Forum: General F-16 forum

Is there really a threat out there that needs an "interim" capability from now till 2020 to counter that our current forces can't handle? Our current tactical aircraft should be able to easily defeat any potential threat from now until the JSF is in widespread service if you ask me. To me it seems like an F-16XL would have either been unneeded or obsolete throughout its entire life of service.

F-16.net Sponsor

I'd say the BEST interim solution is cut funding for some of those new Navy ships and buy MORE F-22s.

discofishing wrote:

I'd say the BEST interim solution is cut funding for some of those new Navy ships and buy MORE F-22s.

Naaaaa ... the combat future is with this puppy!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... kg&t=1

And if I forgot to mention ... she is combat proven!

From a business perspective, the US was able to lock up a significant portion of the market for F-16 replacements and new orders by initiating the JSF program when it did. It was smart for the US to exploit its advantage in the new technologies arising from tits stealth programs and solidify its lead over foreign competitors. Investing in gen4 technology is tantamount to sitting still w/c affords others the chance to narrow the gap ans possibly surpass you. Innovate or stagnate!

1970 Mustang costs 1,200 - 3,000

2011 Mustang costs 22,000-37,000

I am so tired of complaints about fighter costs, except for the word millions, that gets everybody worked up. The cost of a Mustang 18x what it was in 1970. The F-15 Eagles original cost was 11 million per unit and the F-22 unit cost 177 million is roughly 16 times the cost. Not to mention how vastly superior the F-22 is over the F-15 and most all other AC. How could we equate an F-15/16+ with the Raptor.

But it is fun to have these mental excersise.

strykerxo wrote:

1970 Mustang costs 1,200 - 3,000

2011 Mustang costs 22,000-37,000

I am so tired of complaints about fighter costs, except for the word millions, that gets everybody worked up. The cost of a Mustang 18x what it was in 1970. The F-15 Eagles original cost was 11 million per unit and the F-22 unit cost 177 million is roughly 16 times the cost. Not to mention how vastly superior the F-22 is over the F-15 and most all other AC. How could we equate an F-15/16+ with the Raptor.

But it is fun to have these mental excersise.

You answered your own question? MONEY … last I checked, Charmin wipes my a$$ just as good as Scott?

After analyzing this topic and subsequent posts, I have to say that I’ve concluded that the topic has little to nothing to do with the F-22.

The main idea of the topic is about a hypothetical F-16E “Super Falcon / Viper” for possible USAF service as a stop gap to sustain our fighter force and as the premise, I think is better suited for discussion in the “General” F-16 forum. A moderator in the “General” F-16 forum may deem this topic more suitable for another section, so be forewarned that it may still be moved.

Now that I have moved this thread, I will comment and repeat what I have said before in that I do agree that as the F-35 keep falling in its timetable (which not only was expected, but is even more of a problem than realized), then acquiring new USAF optimized Blk 50/52+s or Blk 60s would be an outstanding choice and the least expensive route to sustain the fighter fleet while actually increasing the combat effectiveness of the Viper force. I would even say just as good is a USAF optimized F-2 “Viper Zero”, but that would be a more expensive route.

But, the USAF leadership have said before they are not interested in acquiring Vipers or any other 4th Gen-designed fighter anymore. Maybe when the situation becomes more dire (i.e. more F-35 problems / slippages) will they reconsider their stance.

castlebravo wrote:

Is there really a threat out there that needs an "interim" capability from now till 2020 to counter that our current forces can't handle? Our current tactical aircraft should be able to easily defeat any potential threat from now until the JSF is in widespread service if you ask me. To me it seems like an F-16XL would have either been unneeded or obsolete throughout its entire life of service.

Scorpion1alpha - Thanks for moving this thread as I also was wondering why it was originally posted in the 5th gen thread, Confused

. And fwiw, I would concur with much of your posted personal views sir, on what USAF/DoD/Congress could consider doing, going forward in the stopgap period.

------

castlebravo - sir - Recapitalizing USAF's rapidly (please note, prematurely rapidly) retiring Tac-air fleet is not about a simple matter of flicking on some switch and instantly you have what you need to replace what you retired 10 yrs ago as a means to meet your standard strategy requirements today! I'm sorry sir, but the proposal you have suggested would not make you a valid candidate for decision maker for USAF's recapitalization strategy. Please give your detailed counter-proposal plan if you wish and I'd, and perhaps others would be happy to respond in kind to continue the discussion. Respects...

God speed USAF recapitalization and leadership.

Just a few of notes:

Navy pulled out of the NATF not to a cut in the budget for NATF. It was more because because Navy wanted more strike capability than AF was willing to put in the ATF, and their budgets they saw coming wouldn't support developing an NATF and adding the strike capability they wanted and also replacing the A-6, which was really the Navy's highest priority. They felt they could get by with enhancements to the forthcoming F-14D, especially armed with AIM-152.

Remember, the F-16E was one of the aircraft proposed for the Enhanced Tactical Fighter program to provide an aircraft to take over the duties of the F-111, since the B-1A had been canceled. The other aircraft proposed was the F-15E and it was selected in 1984 because it would be much less expensive to develop and would be available much sooner.

