F-16V vs F-15C (ANG)

[Corsair1963]

Much talk about retiring the F-15C early. So, would the F-16V make a good replacement until the USAF can afford to purchase enough F-35's.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

would the F-16V make a good replacement until the USAF can afford to purchase enough F-35's.

This is a poor assertion as the difference in price between new build F-16V and F-35A is less than the cost of the loadout in that picture. To upgrade a Block 40 to a Block 70 is just over $50,000,000. To buy a new one is going to be in the ballpark of 70-80 million dollars. Would it be a very capable forth gen airframe? Absolutely! Is it cost effective vs the F-35A? Not at all.

[Corsair1963]

would the F-16V make a good replacement until the USAF can afford to purchase enough F-35's.

This is a poor assertion as the difference in price between new build F-16V and F-35A is less than the cost of the loadout in that picture. To upgrade a Block 40 to a Block 70 is just over $50,000,000. To buy a new one is going to be in the ballpark of 70-80 million dollars. Would it be a very capable forth gen airframe? Absolutely! Is it cost effective vs the F-35A? Not at all.

I never said anything about New Built F-16V's. Nor, buying F-16V's over F-35's. Nonetheless, what I was talking about was upgrading existing F-16's to the F-16V. Then using them to replace the current F-15C Fleet. At least until the USAF can acquire enough F-35's to take over the role.

[basher54321]

If they are SLEPing 300 x Block 40 to 52 to 12,000 hours and putting in GCAS then hopefully some of the other V updates are likely to follow at some point.

[magnum4469]

Being a Viper guy I definitely have loyalty but in all fairness I think the F-15C with CFTs would be a better option. The Lousianna ANG is testing it now. With the CFT's and ASEA radar upgrade it can carry 16 AAM. Just think a 2 ship Cap with 32 AAMs. Or better yet a 4 ship wall with 64 AAMs. They call it "persistant air domenance".

Here are a couple of links...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18 ... fuel-tanks

http://www.janes.com/article/77629/ang- ... first-time

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

would the F-16V make a good replacement until the USAF can afford to purchase enough F-35's.

This is a poor assertion as the difference in price between new build F-16V and F-35A is less than the cost of the loadout in that picture. To upgrade a Block 40 to a Block 70 is just over $50,000,000. To buy a new one is going to be in the ballpark of 70-80 million dollars. Would it be a very capable forth gen airframe? Absolutely! Is it cost effective vs the F-35A? Not at all.

I never said anything about New Built F-16V's. Nor, buying F-16V's over F-35's. Nonetheless, what I was talking about was upgrading existing F-16's to the F-16V. Then using them to replace the current F-15C Fleet. At least until the USAF can acquire enough F-35's to take over the role.

Recheck your statement. "would it bake a good replacement until the USAF can afford to purchase enough F-35s." You brought cost into the equation with that statement. As I pointed out the cost of upgrading two F-16s is less than the cost of buying an F-35. The number of F-35s to be purchased is relatively fixed. why spend billions more on an additional platform to fill a role that will go to F-35s anyway? Spend the money on more F-35s instead and get to that fixed number faster.

[Corsair1963]

[quote="sprstdlyscottsmn]
Recheck your statement. "would it bake a good replacement until the USAF can afford to purchase enough F-35s." You brought cost into the equation with that statement. As I pointed out the cost of upgrading two F-16s is less than the cost of buying an F-35. The number of F-35s to be purchased is relatively fixed. why spend billions more on an additional platform to fill a role that will go to F-35s anyway? Spend the money on more F-35s instead and get to that fixed number faster.[/quote][/quote]

Yes, upgraded F-16V's instead of upgraded F-15C's. Also, while it would be great to replace all of the F-15's and F-16's now. Lockheed Martin can only produce so many at a time. Also, while it would be cost effective long term. It wouldn't short term and the politician can't see past their noses.....

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Yes, upgraded F-16V's instead of upgraded F-15C's. Also, while it would be great to replace all of the F-15's and F-16's now. Lockheed Martin can only produce so many at a time. Also, while it would be cost effective long term. It wouldn't short term and the politician can't see past their noses.....

Thanks for the context. An upgraded F-16V would be amazing for ANG work and could certainly do the job nearly as well as a Golden Eagle at lower cost.

