Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Yeah, brand new Block 60s couldn't have hurt. Heck Block 52+s wouldn't be a bad idea either. Hell, I'm still for applying MLU to older F-16As stored at AMARG if any of them have enough hours left on their airframes. F-16As with the MLU and maybe the SABR in the nose would be a pretty capable bird, even by modern standards.

F-16.net Sponsor

That's pretty cool about the planned F-22 successor. It pretty much confirms the graph you showed a week or so ago from 2008.

cjb_60 wrote:

I guess I don't understand this complete dedication to stealth aircraft at the expense of keeping the majority of the fleet operational. Why the USAF didn't start buying F-16Es (block 60) a few years ago is beyond me.

From what I understand, this decision was made back in the 1990s, and would be difficult to undo now. The USAF decided to do away with the EF-111, investing in temporary coverage from USN EA-6B squadrons while they worked their way towards an all stealth fleet that wouldn't need tactical jamming support. Obviously, the JSF delivery dates have slipped since 1996-1998 timeframe when the Ravens were deleted. However, despite the slip in F-35 dates, the USAF is still commited to an all stealth, all fifth gen fleet, and investing money in a new F-16E/F would simply drain F-35 funds, and increase the nyumber of birds in the inventory that would need the dedicated support of a Prowler or a Growler.

From what I remember B-2 missions in Operation Allied Force had jamming support. I don't know if we should put all of our eggs in the stealth basket. The kind of stealth we talk about these days (the VLO kind) won't last forever.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

USAF to send 250 F-15/F-16/A-10s to the boneyard