F-16.net

We now have the F/A 22 and soon the JSF. Which plane will replace which and what timeframe is this supposed to take place?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

The F-22 will replace the F-15, and the JSF (F-35) will replace the F-16, for the Air Force. Of course it is also going to replace a few airframes in the Navy and Marines.

and UCAV's will replace f-22 f-35 etc.

ximeno wrote:

and UCAV's will replace f-22 f-35 etc.

Then robots will replace humans

Elite Joined: May 11, 2004 Posts: 2890 Status: Offline

And then we'll be hermits living underground Laughing

! Guys, I think we should get back on topic Wink

. I think the F-22 and JSF will be great successors, but I doubt either jet will replace the Viper in all our hearts In Love

!

A lot of people like to bash both of these new jets, but I think they have a lot going for them. Take the F-22 with its stealth, maneuverability, and brute strength when it comes to its thrust to weight ratio. Then there's the F-35's versatility with all three versions. I think we'll see the two new jets overlap their capabilities and fuse into a lethal force the likes of which have never been seen Devil

! Add all of this to the other jets in the USAF like the newly upgraded A-10C Very Happy

, and I think we'll all be able to agree that the future for the USAF is lookin' good Thumb

!

but you must remember that since the UCAV's have no pilot, the A/C can pull more G's than any A/C now plus all of that extra cockpit support stuff on the A/C you don't really need. So in other words the UCAV's can and will eventually be replacing maned A/C on dangerous missions, but who knows what they have in the balck hole.

Elite Joined: May 11, 2004 Posts: 2890 Status: Offline

ximeno, we've had a couple of threads now about the future of combat aircraft and UCAVs possibly taking over that role. I'd just like to keep this on the topic of replacements for the F-15 and F-16 instead of the replacements' replacements Wink

.

Sorry I'd had a RLCS cart that blew up on me

It is just that I know as a fact that the ATF and the JFS is headed in the WRONG direction by a manufacture that promise a lower cost per A/C, BUT in the end a much....much higher cost and a underperformer, hell just look at the F-22, it has bin in development for over 20 YEARS at a cost of 250 mil to 500 mil per A/C (depending on the funding year) and both of the ATF-22 birds crashed (would you by a YUGO for a price of a Peterbuilt???) and I know from MDC employee's reports and vid's (MDC) that the ATF-23 did ALL of the requierments that the fly-off was required and NOW it is coming back to life.

--------MYTH------MYTH-------MYTH
The F-22 did not win because it launch a missile!!!!!! it was not required. (common myth)

If you look at the F-15, it took Less than 6 years from concept to full production and being produced along with the F-4 (the F-4 was orignially a navy A/C)at that time. The F-17 lost to the F-16 and Mc Donnell Douglas took the A/C from Northrop for the prime contractor, beef up the landing gears, etc and the navy wanted an A/C different from the AF with 2 engines, it turn into the F-18.

F-16 We know that it started in the early 70's and Hill was the first A/F base to get them.

The AV8-B again became a very sucessfull A/C after Mc Donnell Douglas fixed most all of the bugs but it is still a very DIFFICULT A/C to fly and mechanical labor intensive (Prop motor change==the engine and wing MUST be removed). The "REMAN" program took wings, pylons and other stuff from the fleet and they was able to have a NEW A/C for less than 25-30 mil and bypass congress approvals.

A-12 (navy) when it was cancelled (and yes I was affected) Aviation weekly said that Mc Donnell Douglas had the most talented people in the aviation industry at that time (including ATF-23).

JSF -Mc Donnell Douglas We were told that ours was Too advance and unfeasible. heh ya right?

C-17 had it probs but still, it went from a 70's smaller A/C to a Very reliable A/C (FEDX want some because it can carry more that a MD-11), but DAC,, well poor work ethics.

F-15k's are now being built for Korea along with there engines (GE's) and they want more. AF may want 100-200 F-15E if f-22 cost gets TOOOOO high.

F-18E/F - India wants to buy 126 of them and they DO NOT WANT to have the same A/C that Pakistan have (03/25/05).

UCAVS's are now flying a very limited roll but the new UCAV's WILL be replacing maned flying pilots to keep cost down on training new pilots on A/C, that can out perform what a human body can endue.

Would you like to LOOSE a person that you JUST spent 3 mil plus on training just to have him shot down and captured as a POW or would you rather have them shoot the A/C down with no pilot and SAVE all of that training for another attack and save all of that press stuff too.

