Air Force Wants to Replace F-15Cs with F-16s

Well why not?

>>33395079
Fuck, I'd understand if they decided to go with the F-35A, but fucking vipers? Wut???

>>33395127
>maximize budget
>replace everything with an F-35

In bizarro world...

>>33395079
I think it's well past time that we all admit the Air Force doesn't have a fucking clue what they're doing.

>>33395098

The F-15C currenty provides most of the Air Force's superiority capability. The F-16 isn't equipped to do so at the same level.

>>33395079
It makes no sense at all. We have almost as many F-35s as F-15Cs, why spend billions to replace the radars on a small number of F-16s when F-35 has that capability (plus EO/DAS) built in, plus stealth, plus longer legs than F-16s?

>>33395189
>I think it's well past time that we all admit anybody in the military light colonel and above doesn't have a fucking clue what they're doing.

fixed it for ya, famalam

>>33395445

>light colonel

It means they want to retire the relatively small number of F-15C's in service because they are old as fuck.

>>33395417
The air force doesn't want to spend billions to replace the radars on its F-15C's.

>>33395901
ah so in 8 years of obama the airforce has filled with cowardly retards. got it

>>33395079
Wait, isn't this what people against 5th Gen have been saying all along? Now they're seemingly against it?

>>33396066
the only people against 5th gen are either foreigners. the unread. or hearbleating libcucks with no understanding of the system at all other than the edgy 14 yearold idea of "war is fucked up yo"

>>33396088

>foreigners
>unread
>cucks
>edgy teenager

Thou doth protest too much.

>>33395859

Yep, same problem as the legacy F-18s, though not the superbug.

I've seen the rampant F-35 posters go on and on about how the F-35 ws never meant to be air superiority like the F-22 is, limited production though it was. That entire analogy came from the F-15 vs F-16 high/low breakout. So what the hell are we going to do with any more USAF budget proposals where they try to sell a 'mix' of aircraft with different roles in the next gen? Believe them, or just accept that they have no idea what they're doing long-term?

>>33396639
did babby learn a new fake word. that's cute sweetums

>>33395079
>F-16s are to be replaced by F-35s
>want to replace F-15 with F-16
>want to replace Hi with Low
>F-16s that replace F-15s later replaced by F-35s

File: 162836_NFL_2007-01-25fsjh.jpg (93KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1200x800px

Off topic question but I can't find a more relevant thread. Can someone explain to me the difference between an F-16 and an F/A18? More specifically the latest blocks of both (40 and E/F?).

Seems to me they were born from the same lightweight fighter program but over time the F/A18 has become heavier but more capable of a strike role while the F-16 has remained a cheap, manouverable fighter. Obviously the big difference is carrier capability but why do non-carrier capable nations purchase F/A18 E/Fs over F-16 block 40s?

File: 1490172464488.jpg (835KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 3000x2400px

>>33395901
They already payed though, most of them have the radars now. None of the F-16s do and Congress will most likely fuck them hard as a result.

>>33396088
>the edgy 14 yearold idea of "war is fucked up yo"
I'm pretty sure that everyone who's ever been in a war thinks that it's fucked up.

This is why citizenship should require service.

>>33398112
you sound like a pussy grunt my kid. no warrior mentality. that's why I'm above you. dick size included tbqhwy

>>33395079
You do realize this is the military equivalent to a cat or dog staring you in the eyes when they want food (read "money")? Just replace everything with drones and move on, the age of human-piloted aircraft is waning fast.

The F-16C & F-35A just don't have the same interception capability as the F-15C. For the foreseeable future, both Russia and China will be flying lots of non stealthy Flanker derivatives, and ALCM launching bombers. Something in the F-15s weight & speed class is needed for those threats.

I doubt that it would actually save much cost wise, since it would lead to greater deployment of the F-22A as interceptor which costs even more per flight hour.

File: F-15 in-flight breakup.jpg (26KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x300px

>>33395190
> at the same level.
But close enough. At least F-16s aren't falling apart.

File: F-22s x5.jpg (83KB, 950x795px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 950x795px

>>33399532
>Muh interceptor role
We also have operational F-22s, you know.

>>33395079

Why did the Air Force even ask for a variant of the F-35 if they don't intend to use it! Crikey, maybe the F-35 wouldn't be a bloated wishy washy mess if they had just let it be a replacment of the F-18 and A-10 like the Navy and Army wanted.

>>33395079
Why wouldn't they just order another 300 F-35A airframes to replace F-15C.

The F-16 is already slated to be retired and switch to F-35A, just go straight to F-35A from the F-15C.


>I remember the article last year saying the USAF was scared shit less of the Chinese J-10C as it packed top of the line F-15 model performance in a smaller & cheaper package, and so they looked into upgrading the F-15 more.

