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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 04:45
by 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.

F16V.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 05:20
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 05:27
by Corsair1963
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 12:19
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 15:33
by 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

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 16:02
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Corsair1963 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 00:33
by 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.....

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 00:49
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 01:57
by 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

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 06:22
by 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

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 14:49
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 16:25
by 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. :P

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 19:13
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 00:07
by 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)

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 03:51
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 04:23
by weasel1962
The F-16V is not as capable as the F-35 from a A2G perspective as well. However it depends on the context. Nothing in the North Korean arsenal today that the F-16 can't handle. Many still think an F-16V can adequately handle a suk. A2G, it can still perform even into the 2040s.

In view that the USAF is already going to keep the plane flying to 2048 which is 30 years from today, Its more a question of "when" rather than "if" the capabilities will be upgraded. The USAF now has the benefit of foreign air forces to test out all the new tech e.g SABR, before integration as well as iron out all the issues.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 07:10
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote: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.



I am sure a number of F-16 Pilots would disagree. Nonetheless, the point is the F-16 is adequate. Plus, in the near future any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter in US inventory. Will be nothing short of a "Missile Truck" in the Air Superiority Role. As they would work closely with the Stealthy F-22 and/or F-35. So, any small discrepancy in performance between the two. Would have little impact.......

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 07:19
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The F-16V is not as capable as the F-35 from a A2G perspective as well. However it depends on the context. Nothing in the North Korean arsenal today that the F-16 can't handle. Many still think an F-16V can adequately handle a suk. A2G, it can still perform even into the 2040s.

In view that the USAF is already going to keep the plane flying to 2048 which is 30 years from today, Its more a question of "when" rather than "if" the capabilities will be upgraded. The USAF now has the benefit of foreign air forces to test out all the new tech e.g SABR, before integration as well as iron out all the issues.



The USAF may claim 2048. Yet, I highly doubt that. Honestly, they will be around until we can replace them....be that 2035, 2045, or whatever.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 08:20
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote: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.



I am sure a number of F-16 Pilots would disagree. Nonetheless, the point is the F-16 is adequate. Plus, in the near future any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter in US inventory. Will be nothing short of a "Missile Truck" in the Air Superiority Role. As they would work closely with the Stealthy F-22 and/or F-35. So, any small discrepancy in performance between the two. Would have little impact.......

They'd be wrong.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 09:23
by weasel1962
Nevertheless, upgrades will happen.

Re-reading the SABR contract for 72 ANG F-16s last year that will cost ~$240m or ~$3m each. 2016 saw the AESA upgrade for 70 F-15s (42 C/Ds, 28 Es). I think the general idea is to keep the upgrades small so there's no incentive to cancel in exchange for more F-35s.

LM will take time to produce the 2000 F-35s for the USAF. Until that happens, the F-16 / F-15 will still form a significant chunk. If those needs to be sent into combat, those little upgrades may make a difference.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 00:40
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote: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.



I am sure a number of F-16 Pilots would disagree. Nonetheless, the point is the F-16 is adequate. Plus, in the near future any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter in US inventory. Will be nothing short of a "Missile Truck" in the Air Superiority Role. As they would work closely with the Stealthy F-22 and/or F-35. So, any small discrepancy in performance between the two. Would have little impact.......

They'd be wrong.


No they wouldn't.....you could send in F-15's or F-16's. Yet, there would be very little difference in the outcome.... :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 01:54
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:

No they wouldn't.....you could send in F-15's or F-16's. Yet, there would be very little difference in the outcome.... :wink:

In a high end fight, an F-16 would be far more reliant on enablers. When combat loaded, they just can't fly as high, far, or fast as Eagles. In the BVR fight, they are outmatched by more than a little bit. The big radar, bigger missile load, and kinematics matter. The F-15 will see low RCS targets (fighters, cruise missiles, etc...)considerably further away. The F-15 can stay on station longer, before having to refuel or RTB. The larger missile load allows for engagement of either more targets, or the ability to fire more missiles at the same number of targets, to increase Pk. The only real advantage is A2G, but we're not short of strike fighters, so it's a meaningless advantage.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 04:07
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

No they wouldn't.....you could send in F-15's or F-16's. Yet, there would be very little difference in the outcome.... :wink:

In a high end fight, an F-16 would be far more reliant on enablers. When combat loaded, they just can't fly as high, far, or fast as Eagles. In the BVR fight, they are outmatched by more than a little bit. The big radar, bigger missile load, and kinematics matter. The F-15 will see low RCS targets (fighters, cruise missiles, etc...)considerably further away. The F-15 can stay on station longer, before having to refuel or RTB. The larger missile load allows for engagement of either more targets, or the ability to fire more missiles at the same number of targets, to increase Pk. The only real advantage is A2G, but we're not short of strike fighters, so it's a meaningless advantage.



Your missing the point as any high end threat is going to be handled by the F-22 and/or F-35 or at least in conjunction with. In addition we do need more Strike Fighters (Multi-Role). As a matter of fact if they do replace the F-15C's with F-16C's and/or F-35A's. My guess is they will be classified as Multirole Strike Fighters not "Air Superiority". Honestly, only the F-22 will be dedicated purely for Air Superiority. At least for the foreseeable future. Even then it's still technically classified as a "Multi-Role Fighter" too! (Yet, rarely used as such.)

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 04:22
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

No they wouldn't.....you could send in F-15's or F-16's. Yet, there would be very little difference in the outcome.... :wink:

In a high end fight, an F-16 would be far more reliant on enablers. When combat loaded, they just can't fly as high, far, or fast as Eagles. In the BVR fight, they are outmatched by more than a little bit. The big radar, bigger missile load, and kinematics matter. The F-15 will see low RCS targets (fighters, cruise missiles, etc...)considerably further away. The F-15 can stay on station longer, before having to refuel or RTB. The larger missile load allows for engagement of either more targets, or the ability to fire more missiles at the same number of targets, to increase Pk. The only real advantage is A2G, but we're not short of strike fighters, so it's a meaningless advantage.



