thobbesThe F-16 is a very capable fighter and Air to Air Combat and many nations use it as there primary fighter. As for the USAF it doesn’t as it has a large number of F-15C’s.
Never mentined non-USAF users.
Discussion is purely around USAF and it’s utilisation of F-15C/D.
Never said the F-16 is crap, just that it’s a more second tier aircraft in USAF service compared to top-of-thel-line F-15 and F-22.
Nonetheless, the F-16C’s and F-15E’s could provide addition Air Support if needed.
They can and they do. But the USAF still wants to maintain enough dedicated air superiority squadrons to support its requirements (10 Expeditionary Warfare Wings from memory).
Not sure what the current kill record is for the F-16. Yet, I believe its somewhere between 70-80 Aircraft. So, I have no idea what your talking about???
Most of these kills are Israeli who never possessed a large F-15 fleet and who engaged in heavy fighting over Lebanon. Others are Pakistani or Venezuelan who used F-16s are primary A2A jets and far outclassed the Su-22s and OV-10 Broncos they were facing.
USAF only has about 7 kills with F-16 of which all but one were during enforcement of No Fly Zones over Iraq and Bosnia. In fact 4 were in one sortie against thoroughly obsolete Bosnian Serb J-21/G-2 Galeb trainers that were violating a No Fly Zone.
Only time USAF F-16s have shot down an enemy aircraft in a “proper war” was a lone MiG-29 kill in Kosovo (another MiG-29 was shot down by a RoNLAF F-16).
USAF has always tasked F-15 as primary A2A jet, whilst F-16s have been ground attack orientated.
In Iraq in 1991, the F-15C scored 30+ kills and in Kosovo, about 4.
The reason is that the F-15s get Air Superiority missions whilst F-16s generally get ground attack tasking.
thobbesWhen one looks at the extremely small numbers of aircraft to be acquired by small European states, then one wonders whether the F-35 is the right aicraft for them.
Denmark might acquire about 30 a/c aircraft or less depending on price (and I’ve seen figure of 22 a/c mentioned).
The Dutch could acquire as low as 30-36 as well.
And down the line, Belgium might be doing the same.
Basically these countries will be reduced to air policing only with limited or no expeditionary warfare capability. Indeed Norway had to withdraw its F-16s from the Libyan operation.
So why buy the F-35 when something cheaper would suffice?
thobbesSo there you have it. On the one hand we have your nameless friend. On the other hand we have the official statements of the F-35 program head, an actual US Navy officer’s direct experience, and the official statements of Northrup Grumman.
Naturally I know who you will choose to believe. :very_drunk:
I’d say none of them.
Official statements are usually BS designed to promote a certain line (I work in government and have been involved in this sort of manipulation). Not necessarily lying but items are excluded or certain assumptions are made to create certain impressions. Indeed LM technically lied about F-35 coming in at less than F-16 – we now know it’s more than 10% and even that figure might be crap and over/underestimate the actual truth.
The truth will probably not be known.
thobbesIf, that is true it hardly means the RAF won’t procure F-35A’s (or C’s) at some future date to operate in the strike role like the Tornado. As a matter of fact I think it’s a very safe bet that the RAF will order more F-35’s. So, I standby my remarks………..(i.e. opinion)
I think more F-35s will be ordered but then as replacements for Tranche 1 Eurofighters. I don’t see the RAF growing past it’s current combat 220 a/c allocation.
As for operating in “strike role,” RAF is moving to multirole fleet .e.g multirole Typhoon replaces air defence only Tornado F3. It’s extremely difficult to maintain dedicated specialists in a small fleet.
Your point?
You can’t replace a fighter that has been retired. It’s like saying Tornado replaced Valiant.
So, your saying the UK won’t have any more funds to procure more F-35’s for the next 30-40 years????:rolleyes:
In 30-40 years, F-35 will be obsolete.
But it’s not just about money.
There’s also things such as :
1. Defence policy – less interventionist policy requires less offensive equipment ala F-35s.
2. Possible threats and how to counter them. You don’t need an F-35 to counter cyber-warfare or terrorists.
3. Predictions on future threats and requirements.
4. Political goals and objectives. – This includes public perception of defence needs. Politicians aren’t going to buy more fighter planes if spending that money on building schools, hospitals and roads will get them more votes.
5. National industrial requirements .e.g building warships might be seen as more industrially fruitful than participating in F-35 program, so MoD buys warships at expense of F-35s.
6. Alliance requirements – and NATO’s got very quiet after Libya, despite growing mess in Syria where the government has done what Qaddafhi only could’ve dreamed of (e.g. levelling large chunks of Aleppo with FAEs).
thobbesThe USAF does not seem to think so.
Task F-15Es or F-16s with CAP/air dominance and that’s less aircraft for strike, SEAD etc. And F-15E is USAF’s primary long range tactical fighter whilst F-16CJ is primary SEAD/DEAD asset.
I think the F-16 has always been regarded as second tier in USAF and they’ve never been given a primary A2A tasking in a combat zone. Primary A2A has always been tasked to F-15 with F-16s mainly used for strike/SEAD.
F-16s have been given CAP in No-Fly Zone Enforcements but this is not high intensive combat ops and most of it does not involve combat at all.
thobbesWith regards to Taiwan, it’s not about the vendor, it’s about the country the vendor represents. LM and Dassault might be happy to sell to Taiwan but USA and France aren’t.
