East" also put the GOS which puts a picture of the area from the camera with the one in memory. So not single satellites ...
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 23 2013 17: 48 New
            +3
            Nuuu ..... smart with a stretch. Indeed, this system allows to increase the accuracy of the hit. Here, the Americans are great, they came up with a good gadget. But to really smart bombs (laser, television guidance), which fall into a square meter per meter from a height of 7-8 km, these surrogates can not be reached.
            And another question then: they are induced by GPS, what kind of correction is going on? From an airplane? Or are there enough brains?
            1. Windbreak
              Windbreak April 23 2013 18: 34 New
              0
              So these are the laser-guided bombs Laser JDAM GBU-54
              Quote: Wedmak
              which fall into square meter per meter
              At domestic bombs KVO 4-7 meters
              1. Windbreak
                Windbreak April 23 2013 23: 18 New
                0
                http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/685/799/
            2. Nayhas
              Nayhas April 23 2013 20: 29 New
              +4
              At the rear of the bomb is a block with equipment and rudders, so he thinks. And they have a KVO of less than 10 m., LJDAM has semi-active laser guidance, it is also accurate, moreover, it’s confirmed that the target is moving at a speed of 110 km / h.
              Of course, you're not right about the stretch, this is SMART weapon. There are no domestic analogues; our KAB-500s fly only 9km. (When dropping from a height of 14 km., JDAM flies 28 km.), And they have no more accurate KVO. Especially at KAB-500K which according to TTZ prescribed KVO 3-4m., But on tests it is better 7-10m. it didn’t work, therefore, for the sake of the manufacturer, the TTZ was changed for the results obtained. The analogue of the KAB-500 are the Paveway II rather ancient UAB.
      2. Mista_dj
        Mista_dj April 24 2013 16: 40 New
        +1
        It’s they on the contrary - they are flying on a plane!
        ;)
  • Perch_xnumx
    Perch_xnumx April 23 2013 12: 20 New
    +5
    What can F-16 not do?
    Go unnoticed. It’s clear that if you put the most advanced radar, OLS on the Su-27, or instantly 29, equip it with the most advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, then experience may not help, and stealth technology. All this rhetoric is good for bombing unarmed natives. The sense of the army needs an inexpensive workhorse for every day, if it is stuffed with the most modern equipment, the efficiency will increase significantly.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 April 23 2013 13: 20 New
    +4
    What can the Su-35. It’s in vain that heavy fighters do.
  • Rider
    Rider April 23 2013 14: 30 New
    +4
    well done prof!
    keep it up.


    yes here about who flies how much.
    According to internal documents at the disposal of the Air Force Times, from April 9, 2013, the US Air Force will begin to withdraw advanced combat units to the reserve, due to cuts and the need to adapt to budget cuts.


    a list of whom and how much are going to land is attached.

    taken:http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/179112-voenno-vozdushnyh-sil-ssha-kakimi
    -my-ih-znaem-bolshe-ne-suschestvuet.html
    1. Rider
      Rider April 23 2013 16: 08 New
      +5
      purely pounded

      why did they slam me minus?
      the yankees have denyuzhki ending and am I to blame?
      probably minus those whom these flightless squadrons were supposed to protect.

      THIS IS A MASSON CONSCIOUSNESS! am
      (I fight in a fit with my head on the keyboard - I crawl under the table) wassat
  • Ak 12
    Ak 12 April 23 2013 14: 33 New
    +5
    Yes F 16 is a good plane but not perfect
  • Watchman
    Watchman April 23 2013 14: 41 New
    0
    F-16 can fight with the banana republics in the proving ground, but nothing more.
  • Denzel13
    Denzel13 April 23 2013 15: 33 New
    +3
    Quote: omsbon
    Is that a U.S. Air Force commercial? The address was not mistaken?

    This is the "creation" of the "professor." Study the history of his publications - you will understand where the wind blows. Although, if we discard the reverence of the aforementioned "translator" and the authors of the articles in the direction of our sworn "friends", that is, in these "opuses" there is information that should be analyzed and conclusions drawn.
    1. Denzel13
      Denzel13 April 23 2013 16: 00 New
      +1
      Oh, the "professor" reacted! Bored without criticism?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply April 23 2013 16: 15 New
        -1
        This is not a professor. I put this minus. For the stupidity of the comment, excuse me.
        1. Denzel13
          Denzel13 April 23 2013 19: 36 New
          +4
          Eugene, reciprocate. "Stupidity" - as you put it, the subjective concept, apparently dictated by the closeness of your views with the "professor". However, not all of them share. Therefore, there are absolutely the same reasons to consider your comment even more stupid, excuse me.
    2. igor67
      igor67 April 23 2013 16: 17 New
      -1
      Quote: Denzel13
      Quote: omsbon
      Is that a U.S. Air Force commercial? The address was not mistaken?

