Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Quote:

the capability loss is very very minimal for well under half the cost...

CErtainly not half the cost. The raptor is expected to cost around 100 million relatively soon - flyaway cost -, which is comparable to a JSF if you take into account the huge R&D cost. Also, the price tag of 60 million of the JSF is for around 2500 airframes, compared to only 200 or so for the raptor. If the number of JSF goes down, which is very likely, the JSF may actually end up being more expansive than the raptor.

Personaly I tend to agree with elp. The AF would be better off with a mix of F-22s and upgraded F-16s - and UCAVs -.

F-16.net Sponsor

Except the numbers for the raptor are down to 167, and the R&D for Raptor is MUCH higher than JSF adding to a flyaway cost of 200-250 million a pop. In terms of production, raptor and B-2 did the same thing, R&D untill you had a perfect product that is so expensive that you can only afford a tenth of what you wanted (I dont believe the AF will buy more than 100 Raptors). The Rhino on the other hand did like the F-16, Get it out there as soon as possible and upgrade the crap out of it later. F-16s wopuld cost 100 million apiece if they waited untill they refined it to Block 60 specs before release.

Speaking of which, shouldn't this thread be F/A-18E vs F-16E??

Be interesting to see what the true F-16 Block 6x in USAF spec would be. So I really don't see that as an expensive option at all. Again, at this point in the game USN needs something. But I would rather see USAF get out of JSF completely. We have numerous other war winning things to spend money on.... not yet another shooter airframe that will be doing work, USAF can already do by other methods. C-5 upgrades 12 billion +/- ( really will improve mission up times ). C-130 AMP ( canceled and being renegotiated ....and now completely canceled for E models ).... so most likely the J will be getting more orders. C-17.... great... but there is still work it can not do that only C-5 can do. Tankers..... one way to solve this is not to do so much dumb expeditionary warfare that has no return on investment = the KC-135 will be with us longer. However that won't happen with the cycle we are on now.... at any rate, a tanker of some kind has to be funded. E-10.... yet something else that should not be canceled. Add up many other logistics items that really win wars that are suffering funding... people programs etc. and we are hurting to pay for something we don't need. Get a Blk 6x F-16 for USAF going...... 3-4 wings of F-22. DO NOT reduce the number of B-52s. ... get J-UCAS back on track ( it works ). A-10 rewinging is already known to give it 25 years, and it is on an avionics upgrade path. So.... the idea that JSF will "replace" that, is a dead issue. So A-10 is taken care of for the people that like those things. Put FB-22 on the R&D track hardcore. These things are all practical. We can do all of our strike warfare and never need a J$F. Or.... get JSF and bleed other needed programs white.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Except the numbers for the raptor are down to 167, and the R&D for Raptor is MUCH higher than JSF adding to a flyaway cost of 200-250 million a pop. In terms of production, raptor and B-2 did the same thing, R&D untill you had a perfect product that is so expensive that you can only afford a tenth of what you wanted (I dont believe the AF will buy more than 100 Raptors). The Rhino on the other hand did like the F-16, Get it out there as soon as possible and upgrade the crap out of it later. F-16s wopuld cost 100 million apiece if they waited untill they refined it to Block 60 specs before release.

The R&D of the raptor is done now. The flyaway price is about 125 million now and is expected to come down to about 100 million by the 250th aircraft.

The R&D of the JSF on another hand has not been spent for a large part. If you add the flyaway cost, each JSF will cost about 100 million per copy. Remember that the program is now expected to cost 245 billion for 2500 aircraft, which is roughly 100 million per aircraft. Add to that that the AF will most probably get much less than 1700 aircraft, which will increase the unit cost.

In other words, it would have cost about the same to continue to produce the F-22 rather than embark on the JSF.

Anyways..

Quote:

Speaking of which, shouldn't this thread be F/A-18E vs F-16E??

It's pretty clear that the SH is better.. Lower RCS+ bigger radar = better BVR = first shot = victory..

again, if we only are buying less than 200, then we wont get to that number you quoted above. According to AF Times (I recognize the limitations of that publication), the Raptor will cost around 125 Mill not including R&D, so somebody's numbers are skewed (beisdes, lots of R&D from the Raptor rolled into the JSF, so the price forthe JSF will be lower, much bigger bang for much smaller buck). Basically the Raptor was designed against a Soviet threat, we dont need a new air superiority fighter, especially when the JSF will be able to do that job to 95% effectiveness of the Raptor for a much lower price tag. Again, cut the Raptor, funnel the money to other projects, call it good. As for the other projects elp mentioned, well they're all "heavy" projects...no factor, that will all sort itself out, the real concern is flying the best fighter for the job, and that will be the JSF, for both the Navy and AF. Like someone else mentioned, perhaps this is a topic for a different thread, so direct me and I'll continue on that thread on this topic. As for the SH, well, who really relies on the Navy for air superiority anyway...they drop a good bomb, they can hold their own in a air to air fight, and the JSF will be a nice fit with them.