Your missing the point as any high end threat is going to be handled by the F-22 and/or F-35 or at least in conjunction with. In addition we do need more Strike Fighters (Multi-Role). As a matter of fact if they do replace the F-15C's with F-16C's and/or F-35A's. My guess is they will be classified as Multirole Strike Fighters not "Air Superiority". Honestly, only the F-22 will be dedicated purely for Air Superiority. At least for the foreseeable future. Even then it's still technically classified as a "Multi-Role Fighter" too! (Yet, rarely used as such.)


You're missing the point. There aren't enough F-22s. Until F-35s are available in large numbers, their priorities will be strike fighters. F-16s aren't as good as F-15s in the high end fight, till sufficient F-35s are available. Until that time, we'll need a 4th generation fighter to supplement F-22s. The F-15 is the better A2A fighter, which is what we're short of.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 04:37
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
You're missing the point. There aren't enough F-22s. Until F-35s are available in large numbers, their priorities will be strike fighters. F-16s aren't as good as F-15s in the high end fight, till sufficient F-35s are available. Until that time, we'll need a 4th generation fighter to supplement F-22s. The F-15 is the better A2A fighter, which is what we're short of.


Would take many years to rebuilt and upgrade the F-15C's to keep them in service. The F-16C's would be available much sooner and at a far cheaper price. While, being able to perform many different roles. Which, is far more valuable to the USAF....

As I said earlier the F-15C is only used in three front line squadrons. With two at Kadena AFB in Okinawa Japan and one at RAF Lakenheath UK. So, maybe under the USAF Plan they would replace them with F-35A's? While, the remaining ANG F-15C's would be replaced with upgraded F-16C's. This is the most logical plan when considering the numerous variables.


"IMHO"

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 04:56
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
You're missing the point. There aren't enough F-22s. Until F-35s are available in large numbers, their priorities will be strike fighters. F-16s aren't as good as F-15s in the high end fight, till sufficient F-35s are available. Until that time, we'll need a 4th generation fighter to supplement F-22s. The F-15 is the better A2A fighter, which is what we're short of.


Would take many years to rebuilt and upgrade the F-15C's to keep them in service. The F-16C's would be available much sooner and at a far cheaper price. While, being able to perform many different roles. Which, is far more valuable to the USAF....

As I said earlier the F-15C is only used in three front line squadrons. With two at Kadena AFB in Okinawa Japan and one at RAF Lakenheath UK. So, maybe under the USAF Plan they would replace them with F-35A's? While, the remaining ANG F-15C's would be replaced with upgraded F-16C's. This is the most logical plan when considering the numerous variables.


"IMHO"


No it wouldn't. Where do you get this bullshit? The radars are already upgraded (or in the process,) as well as the upgraded computers, cockpits, etc... The longeron upgrade is ~$1 million per aircraft. The F-16 upgrades are way behind the F-15s, in terms of progress. You keep talking about the 3 active duty squadrons, but forget that there are 5 other squadrons as well (i.e. ~ 200+ aircraft, not 60.) In combat the ANG squadrons fly alongside active duty squadrons, transparently.

Our shortages RIGHT NOW are air superiority fighters. Not strikers.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 05:42
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Would take many years to rebuilt and upgrade the F-15C's to keep them in service. The F-16C's would be available much sooner and at a far cheaper price. While, being able to perform many different roles. Which, is far more valuable to the USAF....

As I said earlier the F-15C is only used in three front line squadrons. With two at Kadena AFB in Okinawa Japan and one at RAF Lakenheath UK. So, maybe under the USAF Plan they would replace them with F-35A's? While, the remaining ANG F-15C's would be replaced with upgraded F-16C's. This is the most logical plan when considering the numerous variables.




No it wouldn't. Where do you get this bullshit? The radars are already upgraded (or in the process,) as well as the upgraded computers, cockpits, etc... The longeron upgrade is ~$1 million per aircraft. The F-16 upgrades are way behind the F-15s, in terms of progress. You keep talking about the 3 active duty squadrons, but forget that there are 5 other squadrons as well (i.e. ~ 200+ aircraft, not 60.) In combat the ANG squadrons fly alongside active duty squadrons, transparently.

Our shortages RIGHT NOW are air superiority fighters. Not strikers.


Really........... :?

QUOTE:

Center Fuselage Rebuild Could Be F-15C/D Achilles’ Heel
U.S. Air Force considers major F-15C life-extension too costly

Mar 31, 2017
James Drew

The F-15C may still have an undefeated aerial combat record, but the 38-year-old aircraft could be slated for retirement if the U.S. Air Force decides not to fund a major structural life-extension program. Air Combat Command (ACC) chief Gen. Mike Holmes says it could cost $30-40 million per aircraft to keep the Eagle soaring beyond the late 2020s, including rebuilding the center fuselage section, among other refurbishments. “We’re probably not going to do that,” he tells Aviation Week. The better answer, he says, is to rapidly begin buying more fighter aircraft, at least 100 per year. That includes ramping up Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II output once the low-observable fifth-generation aircraft matures, but also successive purchases of air superiority jets under the service’s new Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA) program. The F-15C is operated primarily by the Air National Guard (ANG) in support of the homeland defense mission, capable of intercepting and shooting down adversary fighters, bombers and cruise missiles. ANG Director Lt. Gen. Scott Rice sent shockwaves through the F-15 community on March 22 when he admitted to Congress that plans are being hatched to retire the 235-aircraft single-seat F-15C fleet and the twin-seat D-model trainers in favor of Lockheed Martin F-16s upgraded with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars.

In December, the Air Force put Raytheon on contract to replace the mission computers in its F-16 fleet, providing “near-fifth-generation aircraft computing power” with twice the processing output and 40 times more memory. This upgrade is the bedrock on which future Fighting Falcon improvements will be based, including the radar upgrade. The Northrop Grumman APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar and Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar could compete for that work. The ANG has an urgent operational need to install AESA radars on 72 of its F-16s, delivered in batches of 24 and 48 units depending on acquisition authority and funding beginning in fiscal 2018. That plan has been talked about for some time............

http://aviationweek.com/defense/center- ... illes-heel

BTW I didn't forget the 5 ANG F-15C Units at all. I merely said that "maybe" the USAF would replace the three frontline USAF Units with the F-35A. While, the ANG Units (5) would be replaced by the F-16C's. I've said this at least three times. So, not sure what you don't get???

