Forum: General F-16 forum

marco9 wrote:

Take an F-4 shell, put all the F-35 systems inside and you get a XXI century perfect war-fighting machine with bigger room to grow.
It’s not even Stealth technology, that much.

Now THAT is something I'd love to see. (and will be writing about...) If Greece can't afford new fighters (looking likely) or the Typhoon is a bigger flop than we thought, the HAF and Luftwaffe WILL be relying on 40-50-year-old designs. (that have proved their ability to lock up Turkish Vipers before said Turks even detected them)

F-16.net Sponsor

New build F-16s are still useful. However, just like the F-35, it cannot take on the high-end threats. That is the job of the F-22.

Quote:

Are there any engineers from the "geek squad" that could shed light on the feasability of packing fifth gen avionics and sensor suites into 4th gen aircraft? A buddy said to me that to make it really work you need to essentially rebuild the plane, hence why not just build a new one that is stealthy. I don't know about you but trying to tackle an SA-10/10B/20, when they can see you on radar may not be very healthy.
As far as where future wars will take place. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Frankly i wouldnt be surprised if china and russia go at it in the next 20 years over the natural gas fields. Thats where i think china is focusing its build up.

I think it's totally feasible. Moore's Law has been a pretty good indicator of our advancements in electronics/electrical technology. Everything gets smaller, lighter, faster, more efficient, and easier to make. That's why I don't quite understand how an airframe gets "full".

Quote:

You said it right. A part from the know-how that a Country gains during these projects, there in nothing, but spending public money to sustain private sector, someone in the world called it “Socialism”, but don’t worry.

So national defense and foreign policy have nothing to do with it? I don't think sustaining the private sector is as big a concern as you say. Look at what happened to the defense industry after the Cold War. Look at who could build a bomber or tanker aircraft then and look at who can do it now. Things are considerably more complex.

deadseal wrote:

...when the whole reason for a military is to crush the other guy's conventional forces. We have proven that occupation is just too costly.

We've also proven that ignoring troubled areas can be costly. The whole reason for a military is to provide security for its people, which may mean crushing conventional forces or it can mean fighting "small wars" or insurgencies. To assume that future wars will primarily be conventional is a trap - we don't know what they will be. But there is strong evidence that the U.S. will face unconventional foes for several years to come. The difficulty is finding a balance between conventional platforms and those more suited to unconventional warfare. The other issue at play is that airpower has a somewhat limited role in counterinsurgency - the real war is fought on the ground by providing security for the local populace and developing trust with local leaders to gather actionable intel. Technology can only support, not replace that.

The F-16s versatility and low cost mean it will have a place in combat for many years. In my completely unbiased opinion, it will go down (sts) in history as the greatest manned fighter of all time.

Forum: General F-16 forum

Why they keep saying that F-16 is not good enough ?