"F-16s Couldn't Dogfight MiG-29s, Su-27s" Topic

"Automatic budget sequestration cut deeply into the U.S. Air Force's training in 2012. Air Combat Command got just $3.1 USD billion—three-quarters of what it needed to fully train the thousands of pilots flying the command's 1,600 F-15, F-16 and F-22 fighters, A-10 attack jets and B-1 bombers.

So the command did something radical—and with far-reaching consequences as American air power retools for fighting high-tech foes following more than decade bombing insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Air Combat Command stripped certain airplanes of many of their missions, thus cutting back on the number of flight hours a particular pilot needed to be officially war-ready. Air-to-air dogfighting and low-altitude maneuvering suddenly became much rarer skills…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I think the generals made the right choices.

A2A combat is virtually extinct. And the last time US fighter tangled with enemy aircraft it was in Kosovo and both F-15s and F-16s scored kills against MiG-29s using Beyond Visual Range AIM-120 missiles – no dogfighting involved.

As for low level attack missions, Desert Storm showed the folly of that.

It's easier to suppress radar based high and medium altitude systems than low level MANPADS and AAA.

If A2A training is being cut back that is a major problem (not reading the article – too many of them are political axes rather than information so not sure if it is true or just a scaremongering piece)

If A2A training is being cut back that is a major problem

Boys and girls whose main job is dropping bombs don't need so much air to air training.

The article is skewed – it doesn't mention that for example NORAD assigned ANG F-16 units still get A2A training.

Nor does it particularly look at modern tactics such as Beyond Visual Range combat – it's not Vietnam 1969 anymore.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with scaremongering, too.

*Only* $3.1 USD billion; maybe they should hold a bake sale.

One of my favorite old posters.

Yep love that old poster. I agree this is scaremongering and not based on any real issue. If we are going to go head to head with a modern force with actual modern combined arms capability we will ramp up to it. And as mentioned actual air to air, as in dogfighting, has pretty much disappeared except in tight air spaces such as might be encountered between Israel and one of its Arab belligerents.

BVR combat and drones are going to be the way of any possible future air war along with the usual bombing and degradation of support sources.

Kind of poster that needs to be plastered all over the boys in charge wind screens, but will never be a fashionable reality on the hill.
Cheers

Halting air-to-air training is just foolish, especially with such valuable pilots and aircraft.

Sounds like they need to cut a few more generals.

yes less generals and high ranking brass, more training. maybe not for all pilots though.

It seems to me modern military keeps being surprised and re inventing the wheel at times.

In Afghanistan they had to relearn many lesson one could find in Colonel C.E. Callwell, "Small War" or the 1919 campaign; or the virtues of tracked vehicles….
1968-73 re learn that for all the missiles a gun and manoeuvers are needed on planes…

Some A2A capability will still be required in a war against opponents who can put up large numbers of fighters which can't all be shot down with AMRAAMs BVR. Some will get through to tangle with our birds and they may well be more agile and maneuverable than ours.

But it's politics and tough budget decisions, so what can you do? The Pentagon already disbanded the 65th Aggressor Squadron at Nellis which simulates Flankers.

..I'll buy an Airforce baked cake. Bet they are yummy…

No, the dang jet fuel gets in everything.

Some A2A capability will still be required in a war against opponents who can put up large numbers of fighters which can't all be shot down with AMRAAMs BVR. Some will get through to tangle with our birds and they may well be more agile and maneuverable than ours.

That's called 185-ish F-22, 250-ish F-15C/D and several hundred F-16C/Ds (either Block 50s mentioned in article or other marks fielded by ANG air defence units) as well as air defence tasked F-18s? And in future F-35s.

And other than Russia or China, who fields enough jets to successfully defend airbases from initial strike (cruise missiles and stealth bombers and in next couple of years F-35s) and then field so many aircraft as to swamp F-15/-22 fleets as well as F-16/-35s equipped with AMRAAMS?

No one.

Oh and Russia and China don't really field the kind of capability to tangle with massed deployment of F-15/-22 backed up by massive AWACS and EW fleet or have the ability to stop cruise missile and stealth aircraft.

If Chinese strategy of stealth interceptors downing tankers works, then the F-16s are grounded anyhow. But those stealth jets will only enter service in mid-2020s at best.

And both PAK FA and J-20 are not assumed to be ordered in great numbers due to high cost. Indeed cost blow outs for PAK FA have already resulted in India slashing it's proposed buy of 210 Indian variant FGFA to a mere 144 and current talk is that even this may be reduced to about 100.

Analysts also agree it's not as stealthy as an F-22.

Also the Russians and Chinese are lacking in force multipliers be it stealth strategic bombers, AWACS, EW. SEAD/DEAD, massive cruise missile capability etc. Lack of tankers is offset by longer range to some degree for the larger fighters but mainstays like MiG-29 or J-10 (let alone J-7/J-8) are limited in flight in terms of endurance without tankers.

The Russians and Chinese can do some things to counteract the US force multipliers of AWACS and tankers: Kh31s make decent anti-AWACS missiles, for example.

And how many units are actually equipped with Kh31 and train for it?