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 07:13
by weasel1962
On the service life. Only need longeron replacement if the F-15c is operated to mid 2030s. Need fuselage replacement only if beyond.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 07:19
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Would take many years to rebuilt and upgrade the F-15C's to keep them in service. The F-16C's would be available much sooner and at a far cheaper price. While, being able to perform many different roles. Which, is far more valuable to the USAF....

As I said earlier the F-15C is only used in three front line squadrons. With two at Kadena AFB in Okinawa Japan and one at RAF Lakenheath UK. So, maybe under the USAF Plan they would replace them with F-35A's? While, the remaining ANG F-15C's would be replaced with upgraded F-16C's. This is the most logical plan when considering the numerous variables.




No it wouldn't. Where do you get this bullshit? The radars are already upgraded (or in the process,) as well as the upgraded computers, cockpits, etc... The longeron upgrade is ~$1 million per aircraft. The F-16 upgrades are way behind the F-15s, in terms of progress. You keep talking about the 3 active duty squadrons, but forget that there are 5 other squadrons as well (i.e. ~ 200+ aircraft, not 60.) In combat the ANG squadrons fly alongside active duty squadrons, transparently.

Our shortages RIGHT NOW are air superiority fighters. Not strikers.


Really........... :?

QUOTE:

Center Fuselage Rebuild Could Be F-15C/D Achilles’ Heel
U.S. Air Force considers major F-15C life-extension too costly

Mar 31, 2017
James Drew

The F-15C may still have an undefeated aerial combat record, but the 38-year-old aircraft could be slated for retirement if the U.S. Air Force decides not to fund a major structural life-extension program. Air Combat Command (ACC) chief Gen. Mike Holmes says it could cost $30-40 million per aircraft to keep the Eagle soaring beyond the late 2020s, including rebuilding the center fuselage section, among other refurbishments. “We’re probably not going to do that,” he tells Aviation Week. The better answer, he says, is to rapidly begin buying more fighter aircraft, at least 100 per year. That includes ramping up Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II output once the low-observable fifth-generation aircraft matures, but also successive purchases of air superiority jets under the service’s new Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA) program. The F-15C is operated primarily by the Air National Guard (ANG) in support of the homeland defense mission, capable of intercepting and shooting down adversary fighters, bombers and cruise missiles. ANG Director Lt. Gen. Scott Rice sent shockwaves through the F-15 community on March 22 when he admitted to Congress that plans are being hatched to retire the 235-aircraft single-seat F-15C fleet and the twin-seat D-model trainers in favor of Lockheed Martin F-16s upgraded with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars.

In December, the Air Force put Raytheon on contract to replace the mission computers in its F-16 fleet, providing “near-fifth-generation aircraft computing power” with twice the processing output and 40 times more memory. This upgrade is the bedrock on which future Fighting Falcon improvements will be based, including the radar upgrade. The Northrop Grumman APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar and Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar could compete for that work. The ANG has an urgent operational need to install AESA radars on 72 of its F-16s, delivered in batches of 24 and 48 units depending on acquisition authority and funding beginning in fiscal 2018. That plan has been talked about for some time............

http://aviationweek.com/defense/center- ... illes-heel

BTW I didn't forget the 5 ANG F-15C Units at all. I merely said that "maybe" the USAF would replace the three frontline USAF Units with the F-35A. While, the ANG Units (5) would be replaced by the F-16C's. I've said this at least three times. So, not sure what you don't get???

$30-$40 million IF they zeroize the airframe hours. That's not how much it costs to keep them flying till 2030-35, though.
All F-35As will be replacing F-16 and A-10 squadrons, before they replace F-15 squadrons. The plan right now is either F-15s or F-16s will be tasked to supplement F-22s in the air superiority role.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2018, 03:04
by weasel1962
Not so linear. The F-35 will take decades to produce. In the interim, the F-15/16s still need to be maintain. If $ still need to be pumped into maintenance, that $ can be spent on new equipment instead of just refurbishing or extending the life of existing equipment.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 09:23
by Corsair1963
The odds are good that the USAF will retire the F-15C over the next several years. Which, will be replaced by a mix of F-16's and/or F-35's. Honestly, a "no brainer"....



"IMHO"

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 15:10
by magnum4469
Lets look at this from the conversion costs. Corsair is saying that it would be more cost effective to convert F-16s to F-16V standards as they are replaced by the F-35. So now you convert and train F-16 units for the F-35, including training pilots, and all support including maintance, weapons, and everything else that goes with conversion. This is a huge cost to convert a base to a new aircraft and will happen which is a given. My point is why then pay that conversion cost to change F-15 units to F-16s that need to be upgraded to fill the roll of the F-15. Why not just upgrade the 5 remaining F-15 units instead of paying to upgrade the F-16 and convert the entire unit. Such conversions take at least 2 years to complete at which time the unit is not available for mission tasking. If just upgrading the jets the unit can still be tasked as only a couple of jets are converted at a time. Pilot and support training on new systems would be minimal both in cost and time as opposed to platform conversion.

The other alternative and more cost effective thing to do would be to convert the 5 F-15 units to the F-35 before any F-16 units convert. Have them train to more of a air superiority roll instead of multi role like was done with F-16ADF units. The idea of converting F-15 Units to F-16 and upgrading the F-16s to F-16V, while F-16 units convert to F-35, then later to convert the F-16V units to F-35 is just plan a waste of taxpayers money. It kind of goes the the saying when you buy an airplane to buy the second airplane you want... When you are just starting to learn how to fly and your goal is to get your commercial instrument pilot liscense you don't buy a VFR C-152, you buy a IFR C-172. In other words why convert to convert...