[weasel1962]

New builds were considered back in 2005 but that is no longer an option. As to upgrade, that's what the USAF has already embarked. The big bang approach was considered prior to the ROCAF F-16 upgrade decision under CAPES/SLEP but appears to have been parceled into a phased approach starting with the SLEP. How CAPES will be implemented is still up in the air since being terminated in FY 2014/2015 due to funding limitations. SABR was selected in year 2017 so the likely approach is a depot modernization approach (small scale funding).

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/apjin ... _s_eng.pdf

[Corsair1963]

By JAMES BOLINGER | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: June 8, 2018


The Air Force canceled expensive upgrades to 196 F-15C fighters last year as it hammered out a plan to retire the jets, according to a recently declassified report.

The fighters were supposed to get new electronic warfare equipment known as the Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System, said the Department of Defense Inspector General report declassified on May 21.

The Air Force had planned to spend $3.4 billion installing the gear on all F-15Cs and 217 F-15Es, giving them “electronic warfare capabilities to detect and identify air and ground threats, employ counter-measures, and jam enemy radar signals,” the report said.

However, in February 2017 the service ordered a 47 percent cut to the number of jets getting the new equipment, which replaces a dated 1970s electronic warfare package and is designed to increase the F-15C’s survivability in a contested environment.

The IG report outlined a timeline for retiring the jets, but many details were redacted.

Before that happens, Air Force officials must brief Congress on options to replace F-15C Air Superiority Mission capabilities, validate whether upgraded F-16s are a viable replacement, and identify transition plans for locations that support F-15C aircraft, personnel, operations or maintenance activities, the report said.

Officials from the service told lawmakers in March 2017 that they would consider retiring the aircraft during budget planning for the 2019 fiscal year.

If Congress doesn’t approve the retirement, the Air Force will restore funds to install the electronic warfare gear on F-15Cs based on mission requirements, an Air Force official said in the report

https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force- ... s-1.531719

[magnum4469]

This was all done before President Trump announce a very large increase in the Defense Budget. I wonder if this will change any of the plans in place. Like I mentioned earlier I'm a huge Viper fan but when you look at the fact that the USAF only have around 178 F-22s. As good as the F-16V is, it just does not have the fire power. A friend of mine said that with the Air to Air CFTs on the F-15C it can carry up to 20 AAMs. I'm not sure if that is true but I did see pictures of a CFT that had 4 AAM stations, and another version that actually carried 6 but it was an artist drawing. With the quad launchers on the inner wing and dual launcher on outer wing stations that could be 20 to 24 AAMs. The F-16V with CFTs max load based on the Corsair1963 picture is 10 AAM, if you replaced the 370s with triple launch rails it would bring it up to 16. Even with the CFTs it would have limited range due to the huge drag penalty. The F-15 would also have a lot of drag but not as much due to the fact that 8 aams would be semi recessed in the F-15 CFTs.
Another thought based on the conflicts the US has been involved in since 911. There has not been much of an Air to Air threat and what was, was quickly swept aside in the early days of the conflict. Since then it has been a ground support mission with no Air to Air threats. If we get in a conflict with a nation that has 4th or early 5th generation fighters a force of only 178ish F-22s could be extremely taxed. That is why I think we need to upgrade the remaining F-15Cs. It would be a good complement to the F-22s until LM can crank out enough F-35s. Plus if multiple conflicts develope the F-22 would be stretched thin, sending upgraded F-15Cs would send a powerful message.

[basher54321]

The CFTs don't look that different to F-15E type CFTs and the missiles are not recessed - also the drag seems to go through the roof as soon as pylons are added to them in the Es case.

Be surprised if it wasn't limited to subsonic with even just 2 quad launchers on the wings due to flutter let alone in super arcade power up mode.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

The mythical 20 AAM F-15, even with -229 motors is drag limited to ~1.5M and a mil power service ceiling of ~35,000ft after climbout. By my model anyway.

[Corsair1963]

As more and more F-35's come online more and more F-16's will become available. Plus, they just started a new SLEP for the F-16. So, upgrading a modest number of them to replace the F-15C's makes perfect sense. Plus, it's cheaper and the F-16's are far more Versatile. (i.e. Multi-Role)

[wrightwing]

It makes sense only based upon cost. Not in terms of capabilities. The F-16 will never be as capable, in the Air Superiority mission.