USAF - F-16s are not meant to dogfight MiG-29s or Su-27s

[rickshaw]

USAF - F-16s are not meant to dogfight MiG-29s or Su-27s.  Interesting little article.

[scooter]

Yep.  Hell, I saw a flip side to that- the 119th FS, based out of AC, positively hated doing any mud moving.  By Cthulhu's tentacly beard, I don't think there are enough synonyms for how much they just wanted to do "One Pass, Haul A$$" over Warren Grove Bombing Range, so they could go out over the Atlantic and play Fighter Ace.  It got to the point where our controllers dreaded going up to the range to work with out own fighter squadron.

And general officers like this positively aggravate me, as a taxpayer.  Lyon and Rew are the type of flag officer who'd bring back the tactics of Vietnam, than press the advantage to get as many airframes up to deal with a *real* enemy in an *actual* war.

[Captain Canada]

Wow. Might as well tool around in Cessna's and hope for the best when the sh*t hits the fan !

[sandiego89]

Hmm, not so sure this is a bad thing when faced with tough budget choices.  They cut F-16 air-to-air training hours when faced with politically influenced sequestration cuts.  They did not stop air-to-air entirely, just focused the F-16's more on mud moving, leaving the the F-15 and F-22 as the primary air-to-air platform against modern threats (which they are more suited for). 

While it would be great to make all fast jet drivers masters, and current, on multiple missions that requires more hours per year.  Flight hours cost a lot of money.  This is re-focusing on priamary mission areas.  Yes there is a risk, but it makes some sense.  If you really want to save money you eliminate entire platforms and the billets that go with them, or reduce the number of airframes and billets, but that is much harder to replace.       

[Go4fun]

Hmm, not so sure this is a bad thing when faced with tough budget choices.  They cut F-16 air-to-air training hours when faced with politically influenced sequestration cuts.  They did not stop air-to-air entirely, just focused the F-16's more on mud moving, leaving the the F-15 and F-22 as the primary air-to-air platform against modern threats (which they are more suited for). 

While it would be great to make all fast jet drivers masters, and current, on multiple missions that requires more hours per year.  Flight hours cost a lot of money.  This is re-focusing on priamary mission areas.  Yes there is a risk, but it makes some sense.  If you really want to save money you eliminate entire platforms and the billets that go with them, or reduce the number of airframes and billets, but that is much harder to replace.       

And then throw Trillions of dollars at the F-35 which does many jobs, no one of them very well.

[perttime]

I'm sure I read somewhere that a "Viper Driver" can be quite upset, when a BAE Hawk pilot "shoots him down" in a dogfight exercise. Cannot find the source now...