sell aircraft with Aircraftbargains.com
aircraft for sale
sell aircraft
aircraft for sale

Advanced Search
New Listings
Forums
Dealer Login
Services
Contact
Home

corner

corner

LIST AIRCRAFT BY:

FORUMS:

ADVERTISING:

CONTACT:

SERVICES:


  AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

Welcome to Aviation Forum Sign in | Join | Help
Search  

Re: F-16XL and F/A-18E comparison

  •  12-02-2004, 1:28 PM

    Re: F-16XL and F/A-18E comparison

    >>"You would NEVER intentionally go into a target area with fairly empty tanks. The more fuel the better.  You can always drop external tanks if need be."<<

    I'm not going to get into a pissing contest, but you're just plain wrong about that.  Every fighter manufacturer has multiple design missions they have to meet, and one or more of them is always a mission with only half full tanks at take off and no aerial refueling (AR).  Fighting at less than max fuel is not only common and routine, it is often required by the parameters of the mission.  It is common practice to arrive at the target with just enough fuel to complete the mission, egress, and then rendezvous with a tanker, plus some reserves.  Navy fighters routinely have just enough fuel to get to the target, complete the mission, egress, and then go "feet wet" (plus some reserves) on the assumption that they can hit a tanker once back over water.  In any event fighters very seldom tank just before getting to the target area and NEVER tank to max fuel just before going into the target area.

    Beyond that, most external fuel tanks today are not "drop" tanks as used in WW2 fighters.  They are much more complex and not intended to be jettisonned in combat.

    In addition, if you are forced to drop your tanks not in accordance with your mission plan, you are not going to have enough fuel to get home and quite probably not enough fuel to find and hit a tanker.  The bottom line is that if you could get by without the fuel in those tanks, you wouldn't go in with that fuel to begin with.  It would just be a liability.  The concept of "the more fuel the better" is only applicable when loitering and sometimes (but often not) in a ferry situation.  No one is going to loiter in a defended target area.  Not even airliners full of passengers takeoff with max fuel if it is not required.

    >>"If you get to a merge (have to dogfight) ) you allready F***ed U*"<<

    My point exactly.  DACM is designed to AVOID a merge, get you to the target, and get you there with all your weapons.  DACM requires AGGRESSIVE flying with high bank angles, high AOA, and lots of loading and unloading.  My point was that aggressive manuevers are NOT reserved for dog fighting.  And further, you do not want to enter a defended target area with an aircraft anywhere near max weight, and in fact, you want to be as light as you possibly can be and still get your mission accomplished and survive.

    >>"Depending on your energy state you may also be put in a situation where you would have to get rid of you load during a ground fire situation"<<

    There are many reasons why you might dump your weapon load.  But in EVERY case, you've aborted your mission and your adversary has essentially won that specific engagement.  If he can "put you in that situation" with a Cessna and a flare gun, or a Sukhoi fighter, or with a SAM, he has won.  The fact remains, dumping your weapon load is strictly an option of LAST resort.  The whole mind set of "I can always drop my load" indicates very poor planning because that kind of planning means I am planning to lose.
View Complete Thread
Aircraft Wanted Engines and parts Avionics Employment Partnerships

Advanced Search
New Listings
Forums
Login
Services
Contact
Home



©Copyright 2004 Aircraftbargains All Rights Reserved
For more information feel free to Contact Us