One last thought is the threat faced in the future. Are we looking more at A2A or A2G??? I believe with the current fleet of F-16s and F-15E we can take care of any A2G tasking with ease. What I question is the small number of F-22s that we have will be stretched very thin, the F-15 will definitely help and an upgraded F-15 would have almost all the capabilites except for the stealth. You could use the F-22 in the higher threat areas while the F-15s could be used in lower threat areas. As much as I love the F-16 it will never be as good as the F-15 in the air superiority role and in my humble opinion if you are going to spend money to upgrade one or the other, I would spend money on the one that was originally designed to be the Air Supiority fighter. Can't argue with it's kill ratio 104:0 :nono: :notworthy: :notworthy:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 17:17
by wrightwing
magnum4469 wrote:Lets look at this from the conversion costs. Corsair is saying that it would be more cost effective to convert F-16s to F-16V standards as they are replaced by the F-35. So now you convert and train F-16 units for the F-35, including training pilots, and all support including maintance, weapons, and everything else that goes with conversion. This is a huge cost to convert a base to a new aircraft and will happen which is a given. My point is why then pay that conversion cost to change F-15 units to F-16s that need to be upgraded to fill the roll of the F-15. Why not just upgrade the 5 remaining F-15 units instead of paying to upgrade the F-16 and convert the entire unit. Such conversions take at least 2 years to complete at which time the unit is not available for mission tasking. If just upgrading the jets the unit can still be tasked as only a couple of jets are converted at a time. Pilot and support training on new systems would be minimal both in cost and time as opposed to platform conversion.

The other alternative and more cost effective thing to do would be to convert the 5 F-15 units to the F-35 before any F-16 units convert. Have them train to more of a air superiority roll instead of multi role like was done with F-16ADF units. The idea of converting F-15 Units to F-16 and upgrading the F-16s to F-16V, while F-16 units convert to F-35, then later to convert the F-16V units to F-35 is just plan a waste of taxpayers money. It kind of goes the the saying when you buy an airplane to buy the second airplane you want... When you are just starting to learn how to fly and your goal is to get your commercial instrument pilot liscense you don't buy a VFR C-152, you buy a IFR C-172. In other words why convert to convert...

One last thought is the threat faced in the future. Are we looking more at A2A or A2G??? I believe with the current fleet of F-16s and F-15E we can take care of any A2G tasking with ease. What I question is the small number of F-22s that we have will be stretched very thin, the F-15 will definitely help and an upgraded F-15 would have almost all the capabilites except for the stealth. You could use the F-22 in the higher threat areas while the F-15s could be used in lower threat areas. As much as I love the F-16 it will never be as good as the F-15 in the air superiority role and in my humble opinion if you are going to spend money to upgrade one or the other, I would spend money on the one that was originally designed to be the Air Supiority fighter. Can't argue with it's kill ratio 104:0 :nono: :notworthy: :notworthy:

^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^

We're not suffering from a shortage of A2G aircraft. We need a credible air superiority fleet, until large numbers of F-35s are in service. No early F-35 squadrons are going to be dedicated to the air superiority role.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 18:49
by magnum4469
[/b]

We're not suffering from a shortage of A2G aircraft. We need a credible air superiority fleet, until large numbers of F-35s are in service. No early F-35 squadrons are going to be dedicated to the air superiority role.[/quote]


If you read my last paragraph that is exactly what I'm saying... I'm trying to get the point made that we need Air Superiority fighters and not more A2G... Hence upgrading the F-15s instead of replacing them with F-16V.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 01:45
by Corsair1963
magnum4469 wrote:[/b]

We're not suffering from a shortage of A2G aircraft. We need a credible air superiority fleet, until large numbers of F-35s are in service. No early F-35 squadrons are going to be dedicated to the air superiority role.



If you read my last paragraph that is exactly what I'm saying... I'm trying to get the point made that we need Air Superiority fighters and not more A2G... Hence upgrading the F-15s instead of replacing them with F-16V.[/quote]


Sorry, multirole fighter squadrons can perform "Air Superiority" just as easy as Strike........and have for "DECADES".

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 07:30
by Corsair1963
lrrpf52 wrote:The F-35 already does air dominance better than the F-15C could ever hope to do, and we all know what the F-15C's record is. Undefeated air supremacy king of the last generation.

The F-15C has often needed to fire 2-4 AIMs to get a kill. Salvo fire is a standard tactic dating back to the F-4 at least, with Radar missiles.

F-35A even with only 2 or 3 AIM-120s is going to have a much higher Pk, mainly because it can trap an unsuspecting threat aircraft into NEZ and engage with kinematic advantage, no real response time for the victims.

A 2-ship or 4 ship of F-35s can also coordinate these within-NEZ attacks in ways the F-15C could never do.

The F-35A also has more combat radius and station time than a 2-3 tank Eagle.

The one performance metric on paper the F-15C has over the F-35A is service ceiling, but a 2-3 tank F-15C up there is not exactly ideally configured for best performance.

The A2A realm is a major advantage for the F-35A.

Converting to F-16V with impending re-conversion doesn't make much sense to me either, and F-35A simply can do everything A2G better than the Viper, including SEAD/WW mission set. When F-16CJ drivers say a single ship F-35 can do precision targeting on SAM sites better than a 3 ship WW CJ flight, that's saying a lot.

Think about being able to track across the spectrum, a shoot-and-scoot mobile SAM launcher who is integrated with detection and targeting radars. It doesn't matter if he goes on and off with RF, because the brain has already sensor-fused him to the AESA GM mode, an MADL'd it into the hive. That mobile launcher is high priority target on the kill chain, as are his sensor node buddies. The F-35 turns hunter-killer into a mobile hornet nest-like experience.

It has already added a new sense of bravery to serving as a SAM site technician. Might actually be one of the most courageous duty positions in the adversary military. Maybe we should award foreign recognition of bravery medals to those guys in advance.

If only the South Carolina assembly line could have been allocated for new F-22 production...



