Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

The context of my initial F-16XL 'moral support' comment was in that it would have been highly competitive by 2012 vs the list of competitors above, 'IF' the F-16XL variant had started proper development in the early 2000s. It was posted as a sarcastic opinion of what should be operational and competitive today as I think you're aware of my F-16XL views by now. I wasn't actually proposing a start-up F-16XL development at this time to compete in said RoK's next-gen selection process. I'm sorry if you were confused by that.

For the record, I think a properly evolved F-15SE plan would be the most cost-effective and valid, although geo-strategically I could see why RoK might want to diversify and select an upgraded Typhoon or even the T-50.

With regards to the F-16xl 'price point' issue though, I disagree with you. A properly developed and evolved F-16XL possibly being operational today - as I believe it should have started as an accelerated program back in the early 2000s - would likely be in the EA-18G PUC price range @ about 30 units per yr produced (i.e., about a $95m PUC cost). That might not include the AN/AAR-56 MLD hardware integration which you challenged me on (a system which of course could plug into an F-16 variant either in the existing skin/spine areas currently housing MLD systems on foreign Vipers, or within wing pods which exist today), but you could just add a couple more $m to the suggested list price in that case, no prob. It would have been an exremely modern and capable multi-role platform with very good endurance and fuel economy for a long-endurance mission (arguably the most superior aircraft flying in that ranking) and available at an affordable price relative to the competition.

p.s. I dont think I've ever read anything from you before so supportive of the EF Typhoon, shep... it was very refreshing to read that bit I must say... Were you drinking some there pints, m8?? Smile

F-16.net Sponsor

1st503rdsgt wrote:

If Russia sells the PAK-FA to South Korea, I will shave my head and eat my own hair. Guiness

I wouldn't be so shocked.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 334858.jpg

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=15200

handyman wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

If Russia sells the PAK-FA to South Korea, I will shave my head and eat my own hair. Guiness

I wouldn't be so shocked.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 334858.jpg

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=15200

You might want to read that second page you sent me boss.

"Ambitious Russian development projects like the 5th generation PAK-FA fighter are not suitable for South Korea’s expeditionary ambitions because of they are unlikely to be interoperable with the armed forces of the United States and key U.S. allies, with which any regional ROKAF deployment would have to operate."

Quote:

The context of my initial F-16XL 'moral support' comment was in that it would have been highly competitive by 2012 vs the list of competitors above, 'IF' the F-16XL variant had started proper development in the early 2000s. It was posted as a sarcastic opinion of what should be operational and competitive today as I think you're aware of my F-16XL views by now. I wasn't actually proposing a start-up F-16XL development at this time to compete in said RoK's next-gen selection process. I'm sorry if you were confused by that.

For the record, I think a properly evolved F-15SE plan would be the most cost-effective and valid, although geo-strategically I could see why RoK might want to diversify and select an upgraded Typhoon or even the T-50.

With regards to the F-16xl 'price point' issue though, I disagree with you. A properly developed and evolved F-16XL possibly being operational today - as I believe it should have started as an accelerated program back in the early 2000s - would likely be in the EA-18G PUC price range @ about 30 units per yr produced (i.e., about a $95m PUC cost). That might not include the AN/AAR-56 MLD hardware integration which you challenged me on (a system which of course could plug into an F-16 variant either in the existing skin/spine areas currently housing MLD systems on foreign Vipers, or within wing pods which exist today), but you could just add a couple more $m to the suggested list price in that case, no prob. It would have been an exremely modern and capable multi-role platform with very good endurance and fuel economy for a long-endurance mission (arguably the most superior aircraft flying in that ranking) and available at an affordable price relative to the competition.

p.s. I dont think I've ever read anything from you before so supportive of the EF Typhoon, shep... it was very refreshing to read that bit I must say... Were you drinking some there pints, m8?? Smile

geo,

Haven't we already properly evolved into the F-35?

shep1978 wrote:

geogen wrote:

Re: the F-16XL comments.. yes, an evolved, updated block F-16XL - if had been properly developed and implemented as an independent project back in early 2000s - would be lighter, less complex to manufacture albeit, less stealthy and have a smaller engine compared to F-35. I'd guess an FY14 PUC buy would probably cost 65%-75% per 2014 F-35A. A buy in 2016 would probably cost 75% the PUC, per F-35A.

