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

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3475
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 16:23

The E models will be kept around until well into the 2040s, once the next generation fighters are entering service, and we have a robust B-21 and F-35 fleet. There isn't a chance in hell, that the USAF is considering a 2030 retirement.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6397
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:37

wrightwing wrote:The E models will be kept around until well into the 2040s, once the next generation fighters are entering service, and we have a robust B-21 and F-35 fleet. There isn't a chance in hell, that the USAF is considering a 2030 retirement.



I am sure many Tomcat fans said the same thing back in 2000..... :doh:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:48

Corsair1963 wrote:I am sure many Tomcat fans said the same thing back in 2000..... :doh:

"Nothing else has the speed, range, and payload that the F-14D does. It will stay in service until it has a dedicated replacement." - Tomcat fans until 2003 when the Phoenix was retired.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6397
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:56

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I am sure many Tomcat fans said the same thing back in 2000..... :doh:

"Nothing else has the speed, range, and payload that the F-14D does. It will stay in service until it has a dedicated replacement." - Tomcat fans until 2003 when the Phoenix was retired.



Point is the Tomcat was retired much earlier that plan.....
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3475
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 00:40

Corsair1963 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I am sure many Tomcat fans said the same thing back in 2000..... :doh:

"Nothing else has the speed, range, and payload that the F-14D does. It will stay in service until it has a dedicated replacement." - Tomcat fans until 2003 when the Phoenix was retired.



Point is the Tomcat was retired much earlier that plan.....

The point is that the USAF isn't going to retire airframes faster than new airframes enter service. F-14s were hanger queens, which led to their early retirement. F-15Es have good availability rates, and unlike the Cs ARE fully funded. If the USAF were buying 200 F-35s per year, it'd be one thing. As it stands, they'll be buying 60 per year, so it'll be ~2045 to 2048 before all F-35s enter service. Till that time, we're not going to hemorrhage aircraft/capabilities. The first priority is replacing F-16s and A-10s, before F-15Es.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6397
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 02:46

[quote="wrightwing]


Point is the Tomcat was retired much earlier that plan.....
The point is that the USAF isn't going to retire airframes faster than new airframes enter service. F-14s were hanger queens, which led to their early retirement. F-15Es have good availability rates, and unlike the Cs ARE fully funded. If the USAF were buying 200 F-35s per year, it'd be one thing. As it stands, they'll be buying 60 per year, so it'll be ~2045 to 2048 before all F-35s enter service. Till that time, we're not going to hemorrhage aircraft/capabilities. The first priority is replacing F-16s and A-10s, before F-15Es.[/quote][/quote]


The F-15E fleet is getting old and will become more and more expensive to operate and maintain over time. Especially, with such a modest number left in service after the F-15C's are gone....

Nor, do I believe all the F-16's and maybe even the A-10's. Will be gone before they start to replace the F-15E's.

That said, we're both speculating. So, we will just have to wait and see.


Respectfully 8)
Offline

magnum4469

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 18:27

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 04:40

Unless the USAF is willing to give the next 6 squadrons(5 operational 1 training) of F-35 to replace the F-15C(ANG) squadrons I think that common sense would say to upgrade the F-15Cs. Costs of converting F-15C to F-16V would be a waste of taxpayers money vs just upgrading existing F-15s. Based on the future purchase of 60 per year it would be around 3 years before the Active Duty AIr Force would see another F-35... I don't see that happening... Plus when you look at the big picture the shortage is in Air Superiorty and I don't see the F-35 doing a dedicated Air Superiorty role. I highly doubt the active duty F-15s will be replaced anytime soon by F-35s... I know some people think the F-35 is the answer to everything but it's not... There is no way in hell it can do the CAS role like the A-10. The only way it can equal an Eagle is to not be in stealth mode with external weapons pylons which negates it's main tactical advantage... It is a good replacement for the F-16, but the F-16 is not an Eagle nor a Hog... In a way the F-35 a stealth version of the F-4 which was a jack of all trades but a master of none...

I'm not looking to get in a pissing contest, just my :2c:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3475
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 05:03

Corsair1963 wrote:
[quote="wrightwing]


Point is the Tomcat was retired much earlier that plan.....
The point is that the USAF isn't going to retire airframes faster than new airframes enter service. F-14s were hanger queens, which led to their early retirement. F-15Es have good availability rates, and unlike the Cs ARE fully funded. If the USAF were buying 200 F-35s per year, it'd be one thing. As it stands, they'll be buying 60 per year, so it'll be ~2045 to 2048 before all F-35s enter service. Till that time, we're not going to hemorrhage aircraft/capabilities. The first priority is replacing F-16s and A-10s, before F-15Es.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

The F-15E fleet is getting old and will become more and more expensive to operate and maintain over time. Especially, with such a modest number left in service after the F-15C's are gone....

