eagleWell, the Mk115 is a very old aircraft and the current Snowbirds operate nine of them……………vs six Hornets operated by the Blue Angels. So, are you so sure that the current fleet would be that much cheaper to operate???
The Hawk Mk115 is pretty new. 😉
The USN operates hundreds of F-18 so a few more for the Blue Angels dont add much, but for the CAF (or Air Command :rolleyes: ) 9 or 6 Hornets do count.
eagleFrom my point of view, the F-15 is not better than the F-16, the only real advantage i see in the F-15 is speed, but for an F-15 to fly at Mach 2.2 means also spend fuel like crazy, yeah of course the speed is better than being slow, but the weapons in air to air are the same, same missiles mean same range for the weapons and same chances, perhaps at BVR well the F-15 might have a small advantage but there are no advantages in WVR, the F-15 is bigger, easier to spot and less agile, however with the same weapons both aircraft will have almost the same odds.
In the 1980s miniaturization made the F-16 capable of carring and firing the AIM-120, there is very little advantage for an F-15 in having AMRAAMs if the F-16 can also carry it.
Now in 2007 the Gripen is totally different, it will beat the F-15 any time armed with Meteors, will beat it too if it has ASRAAMs and the F-15 only carries AIM-9Ls, i mean weaponry makes the difference, in turning capability the Gripen can also fight better than the F-15, so in few words better weaponry means better avionics.
An F-15 loaded for A/A combat is certainly faster than an F-16 with the same loadout. Its not about Mach 2+ capability, but about acceleration and speeds to M1.5 or so. A loaded Viper will struggle to reach that speed.
Missile range doesnt need to be the same because the F-15 with its larger more powerful radar can probably detect the F-16 earlier in an ecm environment.
In WVR, size is a problem yes. But the F-16 is not generally more agile than the F-15. It depends and the F-15 will set the rules more often than not so it might well be in the better position.
The F-15 carries the AIM-9X, while the Gripen doesnt carry the Meteor.
eagleHaving lots of them is simply what matters. Numbers still and do matter no matter what. As one Russian general said, “Quantity is a quality of its own”.
Subsonic CAS planes are also planes in the light category. Other than gunships, you don’t see heavy planes undertaking this role.
As for AA, I have not really seen how the F-15 can be better than the F-16A to D in exercises. In fact, once AMRAAMs are factored in, it seems to matter even less.
Subsonic planes are generally simpler and cheaper and offer more range/payload for the same size. Of course, if you want a single type, it needs to be a multirole one. But there you are better of with a larger plane. Like Rafale/EF etc.
The F-15 beats the F-16 in the A/A role clearly if you ask me, for the reasons MadRat mentioned.
eagleEagle
What i meant is the trend is to create lighter aircraft does not mean they are lighter than the previous generation, for Example a MiG-21 is 6 tonnes lighter than an F-16, considering that means that a MiG-21 is the light fighter and the F-16 the heavy weight fighter, the P-39 aircobra is several times lighter than a MiG-21, and the MiG-21 is definitively several times heavier than a BF-109.
The JAS-39 is not fifth generation aircraft, it is a 4.5 generation aircraft, to be a fifth generation fighter any aircraft need the 3 S`: Supercruise, Stealth and Supermaneuvrability, the JAS-39 has not the 3 S`.
The F-35 is a single seat version of the F-22 optimized to be a multirole, but in the air to air it is definitively a lght weight fighter in the fifth generation specially when it can carry ASRAAMs and AIM-9Xs
Yes, the Gripen is not in the same generation as the F-22/F-35, though it certainly fulfils the supermanoeuvrability and probably the supercruise part.
But that just means one thing: There are only two 5th gen fighters as of now. But that definately doesnt make the lighter of the two a leighweight just because theres no 6-8 ton jet.
Going by weight, thats more of a medium/heavy mix. The F-16/15 accordingly would be light/medium.
And btw, both the Raptor and Lightning are single seaters.
eagleMaybe not as the aircraft are already paid for………Further, consider the Hornet is already in widespread service with the RCAF. Many saving could be had with Support, Parts, Infrastructure, Logistics, etc. Also, who says Canada couldn’t operate a smaller number vs the current Snowbirds?
Its the operating costs. A combat jet like the F-18 costs a lot more to operate than a trainer. Also, the Hawk is in Canadian service too, albeit the Mk115.
eagleA-10?
for example, though the A-10 is really slow. 😀
I was thinking more about something like an A-7.
Hey, one could say the F-18E/F is in that class too. :diablo:
eagleThe F-35 is a light weight i guess in terms of the fifth generation.
I think the USAF has taken the best approach to tackle the light weight and heavy weight fifth generation dilema, the F-22 and F-35 are basicly the modern incarnation of the F-16 and F-15 hi-lo mix.
The F-15/F-16 hi-lo mix was intended for the A/A role only which became obsolete pretty fast. The real hi-lo mix in the USAF is the F-16 vs F-15E (and F-117 if you like) in A/G whereas A/A is F-15 business.
F-22/F-35 is more of an A/A + A/G mix than hi-lo.
