F-16.net

Could the F-16 block 60/70 (E/F or I) compete against the F-35? Or is the F-35 superior to all 4th generation fighters?

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Veteran Joined: Sep 01, 2007 Posts: 336

No competition, sorry, game over.

SnakeHandler wrote:

No competition, sorry, game over.

so you saying that its a lost cause to compare the 2. if so i want a more detailed responce. as in how is it superior etc...

Elite Joined: Sep 02, 2006 Posts: 940 Status: Offline

general_samkari wrote:

SnakeHandler wrote:

No competition, sorry, game over.

so you saying that its a lost cause to compare the 2. if so i want a more detailed responce. as in how is it superior etc...

(1) Equal or better flight performance when clean, clearly better with realistic weapon loads -- thanks to internal weapons bays to support superior operational drag and stealth.
(2) Much greater range and endurance, along with higher ordnance payload.
(3) 1/1000th the radar signature.
(4) Vastly superior sensors and situational awareness systems -- including but not limited to an internal 360 degree fixed sensor IRST, a turreted long range IRST/laser, a larger 1600 element AESA LPI radar, a HMD, advanced networking, ESA 360 degree ELINT sensors, ESA communications array farm.
(5) Equal or LOWER cost.
(6) 60% lower maintenance footprint.

For any mission -- A2A, A2G or Recon -- at any range and under any threat environment, the F-35 will be significantly more effective than any evolved F-16.

Wow, thank you very much for the clarification!

Veteran Joined: Sep 01, 2007 Posts: 336

Took the words right out of my brain, dwightlooi. The only other thing to add is that the internal fuel capacity of the F-35 is equal to the total fuel capacity of the Viper with three externals and CFTs. That'll enable VERY long missions so bring your piddle packs and a lunch. As a side note, I was looking at a picture of AA-1 and I couldn't find the cup holder. Guesses anyone? Very Happy

On a one on one basis, or even package vs package basis even an F16 block 70 wouldn't stand a chance, it may as well be up against an F22.

However if you only had a relatively small set budget, new build F16 block 50's may be a more attractive option (yes i said block 50's). If you can buy block 50's for half the price you could, with a larger orbat (maybe 50% larger) achieve equal or greater warfighting capability. The effect that networking will have on future aerial battle will mean the avionics capability of the individual fighter will mean less than it used to. With the money you saved on the block 50, you could buy a decent AEW&C platform like Phalcon or Erieye and invested in the appropriate networking you will end up with a very potent orbat. Datalinks now allow a package to operate as a whole integrated system, rather than a team of individual systems.Its kind of like a colony of army ants acting as a super-organism, same principle. Therefore with a decent AEW&C platform and link 16 (or the like) capability will allow your ERIEYE to act as the radar component of the system with the fighters acting as the teeth of the system/package, launching missiles of the AEW&C's radar without using their own. Therefore even an orbat consisting of F16 block 30's could be very potent. Now if it went up against the equivalent amount of F35's (in monetary terms) it would probably get chopped to pieces. But if both were to go up against an enemy equipped with SU 30's they would probably both have a similar chance of success, with the Block 50 equipped orbat having more platforms to put bombs on target.

All that being said, if you can afford F35 plus AEW&C, the information dominance that will grant will give you the ability to chop virtually any opposing orbat to pieces, unless it happens to be equipped with the F35 or F22, or if the PAK FA turns out to be stealthy.

dwightlooi wrote:

(5) Equal or LOWER cost.
(6) 60% lower maintenance footprint.

I seriously doubt that the F-35 will be as cheap or even cheaper than the F-16. I have no idea how the maintainance concept will look like, but 60% lower footprint sound pretty much. The F-16 is not something which could be called maintainance intensive at all.

My thoughts the same. Our F-16's had cost 12 million each, airframe costs at delivery (block 15) added with MLU upgrade. Newly built Block 50+'s are 30 ish. You need a Japanese F-2 or a Block 60 to get into the same price range of the JSF, of 45-60 million each. Even then the JSF is likely to still be more costly than those in the end.

