Can F-16 do this? I don't think so :D

That's the thing... if you are in a war (not just fighting a war outside your own country) and have enemy attacking your bases and runways I don't think people would be in position to clean every little piece of dirt of the runways which is why russian military hardware is better suited in these conditions... at least that's how I see it :)

MiG-29 can operate on airbase in the front line... F-16 can't as it need a "clean" operating take off and landing surface... which makes the MiG-29 a real war machine :D same as P-40 during WWII :D (did I mention I loved flying the P-40 in IL-2? ;) that thing's got right "character")

That's another story MoGas. It brings up what I wrote in my last phrase- it's all about personnel's attitude toward the aircraft. What makes you think that russian a/c don't suffer FODs or weathering operating from off-road runways and stored outside hangars like those 31's? But don't get me wrong- I have experience both with russian and US-built a/c and I confirm from personal experience that russian hardware is more durable and forgiving in many aspects. However, I disrespect the imposed attitude that russian a/c can be thrown away for years and then brought back in service just like that- it ain't gonna happen. All comes to one thing- how long you plan to operate given aircraft. Russian a/c have much shorter service life while from decades the US are constantly making researches of how to extend it. Just take a look at the AMARC, it's the best example out there- there you could see everything from WWII prop plane up to latest block F-16 and F-15- preserved and stored for the future. Some of these planes are scrapped, others serve as spair parts source, and some are bought back to service. That's something I highly respect, the richest country in the world takes into account every single bolt and nut. I read somewhere that the AMARC saves about 800 million $ of the military budget every year by means of spair parts and reserve planes... A number that every country should aim for...

:clown_2:

Basing the aircraft's ability on whether or not it can take off from frozen runway?:megalol:

Well I didn`t say that the russian a/c getting no FODs or wheathering from store outside off the hangar! And I agree with you, you can`t put

MiG`s or SU`s for years in the desert or sibirian landscape and firing up the engine and were make a flight to Moscow and back that`s clear!!

What I was posting on my first post was just the point that F-16`s can`t

operate on this bases like russian planes! thats it

:joystick:

Well I didn`t say that the russian a/c getting no FODs or wheathering from store outside off the hangar! And I agree with you, you can`t put

MiG`s or SU`s for years in the desert or sibirian landscape and firing up the engine and were make a flight to Moscow and back that`s clear!!

 

What I was posting on my first post was just the point that F-16`s can`t

operate on this bases like russian planes! thats it

 

:joystick:

. . . . but F-16s don't have to operate under those conditions, so why design that into them?

I'm intrigued by the photos of the chaps on rollerblades defodding things.

Do the blades get a military designation? :D

My favourite rough-strip aircraft is the Jaguar. I've seen a clip somewhere of one taking off from the grass along the side of the runway . . . . !

Winter is coming :D

 

 

Regarding real war planes. The toughest test is the battle field. You may make fun of the F-16 as you want, but 65-0 kill ratio and the mission to wipe the Iraqui reactor are nothing to laugh about.

The raid on the reactor was probably the toughest combat test ever made on any jet in difficult enviroment and at extreme range. Conditions wich would cause all other types of its class to drop out of the sky in the attempt. At the time there was no 8 ton fighter capable of duplicating that type of attack. A Mig-29 would flamout over saudi arabia, and it wouldnt be able set up an attack to drop its bombs in a blink of an eye after a zoom climb.

Also lets not forget how much of these airsrip rugged fighters last compared to the "spoiled" F-16. 400 Engine life hours versus 5000 speaks alot louder than some migs staked in snow. At least untill these get similar kill ratios. Some of the falcon airframes flying today are over 20 or 30 years old. As for the "FOD walkers", most of those made at that time have long been put to pasture.

On another note, Europe/USA And eastern countries have always had a different aproach to aeronavigability of their airframes. You can see that in the way aircraft are maintained at airbases, aircraft design and maintenance practices. You may like seeing a mig sitting on the tarmac with grass growing tall but you wont be able to tell what is best for their preservation after you take in account the maintenace advantages versus the accumulated damage over time in each of the aircraft.

Russian aircraft are cheaper. PErhaps loosing some to FOD or rust is not just as damaging in terms of fleet maintenance because you can buy more of them, but then F-16's are cared for more carefuly because loosing all those expensive electronics to FOD or rust hits you back harder on fleet maintenance. OF course then, what these planes carry inside them also affect combat employment differently.

PS Im not saying this to start a pi$$ing contest. But someone had to establish an equilibrium arround here. :D

Well I guess no F-16 can operate from a classic Russian AB (broken runway, missing parts on the runway, grass and little trees) :D!!

You forgot a lot of bears, he-he. :D

You forgot a lot of bears, he-he. :D

thats right:D

You may make fun of the F-16 as you want, but 65-0 kill ratio and the mission to wipe the Iraqui reactor are nothing to laugh about.

LOL... it's like saying you are teh greatest kung fu fighter as you and your gang had beaten up 65 kids.

The moral of this story is, that you should use numbers in right context if you want to be taken seriously.

LOL... it's like saying you are teh greatest kung fu fighter as you and your gang had beaten up 65 kids.

 

The moral of this story is, that you should use numbers in right context if you want to be taken seriously.

Well, now, lets hear from you what context that is. I Just hope you remenber to mention all of the major occasions, not just those that are convenient from that point of view.

Name one other long range mission taken by other light fighters with the same or higher level of difficulty.

Im waiting. :)

Well, now, lets hear from you what context that is.

Operation ALLIED FORCE Kosovo Order of Battle

Also an example that you simply can't not-maintain any aircraft and expect it to be combat operational.

Ten (10) F-16’s for every MiG-29A in NATO military intervention over Yugoslavia.

 

Operation ALLIED FORCE Kosovo Order of Battle

I already knew this was going to come up. But for the F-16 AA kill ratio, this conflict went by almost blank.

Aren't we a bit OT ?

Aren't we a bit OT ?

'Twas an Inevitability........:)

Bears...like this;)

In the US all states are not like Florida or California you know ;)

In the US all states are not like Florida or California you know ;)

You are right :)

You are right :)

 

But...ohh look they are sweeping the snow away! PFFF ! No points earned there! :D :rolleyes:

Real men take off in ice cubes right? :)

wonder if they have a big "NO FALL" printed on top of wings :D

Note that Im talking about only F-16 AA.

Portuguese.... what do you know about real winter

Portuguese recognition real winter in Lituania :D

Portugese in Baltic Air Policing:

http://www.emfa.pt/baltics/index.php?fsh=0

;)

Cool Pics Kusch!

Guaranteed to Freeze the Bollocks off a Brass Monkey, that :D

The only thing you need to do for F-16 in weather like that is make sure ice is not forming on the intake lip. As long as ice does not forms excessively the aircraft should be able to taxi or fly. It depends mostly on the wing commander.

Not one of them would be able to justify or would like to be involve with a class "A" (more then one million of damage I think) accident report on a training mission, so most cancel or delay flying on this condition not because the aircraft can't do it but more because there no need.