      This is the "creation" of the "professor." Study the history of his publications - you will understand where the wind blows. Although, if we discard the reverence of the aforementioned "translator" and the authors of the articles in the direction of our sworn "friends", that is, in these "opuses" there is information that should be analyzed and conclusions drawn.


      I looked through your profile, only two articles, and how many professor translations? The website already has 80 percent geopolitical articles, it’s more interesting to learn about military equipment, even world technology, than to “fight” in geopolitics. Do you have any complaints about the technical side of the aircraft?
      1. Denzel13
        Denzel13 April 23 2013 19: 46 New
        +2
        Igor, if you suddenly didn’t quite understand the situation, then take a closer look at my comment. If you understand, then there is absolutely no negative attitude to the articles translated by this person. On the contrary, from my point of view, it is very important to understand how all parties relate to certain events (or, as in this case, technology), especially opponents.
  • USNik
    USNik April 23 2013 16: 38 New
    +2
    In fact, the article is informative. But without comparative data on other NATO and Russian planes, it is of little use. Although, it would probably be more logical to compare different cars by the hours of after-flight service. (Subscriber Knowing, please decipher that suspended under F-16 in the main picture, I recognized only 2PTB and like LANTIRN with an EW container).
  • lazy
    lazy April 23 2013 16: 56 New
    +4
    I’m not a supporter of universality anywhere, neither in technology nor in people "a person who considers himself an expert in everything doesn’t understand anything at all" This is to say that the cost of an hour of flying makes sense with absolute dominance in the air and the absence of air defense. And when he encounters a serious enemy, he is hung up with strike weapons from the interceptors, then from the air defense system, from low altitudes on the ground, he is also fraught with work, a random bullet from a child's karamultuk can turn him into trash. if we talk about amers, it’s better to let the f-15 conquer the air (if possible), and the a-10 work on the ground. Although it will come down cheaply and angrily against the Papuans
  • lazy
    lazy April 23 2013 17: 00 New
    +4
    and not much more comparison of Mig-29 and F-16 "SUMMARY
    Both aircraft are rated as excellent fighters and pilots are happy to fly them. They are a highly complex weapons system, which is something more than the sum of its components and therefore it is useless to emphasize individual advantages.
    It is necessary to consider the components of the aircraft weapons system in the complex. MiG-29 even in training close air combat proved superior to the F-16.
    Both cars have their advantages and disadvantages. When using air-to-air weapons at close range, the MiG-29 is probably the best machine, at an average distance both fighters depend on the quality of the missiles on the plane.
    Like the MiG-29 and the F-16 are outstanding aircraft for air combat, which can optimally perform their tasks. The differences between them are not so great that they could not be compensated by good pilots. Probably the decisive factor for victory is again what kind of training the pilot has.
    If you ask the personal opinion of the author, the MiG-29 is slightly superior to the F-16. But, as already mentioned, this is a personal opinion with which one can argue wonderfully. "From here http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/planes/compare/mig29-f16.htm
    1. Pimply
      Pimply April 23 2013 17: 26 New
      -1
      Pilot training, technical support, the presence of aircraft BRONO
    2. tomket
      tomket April 23 2013 19: 34 New
      +6
      I’m at least for a kill, I don’t understand one thing, why hang bombs on a light fighter, and then be proud of it ???? we seem to have specialized planes doing this, and giving out a need (lack of special planes) for the benefit is excuse me ..... is it possible for the Israelis to spread rot against the Arabs only with the help of f-16, well done, why do we need to go this way? ?????
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman April 23 2013 18: 48 New
    +5
    I'm sure that they can plow a field, but how reasonable is this ??? it can withstand many aircraft, but unfortunately for B-16 does not mean to win. So the article is button accordion and flood!
  • Aeneas
    Aeneas April 23 2013 19: 08 New
    +1
    F-16 was with the Pakistanis during Afghanistan. And they shot down Soviet and Afghan planes in the border zone, the same Rutskoi was shot down by F-16. It is not entirely clear why ours did not have the MiG-29 there. This was a real chance to test the combat capabilities of both fighters in a real battle.
    1. tomket
      tomket April 23 2013 19: 30 New
      +2
      in general, there 23 and mld would have been perfectly handled, or perhaps cut off one, in any case, the story of the downed f-16 is still not clear, the scandal did not want an international one and they did not cut f-16.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman April 24 2013 00: 38 New
        0
        I completely agree. The "American pie" of Amer’s arms exports is extremely large and they don’t want to tear parts from it. Therefore, all the information that their HS weapons are carefully hidden.
        By the way, there was a very significant moment in history when Egypt, on the one hand, and Syria, on the other, pressed Israel. The first two had Soviet weapons, and the Jews had Amer weapons. and even when it was possible just to crush the Israelis, suddenly the Egyptian army stupidly took a position and stopped attacking. The Syrians tried something else and merged. So there are rumors and there are even some facts that just the Egyptian leader (I do not remember exactly who was at the helm then) got a call from Washington. It seems that Kessniger was still there and said something like this: "if our weapon loses to the Russian, then it will be bad for you!" like that, gentlemen. Our Western friends and money love the cunning!
        1. Professor
          April 24 2013 07: 37 New
          +2
          and even when it was possible just to crush the Israelis, suddenly the Egyptian army stupidly took a position and stopped attacking.

