Do the google search.. The keywords are obvious – F-16 Netherlands attrition

Actually, the google-search remains without any usable results: I found lots of hits on a 1989 purchase of 10 additional F-16 of the Netherlands as attrition replacements. However, “attrition” is in my knowledge a word for aircraft losses during exercise, too, so it is likely to be a normal compensation of aircraft lost in training. 10 aircraft for about 7 years of service is reasonable.

I additionally found a report about the approval of a possible purchase of F-16 by Norway that states that these fighters are supposed to replace existing F-16 curently in service.

My information is: The F-16 has a useful structural lifetime of 4.000FH with garantueed with options to extend this (normally requires structural checks). That corresponds @200FH/year a service life of 20 years. The structural attrition depends on the kind of training, for example did the aggressor units of the USN and USAF experience a higher level of attrition.
Same will apply for training aircraft of the Typhoon or the JSF.

The whole discussion here is very embarassing for all involved people, especially because I normally regard them with high respect. Maybe some people should calm down a little bit and delete all their pointless posts about anti(-something) and automobile lifetime expectations (of course German cars rule, but that is another issue 😉 ).

[QUOTE=Gratsch]

You mean this one.

Do you have a source of the photo???

The foto is from an AFM article. It is from 1971. Due to the date it can nearly be ruled out that Russia had a Phantom. Defections didn’t happen and I can’t think of an intact Phantom being captured in Vietnam. The allies which got the Phantom were all very reliable. Additionally did they all need the planes.

If you follow the link http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=519029 (and its part 2-5) than you will see that there is mentioned that the USSR got a F-4 and a F-111 (sic!) via Vietnam …

As far as I know, somewhere in the internet there is also a photo available which shows a covered F-4 behind a M-4 … (still searching for the link)

You mean this one.

Additionally there is a Mirage on the picture. But I doubt that it is a real Phantom, rather a mock-up. There is neither a possible source, nor a report of an intact loss, and no othe report mentioning the existence of a Phantom in Russia. The smooth lines and the fact that the (possibly) only Phantom is parked somewhere in the dirt are hints.

When you can read German, watch here:
http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=29708

The P-80 in the that pic is the prototype, not a racer. The Me-262 had very unreliable engines, and while the engine in the P-80 was basically of the same generation it had much greater reliability.

The simple reason is that the Me-262 used the Jumo axial flow engine whose design parameters were far in excess of its components to deliver. Main problem was poor strength alloys in the compressor blades, if they didn’t expand and hit the casing they broke and went through the casing.

On the other hand the P-80 has a workmanlike Whittle designed centrifugal flow engine which although primitive by our current standards didn’t attempt to overstretch the technological envelope and thus was more reliable.

The reality was that the Me-262 was half a generation behind the P-80. Also as to finish – the 262s came from the factory with their panel joins sealed and taped. If Hughes did that to his, which is conjectural at best, he was only doing what Messershmidt had done in the first place.

But if we compare the performance to each other, there is no need in comparing reliability. The severe shortage of resources had a big influence on the Me-262. But some hours of flight were done and there must be something like an assessment of the Me-262 perfomance compared to the equally old P-80.

Not quite correct, Schorsch

A number of aircraft can get to 60,000, however they can not do anymore that fly in a straight line or very wide circle. The reason being that the aircraft would stall if any type of aggressive manoeuvre were required.

The only aircraft that regularly fly at that altitude today are the recce types like the U-2, M-55 (if its still used), Canberra (PR9 / RB-57 (NASA)) plus UAV’s like Global Hawk. Plus you also have some of Mr Rutans creations. All of them are subsonic with very big wings.

However, Schorsch is spot on about the fighter types

The supersonic aircraft would mainly be the Mig 25/31, most other fighters would not operate much above 50,000 feet (You have to remember that a pressure suit of some description (even a partial one) is a must at that height).

I focussed on military combat aircraft. Believe me I know about all the types you mentioned. It is just not the question here.
I guess full afterburner engaged, no (or minimal) external load would bring most fighters to 60.000ft, but of course this altitude cannot be maintained for very long. Pressure suits are peace time emergency equipment, but in times of combat a pilot may use his maximum ceiling.

Starfighter: 15.240m
Phantom: 18.300m
F-16: 15.200m
MiG-21bis: 19.000m

These figures are service ceiling, so no dynamic maximum altitude. For missile launch speed=altitude, so it doesn’t matter much if one converts his energy into altitude or keeps the speed (of course in a reasonable manner). What matters is the energy altitude:

E = m (g*h + 0.5 v²)

I have been a Phantom fanatic for some time but just recently, after going over her performance statistics, I’ve started to think about its maximum celing range – which is 60,000ft. That’s 18km+ just inside the stratosphere 😮
These figures are about the same for other modern aircrafts as well…

Is it possible for any fighter aircraft to undertake air to air (or even air to ground :confused: ) combat at that altitude?

Has it ever been done?

That altitude is available for supersonic flight only. Supersonic flight is limited to several minutes due to heat, engine limitations and fuel burn. Air to air fight in that altitude is limited to BVR, actually it is standard tactic to gain altitude and speed to give your missile most energy.
If you define a2a-combat as dogfight (like many do :rolleyes: ), then I have to tell you that no reserves are left for turning at that altitude. If the aircraft drops out of supersonic regime, it can’t hold the altitude. That altitude is good to evade enemy aircraft.

The real trick about an AWACS is the radar and its adjacent computer. The poor performance of the Tu-126 radar is due to the inferior computer technique.
The antennas of other aircraft maybe had better direction charactistics.