"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Baron Huntchausen wrote:
snip


The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter.
It's
even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The
F-16
is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena
that
can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent
load
and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters.
I
saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything
short
of
a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight.
The
Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be
completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight
up.
Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't
know
of
any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket
attached
to
it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg
AB,
GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even
though
the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of
weight,
and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide
greater
thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the
F-15's
have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.

And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16
costs
about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in production.

So is the F-15 (in production, that is); sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia,
and
Korea are keeping the line open, and it is still competing in Singapore
last
I heard. And where are you getting the idea that the F-15 costs four times
what an F-16 costs today? The cost of the F-15K's going to the ROKAF is
about $100 million per, based upon total contract cost; the price of the
F-16C Block 50's sold to Chile is about $50 million per (total contract
cost), *not including the freakin' engines*!

You are talking about export models. The F-15 doesn't have the same radar
among other things. The F-16C even exported is a complete package. Okay,
leave off the Engines but I doubt if a single engine will run up the bill
another 50 mil per copy.






2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the
export
Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so
much
better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder
why
(a)
the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force,
and
(b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough
merit
in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider
the
F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also
being
a major F-16 operator).

In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.

Again, why do the USAF and israel still fly the F-15 as their premier
air-to-air fighters? Why did the ROKAF select the F-15K? Note that all
three
of those forces also operate F-16's.

The USAF has a followon Model if the funds EVER become available. Again,
you use the Export model as an example.




3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost
(but
was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still
are
not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a
cost
of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.

Yep, and you add the other contractural services and you get that $50
million per copy cost, NOT INCLUDING ENGINES. So we can assume a total
flyaway cost of probably $60 million, versus $100 million for an aircraft
that you acknowledge has a better BVR capability. So how is the F-16 such
a
hands-down better choice again?

40 million savings. Plus, most countries have to keep their AC inside their
own borders. They have to get up quick, get the kill and return home. Any
old F-104 Jocks hanging around that would care to explain it to everyone
else? Just wondering, why was the F-104 still being purchased by small
countries (manufactured in Japan) while the more modern fighters were not
purchased in great numbers during that time frame? Could it be cost of
operation, Logistics in support, time to target and a host of other reasons?

I was talking about the US and not Chile. When you compare a NON Export
F-15, the price goes up since it gets the good stuff. The F-16C stays about
the same (maybe a little more).