Hmm, I see. Well here's another question for you:

What about the F-18C/D or the FA-18 super hornet V.S the F-35

Elite Joined: Sep 02, 2006 Posts: 940 Status: Offline

general_samkari wrote:

Hmm, I see. Well here's another question for you:

What about the F-18C/D or the FA-18 super hornet V.S the F-35

Basically, the same conclusion except that the range discrepancy is not that great.

Again, to sum it up the F-35 is an equal or better platform performance and maneuverability wise with significantly better endurance, sensors, communication, interface and, of course, stealth. And, it offers all of these advantage in a package that costs equal or less money with a distinctively lower logistical footprint.

general_samkari wrote:

Could the F-16 block 60/70 (E/F or I) compete against the F-35? Or is the F-35 superior to all 4th generation fighters?

Compete in what form? Foreign export sales? In Microsoft Flight Sim?

Or by compete do you mean in time to climb? Turn radius with internal fuel only and above 25k w/o external weapons?

Or do you mean how will 'Nation X' complete with AWACS, tankers, 'jammers', 'slammers,' , eyes in the skies, spies in the other guys armies, integrated air defences, compare when its lower end and higher quantity single engined fighters are analyzed in simulated wars when the only variable in the massive C++ program are:

a) fv = f16 (and all its associated variables)
b) fv = f35 (and all its associated varibales)

To be honest, the question which you ask has no meaning until you ask it in a proper context.

If you want to take a single f-16 vs a single f-35, w/o any other support aircraft, and in a complete vacuum, then that's one thing. But when you get into the nitty gritty of specific missions with specified support aircraft, specified munitions, specified foe... ect ect ect... Then you are asking a real question.

Bluntly, to the USAF/USN/USMC/USoA, with all its tooth to tail equipment, and people, and all our other warplanes, with all of our weapons available... The F-35 isn't going to substantially alter the outcome of any simulated or real war. When you factor in that we have F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, secret stuff, plus aim-120s, and Global Hawks, jdams, tomahawks, small diameter bombs, and the list goes on and on... The F-35 aint gonna be the scale tipper that planes like the F-15, F-4, & ect's were. Especially given the fact that planes are more now than ever nothing more a platform for the weapon being deployed.

If the F-35 lives up to the hype, then its nothing more than a mere refinement and fine tuning to our current capabilities. Oh, and all for the bargain basement, K-Mart blue light special pricing, of around 350 billion dollars. Damn! What a deal!

Elite Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 960 Status: Offline

Pilotasso wrote:

My thoughts the same. Our F-16's had cost 12 million each, airframe costs at delivery (block 15) added with MLU upgrade. Newly built Block 50+'s are 30 ish. You need a Japanese F-2 or a Block 60 to get into the same price range of the JSF, of 45-60 million each. Even then the JSF is likely to still be more costly than those in the end.

$12 mil each? Not a chance. In 1999 I paid $25 mil each for USAF Block 50s.

Roscoe wrote:

Pilotasso wrote:

My thoughts the same. Our F-16's had cost 12 million each, airframe costs at delivery (block 15) added with MLU upgrade. Newly built Block 50+'s are 30 ish. You need a Japanese F-2 or a Block 60 to get into the same price range of the JSF, of 45-60 million each. Even then the JSF is likely to still be more costly than those in the end.

$12 mil each? Not a chance. In 1999 I paid $25 mil each for USAF Block 50s.

i think that was the unit cost back when they were making Block 15's.

While I agree with almost everything being sayed here supporting the F-35's suppiriority. The price factor is something that remains to be seen in my opinion. The price of buying such a jet doesn't really matter as that's a one off thing and is tiny compared to the money needed to support a jet threw the decades.

But in the good old days before the F-16 (not really good though..) The same thing was sayed about the F-16 compared to what it was going to replace... In my country (the Netherlands) that wasn't really the case. Sure it was more modern, but that also meant a whole lot more could go wrong, and did so much faster.

Now with new technologies like the computer self diagnosing itself and telling the pilot what needs fixing is bound to help. But Im still not convinced about it actually being cheaper and easier to maintain. Because as I sayed before: That was also promissed with the F-16..

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-16 block 60 versus F-35