F-16 Viper: How it Destroyed the Iraqi Army
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- Check out the VIPER Throttle Quadrant System: bit.ly/48hj3gx
The F-16 played a massive role in the Coalition's air campaign during Desert Storm. Though initially conceived as a fighter, in an ironic twist of fate it became a premier ground striker platform during the operations against the Iraqi army and Republican Guard.
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
Cohen, Eliot (ed.) (1993). "Gulf War Air Power Survey Volume 2 - Operations and Effects and Effectiveness", Washington, D.C.
Cohen, Eliot (ed.) (1993). "Gulf War Air Power Survey Volume 4 - Weapons, Tactics, and Training and Space Operations", Washington, D.C.
Cohen, Eliot (ed.) (1993). "Gulf War Air Power Survey Volume 5 - A Statistical Compendium and Chronology", Washington, D.C.
Hankins, Michael (2021). "Flying Camelot - The F-15, the F-16, and the Weaponization of Fighter Pilot Nostalgia". Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Simmonds, Bertie (2022) "F-16 Fighting Falcon", Tempest Books, Horncastle.
Paquin, Robert (1999). “DESERT STORM: Doctrinal AirLand Battle Success or #The American Way of War?’”, School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Pyles, Raymond Q. and Shulman, Hyman (1995). “United States Air Force Fighter Support in Operation Desert Storm”. RAND, Santa Monica, CA.
“Operation Desert Storm - Evaluation of the Air Campaign”. United States General Accounting Office, June 12, 1997.
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Desert Storm
00:40 - Air Campaign Expectation
01:37 - American Workhorse
03:03 - Accuracy and Precision
06:10 - Smart Plane Dumb Bomb
07:10 - F-16 Ground Strike Demonstration
10:15 - Thrustmaster
11:14 - Effective Accuracy
14:17 - Y'all Have A Good Day
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
I was in an Intel USAF unit during the war. Fact: The A-10 did not kill ANY tanks with its gun (it did kill 2 helicopters with the gun). The F-16 was awesome and so was the F-111 and Strike Eagle.
B-but ... brrrrrr :(
@@insertnamehere7574nope
Downing a heli with a jet bord cannon is at least as impressive
Justice for my boy!!! F@#$ Pierre Sprey
@@thecursed01 Good thing wars are not won by doing the more impressive feat than the other guy.
People also tend to forget the F-16 has over 80 air to air kills for 1 disputed loss..
The F-16 is the jack off all trades and some say master off none... But it is a master..
also, no plane before or after looks that sexy. some look cool or impressive. but those sleek curves..mhmm....
It's such a badass aircraft, some would even call it a "Thunderbird."
"jack off all trades" eh?
Master of one. That thing can turn.
*jack "of" all trades
Important distinction.
Given that Desert Storm was about as perfect an air campaign (followed by a land campaign) as one could expect, the F-16 and the aircrews were very effective.
I'm not even a sim guy, and I found that footage extremely satisfying to watch!
Thank you! Though very far removed from real life, it is the closest visual approximation and helps gets the main points across.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory also, while impressive..you gotta be in the mood to watch footage in which you know ppl die. so this kind of approximation is the next best thing
Great content. In my opinion, the F-16 is the best fighter aircraft design in terms of bang for the buck. After almost halft a century, the F-16 is still the work horse in many air forces world wide.
Absolutely
One thing I've always found funny is the people that think the F-20 was better than the F-16
@@Tigershark_3082 Not the US military , obviously.
@@eozeL68 Not really.
It would've ultimately been more expensive that the Falcon, seeing as there were no production lines for it at the time (unlike the F-16). The production Tigershark also likely wouldn't have been ready anyway, seeing as there were still a numver of issues that had to be fixed (or elements which had yet to be finished, such as the Ford Aerospace Tigerclaw cannon, intended to replace the Pontiac M39s).
The F-16 was ultimately cheaper, while also giving you more bang for your buck.
Turns out modern targeting equipment was better than the human eye. And from much father away. Keeping the pilot safer.
Which subsequently means that Pierre Sprey, John Boyd, and all who follow them are full of crap and should not be listened to.
@@cancermcaids7688 Block 40/42s had LANTIRN capability but the pods weren't available in large enough numbers so priority went to the Strike Eagles.
So much better than the human eye yes, but dropping dumb bombs from above 10,000ft meant they missed 80% of the time
I guess you didn’t watch the video.