Point is in a low threat environment the F-16C is as good as an F-15C. While, being cheaper and far more flexible. While, in a high threat environment both are nothing but shooters for F-22's and/or F-35's.

Honestly, post 2030 the F-35 will be the backbone of the US Air Forces. (USAF, USN, and USMC)

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 07:38
by weasel1962
The USAF intends to buy close to 2,000 F-35As but only ~300 of all variants are delivered today. How many squadrons have declared FOC? How many will FOC in the next decade?

Edited: as remembered the 300th F-35 was recently delivered.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 07:42
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The USAF intends to buy close to 2,000 F-35As but only less than 300 of all variants are delivered today. How many squadrons have declared FOC? How many will FOC in the next decade?




Almost 300 in service now and the US will buy over 100 per year going forward....So, that would be ~ 1,300 in a decade from now....

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 07:54
by Corsair1963
As for frontline units that is really apples and oranges. As most F-35 Squadrons today are in the training role....Which, while being combat capable. As not assigned a combat role....Plus, going forward most of the new F-35's will go to frontline units. As the training units will have no need for additional aircraft.


Regardless, at this moment we have three combat coded squadrons. (2-USMC and 1-USAF) Yet, the USN is close behind.(VFA-147)...this will quickly accelerate over the next few years.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2018, 02:59
by weasel1962
Got off my butt to do some numbers crunching. It takes 2 years to deliver from contract date. Assuming it takes 2 years more to FOC a squadron, 48 As contracted each year up to FY 20, 54 til FY 23 and then 60 thereafter.

The navy would complete their 693 F-35 induction by FY 2035 but don't think the USAF plans with the navy in mind. Looking at the USAF...

That means 568 As (32% out of 1763) delivered by 2028 that will be in service by 2030. That fully leaves 68% more i.e. 2/3 of the USAF fighters still need to be replaced. An additional 240 are either contracted or in the process of FOC. It one factors that in, its 46% which leaves 54% of USAF in legacy mode.

By 2035, it will be 868 As (50%) +240 in process (63%) which is a lot better. Only by 2048 would the USAF have fully inducted the F-35.

From that timeline, I think a case can be built to keep the F-15Cs in place until at least 2030.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2018, 03:25
by Corsair1963
Well, the USAF is said to be close to a decision. So we will see shortly...... 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 01:39
by weasel1962
Its a waste nobody else is funding the F-15SE developments. The possibility of integrating Sniper pods into the weaponised CFTs which can be retrofitted to eliminate the "LANTIRN stations". The longer 12+k hour "A10 like" airframe life means it will be in service longer = more value for money to upgrade.

F-15E delivery started in Mar 1987.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 02:58
by Corsair1963
Hardly, as waste when most 4/4.5 Generation Fighter will be obsolete in another decade. (if not before)

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 06:27
by weasel1962
The F-15E already has fairly updated avionics. EPAWSS may not go into C but it will into E. The E has APG-82 AESA. I've always wondered how the 82 stacks against the 81.

I think conformal weapons bays will make the F-15E much more survivable in A2A (albeit reduced endurance). Even if the F-15SE will no longer happen, doesn't mean the tech won't survive it.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 06:38
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The F-15E already has fairly updated avionics. EPAWSS may not go into C but it will into E. The E has APG-82 AESA. I've always wondered how the 82 stacks against the 81.

I think conformal weapons bays will make the F-15E much more survivable in A2A (albeit reduced endurance). Even if the F-15SE will no longer happen, doesn't mean the tech won't survive it.



Honestly, I doubt the conformal weapons bays of the F-15SE offer much benefit. My guess is the USAF will give the Strike Eagle some modest upgrades. In order to keep it relevant until ~ 2030. After which they will quickly be replaced by new F-35's.


"IMHO"

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 16:23
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 23:37
by Corsair1963
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 23:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2018, 23:56
by Corsair1963
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.....

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 00:40
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 02:46
by Corsair1963
[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)

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 04:40
by magnum4469
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 05:03
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 07:32
by Corsair1963
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. :?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 07:54
by Corsair1963
—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

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 17:55
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 18:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 18:42
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 18:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Odd that there is such a discrepancy in the statements.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2018, 22:24
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Odd that there is such a discrepancy in the statements.

I trust the VP from Boeing's numbers.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 01:28
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
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.


1.) Title of thread is F-16V vs F-15C. Plus, when was the last delivery of the F-15C and the first delivery of the F-15E. :wink:
2.) If, you keep the F-15C's past 2030. You will need the $30-40 Million upgrade.....

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 02:12
by Corsair1963
Honestly, I think many are misunderstanding the difference between the $1 Million and $30-40 Million Upgrade of the F-15C??? The former is just some basic airframe upgrades. Which, would get the F-15C to 2030 and beyond. While, the latter would be a complete upgrade from airframe to avionics. (including AESA Radar, EPAWSS, IRST, etc.)

Yet, without the full upgrade the F-15C would not be survivable post 2030. (if then) :doh:


If, you want to keep the Eagle for another decade or more. Then you will need both upgrades hence $30-40 Million. Yet, why even spend $1 Million. When the current fleet could last a few more years....This is why the USAF wants to retire the F-15C within the next few years.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 04:40
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
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.


1.) Title of thread is F-16V vs F-15C. Plus, when was the last delivery of the F-15C and the first delivery of the F-15E. :wink:
2.) If, you keep the F-15C's past 2030. You will need the $30-40 Million upgrade.....

You're correct on the thread title. You changed the topic to the E model, with a new assertion. Keeping past 2030 doesn't require $30-40 million in upgrades. Those upgrades would be required if the F-15C was going to be kept till 2050-2070. To keep till 2040+ would likely be ~$10-15 million ea.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 04:42
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I think many are misunderstanding the difference between the $1 Million and $30-40 Million Upgrade of the F-15C??? The former is just some basic airframe upgrades. Which, would get the F-15C to 2030 and beyond. While, the latter would be a complete upgrade from airframe to avionics. (including AESA Radar, EPAWSS, IRST, etc.)