And now this comes out.. guess they decided that the F-15 is obsolete now.

>>33399552
>Hanger Queens that only come outside in perfect weather conditions with performance limits so as to make the RAM coating last as long as possible.

They'll largely get smoked in a first strike if the enemy decided on a surprise attack.

Time to build the F-23.

>>33399605
No Anon, the F-40 "Warhawk II"

>>33399552

Yes, but I also pointed out that the F-22A costs a lot per flight hour, and since the production line is closed, if the small fleet ends up using its airframe flight hours on simple air policing before its replacement is ready, that will cause a headache for the USAF.

A more plausible replacement for the F-15C in important air policing and interception (where the F-16 & F-35 aren't adequate) is the F-15E. If you want to be contrary.

>>33395079
I thought the F-15 was the most proficient air superiority fighter in the world, no?

File: Tu-95 interceptions.jpg (149KB, 1280x609px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x609px

>>33399617
>F-16 and F-35 aren't adequate for air policing
What the fuck are you smoking?

>>33399542
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/f15crash.asp

>>33396979
>block 40
>latest block

Nigga F-16 is reaching block 70 now

>>33399754

Yes, usually the F-16 is adequate, especially during peace time. The point is that compared to the F-15C, the F-16C has inferior; speed, rate of climb, air-to-air payload, and combat radius.

If those Tu-95 (or their Chinese counterpart, the H-6K) were hostile and fully loaded with (potentially nuclear tipped) ALCMs, you want to intercept them from as far away as possible, as quickly as possible, and with a payload capable of being sure to shoot them (and their cruise missiles) down. Despite the fact that the Flanker and its derivatives are nearly as fast as the F-15C and much faster than the F-16C, Russia still pays a premium to keep the Mig-31 in service. Small multi-role aircraft just don't cut it.

bring back the f-14

File: RSAF_Typhoon_at_Malta_-_Gordon_Zammit.jpg (182KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x683px

>>33400007
>Need an F15C replacement

>F16 is too slow
>F35 is too slow
>Strike eagle is too big
>F18 is too slow
>F22 is too out of production

You know what you gotta do, America

>>33400014

>Rafale significantly faster than F-16C & F/A-18E

Nice try, grenouille-aboo, but I'll think you'll find that's horseshit. If there is one eurocanard that fits that description its the Typhoon.

>Strike eagle is too big

The F-15E is actually not that much bigger than the F-15C, and smaller than any Su-27/30/35 variant. the F-15E taking over the F-15Cs role would also mean cost savings by reducing the number of aircraft types in service.

>>33400053
Not to be a deuce but you realize that he posted a pic of a Typhoon right?

>>33395859
>It means they want to retire the relatively small number of F-15C's in service because they are old as fuck.

Why don't they just say so if that's the case?

They just want to put more pressure on shutting down the A-10.

>>33400624

They first posted it with a Rafale, deleted it, then reposted it while I was writing my post. Hence why the post number is different.

>>33399579
What F-35 variant was meant to directly replace the F-15C?

>>33399754
Im 90% sure thats the same Tu-95 that has just been flying in circles for the last 50 years

The airforce needs to focus on reducing operating costs to a minimum

>>33397177
What stops them from stripping the already paid for radars out then putting them in F-16's?

File: F-16Viper.jpg (285KB, 950x600px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 950x600px

>>33400038
>F-16V
>Better than Typhoon
>Cheaper

Fuck off bong

>>33395672
that is what they are called. They are a Lt Col. Light Colonel. Half the calories. Now you know.

Generally a sign of loving disrespect and that you no longer have any common sense and are soon to be banished to the pentagon to finish your transformation into a scumbag politician.

>>33400053
I worked on both the F-15E, C, and D.

Using a stripped down E would be fine. Shit. just getting more E's would do the trick.

>>33401039
>>Better than Typhoon

lol

>>33401126
its not really hard, you just have to exist

>>33399975
So why not produce an F-35 interceptor variant if its so absolutely needed

>>33401160

That would require a whole new development program. If those F-15Cs are going out of service in a couple of years (I severely doubt this will happen, mind you) then there won't be time unless money is poured onto it, in which case the cost savings won't materialise.

Also, it is doubtful whether the F-35 will be able to do that, the F-35's design is not optimised for Mach 2+ flight, the faster you go, the harder it gets to eke out more speed. Having a single engine doesn't help either.

>>33401006
The fact that they are way too big to fit in the F-16.

>>33401302
The fallacy here is that mach 2+ flight, something that most aircraft that can achieve it cannot with a full combat load, is needed for air superiority.