@M80Ball I watched Biz's video, I also read the USAF's evaluation of its performance during the Gulf War. They broke down what worked what did not work. The F-16 dropped a lot of bombs and flew a lot of sorties but missed 80% of the targets it bombed with dumb bombs.
I thought that plenty of tanks were taken out with PGMs. They called it tank plnking. However, as I recall, they weren't looking for tanks in specific posts, but just taking out tanks that they found by accident. Some general told them off for wasting $12,000 bombs on tanks, but the air force guys just asked him how much a tank cost.
The f111 with gbu 12. So effective against tanks lol
One of the most beautiful aircraft ever made, relatively low cost to build and run and so versatile with excellent performance and reliability. A marvellous machine.
USAF Instructor: Here we have the survivability onion. It is always preferable to stay in the outer layers as they come with much less risk.
Take care to use standoff distance, low observability and evasive maneuvers as much as possible.
A-10: LEEEEERRROOOY YEENNNKINS!
Oh sh!t he just ran in….
Yep, A-10s flying right in and commit friendly fire in this conflict, destroying several British IFVs. The A-10 would do a wonderful job in friendly fire incidents, continuing to do so even in the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan and even in Iraq. The A-10 would be so bad at its job that it was kicked out of Afghanistan for a long time because the plane was doing such a magnificent job in recruiting for the Taliban with its inaccurate attacks.
Also A-10: *grumbling at 10k feet after being shot down multiple times and thus unable to even see anything*
In my honest opinion, the F-15 & F-16 are two of the best combat airframes that have been proven in combat before the stealth revolution. Both have a remarkable track record.
And if you think about it, the f22 is basically a stealth f 15, and the f 35 is basically a stealth f 16.
I know there's a lot more to the f35 but in on the surface level
A-10 only works where air dominance has already been totally seecured.
not even then...
To use the Brrrr gun it has to get very low, into manpad and other ground AA range.
Expect the new retrofit version A10 had very barebone electronics which lead to many friendly fire incident.
The gun is innacurate, useless against any soivet tank newer than T55.
And so on...
Given the WII experience with other gun armed anti tank fighters, it was stupid idea in the first place.
But well the gun firing looks cool so it must very effective right RIGHT?
sorry for the rant...
@@DanielDracohun On the A-10, very low means just high enough to not collide with cars, that delegates even most AAA to the spectator role. And if you mean the A-10C, sorry, it got stuffed with lots of nice electronics goodies and can drop even modern GPS guided weapons, thanks to the new fire control computer. Also it received multiple software updates since (Which wasn't possible with the old LASTE). Of course, its no F-35. And it is no fighter. Even the F-15E would be terrible at any job, if it also has to deal with fighters and this one IS closer to a fighter than anything.
@@DanielDracohunWTF?
You do know it routinely took out T72s in the first Gulf war?
If you’re just going to post BS based on DCS than you should lead with that.
@@denniskrenz2080 How exactly you expect to employ any weaponry flying practically blind at treetop level? Sure you can predesignate target from a distance with the tpod, but if you are already doing that why not use longer range standoff weapon. Maybe in WW3 where it's necessary to take risks.
@@Samthing752 maybe you need to ask this the pilots who did just that. Of course its a matter of team work. As if it ever was different. Maybe in early WW1.
Excellent presentation. The A-6s were doing very well as the USN fielded nine A-6 squadrons and the USMC two Squadrons. There were approximately 119 A-6s and they dropped a majority of PGMs by the USN. A-6s, A-7s and the F-18s also were using AGM-62,-65,-123 and AGM-88s.
Only one plane matters. F-111. VARK VARK VARK. Swing wing my beloved.
"It's not the plane. It's the pilot." 😂
This is probably the 1 time I didn't mind an end of video ad. Thrustmaster has been around since I was playing Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Falcon 3.0, Descent, & Fury 2.
Hehehe I *love* that you just went and dropped into DCS to actually demonstrate the things you were saying! I've seen a ton of history videos/documentaries, and a ton of DCS footage, but *nobody* has put them together!
Very satisfying!!
Thanks!
F-16 being a forgotten fighter is like Ian McCollum featuring the 1947 AK on Forgotten Weapons 😂
Great video. If you look at the clips showing air refueling, you will see that those are KC-135E's which were flown by the Air National Guard. I was there with the 1706 ARW - Provisional which was composed of Aircraft from the 128th ARW - Milwaukee and the 141st ARW - Spokane. I've found out a lot more about the conflict from channels like this.