Yet, without the full upgrade the F-15C would not be survivable post 2030. (if then) :doh:


If, you want to keep the Eagle for another decade or more. Then you will need both upgrades hence $30-40 Million. Yet, why even spend $1 Million. When the current fleet could last a few more years....This is why the USAF wants to retire the F-15C within the next few years.

The new radars, computers, cockpit displays are already funded.
Many of the Cs already have the AESA radars, and various other upgrades.
The $30-40 million figure is for basically rebuilding the fuselage, new wings, new wiring, fly by wire, etc....so the aircraft can fly 30 to 50 more years.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 07:15
by weasel1962
google F-15c + "IEE passive attack display", "ADCP II". Also "APX-114", "calculex MONSSTR", "RIPR".

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 09:22
by Corsair1963
Honestly, we can go back and forth all day. Yet, simple fact is the USAF has a plan to retire the F-15C. So, my guess is they have judged that keeping the F-15C's in not worth it......

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 10:47
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, we can go back and forth all day. Yet, simple fact is the USAF has a plan to retire the F-15C. So, my guess is they have judged that keeping the F-15C's in not worth it......


The official plan to retire the F-15C has not changed since 2009 which was to keep the F-15Cs at least to 2035. The difference today is people assuming that media reports equal to an official plan.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 01:39
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, we can go back and forth all day. Yet, simple fact is the USAF has a plan to retire the F-15C. So, my guess is they have judged that keeping the F-15C's in not worth it......


The official plan to retire the F-15C has not changed since 2009 which was to keep the F-15Cs at least to 2035. The difference today is people assuming that media reports equal to an official plan.




I guess I need to post this again..........


QUOTE:

Air Force cut F-15C upgrades as it planned to retire fighter, IG report says

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.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 02:08
by weasel1962
Nothing in that report changed the F-15C retirement date. Just mentioned they had to re-consider. The last official mention I can find is still at least 2035. It is the job of the USAF to constantly consider the state of its fleet. Nothing new.

Having said that, if a plane can't last until 2035, it would be strange to only retire them in 2035. Even so, F-35 induction also requires the air force to decide which squadrons gets replaced first and what to do with the aircraft. It will likely be a progressive replacement.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 02:18
by weasel1962
Full report for IG is per below.

http://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/Artic ... ty-system/

The redaction is what gets the media all excited and imagination then runs wild.

Just think about it, in Feb 2017, DCS AF issued the directive on the retirement, then in Mar 2017, the AF leadership then went to the hill and said this...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-435721/

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 03:06
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Full report for IG is per below.

http://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/Artic ... ty-system/

The redaction is what gets the media all excited and imagination then runs wild.

Just think about it, in Feb 2017, DCS AF issued the directive on the retirement, then in Mar 2017, the AF leadership then went to the hill and said this...



YOUR SOURCE..........

QUOTE: Finding:

EPAWSS program officials updated the test and evaluation master plan to respond to concerns raised by Air Force and DoD test officials. Additionally, EPAWSS program officials developed an EPAWSS design that can meet capability requirements.

Furthermore, in September 2016, the Air Force fully funded the EPAWSS program through production to satisfy an urgent need for modernized F-15 electronic warfare capabilities. However, in February 2017, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Strategic Plans and Requirements (DCS AF/A5/8) cancelled the upgrade of 196 F-15C aircraft with EPAWSS and removed procurement funds, which resulted in a 47 percent decrease of the total program production quantity.

The quantity decrease of the F-15C EPAWSS production units and the removal of funds occurred because the DCS AF/A5/8 decided to use F-15C EPAWSS procurement funds to develop a higher priority air superiority program.




YOUR SOURCE

QUOTE:

“We are not replacing it at this time,” Lt Gen Jerry Harris, USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, says. “It’s something we are looking at as we continue to bring in more fifth-gen capability...what assets do we push out at the bottom of that chain?”


The air force is undertaking an analysis that compares the purchase of new F-16s and servicing the F-15s, Harris confirmed. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of the Air Force, Heather Wilson, may not wait on those results to determine a way forward on the F-15 retirement. During her 30 March Senate confirmation hearing, Wilson refused a request from Senator Elizabeth Warren to delay the retirement until the Senate receives the comparison analysis.

The USAF will be able to form a better idea of the F-15’s future once the F-35 becomes a full operational platform, Harris told reporters. He also countered that the F-16 could perform the F-15’s traditional air-to-air role, something lawmakers have questioned.

In short the USAF is working on a plan but hasn't summited it to Congress yet....... (i.e. wait for the right time) :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 03:09
by weasel1962
And still no date on the F-15C retirement...

What about quoting this nice little gem...

Air Force leadership continued that line during a 29 March hearing on Capitol Hill, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that the service intends to maintain the F-15C fleet through the 2020s.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 03:13
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:And still no date on the F-15C retirement...

What about quoting this nice little gem...

Air Force leadership continued that line during a 29 March hearing on Capitol Hill, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that the service intends to maintain the F-15C fleet through the 2020s.



Sure is does until it submits a plan to retire the F-15C....Which, is currently on going.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2018, 00:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That looks like an F-15 pylon with wing tank, AIM-9, and AIM-120.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 15:34
by mixelflick
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That looks like an F-15 pylon with wing tank, AIM-9, and AIM-120.


It does. And it illustrates why using the F-15 or F-16 in the air to air role is, in today's day and age, nuts. They're going to be operating over non-permissive theaters of operation with double digit SAM's, and against near peer adversaries flying the SU-27, J-10 and other highly competitive fighters. As much as I love the F-15, it's day has passed. That's also true though, of the F-16.

The air force might not like the idea of standing up dedicated F-35 air to air units this early, but it put itself in this predicament by cancelling the F-22. It's also a great study in how failing to modernize fully is more expensive than doing it right the first time. We could have pumped out F-22's at around 100 million a copy (maybe less) has we expanded the production run. Instead, we face the prospect of having to spend more than that modernizing F-15's or 16's that give us far less capability.