          What kind of grass do you smoke? I will not even refute these hallucinations. fool

          It seems that Kessniger was still there and said something like this: "if our weapon loses to the Russian, then it will be bad for you!" like that, gentlemen.

          Or maybe it was a janitor, he walked through the countryside to the nearest hazel for a new broom ??? wassat
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman April 24 2013 15: 54 New
            -1
            You won’t become a thing of itself. brains are needed to refute.
            I am based on the dock. film (I don’t remember the name exactly). by itself, its reliability can also be called into question, as, in principle, is everything else. For example, that you are an adequate person! Sooo big doubts! You just have to hope that I'm wrong about you.

            and you know, trolls do not like here.
            1. Professor
              April 24 2013 16: 01 New
              +1
              I don’t remember the name exactly

              "I don’t remember," "I don’t know," and further down the list. I was expecting such an answer.

              For example, that you are an adequate person!

              A typical trick of those who have nothing to say is to switch to a person and call them a troll.
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman April 25 2013 00: 12 New
                -2
                hmm ... funny you dude. fool
                the most interesting thing is that apparently you're really bored .. oh well. thank god there is a black list from such "parasites". I'll wait another day for you to read it and then I will bring you into it.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 April 23 2013 19: 10 New
    0

    this is what the video is.
  • tomket
    tomket April 23 2013 19: 14 New
    +3
    In general, to some extent the article is true, f-16 gained popularity precisely because of its cheapness. In the first war in the Gulf, it turned out to be one of the lowest-performing coalition aircraft by the criterion of the number of sorties-destroyed flights. Then f-111 and f -15 in air battles, he also did not show himself particularly, although he was better than f-14, but did not reach the "star of the bay" f-15, in battles over the Bekaa valley, they again are inclined to favor the fact that most victories were won by f- 15, and part of their victories "crossed" f-16. In the 2000x, launches into the “milk” on the MiG-25 were marked by amraam missiles, although in 92m they still got one. In general, one should beware before singing odes to the now-flabby and flabby f-16.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 April 23 2013 19: 28 New
    0
    here is a video what
    1. Alex Nick
      Alex Nick April 23 2013 21: 00 New
      0
      Funny video. But here it does not go, there are other sources
  • gameover65
    gameover65 April 23 2013 19: 50 New
    +3
    judge military aircraft by the cost of an hour of flight belay lol
    oh managers, you are such managers! God forbid we begin to think so.
  • SPACE
    SPACE April 23 2013 19: 51 New
    +2
    Looks like problems in the American kingdom: debts, Afghan, Iraq got them, and then f-22 is expensive and f-35 to the heap, she doesn’t want to fly ... here’s the same article ..., in general, a hint that they are f-16, have yet to fly. Good thing, long life.
  • spanchbob
    spanchbob April 23 2013 20: 50 New
    0
    Quote: bazilio
    Quote: Odyssey
    It depends on which F-16 and what kind of MiG-29.