We’ve known the F-16 was a first rate ground attack platform ever since the ‘Gunsmoke’ competitions at Nellie AFB in the mid-70s. The A-10 can’t compete against heavily defended targets. It’s just too slow.
Ask any ground-pounder if they would rather have a zoom and boom sortie or a pair of A-10s loitering overhead. A-10s are better for good guy morale and worse for bad guy morale.
@@CorePathway That precludes said bad guy having any AA piece too big for a man to carry. I'd imagine the 'bad guy' would feel pretty good shooting down an A-10.
@@CorePathwayAnd what effect on morale is had when the A-10 is shot down or chased away by air defenses?
@@demanischaffer A-10 is more survivable than an F-16 in a CAS mission. MANPADS can hit either.
@CorePathway Look at gulf war losses, majority of A-10 losses and damaged beyond repairs, were because of short ranged IR missiles and AAA/ground fire, the A-10s attack profile unless it's using stand off munitions puts it into range of weaponry that other aircraft can avoid with height and their normal weapon loads
A-10 never was good. It was remembered foundly because soldiers knew what they were helped by, even tho the A-10's gun runs were tragically unreliable
Yep. When an A10 comes in with the Avenger, everyone around knows exactly what happened. When something drops a laser guided bomb or JDAM or whatever, nobody has any clue where it came from.
@@dgthe3 pays to be flashy. branding is a thing after all.
As always, a very nicely put together & informative video.
Another informative video and excellent demonstration of the technique and tech involved.
Cheers Chris. Great vid as ever.
Great info & presentation. Danke!
Another informative video and excellent demonstration of the technique and tech involved.. Another informative video and excellent demonstration of the technique and tech involved..
Sehr Gutt. I enjoyed watching them fly during my two tours in Iraq. Nifty little aircraft.
Thank you for your service.
The flight sim demo/explanation is a really neat addition to videos.
I appreciate the use of dcs as a visual aid, it really does work well for showing things with what may as well be perfect realism for historical purposes.
Also reminded me that i tend to chronically underestimate the value of dumb weaponry
The funniest thing is the discussion around the A-10
People still are arguing about it's effectiveness even though the USAF actively wants to retire that platform since 08 because they said it's unviable being fully unguided, the bus sized target cone of the unguided GAU 8 doesn't have a space in close to friendly unit missions, way too high rate of friend on friend engagements, especially with the A-10s state of the art Optical Guidance system called Binoculars which was not even standard but a Pilot carry-on
Edit: Also the A-10 flies low and slow, aka the sweet sweet hunting grounds of MANPADs
The A-10 worked in counter insurgency operations against fighters without air defense, meanwhile the Russo-Ukrainian War shows that in peer on peer conflicts with enough Air Defense to force Pilots to fly low and slow under the radar the infantry gets to enjoy happy hunting season with Javelins
So instead they use primarily loitering munitions and glide bombs
Which brings all the Boom of CAS without a Pilot strapped in there
I find it depressing how quickly the comments on plane videos devolve into "This was the best fighter plane evah!" or "Yeah, but fighter plane XYZ would've been better except for blah blah." They're just fascinating machines with advantages and limitations, and these change over time and with context. The facts and their implications are more interesting than the bluster.
Very nice incorporation of F-16 simulation into topic …people probably wonder (how does it work?) when viewers see certain objects they heard about but never saw up close…kudos
F-16 didn't get good press at the time because you don't get video of the target blowing up when using dumb bombs, unlike the F-117 and F-111 with their laser targeting. You need good video to make the TV news!
It'd be cool if you did a video on combat search and resue aircraft like the HH-3, HH-53, and HH-60 helicopters. That part of military aviation has always been interesting to me.
169th TFS did pretty well after its transition from A-7D Corsair II in 1982. Won Gunsmoke twice, then was one of only two ANG squadrons to deploy to SWA during Desert Storm. Was given a secondary role by USAF leadership (I think they were afraid of being thumped again). Had an FMC rate of 92%. Was depicted in the National Guard Heritage Series artwork plinking T-72 tanks.
f-111 ardvaark. C-130. Both heroes of that war.
A true fan would call the F-111 by its proper name, 'Aardvark'.
Thank you. Nice analysis.
14:17 No surprise here. Some 10 years before Desert Storm the Israeli Air Force proved the F-16 ability for ground attack at Operation Opera, the textbook raid and destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Irak. Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Chile.
Hermano! Immer wieder schön Deutsch aus Chile zu hören. Müsste da mal wieder hin, und die Familie besuchen.
