F-16 Reference
5th Gen Fighters
|
| Author |
Message |
|
geogen
|
Posted: Mar 28, 2008 - 09:33 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 422
Status: Offline
|
LM,
Believe me, I wasn't suggesting USAF and USN were going to make such major agreements, rather it was only a raw conclusion of theoretical best case scenario. And I was suggesting to have written off the B model as it caused massive portions of the overall R&D overruns and delays compared to it's dubious cost-effectiveness.
The ramped-up 2-D vectoring, 'reverse thrusting' C model (see F-15S/MTD) could have been a compromise to offer attractive roadway-landing, damaged runway STOL capability to Air forces (not to mention greater payload/range) as well a more affordable carrier model for USN given the greater volume of numbers. The alternative for USAF though, is to have what it's faced with today... ie. delays, huge cost over-runs, and the significant cuts in projected orders. |
_________________ The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Oct 07, 2008 - 8:36 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LMAggie
|
Posted: Mar 28, 2008 - 12:51 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 287
Status: Offline
|
|
geogen wrote:
The alternative for USAF though, is to have what it's faced with today... ie. delays, huge cost over-runs, and the significant cuts in projected orders.
Given the complexity of the program, the dynamics of the national economy, and the history of past aircraft development programs, I think the USAF is happy with the F-35A that they are getting. The A380, 787, F-35, F-22....have ALL had rough seas. Making leaps in technology is not an easy process. |
_________________ “Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LMAggie
|
Posted: Mar 31, 2008 - 12:02 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 287
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|