Combined forces of F-22's and 35's should be overwhelming in the air to air role. And they'll need to be, since clearing the skies of enemy aircraft will be the ONLY way non stealth/legacy jets will survive flying strike missions.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 02:23
by Corsair1963
As I said before my guess (opinion) is the USAF will come up with a plan to replace the F-15C's. Which, likely would include a mix of upgraded F-16's and new built F-35's.



Remember the USAF only operate just three front line F-15C Squadrons. With two at Kadena AFB (Japan) and one at Lakenheath AFB (UK). This rest are operated by the ANG.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 10:19
by Corsair1963
It's worth noting that the USAF plans on basing two squadrons of F-35A's at Lakenheath AFB. Along side the current three squadrons of thee F-15's. (one F-15C and two F-15E Squadrons)


Yet, the interesting part is they claim the two F-35A's squadrons will have 54 aircraft. Yet, that is enough for three squadrons of F-35's (18 per) not two!

:-|

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 16:21
by magnum4469
Klamath Falls ANG has been the school house for the F-15C ANG units since the mid 90s, I'm just wondering why the Active Duty AF would spend the money to add the 550th training squadron (Active Duty) there, will all the costs if they were planning on getting rid of the Eagle. It was activated in July of 2017...

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 01:31
by Corsair1963
magnum4469 wrote:Klamath Falls ANG has been the school house for the F-15C ANG units since the mid 90s, I'm just wondering why the Active Duty AF would spend the money to add the 550th training squadron (Active Duty) there, will all the costs if they were planning on getting rid of the Eagle. It was activated in July of 2017...



If, the USAF decided to retire the F-15C tomorrow. It would still be years before they all leave service....

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2018, 19:31
by viper12
And while supplies last, you get a free WSO at 3:27 !

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2018, 03:33
by Corsair1963
lrrpf52 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
magnum4469 wrote:Klamath Falls ANG has been the school house for the F-15C ANG units since the mid 90s, I'm just wondering why the Active Duty AF would spend the money to add the 550th training squadron (Active Duty) there, will all the costs if they were planning on getting rid of the Eagle. It was activated in July of 2017...

If, the USAF decided to retire the F-15C tomorrow. It would still be years before they all leave service....

I remember when the USAF upgraded the F-4E with all kinds of latest and greatest avionics, AIM-9M, RWR, ALE-50, PAVE Spike, and other systems right before deactivating them.

There's a pretty funny video of a Phantom pilot walking down the flight line pretending to be a used Phantom salesman like Kal Worthington.

"Are you a small South American dictator? Got any border problems? Hell, you can buy the whole lot of them and be your own squadron commander!"


Yes, happens all of the time.....

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2018, 00:36
by magnum4469
Looks like the AF just green lighted another 46 F-15Cs to be upgraded. I just don't see why they would spend the money if they are planning on getting rid of them anytime soon...

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.co ... -upgrades/

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2018, 01:53
by Corsair1963
Time will tell..... :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 03:31
by talkitron
Here is a long article on the F-15X. I will start another thread as this seems important.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 04:00
by Corsair1963
talkitron wrote:Here is a long article on the F-15X. I will start another thread as this seems important.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter



Laughable as the USAF has no interest in buying new F-15's of any model. As a matter of fact it wants to retire the existing F-15C Fleet. Assuming the US Congress will allow them???


ABSURD STORY..... :?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 08:15
by talkitron
Corsair1963 wrote:Laughable as the USAF has no interest in buying new F-15's of any model. As a matter of fact it wants to retire the existing F-15C Fleet. Assuming the US Congress will allow them???


The F-35 peogram is not in political jeopardy anymore so the USAF can try new things. Repeating previous statements is irrelevant as the whole idea is that this is a change in plan.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 23:42
by Corsair1963
talkitron wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Laughable as the USAF has no interest in buying new F-15's of any model. As a matter of fact it wants to retire the existing F-15C Fleet. Assuming the US Congress will allow them???


The F-35 peogram is not in political jeopardy anymore so the USAF can try new things. Repeating previous statements is irrelevant as the whole idea is that this is a change in plan.



When the USAF orders more F-15's then come see me. Otherwise, this is nothing but wild speculation.... :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 02:57
by Corsair1963
I mean no disrespect.....just that the whole idea is absurd to me???

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 23:49
by mixelflick
magnum4469 wrote:Looks like the AF just green lighted another 46 F-15Cs to be upgraded. I just don't see why they would spend the money if they are planning on getting rid of them anytime soon...

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.co ... -upgrades/


The problem here is you're thinking logically.

It'd be just like the USAF to cancel the F-22, fund massive upgrades to the F-15C then retire them permanently. They can thus begin crowing to Congress that they have an air superiority platform shortfall.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 04:25
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
magnum4469 wrote:Looks like the AF just green lighted another 46 F-15Cs to be upgraded. I just don't see why they would spend the money if they are planning on getting rid of them anytime soon...

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.co ... -upgrades/


The problem here is you're thinking logically.

It'd be just like the USAF to cancel the F-22, fund massive upgrades to the F-15C then retire them permanently. They can thus begin crowing to Congress that they have an air superiority platform shortfall.



LOL The US will just upgrade the F-15C's and give them free of charge to Israel..... :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 15:16
by magnum4469
Interesting article, looks like the USAF is considering buying new F-15s. I think they are serious about this since Lockheed can't produce enough F-35s in time to replace existing F-15Cs. The limited build of the F-22 and with the F-16 and A-10s coming to the end of their service life the USAF has to look at other options. F-35s can perform this role but for now they have been slated to replace F-16s, A-10s and can't be produce in numbers required to replace the F-15Cs...




http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 03:02
by Corsair1963
magnum4469 wrote:Interesting article, looks like the USAF is considering buying new F-15s. I think they are serious about this since Lockheed can't produce enough F-35s in time to replace existing F-15Cs. The limited build of the F-22 and with the F-16 and A-10s coming to the end of their service life the USAF has to look at other options. F-35s can perform this role but for now they have been slated to replace F-16s, A-10s and can't be produce in numbers required to replace the F-15Cs...




http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter


LOL The USAF is not considering buying new F-15's. :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 15:48
by magnum4469
Corsair1963 wrote:
magnum4469 wrote:Interesting article, looks like the USAF is considering buying new F-15s. I think they are serious about this since Lockheed can't produce enough F-35s in time to replace existing F-15Cs. The limited build of the F-22 and with the F-16 and A-10s coming to the end of their service life the USAF has to look at other options. F-35s can perform this role but for now they have been slated to replace F-16s, A-10s and can't be produce in numbers required to replace the F-15Cs...




http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter


LOL The USAF is not considering buying new F-15's. :doh:


:wtf: Corsair1963 what makes you such an expert??? Do you have some special insight or are you just trying to convince yourself you are right??? This forum is about sharing information, not expressing your will on everyone. Your snide comments on everyones posts are getting real old. You need to grow up!!