>>33401472

No, you're right but western air superiority fighters or more specifically the F-15, F-14, F-22, and EF Typhoon are if you like "multi-role" in combining the air superiority and interceptor missions in one aircraft, whereas the USSR/Russia continues to keep separate interceptors.

It is this interceptor role which the F-35 lacks in. Being able to intercept enemy strike aircraft, bombers, and cruise missiles before they can hit their targets requires an aircraft that is fast.

>>33401806
>requires an aircraft that is fast
Not necessarily. Mach 2+ speeds are only necessary for interceptors when your early warning system can't detect targets very far out, or when your interceptors themselves are short-ranged.

With the improvement of radars and missiles since the Cold War, it's more than fine enough to be using something that can "only" go Mach 1.6 for interceptor duties.

>>33401806
Russia uses interceptors because they are a more efficient method to cover its massive area.

>>33401806
>requires an aircraft that is fast.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-mach-6-monster-air-air-missile-could-make-the-us-air-18536
http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

>>33399617
The Pentagon is looking into building more F-22s.

>>33399617
They plan on keeping the F-15E.

>>33399731
yes

Let's build the F-15F - an updated F-15C with AESA and IRST. That or ask the Euros to build us some Tranche 3 Amerfighters.

>>33402088
No it isn't.

>>33402317
I think this is the mistake many anons are making. The F-16's that will replace F-15C's are aircraft that already exist.

>>33401302
>That would require a whole new development program.
You could move quick on it using existing technologies & parts, same like they can make modifications to the F-35 design without a whole new program.

>>33400833
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0dKE3z8u4

>>33402374
They probably won't do it. But they are studying if it would be possible.

>>33401935

Missile improvements go both ways. ALCMs have longer ranges and better stealth than they used to.

>>33401039

:o

>>33401935
The f-35 cannot actually reach mach 1.6 without burning all it's fuel in the process.

>>33402317

Rather than the USA buying Typhoons, it would be nice if Europe would actually upgrade the ones they have, so they can independently do all of the intercepting and Russian deterrence capability in Europe.

The RAF's FGR4s are doing an excellent job as interceptors, and with the news that they will retain some of the Tranche 1s, there is the upcoming Captor-E and proposed AESA seeker Meteor with 2-way datalink, it has a bright future. The problem is that the upgrade schedule for the other major NATO Eurofighter customers (Germany, Italy, Spain) isn't quite so definite.

>>33402693
>The f-35 cannot actually reach mach 1.6 without burning all it's fuel in the process.
You have any source for that other than the USMC trials where they were pulling strange maneuvers to achieve that?

>>33396979
>over time the F/A18 has become heavier but more capable of a strike role
>why do non-carrier capable nations purchase F/A18 E/Fs
>heavier but more capable of a strike role

File: f22_raptor_cockpit.jpg (44KB, 450x385px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 450x385px

>>33401160
thats called an f-22

What about the F-15 2040C?

>>33399617

the F-15E is not really going to be your first choice as an air-to-air long-range missile launching platform. it's too valuable as a bomb truck, and the crews spend as much if not more time on the air-to-ground portion as the air-to-air.

>>33403616

It's not ideal, but it's the least worst option in a USAF without the F-15C. If the F-22A is too expensive and the F-16C doens't have the speed/range, then that leaves the F-15E.

Its production line is still open (I think) so they can order a few more, and intercepting bombers & cruise missiles doesn't need the same level of training as air superiority against a peer-fighter force does.

>>33403778

the production line is open. Qatar ordered the F-15QA a few months ago, and we're delivering jets to the Singaporeans, South Koreans, and Saudis.

there's a lot of stuff that's in a Strike Eagle that you don't need and actually works against you in an air superiority role.

GE motors and the displays from the foreign models would be nice, though.

>>33403832

update: the deliveries to the Singaporeans and South Koreans is done for now.

>>33399542
what's the end result on this?

>>33403832

>there's a lot of stuff that's in a Strike Eagle that you don't need and actually works against you in an air superiority role.

Like what out of interest? the ground targeting pod can easily be removed, and as an interceptor, the CFTs are if anything a bonus.

Honestly, the best solution is to make sure the 6th gen air superiority fighter isn't delayed, and run them concurrently with the F-22A once the F-15Cs are gone, but that isn't likely to work out.

>>33403982

the rear cockpit. and I say this as a WSO. you don't need the complex PACS, you don't need the 1760 bus, you just need station 2/8 and the ejector launchers for AMRAAMs. the F-15E is also ridiculously overbuilt compared to the C model - there's a reason they never bothered to put a -229 in a C model, and the -220 is the hot-rod motor for a C model but a POS for the Mudhen.

and yeah... really wish we had about double the F-22's about now, plus a 6th gen competition.

