6 ms·

Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's al

Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's all about money though, the F16 is too cheap to keep Lockheed in business no matter how much you upgrade it.

dkhenry 13y ago
I don't think this is to replace the F16. The F22 replaces them. How do you think the F35 compares to the F18 ?
- antubbs 13y ago
  I don't believe this is accurate. The F-16 is the "low" part of the "high/low" multirole fighter strategy. For the air force, the "high" jet is the F-15. The F-22 is predominantly designed for air superiority, and thus is most directly a replacement for the F-15C. Whether it really even replaces the F-15C is questionable, since the quantity produced is extremely small compared to the overall legacy fighter fleet. The assumption is that gap will be filled by the F-35 and the F-16 will be replaced by the F-35.
  - dkhenry 13y ago
    I thought it was F-16 as the high fighter and the F-18 as the low fighter ?
    - zokier 13y ago
      Nope. F-16 and F-18 are of comparable class, F-18 being built for Navy requirements and F-16 for Air Force. IIRC they even evolved from a common program at one point. They separated as Navy and AF do not mix well, as is demonstrated by the JSF program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  Dutchman here. We're buying the F-35 'Flying Piano' to replace our F-16's...
caycep 13y ago
The F-16 design was too well done for its own good. Its history as a "no compromise" design (at least in the beginning, before Pentagon paper pushers got to it) from the "Fighter Mafia" is well known.
runarb 13y ago
Can you elaborate a little more on which aspects of the 40 year old F-16 design you think is better than the F-35? After looking on the Wikipedia page[0][1] it looks for me that the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in all aspects: |------------------------|-----------|----------| | | F-16 | F-35 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| | Maximum speed | Mach 1.2 | Mach 1.6 | | Combat radius | 550 km | 1 080 km | | Dry thrust | 76.3 kN | 125 kN | | Thrust w. afterburner | 127 kN | 191 kN | | First flight | 1974 | 2006 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_... 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...
- antubbs 13y ago
  Range, thrust, and power to weight are just a few performance parameters. It's somewhat more difficult to get accurate turn performance and acceleration information about the F-35. If I understand correctly (again, can't really find anything but conjecture for performance charts) while the F-35 has more sophisticated aerodynamic designs, the large cross-section looks to be a disadvantage in turn rates and acceleration (especially trans sonic).
  - greedo 13y ago
    This is contrary to what the test pilots and others bringing the aircraft to IOC have reported. Granted, test pilots work for the manufacturer and might be biased, but regular aviators who have flown the aircraft are confirming its excellent performance.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Those aren't necessarily 1:1. Note that the combat radius of the F16 includes 4x1,000lb bombs. Assuming the Falcon figure is for a fully-loaded plane, it wins on thrust-to-weight ratio. Rate of climb on the F35 is classified, so can't be compared.
- 13y ago
greedo 13y ago
Current fly away costs estimates for the F-35 are in the neighborhood of 100-150M. Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. It's been a long, long time since you could buy an F-16 for $5M. Also, the F-35 is more maneuverable than the current F-16s which have to hang a ton of armament on pylons, as well as drop tanks to get range equivalent to the F-35. And try flying any F-16 into S300 range. Now the criticisms of the F-35B (Marine STOVL variant) are semi-valid, and have affected some facets of the F-35A and F-35C. But other than cost overruns, the performance of the aircraft will be fine.
- caycep 13y ago
  I think the F-16 over the years has suffered from mission creep, that has added weight and decreased performance. Then again, thinking about this, the USAF really plans on logistics, and most of the plans I've seen really focus on how plans can carrying something (usually bombs) to a place, from far away, and flying around enemy radar and other badness. They really need the equivalent of a fedex truck that can't be shot down.
  - greedo 13y ago
    Yes, the F-16's performance has suffered greatly as it's become more "multi-mission." Ironically, the philosophy for the F-15 was "not a pound for air to ground" yet both it and the F-14 (in its F-14D Bombcat config) turned out to be exceptional tactical bombers. The F-16 isn't bad, but because of the small wing has far less range than the Mudhen or the F-35.
- zokier 13y ago
  > Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. Any sources for this claim? The details on sales deals are scarce, but from what I gather Block50/52 models should be in the $40M range, or maybe even as low as $15M. The major exception being UAEs heavily modified Block60 which seem to go for significantly higher (in the $100M range).
  - 13y ago

dkhenry 13y ago

I don't think this is to replace the F16. The F22 replaces them. How do you think the F35 compares to the F18 ?