Very interesting Video again. I recently made the case for having enough "dumb" artillery rounds in the upcoming age of intelligent artillery munitions.
I am also pleased to learn that my diving attacks with the J10/F35 back in the day on Wake Island in BF2 were pretty historicaly accurate :)
My friend was the senior LTV test pilot for the A-7. He told me that when General Dynamics was prototyping the F-16 they asked LTV for the A-7 HUD. GD pilots liked that HUD so much that GD stayed with it. So the F-16 uses the A-7 HUD.
He told me some things that HUD will do, but I think it better not to share them on an open platform.
-----
PS I like Thrustmaster. A lot. Thrustmaster sticks are closer to the real thing than anything any other company produces.
Awesome job
The Viper is definitely 1 of my all time favorite aircraft. It is interesting that the plane can do so well what it wasn't designed to do originally. I like a10s too. I think of them as modern-day Stukas and the gun is like the Stuka's siren. Glad to see you playing more DCS too. You should come fly axis warbirds on the 4YA Overloard server. Hope to see you in the digital sky.
It was the best thing to watch on TV when it was live in late night. It looked like a video game that was still years way
Chris, for your future reference, SEAD is not pronounced as "See-ad", it's pronounced "Seed". That was clarified in the book "The Wild Weasels". I've also been in mass briefs during exercise Maple Flag, where they always talk about and cover, exactly that. Second, I'm fairly certain (not 100%), that the F-16 didn't touch the SEAD role until well after Desert Storm. That duty was given to the F-4G, where it was in service until 1996 before handing over to the F-16C. Yes, I know the Navy did perform SEAD as well but, they never had aircraft truly dedicated to the role, like the Air Force did. The Navy referred to their role in SEAD as "Cobra Ball".
This conflict to me was an important military point because it was the last real hurrah of Cold War armed forces. The money, size, training of the Cold War military would disappear soon. This event was taking place at the same time as the USSR was dissolving. When the USSR was no more and the Gulf War I was finished, there was a lot of military downsizing. But entering Desert Shield, all the players entering this were still on their Cold War era strengths, readiness, training.
The success rates you showed was an interesting one from a naval perspective. The F/A-18 was like the F-16, touted as a multi-role plane. Do everything for the US Navy & Marine Corps. But it wasn't doing as well as the F-16 and the old warhorse, the Vietnam-era A-6 Intruder, did her job well. The big ordnance slinging Intruder like many other systems, would be phased out not long after the Gulf War. Just an interesting thing because I used to be an aircraft electrician for the US Marines. During the mid-2000s I was in a Hornet squadron and our commanding officer was originally an Intruder pilot when he started out back in the day.
*MAH made any video about A-10*
Oh no, i can already imagine the comment section 😬
I would say that considering that the air war lasted longer then the ground war CAS crafts may not have been that useful in that conflict and may not be a thing in modern high intensity warfare. Desert Storm may not have been the best indicator as Iraqi forces surrendered in mass, this was an extremely well planned and prosecuted war in a way that will go into history books thousands of years later about how to conduct a war.
@@cancermcaids7688Didn't Iraq have have the 4th largest army in the world at the time?
Many generals have been repeating the same thing since the Ukraine war started. Desert storm should stop been studied and taught to trainees because it is not useful against a peer adversary. The Russians replicated it to a tee but simple resistance completely broke it apart.
That's the thing it falls apart in the face resistance, go read up on the 2 days where the Iraqis tried to fight back when they realised the US was intending to stay and take over the nation, all the losses occurred those 3-4 days.
A MK-84 was only $3,000? Even adjusted for post-1991 inflation... these are well within my price range. LOL
But can you afford the $30,000+ operating expenses to fly the aircraft for one hour to drop it?
@@bronco5334 During my times in Iraq... I discovered that pieces of ordinance are quite effective outside of their normal scope of delivery, lol!
@@adventuretarian8191 In that case, why pay for a huge, stupid 1,027 pound machined mild steel casing just to get 944 pounds of tritonal? You could probably get 2,000 pounds of bulk C4 for the same price
All for a gender reveal party!
Bronco5334 you certainly seem to know what you're talking about!
It would be awesome to see you do DCS missions in the future
CBU-89 is filled with mines. They probably meant the -87
Many thanks. And timely for Australia.