Why an hypothetical F-16XL over Typhoon or Rafale? It would be a fair competitor imho. Less fuel burn vs Typhoon (better fuel economy), only 1 engine to sustain, longer range with internal fuel, probably a bigger payload, evolved avionics/engine incorporating latest off-the-shelf mission computer, sensors (consider same MLD suite as F-22s, linked visually to evolved helmet display) and EW management. It would likely have super-cruised too with 6x (4+2) missiles if it had incorporated the properly evolved, next-gen 'advanced augmentor' F110 engine @ 32-33k lbf. Equal to or superior rate of climb given upgraded power. Probably cheaper per PUC.

Eurocanards have all the work already done, the supercruise, the reduced RCS, the high agailty, the high warload etc etc etc. I mean do you honestly think F-16XL could compete with Typhoon? You're having a laugh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1zk_uPT0Y

You can't just slap the F-22's MLD on, throw in a next gen engines, plug the HMD's etc etc like its a bloody lego kit. It's a fallacy to think this lego-esque F-16XL would be a bargain too and even more silly is to think you could purchase it for LESS then what already developed and operational aircraft now cost. At least the Eurocanards have some stealth too, or did you plan on wheeling out the lego RAM to stick on the F-16XL, (remember without proper RCS reduction the F-16XL would be a big juicy target.)

Geo's a big believer in a few 'unusual' ideas about combat aircraft. Next he'll want this aircraft to be firing air launched ESSM's, SM-6's or whatever...

Very Happy

Well, it certainly was a beautiful aircraft, I'll give it that. Impressive load out too. Makes you wonder what a modern COTS upgrade could achieve with this concept.

Conan wrote:

... a big believer in a few 'unusual' ideas about combat aircraft. Next he'll want this aircraft to be firing air launched ESSM's, SM-6's or whatever..

Sir imho the prudent, strategic and rational approach in achieving the increased capabilities you note would be to develop and evolve existing proven superior missile systems to fill that increased asymmetrical and cost-effective capability.

Maybe I was misinterpreting you then, but were you suggesting an entirely new missile development program to fulfill such interim asymmetrical air-superiority capabilities - costing additional $Billions in R&D and 10+ yrs to 'possibly' deliver a reliable system - would be the proper decision instead?

Thus, for discussion sake... it's a valid opinion for one to say no - one would not want to be flying in Red Flag 2017-2018 in a block III F-35A armed with 4x AIM-120C7 (maybe AIM-120D by then for the F-35), against a properly 'COTS' upgraded and equipped F-15SE armed with dual/tri-mode multi-mission MMM-174 derivative and/or AIM-162 derivatives.
Respects-

geogen wrote:

Conan wrote:

... a big believer in a few 'unusual' ideas about combat aircraft. Next he'll want this aircraft to be firing air launched ESSM's, SM-6's or whatever..

Sir imho the prudent, strategic and rational approach in achieving the increased capabilities you note would be to develop and evolve existing proven superior missile systems to fill that increased asymmetrical and cost-effective capability.

Maybe I was misinterpreting you then, but were you suggesting an entirely new missile development program to fulfill such interim asymmetrical air-superiority capabilities - costing additional $Billions in R&D and 10+ yrs to 'possibly' deliver a reliable system - would be the proper decision instead?

Thus, for discussion sake... it's a valid opinion for one to say no - one would not want to be flying in Red Flag 2017-2018 in a block III F-35A armed with 4x AIM-120C7 (maybe AIM-120D by then for the F-35), against a properly 'COTS' upgraded and equipped F-15SE armed with dual/tri-mode multi-mission MMM-174 derivative and/or AIM-162 derivatives.
Respects-

Sounds like someone has been channeling APA this weekend. The F-15SE is vaporware and now we're already 'properly upgrading and equipping' it with more vaporware to make it competitive against unclas F-35 capabilities in 2011.

You can perceive that way in a conventional point of thinking sure, or one could instead say that view is pre-conceived and fundamentally flawed and rather view it as making it (F-15SE alternative) asymmetrically more superior, more cost-effective, more sustainable and a more reliable 'stopgap' until 2030, or a long-term upgradeable mainstay.. The objective here though, is to try to get back into a more calculated and strategic acquisition plan... stopgapping w/ the best possible solutions until a more strategic and calculated 'next-gen' plan can be implemented given the austere budget/fiscal environment realities going forward. imho.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a F-35 Blk3 would smoke even an upgraded F-15SE. It has better (than even the F-22) ECM & ECCM, LPI datalinks, EODAS, and and an all-around VLO airframe.

You can't stealth up an F-15 to survive that far into the future. It will always have a basically inferior airframe to any 5th generation fighter.

geogen wrote:

Conan wrote:

... a big believer in a few 'unusual' ideas about combat aircraft. Next he'll want this aircraft to be firing air launched ESSM's, SM-6's or whatever..