It would take a massive policy turnaround and probably a return to 1950s style Cold War for any vendor to sell advanced equipment to Taiwan.
thobbesThis is the first I’ve heard of it. As I’ve been very busy of late and was unaware of it. So, are you saying F-35B’s operating from the QE Class will only be Royal Navy Personal? (just to be clear)
He never said that.
He said the purpose of JF Lightning is both carrier and land operations.
This is not like USN whereby the main raison d’etre is carrier ops. RAF/FAA crews will deploy both on carriers and land bases as dictated by the situation.
Again news to me……Yet, who is to say in the future when more funds are available. That the UK won’t purchase more F-35’s (A?) to replace the Tornados????
By 2019 there won’t be any Tornados left to replace.
Most likely 48 F-35B deliveries and service integration will still be happening in 2019.
Also, even if the current plan is for the F-35B’s and Typhoons to replace the Tornados at this stage. It hardly means my remarks about the F-35A replacing the Tornados as being incorrect. As that still could very well happen sometime in the future. When more resources are available.
What resources?
In case you haven’t noticed Britain has been in decline since 1945. Couple with extreme cost of acquiring and operating new equipment, the numerical decline will probably continue.
Whatever the case, until 2015 SDSR we’re in the dark.
And it could go any way – MoD might settle on a fleet of 155 fast jets (48 F-35B + 107 Eurofighter) for all we know. This is still large for Northern Europe – the Germans are expected to field only 140 Eurofighters in the future and French Rafale procurement might not go above 180 a/c currently ordered.
In any case I don’t think there’ll be 138 or 150 RAF/FAA F-35s as originally planned – back then it was also planned to operate 232 Eurofighters.
thobbesHopsalot, you’re correct on UAE Mirage 2000. An initial 36 were delivered in the 1980s and are currently the oldest fighter aircraft in the inventory. They were upgraded to -9 standard.
It seems Eurofighter or Rafale either won’t be acquired short-medium term or only about 30-40 of each will be acquired.
Ether that or UAE is planning another massive expansion – last one was from 30+ fighters to 140 fighters. All concentrated at 1 base of course.
Also winner of UAE comp gets a lot more than UAE as both Qatar and Kuwait are awaiting the outcome of the UAE “competition” before they make a choice.
That’s potentially 24-36 a/c for Qatar and 28 for Kuwait.
thobbesRNZAF acquires ex RAN SeaSprites
Sale involves a total of 8 SH-2G plus two as spares. To replace existing SH-2Gs.
Hopefully they’ll do better in NZ than they did in Australia.
thobbesThe problem with that is , (as mentioned eariler by the DOD and LMA) that not all of the operational needs are FULLY funded for the legacy fleet, so you have scale down of flying hours, maintainance, upgrades, etc etc..If the USAF received FULL FUNDING for all its operational needs the figure would be more then 11 billion. The earlier DOD projections assumed Full funding for F-35 fleet, while taking the annual numbers for legacy jets which were almost always scaled back due to budget constraints….So the figure of 11 billion is probably lower then the IDEAL amount money required by the F-16 fleet.
Probelm with ideals is that they’re ideals and the USAF/DOD only has $X amount of dollars to spend.
Scale back the F-35 budget, just as done to the F-16 ops layout…Re shuffle the budget, scale back the usage of the F-35, procure lesser numbers etc etc etc A lot of options in my eyes, and not all would CRIPPLE the DOD in any way….
Totally agree.
The issue, and you raise a number of solutions, is how do you fill or reduce the $7 billion gap per annum
In any case 1,763+ USAF F-35A’s is not looking promising, not because of the cost of acquisition but rather cost of running them.
It could also be that early build aircraft are not upgraded and simply scrapped/retired as soon as possible. Kinda like RAF’s plan with Tranche 1 Typhoon.
In this case a highly innefficient wastage of taxpayer dollars.
thobbesI wonder if the quote for legacy systems includes F-15s not intended to replaced by F-35 or it’s just aircraft that will be replaced (F16/F/A-18, A-10, AV-8)?
thobbesIn other news, Israel has named the F-35I “Adir” which means “Powerful One.”
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=8663
thobbes10% more means either buying less airframes, cutting flight hours or cutting some other services. That’s bad.
Quotes from that article as to why 10% more than F-16 is not great news:
Lockheed Martin vowed at the onset of the program that the F-35 would cost less to operate than the aircraft it is replacing.
So Lockheed were full of crap from the start?
such as the electro-optical target system, or information technology systems used to support the aircraft, should not be included in the F-35 lifecycle estimate because they are not calculated in the price of operating legacy aircraft.
Probably because not all legacy aircraft have such systems.
Though the Pentagon figures show 60% more for F-35 than legacy jets – $18 billion per annum for F-35 compared to $11 billion for legacy systems.
The Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation office estimates that the Pentagon will spend $18.2 billion annually supporting all three F-35 variants compared to the $11.1 billion it spent on legacy aircraft in 2010, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Now what are they going to have to give up to make up the extra $7 billion pa needed to sustain the F-35?
thobbesVery nice pics.
Thanks for sharing.
Those Gazelles look so retro – the arcehtypal early 1980s light AT helo. Do the French still equip them with HOT?
thobbesLink to article about first AESA equipped F-15Cs becoming operational in 2010:
http://www.defencetalk.com/first-operational-f-15c-with-aesa-radar-unveiled-25726/
Overall sounds pretty sound to me – the upgraded F-15C/D as well as E will be more than a match for Flankers, especially when coupled with superior US EW/C3 support. Coupled with F-22s and you still have the meanest air superiority force on the planet.
Sign In