antubbs 13y ago
I don't believe this is accurate. The F-16 is the "low" part of the "high/low" multirole fighter strategy. For the air force, the "high" jet is the F-15. The F-22 is predominantly designed for air superiority, and thus is most directly a replacement for the F-15C. Whether it really even replaces the F-15C is questionable, since the quantity produced is extremely small compared to the overall legacy fighter fleet. The assumption is that gap will be filled by the F-35 and the F-16 will be replaced by the F-35.
- dkhenry 13y ago
  I thought it was F-16 as the high fighter and the F-18 as the low fighter ?
  - zokier 13y ago
    Nope. F-16 and F-18 are of comparable class, F-18 being built for Navy requirements and F-16 for Air Force. IIRC they even evolved from a common program at one point. They separated as Navy and AF do not mix well, as is demonstrated by the JSF program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program
digitalengineer 13y ago
Dutchman here. We're buying the F-35 'Flying Piano' to replace our F-16's...

caycep 13y ago

The F-16 design was too well done for its own good. Its history as a "no compromise" design (at least in the beginning, before Pentagon paper pushers got to it) from the "Fighter Mafia" is well known.

runarb 13y ago

Can you elaborate a little more on which aspects of the 40 year old F-16 design you think is better than the F-35? After looking on the Wikipedia page[0][1] it looks for me that the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in all aspects: |------------------------|-----------|----------| | | F-16 | F-35 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| | Maximum speed | Mach 1.2 | Mach 1.6 | | Combat radius | 550 km | 1 080 km | | Dry thrust | 76.3 kN | 125 kN | | Thrust w. afterburner | 127 kN | 191 kN | | First flight | 1974 | 2006 | |------------------------|-----------|----------| 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_... 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...

antubbs 13y ago
Range, thrust, and power to weight are just a few performance parameters. It's somewhat more difficult to get accurate turn performance and acceleration information about the F-35. If I understand correctly (again, can't really find anything but conjecture for performance charts) while the F-35 has more sophisticated aerodynamic designs, the large cross-section looks to be a disadvantage in turn rates and acceleration (especially trans sonic).
- greedo 13y ago
  This is contrary to what the test pilots and others bringing the aircraft to IOC have reported. Granted, test pilots work for the manufacturer and might be biased, but regular aviators who have flown the aircraft are confirming its excellent performance.
jacques_chester 13y ago
Those aren't necessarily 1:1. Note that the combat radius of the F16 includes 4x1,000lb bombs. Assuming the Falcon figure is for a fully-loaded plane, it wins on thrust-to-weight ratio. Rate of climb on the F35 is classified, so can't be compared.
13y ago

greedo 13y ago

Current fly away costs estimates for the F-35 are in the neighborhood of 100-150M. Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. It's been a long, long time since you could buy an F-16 for $5M. Also, the F-35 is more maneuverable than the current F-16s which have to hang a ton of armament on pylons, as well as drop tanks to get range equivalent to the F-35. And try flying any F-16 into S300 range. Now the criticisms of the F-35B (Marine STOVL variant) are semi-valid, and have affected some facets of the F-35A and F-35C. But other than cost overruns, the performance of the aircraft will be fine.

caycep 13y ago
I think the F-16 over the years has suffered from mission creep, that has added weight and decreased performance. Then again, thinking about this, the USAF really plans on logistics, and most of the plans I've seen really focus on how plans can carrying something (usually bombs) to a place, from far away, and flying around enemy radar and other badness. They really need the equivalent of a fedex truck that can't be shot down.
- greedo 13y ago
  Yes, the F-16's performance has suffered greatly as it's become more "multi-mission." Ironically, the philosophy for the F-15 was "not a pound for air to ground" yet both it and the F-14 (in its F-14D Bombcat config) turned out to be exceptional tactical bombers. The F-16 isn't bad, but because of the small wing has far less range than the Mudhen or the F-35.
zokier 13y ago
> Current fly away costs for Block 50+ F-16 are in the 100M range depending on electronics suite. Any sources for this claim? The details on sales deals are scarce, but from what I gather Block50/52 models should be in the $40M range, or maybe even as low as $15M. The major exception being UAEs heavily modified Block60 which seem to go for significantly higher (in the $100M range).
- 13y ago