Sir imho the prudent, strategic and rational approach in achieving the increased capabilities you note would be to develop and evolve existing proven superior missile systems to fill that increased asymmetrical and cost-effective capability.

Maybe I was misinterpreting you then, but were you suggesting an entirely new missile development program to fulfill such interim asymmetrical air-superiority capabilities - costing additional $Billions in R&D and 10+ yrs to 'possibly' deliver a reliable system - would be the proper decision instead?

Thus, for discussion sake... it's a valid opinion for one to say no - one would not want to be flying in Red Flag 2017-2018 in a block III F-35A armed with 4x AIM-120C7 (maybe AIM-120D by then for the F-35), against a properly 'COTS' upgraded and equipped F-15SE armed with dual/tri-mode multi-mission MMM-174 derivative and/or AIM-162 derivatives.
Respects-

I'd much rather be in the F-35 w/ AIM-120D, than in any F-15 variant, in that scenario. The F-15 wouldn't be able to detect the F-35 in time, to utilize an extended range missile, whereas the F-35 could take full advantage of the -120D's long range and early detection. An F-15SE would likely have the RCS of a clean Super Hornet class.

geogen wrote:

Sir imho the prudent, strategic and rational approach in achieving the increased capabilities you note would be to develop and evolve existing proven superior missile systems to fill that increased asymmetrical and cost-effective capability.

Proven on ships. The Sparrow was moved away from as an air to air missile over 20 years ago...

You might also have noticed that the upgrades to the SM-6 and mooted upgrades to ESSM are taking technology FROM AMRAAM, not returning technology to it.

Should we honestly throw away all the investment in the AMRAAM missile which despite some ridiculous and specious negative arguments to the contrary remains the most proven and effective BVR missile in-service and is overwhelmingly the predominant choice of BVR air to air missile system in the World to this day?

Quote:

Maybe I was misinterpreting you then, but were you suggesting an entirely new missile development program to fulfill such interim asymmetrical air-superiority capabilities - costing additional $Billions in R&D and 10+ yrs to 'possibly' deliver a reliable system - would be the proper decision instead?

I just say I don't think much of the idea to go back to 30 plus year old technology instead and throw away all the research, money, time and effort we've spent on the current missile system and all of it's myriad enabling capabilities...

It's the ONLY one out of the entire bunch of modern combat missiles that actually has real world kills, is the most widely used weapon of it's class in the world and is the most successful system on the market in it's class, yet despite this for some reason it is considered by some "experts" amongst the least capable...

Quote:

Thus, for discussion sake... it's a valid opinion for one to say no - one would not want to be flying in Red Flag 2017-2018 in a block III F-35A armed with 4x AIM-120C7 (maybe AIM-120D by then for the F-35), against a properly 'COTS' upgraded and equipped F-15SE armed with dual/tri-mode multi-mission MMM-174 derivative and/or AIM-162 derivatives.
Respects-

No-one would say any such thing. The "mythical beast" F-15SE is unlikely to exist by then, certainly not in any form of IOC that would allow it to go to such a major exercise as Red Flag.

Even if someone orders it tomorrow it won't be flying in Red Flag by 2018. It has yet to be developed. It has yet to be tested, it has yet to be manufactured in production form, it has yet to be delivered to a customer, it has yet to be trained on and so on.

Ditto for the uber-missile.

An F-15K takes a minimum of 3.5 years to be delivered if you ordered one tomorrow with no development work whatsoever and from a steady production line at that.

A JSF Block III OTOH, just might. I've little doubt some earlier Blocks will already have experience in Red Flag by then.

Regards,

1st503rdsgt wrote:

handyman wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

If Russia sells the PAK-FA to South Korea, I will shave my head and eat my own hair. Guiness

I wouldn't be so shocked.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 334858.jpg

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=15200

You might want to read that second page you sent me boss.

"Ambitious Russian development projects like the 5th generation PAK-FA fighter are not suitable for South Korea’s expeditionary ambitions because of they are unlikely to be interoperable with the armed forces of the United States and key U.S. allies, with which any regional ROKAF deployment would have to operate."

Yeah so? Thats just one opinion.

Why on earth would anyone want to put a Sea Sparrow missile on a fighter aircraft? Especially when AMRAAM is available. And can someone tell me what an MMM-174 is? As far as I can tell from google it's a Scotch Tape dispenser, though that wouldn't suprise me if it were the intended fantasy add-on... Simply fly around the enemy in a tight orbit and scotch him up till his control surfaces are unable to move.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35 & T-50 PAK-FA Compete S. Korea + F-15E + Typhoon