Su-24 vs F-16

Turkey shot down a SU-24 with a F-16. There are a lot of threads dealing with the political ramifications of that engagement.

I think a conversation about the fighter jets would be more interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24

The aircraft were designed for completely different roles and the Su-24 would be (obviously) dead meat one on one in an air to air engagement with a fighter.

The Su-24 was the Soviet answer to the US F-111 and was designed, like the Aardvark, to be a low level ground attack platform while the F-16 was designed for air to air combat.

It wasn't exactly a dogfight.

Imo, it basically has little to do with the aircraft. It is more to do with the missile fired from the F-16 and the defensive systems built into the Su-24 (plus the skill of the pilots). I am not familiar with the defensive systems of the Su-24. Though (assuming the Turkish F-16 fired an AMRAAM radar guided missile) obviously the attack worked.

So I guess the Su-24's defensive systems are for **** against modern AA missiles.

But I do not know all of the details of the attack.

Lutherf said:

The aircraft were designed for completely different roles and the Su-24 would be (obviously) dead meat one on one in an air to air engagement with a fighter.

The Su-24 was the Soviet answer to the US F-111 and was designed, like the Aardvark, to be a low level ground attack platform while the F-16 was designed for air to air combat.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The Su-24 is basically a light bomber. The F-16 is an air superiority fighter (that in the decades since development has transformed into a multi-role function).

The equivelent in WWII would be pitting an F6F Hellcat against a German Ju-87 Stuka or Japanese G4M Betty.

Oozlefinch said:

Exactly.

The Su-24 is basically a light bomber. The F-16 is an air superiority fighter (that in the decades since development has transformed into a multi-role function).

The equivelent in WWII would be pitting an F6F Hellcat against a German Ju-87 Stuka or Japanese G4M Betty.

Click to expand...

Though most would agree with you. I would not call the Su-24 a 'light' bomber. It can carry over 17,000 pounds of ordinance. I would call it a medium bomber...a very poor man's F-111B (like a Ju-88A or a B-25 to use your WW2 analogy)

And the F-16 - as you probably know - was designed to be cheap, day-only fighter to supplement the F-15. Yes, it has evolved considerably. But I would personally not call it an air superiority fighter (though I realize many do). I would call the F-15 or the F-22 an air-superiority fighter. I would call the F-16 a fighter-bomber (like a WW2 Hawker Typhoon or maybe a P-47 whereas the P-51/Spitfire was more of the air superiority fighter - designed primarily to take on the best fighters in the world and defeat them).
The F-15 and especially the F-22 would make mincemeat of the F-16 in air-to-air combat. You would use the F-22 to punch a hole in the enemies air defenses and then use the F-16 to attack ground targets while taking on any enemy fighters that the F-22 missed.