All in all, I DO NOT believe (and it SHOULD NOT) take 20 years to go from concept to FULL Production and at the times that we live today it should not take 20 years to get a fighter to the A/F it should be 5 years or less.

Elite Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 922 Status: Offline

I asked someone about this before, an engineer who works out of WPAFB. Comparing the F-15 and F-22, he said one of the reasons the F-22 took so long to manufacture is because the research of new technologies put into it. Where as the F-15 was using mostly technologies already available at the time. Im not quite sure what technologies the F-15 inovated but I do know the F-22 presents some amazing new stuff. In addition to the stealth, it can activly cancel an enemies RWS (though the method is classified), and im sure the research on super cruise engines wasnt cheap considering we have just about maxed our potential on jet engines untill new materials become available.

As for the competitions, those are always political. Perhaps a Northop CEO slept with a congressman's wife or something, I dunno... The YF-23 was pretty sweet though...

-Aaron

But what's going to happen to the F-15E? According to Boeing's site, only the F-15C air-superiority variant is to be replaced by the F-22. You'd think that the Beagle (Like the Viper) would be replaced by the F-35, but I haven't heard anything about that. I've also heard a rumour that the proposed F/B-22 is supposed to replace a some bombers along with the F-15E, but what happens if the project gets cancelled? I just hope that if the Viper gets retired, the Eagle will go down with it. I still can't get over the fact the the Hornet gets another shot at life for the US, while the Viper gets left in the dust... Crying or Very sad

Newbie Joined: Feb 26, 2005 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

The F-16 was originally designed to be a cheap, jack of all trades bird to supplement Air Force Fighter Wings when Congress decided not every wing in the AF could have F-15s. As a result, the F-16 was probably not designed to be kept in service over the length of time that an F-15 was. As for the F-15E, it will be a hard aircraft to replace as there are few aircraft with the same A/G capability in US inventory. Yeah, the F/A-22 can carry JDAMs, but I don't know if it can carry the same number an F-15E could. I don't know if the F/A-22 will ever have the A/G capability the F-15E does, but seeing as starting next year, the F-15E fleet will be reaching the twenty year old mark, a replacement is probably well on the way.

Cheap Jack of all trades? and disposable jet are terms that I have heard and used. Back in 1988 if you told me that I would be crewing a jet with 4500 or more hours on it I would've repurtured my spleen laughing at you!
With "falcon up" "cupid" and other beef ups of structure and technology, this jet has lasted longer than anyones expectations. I have no proof that the designers thought of the F-16 in the "disposable" mind frame. Just things you hear throughout the years.Now with the days of "operation provide world a service" (sarcasm and pride wrapped into one statement) our airframes are being pulled to all ends of the world and every climate imaginable. VIVA LA VIPER!!!

With the current planned buys of the F-22/F-35, I don't think we can call them a replacement for the Eagle and Viper. It's certainly not going to be a 1-1 replacement, more of a complement to the existing force. Beagles and Vipers aren't going anywhere for a long time. The total firepower (ie # of bombs) of 180 Raptors and around maybe 500 or so (a wag, I know, but the way things are going....) simply isn't enough to keep the kind of overhead presence that US forces have come to expect. The Beagle and Viper will be dropping bombs for some time to come.

I could see the F-22 or F-35 taking over the SEAD and of course the A/A role since they will be much more survivable, and the Blk 50s moving back into a CAS/PGM role along with the Beagles and A-10C. It's going to be one hell of a combat capability. UAVs are eventually going to replace manned fighters in a high-threat environment for many reasons, but that's a ways in the future and a subject for a different thread.

Veteran Joined: Jul 21, 2005 Posts: 471 Status: Offline

You have to remember, the F-15, F-16, A-10, F-14 (if it's not already almost gone), and the F-18A/B/C/D are all being phased out. It's not an instantanious thing. The AF may find out while things are getting phased out that some of those planes are still useful for a while even simply as bombers. I know the A-10 isn't being phased out until 2028. They fully intend to fly the wings off the A-10, and knowing the durability of the A-10 it would keep flying. The Airforce might come to realize that once the F/A-22 clears the skies there's still a place for the F-16, F-15E, etc because there's nothing that could take those planes down. I'm speaking from INexperience here but that's my $.02

I think that's it exactly

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-15 & F-16 Replacements