"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*!




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.


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?

Brooks


Brooks


your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,