Viperalltheway wrote:

CErtainly not half the cost. The raptor is expected to cost around 100 million relatively soon - flyaway cos.

At least you could make up your mind, include R&D costs or not.

Switching it as you please to support your wishes is nothing but intelectually dishonest.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The thing is that the most expansive F-22s have already been built. The R&D is already finished. Basically you have an F-22 now for 125 million, and by 2012 or something for 100 million if you want.

Instead what you prefer is to spend 40 BILLION to develop a new aircraft - the F-22 cost 23 billion to develop btw - that will cost as much if you include R&D and all the rest. For an aircraft that will be much worse sorry to say, less stealthy, much slower, less manoeuvrable, shorter range, smaller radar and so on.... Maybe initially there won't be a significant difference against the potential threats, but their opponents will continue to get better!

A LARGE FORCE OF F-22 WOULD DOMINATE ANYTHING EASILY OVER THE NEXT 30+ YEARS.

And like has been said before, a new block of F-16 and UCAVs would complement a force of F-22 very well. Buying 1700 stealth aircraft is completly stupid. During GW1, the air force had only 50 stealth aircraft and still beat the crap out of the Iraqis. It's the PROOF that a mix of stealthy and non stealthy aircraft can very well work. And of course the precision strike capabilities of US aircraft at the time were not comparable to what they are now. Now you can hit a target from 50 miles from high altitude and bad weather - with an SDB-. You need a much smaller number of passes to hit the same number of targets and you launch from much further, so the risk for your aircraft is reduced a lot. What does that mean? It means that once enemy long range SAMs and radars have been taken out - by stealth platforms -, you don't need stealth aircraft anymore. You stay high, make use of off-board information and on board long range sensors and launch from far.

And of course, there are limitations to how many fighters you can deploy. Where in the world are you going to put your 1700 JSF?? And for the air defense of the US you don't need a 100 million stealth aircraft. An F-16 will do the job at a much lower cost.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

hansundfranz wrote:

Viperalltheway wrote:

CErtainly not half the cost. The raptor is expected to cost around 100 million relatively soon - flyaway cos.

At least you could make up your mind, include R&D costs or not.

Switching it as you please to support your wishes is nothing but intelectually dishonest.

What??

You have to compare the price of the F-22 NOW with the price of the JSF NOW if you want to take the right decision on what to do. For one the R&D is done, for the other it's not.. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Also, I say 100 million, but there's no reason why it would not continue to go down after that. It's the same for everything you build.. the more you buy the cheaper it gets.

Come on buddy, all prices you used for the JSF include R&D and for the F22 you use fly away. In addtion a large fraction of R&D of the JSF is also done already.

Viperalltheway, look at your own numbers and look at the history of stealth purchases, you quote 100 million for 250 A/C, but it has already been slashed to under 170. No stealth A/C ever exceeded 20% of their planned production so by this the total F-22s could be expected to be lower than 120, which would rais the price of each INCLUDING R&D to over 200 million per A/C.

And on your comment about Rhino vs Blk 60? New viper has reduced RCS as well (it was obsenely low anyway for its time) and it also has an AESA radar with a full IRST suite as well. I think it would be a good match in capalility.

viperalltheway, your assumption that the jsf is a much worse performing aircraft I know is not based on fact...at the risk of sounding redundant, the jsf will have about 95% of the capability, and thats over the long haul man, not just this snapshot in time of right now. Again, its not as if we are starting from scratch on the R&D of the JSF, it shares a lot of that with the Raptor. Also, I dont know about you, but I would be a LOT more afraid of a country with 1700 JSF than a country with 170 Raptors and a bunch of Vipers. Bottom line is this, as much as I really I hate to say it, the Viper has run its course, no matter what mods you put on it. I guess thats the argument many are saying about the SH, and I do think there is some merit there, but the Navy did need something to replace the Tomcat, and when their hands were tied thats what they went with. I dont think anyone would argue the SH can carry Naval fleet defense for the next 30 years, but the JSF can with the SH as a great sidekick in the multi-role game. All I'm getting at is this, the Raptor is a great jet, but as much as everyone likes to play up its ability to drop bombs, it doesnt carry that many. With the double digit sams out there, and lets face it some of those are down right scary, you need a stealthy aircraft to even get close. The more stealthy f-22s you send in to drop the bombs to take out the double digit sams, which needs to happen for the vipers to get into the war, the less f-22s you have doing their primary role of air superiority. However, a ton of JSF taking out sams with a few f-22's for air cover, now thats a scary thought for any country out there.