Nor, do I believe all the F-16's and maybe even the A-10's. Will be gone before they start to replace the F-15E's.

That said, we're both speculating. So, we will just have to wait and see.


Respectfully 8)[/quote]


The F-15E has been tested to over 25k flight hours. They're nowhere needing replacement. As for modest number, there are ~220. By comparison, how many F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, or Gripen aircraft are currently in service? You're worse than Geogen and Maus92 with baseless speculation. Sure, anything could happen, but it's not likely.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6397
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 07:32

wrightwing wrote:
The F-15E has been tested to over 25k flight hours. They're nowhere needing replacement. As for modest number, there are ~220. By comparison, how many F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, or Gripen aircraft are currently in service? You're worse than Geogen and Maus92 with baseless speculation. Sure, anything could happen, but it's not likely.



Hardly, baseless at all....you just don't agree with it.


Also, while I may not agree with you. You don't see me calling you names. :?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6397
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 07:54

—John A. Tirpak

Air Force revelations in recent weeks that it’s beginning to think about the phaseout of the F- 15C/D Eagle has raised eyebrows and concern on Capitol Hill, potentially setting the stage for a replay of the controversy over USAF’s attempt to retire the A-10. But the move is inevitable, sooner or later, and is being considered in light of anticipated budgets and force structure, Air Combat Command chief Gen. James “Mike” Holmes said.

In an April 13 interview with Air Force Magazine, Holmes noted “the last ‘C’ model we bought (was) 31 years ago,” and “they’ve been used really hard.” Without structural rehabilitation of center fuselage bulkheads, “the engineers say you can’t operate” in the F-15’s design envelope anymore “at an acceptable risk … You risk them coming apart.”

The Air Force has an estimate from Boeing and Air Force Materiel Command of between $30-$40 million per airplane to do a structural upgrade that would get the F-15Cs past the late 2020s, Holmes noted, but to keep the fleet “functional” into the late ’20s will only cost about $1 million per airplane. “I think that’s probably a good deal,” Holmes said of the lower figure, “but to spend $30-$40 million to keep them for another 10 years beyond that may not be.”

The problem, he said, is that “I don’t know what my budget will be at the end of the 2020s, but I can assume that it won’t be radically different from what it is now.” If the Air Force is to stay at about 55-60 fighter squadrons, and a growing number of them will be filled with F-35s and the anticipated Penetrating Counterair Aircraft, “then I have choices I have to make. Something has to go,” Holmes said.

Regarding the A-10, he simply observed, “Congress has told us what our parameters are … and I’m going to plan within those.” The F-15 call doesn’t have to be made this year, “but I have to be thinking about it this year.”

To keep the F-15s in the fleet only through the end of the ‘20s means the decision can be postponed until about 2022. “But if I’m going to … go forward with the Penetrating Counterair Aircraft, then I have to prove to people that I can afford it, and so I have to plan.”

Affording it means not only having sufficient operating funds, but sufficient manpower to fly and maintain the aircraft. The Air Force has decided to move forward with a structural and capability upgrade of the F-16, because, Holmes said, the aircraft are newer and have more hours left that can be exploited. “It’s the most cost-effective service-life extension,” Holmes asserted, when assessing the need to maintain multirole capacity with service life remaining. Plus, the F-16s are well suited to the homeland defense mission, he said, which will increasingly require capability against cruise missiles. That will require the F-16 fleet to be fitted with new Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radars, a digital radar warning receiver compatible with that radar, and “a new processor that will let all those things talk to each other, and keep them useful,” Holmes said.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... table.aspx
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3475
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 17:55

Corsair1963 wrote:—John A. Tirpak

Air Force revelations in recent weeks that it’s beginning to think about the phaseout of the F- 15C/D Eagle has raised eyebrows and concern on Capitol Hill, potentially setting the stage for a replay of the controversy over USAF’s attempt to retire the A-10. But the move is inevitable, sooner or later, and is being considered in light of anticipated budgets and force structure, Air Combat Command chief Gen. James “Mike” Holmes said.

In an April 13 interview with Air Force Magazine, Holmes noted “the last ‘C’ model we bought (was) 31 years ago,” and “they’ve been used really hard.” Without structural rehabilitation of center fuselage bulkheads, “the engineers say you can’t operate” in the F-15’s design envelope anymore “at an acceptable risk … You risk them coming apart.”