And no, the F-35 is not light in terms of the 5th gen fighter. Gripen is light.
eagleWell, I think the F-16 has suffered from the beginning of being underestimated. It was first seen as a cheap way of filling the ranks in the role of a simple WVR day fighter. When it proved itself to be more capable than most had thought, it got upgraded to take on more roles. It would have been better if they had realised that from the beginning, because it should been easier to upgrade it then.
But the F-16 hasn’t been given so many chanses to prove itself. The USAF has mostly pitted the F-15 in A2A while F-16 has got the job to haul bombs. Personally I think it’s because they’re not interested in giving a good record to a plane so many countries outside the US operate. 😀But the F-16 is on it’s way out and you will get your fighterbombers in the F-35, with emphasis on bomber.
The F-16 became the standard tactical fighter bomber so it needed upgrades. At first, all the multi role stuff wasnt really needed for the A/A WVR role.
IMHO, there were better options back then than to go with that many F-16s.
But yeah, the F-35 corrects that mistake. 😀
For the US it might be correct. Less and less countries might be willing to support American military actions by letting them operate from their air bases. And the longer distances give less sorties per day and require bigger payloads per sortie. But for the rest of the world the lightweighter is a better option today than before. Remember that todays lightweighter is as capable as yesterdays middleweighter. Look at the B-17 from WWII and it’s payload.
Absolutely. Look at the Scandinavian countries. The choice between Gripen and JSF is pretty much a choice between more defence orientation or having the option to be a part of world police.
eagleThe jury is still out if growing big would be good to fill in roles like CAS.
The experience of small wars around the world shows how quickly small fighters like the F-5E are pushed into CAS roles, like in the Iran-Iraq war.
Sheer tempo is what small fighters can deliver. You turned the Eagle into a fighter bomber, and yet the F-16C still did most of the work.
I doubt if the F-16 is really the best CAS plane, similar the F-15.
The F-16 does the work simply because theres lots of them.
A subsonic CAS plane would be much cheaper and deliver more sorties.
eagleIt would be a shame to scrap them. How much life is left in the airframes?
How many Hawks are stored? All Mk66 I guess? Any pictures of them stored?
from http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/about/history/mittelaus/hawk.html
The fleet has 19‘570 hours total, the highest airframe with 1’376 hours to the lowest with 687 hours. Average per jet is a little over 1’000h.
So theres plenty of life left and the Hawks are in excellent condition.
Of the 20 (all Mk66) deliverd, 1 crashed and 1 example is slated for a museum if I remember correctly, so 18 are being offered with all of them stored currently. They’re out of service since 2002.
Unfortunately, I dont have any pics.
eagleI also don’t think JSF is a lightweight. Wether the lightweight is a good option or not depends on you needs. If your strategy is based upon power projection with deep strikes deep in your enemys territory the heavyweighter is definitely the best choice.
But if you want to defend your airspace, your waters and borders, I think the lightweighter is better. For the roles of A2A, CAS and anti shipping a larger number of small fighters armed with modern missiles and bombs gives the best bang for the buck. Especially with support from ground and airborne radars with modern datalinks. Also when airforces over the world gets downsized there is a limit on how few planes you can have and still be efficient.
I agreee, but the F-16 was neither designed nor used in that role usually.
Though I think its range/payload combination would be enough for many missions in the WW3 scenario. Problem is there were too many of those lawn darts and not enough real fighter bombers. :p
What amazes me is that with todays modern materials, more efficient engines and supposedly better aerodynamics fighters really should become smaller, but instead they just grow bigger. Are really the needs for power projection so much bigger today? Together with the long range precision missiles of today it becomes ridicolous.
I think it’s very much a matter of prestige, of who’s got the biggest one.
Well for todays war range and endurance is even more important than it was during the cold war. No need for an LWF there so jets grow.
On the other hand, someting with the capabilites of the F-35 might have been impossible to design a few decades ago…
eagleSad story… 🙁
The F-18 is probably too expensive to operate, esp. when you already cant afford to keep all the combat jets.
The Canadians should go for the Swiss Hawks. Last I heard they will be scrapped soon if they wont find a buyer.
eagleExcellent 🙂
The Mirage 2000 had the shortest course at landing, even shorter than the Ching Kuo. The F16 had the shortest take off run though, with 2 tanks and 2 huge pylones!
I didn’t include the Blackhawks in the comparison 😀
I notice Taiwanese F-16s have brake chutes so the landing distance could be shortened. What about their Mirage 2000s and F-CK-1s?
I guess they didnt want to bother with picking up chutes here.
eagleI wonder when people stop referring to the F-35 as light. Its 12-13 tons empty. 😮 😉
The development from F-16A Block 1 to E Block 60 has shown the limitations of the LWF concept. LWF are ok as long as you actually need LWF. The F-16 was forced into roles its not really designed for and its replacement is almost twice the size of the original YF-16. So imho, LWF only fulfill a niche role. The F-16 is not a classic because of the light is better philosophy which failed, but because ~4500 examples have been sold.
What Sprey failed to notice is only when his beloved F-16 is no longer guns/sidewinder, it has actually become useful.
eagleSorry for my ignorance, but can anyone tell me why the nickname of the Super Hornet is Rhino?
Thanks
Rhino was chosen because of the distinctive nose (IFF?) bump.
Reason is simple: so the deck crew doesnt confuse the SH with older Hornets which are much lighter when adjusting catapults/wires.
Sign In