    Also add here the characteristics of the missiles used and at least the radar.

    In close combat maneuvers, the MiG29 looks clearly better than the F16. It seems that at medium and long distances, the MiG will have an advantage due to its best flight characteristics and maneuverability, which increases the effectiveness of anti-ballistic maneuvers. But these are my guesses

    I wonder where you saw them in melee? Well, in long-range combat the main role is played by the radar, not maneuverability. And f16 radar detects a target at 310 km.
    1. tomket
      tomket April 23 2013 20: 59 New
      +1
      nakoy then AWACS with such a detection range?))))))))
      1. spanchbob
        spanchbob April 23 2013 21: 49 New
        0
        Aircraft AWACS E-3 Sentry - detection range up to 600 km
    2. screw cutter
      screw cutter April 23 2013 23: 44 New
      0
      Well, 310 you bent, let's say 150, this time, the second tough armament at Mig is abruptly due to two engines, well, reliability for the same reason.
      1. tomket
        tomket April 23 2013 23: 57 New
        0
        Yes, 150 will be too much, I think that about 90, the maximum of 100, this was actually confirmed by the launches of Amraam, which did not fly further than 70.
      2. spanchbob
        spanchbob April 24 2013 20: 34 New
        +1
        I admit-exaggerated! AN / APG-68 - 280rv, and AN / APG-79 10% more - it turns out 308km. 2 km lied. The latest AN / APG-80 - about 400 km.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus April 25 2013 01: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: spanchbob
          I admit-exaggerated! AN / APG-68 - 280rv, and AN / APG-79 10% more - it turns out 308km. Lied for 2 km; the latest AN / APG-80 - about 400 km

          It is in ideal conditions. And AN / APG-79 is not related to the F-16.
          And so, of course, AN / APG-68 of the latest series is an excellent locator.
  • aviamed90
    aviamed90 April 23 2013 21: 05 New
    +2
    The article is bullshit!
    And why it is visible from the article itself.
  • super-vitek
    super-vitek April 23 2013 21: 32 New
    0
    A good car. Not more. Our 29th is not inferior to anything, but in many ways superior !!! And most importantly, it is fortitude! And with us it is GLORY TO GOD, WILL BE MUCH MORE !!!
    1. stranik72
      stranik72 April 23 2013 22: 50 New
      +1
      How can you show fortitude at a distance of 100 km without seeing the enemy and not knowing that you are in his sight, now fortitude plays a role in hand-to-hand combat, and in a high-tech war. more often the winner is the one who owns these technologies and who has them cooler. And according to the meaning of the article, the cost of an hour of flight is quite certain and the higher it is, the less oil people will get for a sandwich. The Russian Air Force therefore often buys planes and helicopters from its military-industrial complex for its options (capabilities) lower than for example we sell to India, this is the weight of this criterion of “flight hour cost”. Socialism, with its “defense, do not mind”, ended, and the new economic conditions do not allow the MiG-29 aircraft (for example) of the most modern models and in the right amount to be included in the Russian Air Force. Glory to EDR and putmedam. So June 41 for our today's Air Force is not excluded, in which case.
  • Ratibor12
    Ratibor12 April 24 2013 00: 01 New
    -1
    The beginning of the article “What the F-16 cannot do?”, The end of the article - “... the F-16 can do everything.”
    Is that all? And to play the harmonica? Or fly tail first? And shoot from a slingshot and work on tequila?
    Became interesting. Who wrote? request Troll or du.rak? I looked at the "source", looked at the "translator". Yeah! fellow Well now it’s clear: he wrote du.rak, and translated the troll. yes
  • Seraph
    Seraph April 24 2013 08: 47 New
    -1
    Rarely, but aptly ... beats past our favorite site. What is this and about what?
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 April 24 2013 13: 45 New
    0
    A-10C, which is a “warthog,” now works better both cost-effectively and on ground targets. F-16 involves air combat, i.e. war with an aviation power. So they are afraid of us.
  • Airmax
    Airmax 11 March 2014 23: 58 New
    +1
    F-16 A great aircraft for aerial combat, which will allow anyone to smell gunpowder !!! And as a drummer as a result of many years of "transformation" it turned out to be a very, very successful and versatile combat system. Ageless masterpiece !!!