Interesting argument. I understand the F-16s weren't equipped for LGBs during Desert Storm, and that must've had an impact on target selection for F-16 units, which in turn impacts success rates, and so on. There's a whole lot of statistical work to be done here.
Last I checked, USAF admitted to overestimate A-10s armor kills and underestimate F-15/16/18 ones to justify the Thunderbolts procurement and upgrades.
Damnit, now I want more F16 background info.
120' is about 40m. So they'd blow up something 2 doors up, on average, but would have dropped enough explosives to still shatter all your windows and wreck your plumbing, not to mention what happened to the poor bastards that the bombs did hit.
Well, a little has changed in 30yrs. The bastards up the road's house has gone up in value, regardless.
Please do more Desert Storm related topics. You could do the same for the F15 oder F14. Or draw a picture from the perspective of the Iraqi air force.
The Block 3 Super Hornet is now being mentioned as a replacement for the A-10, and not the F-16 dispite it being in the current inventory and a hot production line.
Great video! You brought forward a number of valuable insights.
Can an F-16 attacking from a higher altitude be effective in the ground attack and even the close support roles?
Sure.
Nobody will deny that but the A-10 has many other useful benefits that make it a useful asset and its worth asking what the ground 'attack' and close support roles are for; they're not just blowing up tank or dropping bombs on buildings full of insurgents.
Men on the ground often need something to get the enemy to pull back. In Afghanistan, many soldiers reported a love of the A-10's distinctive sounds; the roar of its engines and the buzz of its GAU-8. Apparently, Taliban fighters learned to identify these and back off.
A brief burst would usually drive an assaulting force away, even if they had superior numbers, and the A-10 didn’t always have to put the first rounds down near the combatants. It was more of a signal that the time for fighting was up.
Plus, the A-10 has good endurance, can fly low and slow with less fear of ground fire (thanks to its armour), and really emphasise its presence. All of this makes it a formidable deterrent, particularly in asymmetric warfare.
I’ve never heard of an F-16 or MQ-9 Reaper hanging about to keep a valley clear of insurgents through sheer intimidation without having to engage targets but I have heard anecdotes of this nature in reference to the AA-10. At the end of the day, in an asymmetric conflict Afghanistan (where the objective wasn’t to exterminate the Taliban), the A-10 seems like an ideal combat aircraft.
Besides, if we put the older prejudiced studies about the performance of the A-10 and GAU-8 aside and conduct tests using a realistic load out, the A-10 still performs well. Even so, it can carry plenty of bombs and missiles anyway.
Perhaps, more important however, is the fact that it is robust and can operate in austere environments from austere ‘airfields.’ The F-16 on the other hand, is not only maintenance heavy but requires a high degree of specialist maintainer training and where the A-10 is reportedly easy easy to train on and master, the F-16 brings all the challenges of a high-speed fourth generation fighter. The fact that only the A-10 had higher sorties rates than the F-16 speaks to this readiness.
That's not even mentioning the fact that the Gau8 + Support systems + ammo represents about 4k lbs of takeoff weight and about 10 targets worth of strikes, assuming 100-150 rounds per strike. Sure, you could say "That 2x 2000lb bombs!" but its not like the A10 is lacking in pylons or the ability to take under wing weapons. Those 2x200lb bombs represent 1 pass. those 1300 rounds represent 10 passes of ammo. Often times those who are not on the ground want to deliver one devastating strike of most/all of their ordinance and then depart, but the enemy is under no obligation to provide you such a target, something deriders of the a10 often fail to recognize. Yes, now with smaller PGMs and their greater representation in the arsenal, something like an f35 can deliver 8 precision 250lb strikes thanks to the SDB, and the a10 has issues in a modern threat environment, but pretending the A10 wasn't a great platform for 40 years is to ignore the fact that even today most countries can't put up an AA net to stop a10's from operating, and that for 30 of those years, f16's were not going to go into a peer conflict fully loaded with PGMs, especially numerous small ones.
The A-10 performed miserably in Afghanistan. It is so slow, firefights were typical over before it could get to them. It has no legs, so it has to constantly refuel. After expending all its ordnance, it takes it forever to go back to base, rearm, and return. It can't loiter long enough to provide an effective deterrent.
The F-16s proved far more valuable. You need assistance? I can get an F-16 there in less than 15 minutes. It has the ability to loiter.
Even the Ukrainians don't want the A-10. They just said so again yesterday. No thank you, Mr President. We'll wait for F-16s. Literally no one wants our A-10s
@@donwyoming1936 Is the A10 outdated today? Yes. Was it outdated 20 years ago? No.