>>33403982
There's around 2000lb of structural reinforcements before you factor in the CFT's
The CFT's add range and reduce high speed drag but make the airframe easier to depart at high AoA, as a Pure Interceptor advantageous, but worst after the merge.
The biggest difference in favor of the F-15E is it has atleast the basis of a modern fly by wire system allowing the pilot to be much more daring in what he does

>>33404216

the flight control system in a F-15E is the exact same semi-FBW system as a C-model.

>>33403099
F-22 is not a fifth gen aircraft

>>33398112
I think he means that that's all they think, as if even trying to have a cursory understanding of the subject would make them unclean.

>>33403832
The price of an F-15QA is more than an F-35A.

>>33402912
But why purchase an F/A 18 for strike instead of a plane that was originally intended for that like say an F15C or even a Rafale? Or is the F/A 18 just as capable as these air frames?

File: IMG_0113.jpg (577KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 1600x1200px

Replace every aircraft with the A-10

>>33404315
yes it is. are you slow

>>33396932
This is because AF was forced to retain the A-10

>>33405381
The AF wanted to keep the A-10.

>>33405537
The USAF wanted to retire the A-10 but was forced to keep it around a bit longer by congress.

>>33405693
And because the budget is finite and something had to be cut, bye bye F-15C, thanks a lot John McAlzheimer

>>33404315
The term "5th Gen" was made specifically for the F-22, actually.

File: 1486515086303.jpg (816KB, 1310x1214px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 1310x1214px

>>33399756
>http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/f15crash.asp
>unironically using that leftist propaganda site for anything

>>33405128
t. S-300 battery commander.

File: 1340224452512.jpg (125KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x768px

>>33405831
>Dick Cheney kills the F-14
>John McCain kills the F-15C

What is it with old RINO Republicans and killing the big fighters?

Who decided against further upgrades for the Super Hornet?

>>33406447
F-14s were sold to Iran, weren't they?
It's going to be a sad day when we have to shoot those old birds down.

File: 1459856302088.jpg (84KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x370px

>>33406190
>snopes
>leftist propaganda
u wot m8

>>33406190
So that F-15 really did break apart?

File: IRIAF_F14A_x4.jpg (121KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1600x1067px

>>33406474
a batch of F-14A was sold to Iran before the Allotoyas took over. Once the revolution started and the Shah fled the country, the State Department kept the rest of the shipment, along with some Spruance class destroyers they had purchased.

Fun Fact: the Kidd subclass was purpose-built for Iran, and had upgraded cooling systems for the hot Middle East climate.

>>33405024

the F-15C was not at all intended for a strike role. you used to (probably still are) fined in a F-15C squadron for saying the word "bomb".

>>33405024
Eagles cant use air to ground weapons, aside form the dedicated F-15E Strike Eagle variant.

>>33406548
It is, so is Politifact.

File: 1486840684121.jpg (31KB, 500x639px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x639px

>>33408056
And how, exactly? Has fact checking suddenly become propaganda?

>>33408072
Facts are well known to have a liberal bias.

>>33406548
>>33408072

>thinking snopes is an unbiased factual news source.

Stop living in the 90s, lad. There is no such thing anymore.
When they don't actually lie, they lie by omission. So snopes, for instance, will cover 10 news stories that show Trump in a negative light, but they will ignore the stories that are beneficial to his image. This was most noticeable during the election campaign.

The closest thing you can get to factual and unbiased is wikipedia, but even there many editors are left-leaning and will butcher sensitive articles, e. g. the Julius Evola article ever since the mainstream media took an interest in him.

>>33403896
Well they inspected all the F-15A/B/C/Ds and found out which ones had the faulty stringer, and returned them all to restricted airworthiness (with a reduced 5 G absolute load limit).... and I never heard anything beyond that but I assume they've been cleared back to normal operation again.

>>33396979
F-16 is a great fighter operated and commanded by idiots. The F/A-18 is a terrible (eventually passable) fighter operated by superb pilots commanded by idiots.

File: 1345288606825.jpg (36KB, 467x352px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 467x352px

>>33401160
>F-35 interceptor

File: image.png (786KB, 1675x2205px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1675x2205px

>>33408096
>>33408072
>transgender girls aren't boys

File: Mayor.jpg (72KB, 749x788px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 749x788px

>>33410034
>Debunking old chain emails is lefist propaganda
It's all a liberal conspiracy to hide the arrival of the conservative supermoon

File: TtLRFof.jpg (293KB, 1666x1853px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1666x1853px

>>33410519
rly makes u think

>>33410606
rekt

>>33408072
>Trump was factually correct when he said the national debt was down during his first 30 days
>still rate it mostly false

Sure seems like the fact checkers are operating based on facts huh?

>>33403832
Heard the SKs use something called the Slam Eagle how is that?