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 00:29
by Corsair1963
magnum4469 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
magnum4469 wrote:Interesting article, looks like the USAF is considering buying new F-15s. I think they are serious about this since Lockheed can't produce enough F-35s in time to replace existing F-15Cs. The limited build of the F-22 and with the F-16 and A-10s coming to the end of their service life the USAF has to look at other options. F-35s can perform this role but for now they have been slated to replace F-16s, A-10s and can't be produce in numbers required to replace the F-15Cs...




http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... nt-fighter


LOL The USAF is not considering buying new F-15's. :doh:


:wtf: Corsair1963 what makes you such an expert??? Do you have some special insight or are you just trying to convince yourself you are right??? This forum is about sharing information, not expressing your will on everyone. Your snide comments on everyones posts are getting real old. You need to grow up!!



Really, please provide an official source or sources that says the USAF is placing an order for this new F-15X or any model of the F-15! In addition the last time the USAF purchased an F-15 (E) it was back in 2001 and even then just a handful.

To add to that the USAF wants to retire it's existing F-15C Fleet. Yet, we are to believe now it wants to buy more???

Also, it's extremely doubtful you can produce a highly advance F-15X. For a cheaper price than the F-35A. Which, would still be 20 times more capable.....(little value in that)

In short I suggest you take a good look in the mirror before you call the "Kettle Black" and do some growing up yourself.... :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 02:19
by madrat
/looks for the LIKE button

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 14:19
by mixelflick
So I see no reason why F-35 production can't be ramped up to fulfill the F-15C's role. Well, maybe one - $. But if memory serves the last F-35 buy was more robust than planned (90 airframes vs. 75 maybe?). Any new build F-15 is going to be almost if not more expensive than the F-35 by the time it's ready.

The F-15 is my favorite on many levels. But buying more 4th gen birds in a 6th gen world seems to be a Russian thing. Certainly the 4th gens that are in force today will co-exist with 5th gen, but building all new 4th gen airframes? You're just accelerating obsolescence, particularly at the end of that aircraft's service life. Unless they want to fly these "new" F-15's exclusively in the homeland defense role..

But even then, we don't have the fiscal luxury anymore of single mission airframes...

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2018, 14:28
by juretrn
I see no reason why the USAF wouldn't want a one-for-one replacement for their 30+ year old F-15Cs, if for no other role than to defend US airspace and to act as missile trucks for 5th gens.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2018, 01:25
by Corsair1963
Because the USAF isn't going to buy New F-15's.....

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2018, 01:42
by madrat
Even if F-35 costs were equal to F-15, it makes more sense to build more F-35's. The F-15 isn't exactly free to operate. The F-35 would probably serve the ANG way better than new build F-15.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2018, 01:49
by Corsair1963
The USAF hasn't placed an order for New F-15's. Nor, have we seen anything that would make us believe that they plan too!

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 16:29
by mixelflick
Does the USAF have anything like an 80's retro week?

We could buy upgraded F-15's, but why stop there? The Super Phantom sure looked cool, and who doesn't like the Phabulous Phantom? While we're at it, let's order up some shiny new F-16XL's! Can you imagine the range, especially with CFT's?

I'd order more F-18's too, but the Navy is already ahead of me on that one... :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 07:10
by h-bomb
mixelflick wrote:Does the USAF have anything like an 80's retro week?

We could buy upgraded F-15's, but why stop there? The Super Phantom sure looked cool, and who doesn't like the Phabulous Phantom? While we're at it, let's order up some shiny new F-16XL's! Can you imagine the range, especially with CFT's?

I'd order more F-18's too, but the Navy is already ahead of me on that one... :mrgreen:


Wait a F-16XL with CFT's!! :drool:

Why oh why was it not made! A few squadrons for the USAF, and I suspect a lot of export potential went down the hole! :2c:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 13:54
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Because then you have an F-16 with an empty weight of 24,000lb and a fueled weight of 39,000lb.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 14:25
by mixelflick
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Because then you have an F-16 with an empty weight of 24,000lb and a fueled weight of 39,000lb.


Correct. And that's why I'd power it with an F-135 engine :). In all candor, I LOVED the look of the F-16XL and believe it could have met the mission requirements set for it. But the AF went with the F-15 and that certainly has worked out well. They probably (rightfully) thought 2 engines would be better for carrying such huge air to ground munitions. Not sure how the 2 compared in range. It would be cool to see an F-16XL with CFT's though..

Speaking of the F-15E.. why doesn't the USAF use these in the air to air role, after it's replaced with the F-35? They're much younger birds than the F-15C community, and they're absolute beasts without the air to ground munitions hanging from its fuselage/wings. Even with 2 CFT's it looked mighty capable at a recent MAKS airshow. Probably the most sprightly air demonstration I've ever seen from an Eagle, and that includes plenty of F-15C demos..

I have mixed feelings about retiring the F-15C. Would love to see it keep flying, but.. its given us over 30 years of service and performed so admirably. I'd rather like to see it go out on top, undefeated in air to air combat at 104-0. Like star athletes who hang around too long after missing a step, it's hard to watch as they struggle to keep up and tarnish their legacy.

I want to remember it when it was still young, and the last word in air superiority platforms... :)