An A10's combat radius in 15 minutes is ~150 km. That's hardly nothing.
Once again, this also ignores that an f16, prior to ~2010, typically carried mostly dumb bombs in its loadout, which would, again, be spent in 1 pass.
For getting in site for CAS quickly, the Marines love their Harriers.
Because they will take off from anywhere they advance their forward operating bases with the troops.
That's both the US Marines and the Royal Marines.
8:30 definitely with the broken visibility in DCS :)
Something fishy about the PGM delivery chart. Around 80% of ALL LGBs used in the Gulf War were dropped by the F-111Fs. Much more than the F-117As for example. And the Aardvarks typically hit their targets, meanwhile the Night Hawk not really. So how the bars for both aircraft is the same? Nonsense.
The tonnage per day is very misleading on its own. Practically doesn't mean a thing. The high number of the F-16 is thanks to its usage primarily as a weapon carrier for dumb bombs. They were only used against area targets, except somewhat the SEAD missions. It's versatility not really shined in the Desert Storm.
The low numbers for the Tornado is thanks to its usage as a special role aircraft (SEAD and airfield demolition mainly), and those needed special weapons (ALARM, JP233).
BTW the roles were defined in the planning phase of the air campaign.
Air superiority: F-15C (USAF and RSAF)
Destruction of well defended priority targets with PGMs: F-117A
Precision weapons delivery platform: F-111F (all the footage of PGM deployed when the camera rotates is came from the PAVE TACK).
SEAD: F-4G and F-16C in pairs (HARM and CBUs, F-16 practically only a weapon carrier) and Tornado (ALARM)
Radar jamming and deception: EF-111A and EA-6B
Area targets with dumb munitions: B-52 (if the position is mainly fixed) and F-16 (if it is time sensitive).
Bunker busting and general strike roles: F-15E (mainly GBU-10)
Airfield demolition: Tornado (JP233) and F-111E (Matra Durandal)
Anti Armour Warfare: A-10A, AH-1S/ W and AH-64A. Practically this is the only role where they deterred from the plans. When the F-111Fs ran out of targets, they had the idea of using them with GBU-12s against armour. Practically the most successful thing happened in the air war. More than 50% of the Iraqi armoured targets destroyed by the F-111Fs. This success lead lead to the development of the SDB. Because most of the time even the Mk82 is overkill.
The main thing why dumb bombs were so widely used in Iraq is the terrain itself. Huge open fields of desert, sometimes large concentration of forces, and low chance of collateral damage. And because the bulk of the air defense were destroyed.
USN numbers can't be compared one on one. They had to fly more to the theatre, all of the aircrafts have reduced payload capacity because of the catapult launching. And the F/A-18s had the secondary role of protecting the strike wing (and they done it really well). And the USN crafts were far less in numbers. If you compare the 38k in the F-16 with the 18k in the A-6E, you should compare the number of aircrafts that done this. 200 something F-16s vs 116 A-6E. So even with the reduced payload, the Intruders dropped more bombs in less sorties than the F-16s. Not bad for an aircraft close to the end of its service life. And of course the USN had the role of controlling the shores and the maritime warfare.
The first casualty of war is truth.
Love the F16, Love the A10 both very good aircraft thanks for the video.
Nice video
9:26 thats a lot of negative G lol
Much better to go inverted to hit the angle you need then level out again
F16 is a sick jet
Very true
My cousins' Husband served in the USAF during this era and she sent me a news paper cutting from the states that was an article about how the F16 pilots were resentful about the move to load their planes up with bombs instead of keeping them purely in air combat roles. I guess thats not what the pilots signed up for on recruiting day! BTW do you have any plans to make an episode on the Panavia Tornado? I have a family connection to that aircraft so would be very interested
i bet you could name a veteran F16 pilot who flew a wild weasel role..... who can name an A10 pilot famous for anything other than being shot in the tail by a manpad?
Look I'm not out here defending nobody, but ground strike and close air support are different things. See JU87R vs D.
I wouldn't look to much into a title. As title, for entertainment purposes, are generally meant to draw public to the video, rather than being entirely accurate.
If I learned anything from the data in this video, it's that maybe we need a video on the F-111 Aardvark - limited use compared to the likes of the F-16 and such of course, but it looks like ol' girl was pretty effective in the modern war. Interesting that it dropped the 2nd most guided munitions just behind the A-10 and just ahead of the F-117, but it had by far the best percentage of any of the listed aircraft of a 'strike fully satisfactory'(excepting the lack of the A-10 'strike satisfaction' data). I wonder what the major circumstances were that influenced that(the types of targets? Types of munitions?).