The Air Force has an estimate from Boeing and Air Force Materiel Command of between $30-$40 million per airplane to do a structural upgrade that would get the F-15Cs past the late 2020s, Holmes noted, but to keep the fleet “functional” into the late ’20s will only cost about $1 million per airplane. “I think that’s probably a good deal,” Holmes said of the lower figure, “but to spend $30-$40 million to keep them for another 10 years beyond that may not be.”

The problem, he said, is that “I don’t know what my budget will be at the end of the 2020s, but I can assume that it won’t be radically different from what it is now.” If the Air Force is to stay at about 55-60 fighter squadrons, and a growing number of them will be filled with F-35s and the anticipated Penetrating Counterair Aircraft, “then I have choices I have to make. Something has to go,” Holmes said.

Regarding the A-10, he simply observed, “Congress has told us what our parameters are … and I’m going to plan within those.” The F-15 call doesn’t have to be made this year, “but I have to be thinking about it this year.”

To keep the F-15s in the fleet only through the end of the ‘20s means the decision can be postponed until about 2022. “But if I’m going to … go forward with the Penetrating Counterair Aircraft, then I have to prove to people that I can afford it, and so I have to plan.”

Affording it means not only having sufficient operating funds, but sufficient manpower to fly and maintain the aircraft. The Air Force has decided to move forward with a structural and capability upgrade of the F-16, because, Holmes said, the aircraft are newer and have more hours left that can be exploited. “It’s the most cost-effective service-life extension,” Holmes asserted, when assessing the need to maintain multirole capacity with service life remaining. Plus, the F-16s are well suited to the homeland defense mission, he said, which will increasingly require capability against cruise missiles. That will require the F-16 fleet to be fitted with new Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radars, a digital radar warning receiver compatible with that radar, and “a new processor that will let all those things talk to each other, and keep them useful,” Holmes said.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... table.aspx


1) how does an observation about C/D models correlate to E models (which are similar in age, but far more capable than F-16s?)
2) why do you insist on citing the $30-40 million per aircraft numbers? I've already shown you that those numbers reflect complete rebuilds/zeroizing the airframes, to keep them flying another 40+ years. $1 million per aircraft will keep them flying till past 2030.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 18:21

wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:—John A. Tirpak

...Holmes noted, but to keep the fleet “functional” into the late ’20s will only cost about $1 million per airplane. “I think that’s probably a good deal,” Holmes said of the lower figure, “but to spend $30-$40 million to keep them for another 10 years beyond that may not be.”



2) why do you insist on citing the $30-40 million per aircraft numbers? I've already shown you that those numbers reflect complete rebuilds/zeroizing the airframes, to keep them flying another 40+ years. $1 million per aircraft will keep them flying till past 2030.

The posted quote clearly calls out that $1m will only get you TO 2028 give or take. If you want past 2030, like you said, that will be the $30-40m
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3475
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 18:42

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:—John A. Tirpak

...Holmes noted, but to keep the fleet “functional” into the late ’20s will only cost about $1 million per airplane. “I think that’s probably a good deal,” Holmes said of the lower figure, “but to spend $30-$40 million to keep them for another 10 years beyond that may not be.”



2) why do you insist on citing the $30-40 million per aircraft numbers? I've already shown you that those numbers reflect complete rebuilds/zeroizing the airframes, to keep them flying another 40+ years. $1 million per aircraft will keep them flying till past 2030.

The posted quote clearly calls out that $1m will only get you TO 2028 give or take. If you want past 2030, like you said, that will be the $30-40m

In this particular quote. I've pointed out another more specific quote to him, on more than one occasion, stating precisely what I posted.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/04 ... -proposal/

"By replacing the aircraft's longerons — the thin strips of material that make up the skeleton of an aircraft — the Air Force can extend the life of the F-15C/D past 2030 for about $1 million per aircraft, Boeing's vice president of F-15 programs, Steve Parker, said during an April 17 interview."

"That would be an expensive proposition at anywhere from $30 million to $40 million.

But that figure represents the most comprehensive rebuild Boeing could do of the jets, Parker said, noting that the company could do other modifications at a cheaper price point.
What is referred to in that statement is what we would term to be the most costly potential solution," he said. "If you wanted to almost zero out the life of the airframe, you could go and replace the fuselage, you can go replace the wings. But you would do that if the aircraft was going to go out another 40, 50, 60 years."

So, it's disingenuous to even bring those sorts of numbers up, as it's not being contemplated. It's especially disingenuous to bring it up, in the context of the E models.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 18:56

Odd that there is such a discrepancy in the statements.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3475
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 22:24

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Odd that there is such a discrepancy in the statements.

I trust the VP from Boeing's numbers.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron