If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. 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. Brooks your thoughts, please. TIA! redc1c4, |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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, |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Admin" wrote in message s.com... "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. It does not need to--the comparison sans engine is enough to make your statement (that it cost is one-fourth that of the F-15) false, by a wide margin. And it matters not a whit that we are currently producing export versions of the F-15 instead of domestic ones--the fact is that the jigs are still available and in place; ordering a different radar, such as the latest APG-63 which has already been through the integration process, would be no big deal. The F-15 is still in production. You were wrong (again); deal with it. 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. Huh? Again, why are we, the Israelis, and now the ROKAF still flying (and in a couple of cases buying) F-15's, given that all three are also operating your "superior" F-16? 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. You earlier said one-fourth the cost--which is it? 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? Can you name any nation that purchased F-104's from Japan? 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). Actually, I do believe you have it a bit backwards; USAF purchase costs for F-15's, including the latest F-15E's that rolled off the line just a year or so back, have been significantly *lower* than the cost quoted for that ROKAF deal, for a number of reasons (existing infrastructure to support them, purchase under long-term lead contract, etc.). The question now is, what about this issue have you gotten *right* thus far? Darned little that I have seen as of yet, "Admin". Brooks (using his by golly real name) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"redc1c4" wrote in message ... Baron Huntchausen wrote: "Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net... In article m, on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:45:11 GMT, Admin attempted to say ..... Actually, a little of both. The F-16 is cheap, does just about anything short of Cargo duty and is still in production. But, the F-15 is long on the tooth and needs replacing. While the F-16 is second to none in a knife fight, it lacks the standoff capability of the F-15. The F-15 has lost it's superiority in the standoff. And, like most fighters will be relegated to the Attack role sooner or later. They are both from approximatly the same vintage... 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: Yes, put your troll in RAM while you are at it. 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. And when did I say it was done while Ack Ack was shooting at it? Your statement is a troll statement. 2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise? More troll statements. 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? Considering the A-10 is no longer in production, what would be the cost to retool it again? That is only a minor Troll Statement from someone that needs to stay on the ground. your thoughts, please. TIA! redc1c4, (PS to the Baron: it's "ratio" not "ration" %-) More trolling? Or are you now the official spealink cheker? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Army ends 20-year helicopter program | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 12 | February 27th 04 07:48 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |
About French cowards. | Michael Smith | Military Aviation | 45 | October 22nd 03 03:15 PM |
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French | The Black Monk | Military Aviation | 62 | October 16th 03 08:05 AM |