F-16 really is the backbone of the USAF. At least it was before F-35
A-10 fanboys are seething
In a hostile airspace, the F-16 is a good bomber.
you just wanted to play F-16s in DCS didn't you?! ;-P
most interesting part was the area covered by the pipper and the how inacurate the bombs were (are?)
Please don’t use abbreviations as heavily as this. Otherwise this is great stuff! Thanks!
Why is the F-18 performance in ground strike so low? I would have thought that a multirole fighter like that would have done much better in the strike role or at least closer to how the F-16 did perform.
Was Desert Storm before the Super Hornet (Rhino)?
I've heard the argument that the predominate use of unguided munitions was the US wanting to get rid of old stock and/or justify purchasing newer munitions.
The explosives do get old & if you can't sell it, you'd better use it.
I suspect crew experience was a huge factor. Probably not a lot of practice for pilots on the newer precision guided stuff before going to war back then. Under pressure it's better to use what you know. We weren't a county of Veterans then either, it was a whole new thing for everyone.
I worked (Crew Chief) on both for years, they both had their missions. The A-10 is continually thanked by ground troops for coming in low and slow and kicking ass. (Plus 900 Iraq tanks, 2,000 military vehicles, 1,500 artillery pieces) The F-16 also did an awesome job and his a lot of kills also.
sure...
The F-111 did over 1500 armored vehicles…
There's a big question mark about the A10 kills.
What about all the friendly's that died to A-10s?
the poor Tornado GR.1 did not have a good war looking at those stats :(
Tornado was extensively tasked with attacking airfields. One of the most heavily defended target sets, and one that had to be attacked at low altitude.
What are your thoughts on Mearsheimer's assertion that war can't be won from the air?
Mearsheimer is correct. We bombed the life out of the Iraqi army, but they did not surrender until the tanks rolled in.
The job of the air force is to knock out the enemy so that a 19-year-old kid with a rifle can stand on the enemy ground and occupy it. That opinion did not make me popular in the Air Force. But it is true.
this dude really hates the A-10
far from it :)
Yesterday, the Ukrainian Air Force reiterated they do not want A-10s because Russian air defenses will just blow them out of the air. They want a multirole fighter, like the F-16.
Yeah give me the Tornado GR1 anyday.
I think you mean Fighting Falcon, not Viper.
Both work, FFalcon is the official name, Viper unofficial. Just like the A-10 is officially Thunderbolt II, yet Warthog or Hawg for the crews.
PGM can be cost effective.
Dropping tons of bombs costs even if the bombs are for free.
Of course dropping PGM on large stationary targets isn't cost effective.
Very interesting points here. The point you make about dumb bombs compared to precision guided ordnance. It feels very relevant today whith the russian war on Ukraina and wise use of the hard to replace precision munition. I saw one of Milenium 7* videos from roughly a year ago about the russian use of Some type of inertial guidance addative to dumb bombs. Any thoughts on them. Mayne you know more. I relate it to what you say bow thay this might be rather beneficial to the russians to save the more advanced munitions to more crucial. Granted that the precision on the mentioned interial guidance munitions most likely is over stated by russia but it might still be abit of a challenge I imagine.
Russian SVP-24 isn't anything new. American fighters had such systems for a long time... google CCIP and CCRP. DTOS is older version what was used by fighters like the F-4.
use pop filter for voiceover mic please🙏🏻 otherwise very good content, thanks
Not sure what happened with this vid but the audio is a mess! Good content of course but tone down the music a little when talking.
Also something weird with your recorded voice
Effonehundredandseventeen
I was today years old when I learned I could’ve afforded a dumb bomb.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the difference between F-16 and F-15 capabilities. F-16 is smaller, so that is limiting, right? I supposed I'm also assuming we're talking about once air to ground attack capabilities have been added to the F-15.
The F-15 was an Air Superiority fighter designed to never lose a fight. It was designed to counter a USSR plane that looked more capable than it actually turned out to be. That role has been passed to the F22 now. They were so expensive that it limited the number that could be bought and so they developed the F16 as a low cost multi role fighter to fill the requirements for a two theater peer-to-peer fight.
The F-15 and F-18 are constrained by the extra weight of second engines, and the weight of the extra fuel required. This negatively affects their bomb load and their agility.