Quote:

It's pretty clear that the SH is better.. Lower RCS+ bigger radar = better BVR = first shot = victory..

That formula would only be true if effective missile range >= Lock up range and this is not the case

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Yes it is the case with the AIM-120D - range > 100km.

A SH can probably lock an F-16 from 100km or close , but not the contrary.

http://www.ausairpower.net/0830-ASPI-Rebuttal-HR.pdf
According to the chart on page 3, an APG-79 can detect a 1.2 sqm target from 70 nm, and an APG-80 can detect a 0.25 sqm target from 55 nm. Since the tracking range is usually about 2/3 of the detection range, an APG-79 can track a 1.2 sqm target from 50 nm, and an APG-80 can track a 0.25 sqm target from 35 nm. With AIM-120Ds, the SH has the first shot.

Also, the lower the RCS the harder it is to kill the aircraft. The SH also has a better instantaneous turn rate so probably has better chances of evading an incoming missile.

The block 60 is a good aircraft, but still not as good as a SH with AESA and AIM-120D. Against a SH without AESA and/or without AIM-120D, it's probably about the same. In any case, in most cases the winner will be the one who shoots first.

The D modell slammer probably has a 50 mile range if the target is flyinfg straight at the shooter at mach 2 and at 50.000 ft a´nd does not turn only the slightest bit left or right.

In short don´t belive everything you read on the internet

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Quote:

viperalltheway, your assumption that the jsf is a much worse performing aircraft I know is not based on fact...at the risk of sounding redundant, the jsf will have about 95% of the capability, and thats over the long haul man, not just this snapshot in time of right now.

For a/g they might have about the same capabilities - provided the F-22 is modified for a/g -, but for a/a the F-22 is significantly better.. much faster, much better supersonic range, more internal AAMs, bigger radar, better manoeuvrability, better stealth, etc.

Like I said before, the problem with the JSF is that it will end up costing as much as the F-22. Instead of developing a new aircraft, they should have continued to buy F-22s. Everything taken into account, each F-35 is now expected to cost OVER 100 million, which is how much it would have cost to continue to build F-22s.

And 100 million is the bare minimum of what we can expect, since it is likely to be even more. And about the fact that the F-22 costs 300 million per aircraft over the entire program, yeah I know that, but it's not what I'm talking about. WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS TO BUY MORE F-22s NOW THAT THEY FINALLY COST 100 MILLION WHICH IS AN INCREDIBLE BARGAIN.

As for getting new F-16s, the point that I'm trying to make is that:
- once air dominance has been achieved, whether you have JSFs or F-16 doesn't make much difference. With enough F-22s - 500-600 or something -, air dominance would be achieved easily. It wouldn't maked much difference because:
* a block 60 with CFTs has about the same range and payload as a JSF ( the CFTs free 2 more pylons for a/g ordnance).
* The threat of enemy fighters is reduced by an order of magnitude, and the F-16s have enough a/a capabilities to protect themselves. They can also escape if needed and let the F-22s on patrol deal with the threat.
* The F-16s can be used for initial strikes with long range standoff weapons like JASSMs, so they have a first day of the war capability.
* The F-16s would use standoff weapons, like SDBs, JSOWs JDAMs, WCMDs etc.. which would keep them out of range of most enemy short range air defense systems.
- There is a limit to how many aircraft can be deployed. The AF would deploy its F-22s first and after that its F-16s. 1700 JSFs would be useless because they could not be deployed!
- For the air defense of the US, F-16s are sufficient, especially a block 60.
- UCAVs will progressively take over many roles that are currently done by manned aircraft. Used for SEAD missions, they would be synergistic with F-16s. A new block of F-16 would be the perfect transition to UCAVs.
- The F-16 is cheap to operate. It's light and it's a single engine aircraft. Much cheaper to operate than an F-22 probably.
- built in large number, a block 60 would cost about 50 million everything included, half the price of a JSF.

The AF could get about 500 F-22s + say 300 new block 60s. The F-16 CCIPs could be retrofitted cost-effectively with some systems of the new block, the radar and the CFTs in particular. The new radar would increase significantly its a/a capabilities, especially with the AIM-120D, and the CFTs would double the payload.

And like others have said before, the AF needs cash for a lot of other programs. Doing what I said would save a lot of cash.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Super Hornet