Given the glacial way we develop things, a "Super Falcon" wouldn't be in service any sooner than the F-35 and wouldn't be as capable. Given the actual prices (as opposed to what the press speculates)on the current orders, it likely wouldn't be any less expensive. To give the F-22 a strike capability approaching that of the F-35 would be hideously expensive,. Remember, AF wanted a pure air superiority fighter. Given that we foolishly have decided there will only be 187, not all of which will be fully combat capable (and no, cutting shipbuilding for more Raptors makes no sense) I can't see the money coming forth to do that. AF also couldn't afford to have its few F-22s sidelined during the mods. A parallel situation occurred with the USMC for the H-1 Upgrade program. Originally all the Yankees and Zulus were to be upgrades of existing airframes, but now the majority will be new production because the USMC could afford to have that many November and Whiskey birds unavailable during the upgrade process.

If the AF really needed more 4th gen jets, I'd argue they'd be better served by evolved F-15s, such as the Stealth Eagle proposals. Again, lower R&D and probably available sooner. If they did go with an F-16E, the optimum engine would be an F110 variant, the F119 really would be overkill.

Well, here we are. Are wonder if anyone in Washington is listening.

aaam wrote:

Just a few of notes:

Navy pulled out of the NATF not to a cut in the budget for NATF. It was more because because Navy wanted more strike capability than AF was willing to put in the ATF, and their budgets they saw coming wouldn't support developing an NATF and adding the strike capability they wanted and also replacing the A-6, which was really the Navy's highest priority. They felt they could get by with enhancements to the forthcoming F-14D, especially armed with AIM-152.

Remember, the F-16E was one of the aircraft proposed for the Enhanced Tactical Fighter program to provide an aircraft to take over the duties of the F-111, since the B-1A had been canceled. The other aircraft proposed was the F-15E and it was selected in 1984 because it would be much less expensive to develop and would be available much sooner.

Given the glacial way we develop things, a "Super Falcon" wouldn't be in service any sooner than the F-35 and wouldn't be as capable. Given the actual prices (as opposed to what the press speculates)on the current orders, it likely wouldn't be any less expensive. To give the F-22 a strike capability approaching that of the F-35 would be hideously expensive,. Remember, AF wanted a pure air superiority fighter. Given that we foolishly have decided there will only be 187, not all of which will be fully combat capable (and no, cutting shipbuilding for more Raptors makes no sense) I can't see the money coming forth to do that. AF also couldn't afford to have its few F-22s sidelined during the mods. A parallel situation occurred with the USMC for the H-1 Upgrade program. Originally all the Yankees and Zulus were to be upgrades of existing airframes, but now the majority will be new production because the USMC could afford to have that many November and Whiskey birds unavailable during the upgrade process.

If the AF really needed more 4th gen jets, I'd argue they'd be better served by evolved F-15s, such as the Stealth Eagle proposals. Again, lower R&D and probably available sooner. If they did go with an F-16E, the optimum engine would be an F110 variant, the F119 really would be overkill.

Well, here we are in the situation today. Wonder if anyone in Washington is listening.

aaam wrote:

Just a few of notes: Given the glacial way we develop things, a "Super Falcon" wouldn't be in service any sooner than the F-35 and wouldn't be as capable.

Super Falcon is already here, I crew one in blk 30 format ,,, you talking out your a$$ mate!

LoL Vark... I hear you, sir. Thanks for your service!

aaam - I actually agree with most of your viewpoints posted, with the exception that the elusive advanced F-16E variant was not merely a 1984 concept (as that's when the super Falcon just got started) and that the so-called 'Super' would not be as nearly expensive to produce today, as an F-35A! (in a likely realistic and sustainable annual procurement rate of say, 30-35 units per yr).

That being said, I would concur that an F-15E+ mod could well serve the AF in any interim high-end stopgap plan and arguably best complement the prematurely discontinued F-22 line in the short-term.

Block 60 is a 4.5 generation fighter. Although the 'line' is a commercial restricted buy, LMCo could easily make a Block '70' with a more advanced electronics/avionics suite as an interim fighter. The engineering is done, the line is still open and it's a viable option.

But there is no "line" anymore. It's just a few build stations in an old test hangar that assembles the parts. The mile long factory floor was completely redone for F-35 production.
fisk

geogen wrote:

castlebravo - sir - Recapitalizing USAF's rapidly (please note, prematurely rapidly) retiring Tac-air fleet is not about a simple matter of flicking on some switch and instantly you have what you need to replace what you retired 10 yrs ago as a means to meet your standard strategy requirements today! I'm sorry sir, but the proposal you have suggested would not make you a valid candidate for decision maker for USAF's recapitalization strategy. Please give your detailed counter-proposal plan if you wish and I'd, and perhaps others would be happy to respond in kind to continue the discussion. Respects...

God speed USAF recapitalization and leadership.

Before I can come up with a "plan" I need to know what the "problem" is which is what I was asking in my post. Exactly how fast is the USAF fighter fleet prematurely retiring?

Forum: General F-16 forum

F-16E "Superfalcon" The Road Not Taken