Same trade-off with the F-35 vs. F-22.
the F-16 was created as a cheaper little brother of the F-15. The F-15 is expected to guard the skies and only that. The F-16 is cheaper and the same airframe is expected to both guard the skies AND perform ground attacks. The F-15 has been split in two variants for the air attack (F-15A/B/C/D) and ground attack (F-15E) the F-15 is also ALOT bigger and heavier. Therefore more expensive to run and less nimble but it can carry ALOT more for longer.
To give an example, if you are a small country that doesnt have an infinite budget: it would be alot more reasonable to get only F-16’s to be able to perform both air and ground attack with the same airframes.
The F-16 also had very low air-to-ground capabilities early on, and was gradually upgraded with better internal and navigation systems, MFDs, ability to carry LITENING, LANTIRN and now Sniper pods, etc. In its original shape it could only use dumb bombs and rockets, which quickly expanded into Mavericks, then laser-guided ordinance and anti-radiation missiles.
Since the F-15 basically was ear-marked as the ultimate air superiority fighter there wasn't the same interest in upgrading its air-to-ground capabilities since it'd mean very expensive airframes meant to guard the sky went off doing something else, thus the program to create the Strike Eagle instead since it'd be a strike fighter/bomber and nothing else.
My son flew an F16 in Desert Storm. Because of deteriorating conditions in the military (DEI) he’s out, with sadness looking in the rear view mirror.
The f 16 block 30 not the f 16 viper
Great video which to add to the confusion the USAF only names pure 100% attackers, attackers almost never of the time... Like the F-117 Nighthawk which can't do AA despite the A-10 doing it very well There's an A-10 with F-22 Raptor tally mark for exemple and helicopters fear them which Nighthawks just can't... Why? Because the Nighthawk is made to just interdict the attack style were you fly really fast to a target engage and get out not staying to CAS/play with your food like the A-10 does... Which is the same mission the F-16C, F-15E, F-111, F-35 has to go with the AA making them multirole which should mean F/A like what the Navy does but no that would that would make sense... So in sort of corse the F/A-16C makes for a good attacker it's part of the mission set!
Recall that in WW2, the USAAF carpet bombed a whole tank battalion into oblivion.
is the F-117 117% successful? hehe (graph in the last chapter)
You're killing me here. "Mk" is an abbreviation for "mark". It's pronounced "mark eighty-two", not "em-kay eighty-two"
True dat
I give him a pass here. He does quite well considering English is not his native language. FWIW, in Luftwaffe parlance, MK stands for MaschinenKanone so, having to reckon MK in another tongue... he gets a pass.
Edit because apparently my typing sucks quite thoroughly.
@@grognard23 MK is not Mk, and German designations are not American designations. I can understand why he might get it wrong, but that does not change the fact that he said it wrong.
@@bronco5334 Semantics my man, it's all semantics. Good day.
@@bronco5334 For someone having been killed by pronunciation you sure sound alive - and very pedantic.
Im glad more and more people are catching onto the a10 being a mid platform for its time, abd it massively outdated by today's standard. It is time to retire this old pig, its thunder has long sinced faded
@cancermcaids7688 it is useless compared to what could be used lol
IIRC the f-111 performed more (and better) in close air support role than the A10..
A10 main gun can only take out T64 or older from the top or behind, They cannot penetrate newer tanks for the most part.
It's also too inaccurate to provide reliable (and safe) close fire support and would require the pilot to fly over hostile forces..
Which is fine if they are poorly equiped insugents, less so if they are a near peer with decent AA or just Manpads.
You pronounced “Apache Gunship” incorrectly…
That should have destroyed the reformers for good.
It's funny how when the rubber meets the road, cost-effectiveness and high availability so often trumps any other qualities of a platform. Yet the inclination is to always develop the fanciest, most expensive weapons that look incredibly capable on paper, even if it means vanishingly few of them will ever be available.
I think that is why over 1000 F-35’s have been made already, guess we can have our cake and eat it too!
@@koekiejam18 The F-35 is (at least nominally) the lo in the hi-lo mix.
The word 'packages' in any other context than describing a parcel really gets on my nerves. Why do aviation types love using it so much? They are getting dangerously close to having a vocabulary which overlaps with Business BS.
Id love to see you do some DCS stuff of real missions while providing hidtorical information alongside
"Ground strike" is ≠ to CAS 🤣
A10 is very overrated. But it is Blind Mans Mascot.....
heh! DCS :)