In Georgia, the Russians relied on good ol' fashioned dumb bombs and didn't bother with SEAD until late in the campaign despite losing some aircraft to Georgian IADS (which in itself was in a disorganised mess). Apparently a single Kh31 was used.

One also has to penetrate the US fighter screen to get to E-3s. I doubt the Flankers will be getting past the F-22/-15s. Even just delaying them results in mission kill for the Flankers.

The Chinese J-20 might do it, but the PAK FA T-50 is limited in stealth (estimated at considerably less than F-22 in frontal spectrum and very poor in rear spectrum).

Also the US has acquired Kh31s without electronics and converted some to MA-31 drones for the USN.

Who knows if US acquired actual Kh31s following fall of USSR. They certainly got a hold of Soviet grade MiG-29s, possibly Su-27s, S300 advanced SAMs etc.

I suspect most Russian electronics are thus compromised. The Chinese gear is a mix of potentially compromised Russian, 1980s Western and 1990s Israeli. The Western and Israeli gear is well known as US has access to all of that.

Given that the Mig-29 has never won a battle against a Western fighter, and the Su-27 is just as old, I'm too not worried about their dogfighting capabilities.

Contrary to what the news hypes-up, the Russian Bear has seen better days and their military is still in a sad state and in need of updating. Their pilots still do not train as many hours as do American pilots (other Western powers vary). Even given that the USA will have to curtail training hours due to budget cutbacks, the USAAF and Reserve is still full of combat veterans with 10+ years of combat experience. The biggest problem is that the USA has an excess of experienced pilots and too few cockpits to fill.

Perhaps when Russia and China actually introduce their next generations of aircraft in any significant numbers…

Oh yes, this "sequestration" BS…

Sequestration does not mean any actual cut to existing budgets, it merely means that the existing budget will not be automatically increased as happened in the past. Once again, "sequestration" does not mean any money cut from an existing budget.

Mere pap for fear-mongering Washington DC politicos.

Given that the Mig-29 has never won a battle against a Western fighter,

Wasn't exactly on even terms. The Serbs or Iraqis could've had F-22 Raptors and the result would've been exactly the same.

Serbian ones (16 airframes, several destroyed on ground) were defective in terms of avionics (10 years of sanctions) and Iraqi ones (37 airframes) were "monkey model" export versions to a force that never mastered air combat in 8 years of intensive combat against the Iranians.

Air combat is more than just "my plane is shinier than yours."

and the Su-27 is just as old, I'm too not worried about their dogfighting capabilities.

The F-15/-16s are even older in terms of airframe design and also age of airframes in service (last F-15Cs were delivered in 1989). All Chinese Flankers are newer than that and often newer than USAF F-16Cs in service. But all that is irrelevant as it's the avionics that count.

Russia has a few super modernised Su-27s, Su-30s and Su-35s as well as MiG-29SMTs but they are too few and their numbers are only slowly creeping up.

The Chinese again operate a large fleet of modern jets by regional standards but it's pitiful compared to all 4th generation US fleet. Bulk of fleet is still obsolete J-7 (upgraded MiG-21F-13 clone), J-8 (equivalent to MiG-23 with modern avionics) and Q-5 (MiG-19 derivative).

Their pilots still do not train as many hours as do American pilots

Actually top of the line regiments are up to 150-200 hours which is pretty much standard for Western NATO (Eastern NATO is often grounded or in mere 10s of hours per annum). Same applies for China. The crap ones are borderline unflyable but then the US has been grounding units under sequestration too.

It's the quality of training that matters – doing 200 hours of proficiency and navigation training is different to 200 hours of combat training.

The biggest problem is that the USA has an excess of experienced pilots and too few cockpits to fill.

They've got more than enough tactical jets – 3000+ in all (includes USN USMC). Compare that to China (1500 of which 70% is completely obsolete) and Russia with 1500-ish of which most have obsolete avionics but are ok airframes. The Russians have retired all obsolete MiG-21/-23/-27 and Su-15/-17 as well as most MiG-25 (only some recce versions still in service).

This includes strike and ground attack aircraft as well as fighters.

Indeed given the Asian Pivot, there's some thinking there is too much emphasis on short range tactical air and not enough on long range strike.

Sequestration does not mean any actual cut to existing budgets, it merely means that the existing budget will not be automatically increased as happened in the past. Once again, "sequestration" does not mean any money cut from an existing budget.

That is essentially a budget cut. There is a thing called inflation and if your funding doesn't get increased in line with inflation, then you're going backwards.

Not keeping up with inflation or salaries and wages increases and not cutting services in line is one of the reasons so many Western government departments are in trouble (including the government department that I work for as a finance manager).

There is a thing called inflation

which in the US is running at a whopping 1.64%…

A 1.64% cut is still large when you've got services to deliver and huge fixed costs and fixed commitments.

And then apply that to a couple of years and it starts to add up.

Indeed over last 6 years, my department has lost about 12% in funding and has gained additional unfunded mandatory costs of 5-6%.

Anyhow US defence cutbacks due to sequester are even more than any inflation rate:

$42.7 USD billion in 2013 (6.4%)
$34.2 USD billion in 2014 (5.5%).

And this includes operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

So 12% lost over 2 years plus potentially another 3-4% in loss of inflation adjustment.