Which aircraft has more combat experience? Oh, yeah the F-16. The F-86 was hopelessly outclassed by other American fighter aircraft by the mid 60s.
As for the M16, ignorant haters gonna hate.
Most consensual/divisive weapons post 1900
- Thread starter AdA
- Start date
Which aircraft has more combat experience? Oh, yeah the F-16. The F-86 was hopelessly outclassed by other American fighter aircraft by the mid 60s.
As for the M16, ignorant haters gonna hate.
UrbanRedneck
Banned
I think alot of problems with weapons boils down to the manufacturer or supplier being in good with the army procurement departments so they bought that weapon based on that rather than careful testing and evaluation if the weapon was good or not. Sadly many soldiers die because weapons in their first issue have many problems.
Also in wartime their often isnt time to test out a weapon carefully in all types of field conditions so often they are just guessing.
In WW2 weapon requirements changed rather quickly as technology was constantly being updated. So a good fighter or tank in 1941 might not be so good in 1943. Usually weapons are not designed to be upgraded or changed so the soldiers are stuck using them.
Now it would have been nice for say tank designers to build in ways to upgrade. Say have mounting holes or something for extra weapons or armor or have gun turrets designed to take a heavier gun.
Also in wartime their often isnt time to test out a weapon carefully in all types of field conditions so often they are just guessing.
In WW2 weapon requirements changed rather quickly as technology was constantly being updated. So a good fighter or tank in 1941 might not be so good in 1943. Usually weapons are not designed to be upgraded or changed so the soldiers are stuck using them.
Now it would have been nice for say tank designers to build in ways to upgrade. Say have mounting holes or something for extra weapons or armor or have gun turrets designed to take a heavier gun.
I know they were designed for use against Japan rather than Germany, but I wouldn't like to take on Scharnhorst in an Alaska, despite the similar speeds and displacements. If I was fighting heavy cruisers I'd rather have that TDS and thick belt too, while the slightly lighter shells seem unimportant.
Least Devisive SPAAG: M247 Sargeant York. We can all agree on it's uselessness.
"Least Devisive SPAAG: M247 Sargeant York. We can all agree on it's uselessness."
Apparently it was incredibly effective against Portaloos though.
Apparently it was incredibly effective against Portaloos though.
Rubicon
Banned
Those who dislike the MG42 are novices, the MG42 wasn't a great machinegun because of it's extremly high rate of fire and easy to change barrel, but because it cost one third less then the MG34 and that the MG 42 weighted about 1 kg less then the MG34. Those are the real reasons of why the MG42 was a better machinegun, the extremly high rate of fire, was a bonus.
And the MG42 continues to influence other designs. Also, the modernized MG42, the MG3, remains in service in many countries.
I don't really hate the F16, it's a good plane, but it has taken a long time to grow in a fully-rounded, full-capability aircraft. The F/A18 was there from the first day with BVR weapons capability, which is why I think it's better.
The Sabre was outclassed by other US aircraft by the mid 60s, but it's development potential proved to be very extensive and in the mid 60s the Sabre still had several wars to fight.
The M16 is fine now, but it has been in service for over 45 years and has taken a long time and a lot of changes to get right.
I agree about the F-16, and the Sabre was a superb export fighter.
The primary technical issue with the M16 was the fact that the barrels and chambers were not chrome-lined, as well as the fact that the initial choice of gunpowder in early 5.56 ammo ran dirty. These issues would have been worked out if the M16 would have undergone proper testing, but due to the extremely micromanaged procurement process, all of the troubleshooting took place on the frontlines. Yeah, people died and changes were made to the weapon and doctrine. But a vast majority of the problems were solved by the time the M16A1 began seeing general issue.
Unfortunately, the belief persists that all of the M16 variants are unreliable jamomatics. That is complete bull. Most of the problems occured in the early Colt 601 and XM16 series weapons, which really should have been pre-production weapons. Overall, the M16 is a very reliable and lethal weapon, provided you don't try to exceed it's limitations. It is not a machine gun or a 500m+ weapon; it is a assault rifle plain and simple.
BVR missiles are still problematic in real world environments. Dual-type guidance systems have helped, but, a number of issues remain. That they were effective during Desert Storm may say more about the impunity of the AWACS that were an important element in detection and guidance, as well as the incompetency of the opponent, may have skewed perspectives in this realm.
I think the F-15 is more a consensus good than the Hornet. Haven't heard bad things about the Super Hornet, either. Late model F-16s, for that matter.
F-18s have ground attack capability. Only the F-15E really has ground attack capability, and it is a completely different bird from the F-15
And....? Your beef is that most variants of the F-15 are not optimized for ground attack? That wasn't what it was originally designed for--it was conceived as an air superiority fighter and interceptor. The E version is marvelous but was developed out of need and the versatility of the basic airframe. The F-15 has had a near universal awe factor for its success in air combat--104-0 --unparalleled by any other jet fighter in history. The IAF actually used the air superiority versions (F-15 A & Bs) on a very successful long distance ground strike mission in the 80s ---not what it was designed to do, but it could do it.
My beef was that it wasn't designed to be a multirole aircraft to begin with. I'm just not a huge fan of purely air-superiorty fighters because I'm an obstinate fool.
If you are developing a combat aircraft, it should be able to carry bombs.
Hence the F-16, which did sell well and was made in a number of customized configurations to meet that country's specific needs. But talking of cost---all the West's latest crop of fighters and fighter-bombers are tremendously expensive (the Gripen being an exception). Gen 4+ and 5s. So, the legacy fighters such as F-15s and 16s may have a long afterlife.
My beef was that it wasn't designed to be a multirole aircraft to begin with. I'm just not a huge fan of purely air-superiorty fighters because I'm an obstinate fool.
If you are developing a combat aircraft, it should be able to carry bombs.
Well, you should really like the F-35.
The most divisive platform we've got.(personally, I think beyond the $$$ issue, it will be much, much better than its detractors think it will be).
I don't think that the F-15E or F-16E/F Block 60s are exactly affordable either. Most of the money will probably be made off parts and matainence.
A bargain compared to Eurofighter Tranche 3, Rafale and F-35 costs, though.
You can always go for a SU-35 for a relative song, though.....
and perform pretty "cobras" in airshows.