Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tn_prvteye

Oooooooh, this should stir some interesting responses...

Recommended Posts


as the article said there is a precedent in doing that(F-4, A-7, joint use of EA-6B). however logistically it would be smarter to buy more F-16's. if congress drops the money for new build Vipers then i'm quite sure LM will build more Vipers. hell they're marketing a version of the block 60 to india right now. so why not? the ANG could have the most advanced F-16s and this time for defending AMERICAN airspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what purpose would we do that (buy the Bug) ?

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen one at least, do you remember Indepandence Day?

 

 

you're right. type conversion should be super easy. i mean if randy quaid and bill pullman can fly em.... :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We won't buy them for the same reason we don't buy the B or C model F-35. All that extra dead weight that gives no advantage to operations on a land based aircraft.

 

The simplest option is buying more new build F-16s. The logistical tail already exists, the training program exists, most of the operators are already familiar with the type. Probably could even get a discount.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just the throw-away option and a way to put pressure on LM for an affordable Block60+ Lawn Dart, and that just a backup to the F-35.

 

we live in interesting times.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
affordable block 60? we talkin F-16ADF 2.0?

 

I am merely suggesting maybe a tweak to what I think is the latest block being exported.

 

given that with the boneheaded cancellation of the F-22 and the F-35 not exactly hitting on schedule, we might be pulling planes out of the boneyard for the active AF, Reserve AF and ANG before this is said and done.

 

I can see it now - a former museum SPAD on a NORAD intercept of a Blackjack over the Arctic......................

Edited by Typhoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn. and they just finished turning the last of the airworthy F-4E's into QF-4's.

Edited by daddyairplanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many airframes are needed? There's already an airframe out there that can do the job. Being designed with air defense in mind, it's got long legs, long range radar, long range missiles (can carry eight of 'em), is a proven combat veteran, and I'm sure we can find pilots to fly them.. for FREE. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why the USAF is faced with this problem. I mean the F-4, C-130, B-52 (and many others) have been in service for ages. They've had to go through substantial overhauls to maintain that service life, but it's possible and has proven to be cost-effective.

 

So why can't the same be done now?

 

The cost of re-training the USAF & ANG pilots for the F-18 or EF-2000 and then having to do it all again when the F-35 becomes available would be huge. Better to buy more of the perfectly capable F-16 or at least refurbish the existing fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New build F-16's would be the logical choice.

Cost effective until the F-35 can start to come on line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many airframes are needed? There's already an airframe out there that can do the job. Being designed with air defense in mind, it's got long legs, long range radar, long range missiles (can carry eight of 'em), is a proven combat veteran, and I'm sure we can find pilots to fly them.. for FREE. :biggrin:

 

I wonder what that would be?

 

(here kitty kitty kitty.......)

 

:biggrin:

 

"I'm wondering why the USAF is faced with this problem. I mean the F-4, C-130, B-52 (and many others) have been in service for ages. They've had to go through substantial overhauls to maintain that service life, but it's possible and has proven to be cost-effective.

 

So why can't the same be done now? "

 

fighters tend to have a "little" more g on them from time to time which tends to wear the airframes out a bit over time.

 

but, get that old SPAD out of the museum and put a turboprop into it..................

 

:pilotfly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing as the need is for air defense for CONUS you wouldn't even need a full up block 60. deliver it stock any how to keep lead in time down(same as how the Phantom kept its hook and folding wings throughout all blocks keep production rolling w/o interuption)but for that particular mission the only parts of the package you would keep is the conformal tanks and the aesa radar. even paint them in aggressor marking for a secondary tasking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how hard it would be to start up Northrop's F-20 manufacturing plant. There was a very capable fighter available for a great price. It would be a great stop-gap machine while waiting for the F-35.

 

Too bad the F-20 got swept under the rug. I think it could've had a great combat record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeing as the need is for air defense for CONUS you wouldn't even need a full up block 60. deliver it stock any how to keep lead in time down(same as how the Phantom kept its hook and folding wings throughout all blocks keep production rolling w/o interuption)but for that particular mission the only parts of the package you would keep is the conformal tanks and the aesa radar. even paint them in aggressor marking for a secondary tasking.

 

all of the squadrons allocated for North American air defense also have taskings for overseas deployment. So unless several wings were withdrawn from AEF rotations, you'd need stock, deployable, full-up birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how hard it would be to start up Northrop's F-20 manufacturing plant. There was a very capable fighter available for a great price. It would be a great stop-gap machine while waiting for the F-35.

 

Too bad the F-20 got swept under the rug. I think it could've had a great combat record.

 

Oh, how I wish that was possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering why the USAF is faced with this problem. I mean the F-4, C-130, B-52 (and many others) have been in service for ages. They've had to go through substantial overhauls to maintain that service life, but it's possible and has proven to be cost-effective.

 

Different way of building aircraft back. They were big and heavy, meant to take hits and survive. The aircraft of today are not so rugged. They don't last as long and are still flown a lot of hours.

 

seeing as the need is for air defense for CONUS you wouldn't even need a full up block 60. deliver it stock any how to keep lead in time down(same as how the Phantom kept its hook and folding wings throughout all blocks keep production rolling w/o interuption)but for that particular mission the only parts of the package you would keep is the conformal tanks and the aesa radar. even paint them in aggressor marking for a secondary tasking.

 

As Typhoid said below, it's not just Air Defense. It's the USCENTCOM taskings that is the real priority. The ability to multiply your CAS/Bomb dropper force by using the AFRes/ANG assets is a huge factor. These associate units popping up everywhere are result of it. It allows ACC/AMC to grab hardware that was previously only AFRes/ANG held. Although with some units, they've been able to hold off the MAJCOM from tasking them, ie the Cal and SC ANG.

 

If CONUS Air Defense was their only mission, you could equip them all with F-15s.

 

all of the squadrons allocated for North American air defense also have taskings for overseas deployment. So unless several wings were withdrawn from AEF rotations, you'd need stock, deployable, full-up birds.

 

Yup!

 

The logistics of ramping up an AF unit for Hornet operation would be a nightmare. The training of the maintenance people and pilots, getting spares, etc.

 

New F-16s are the way to go. Everyone with half a brain knows this. Too bad Congress/Senate won't get past their own agendas to fix the military hardware situation. Another question was why the AF gave Block52 F-16s to the Thunderbirds, when they could have been allocated to a ANG unit that actually had a mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question should be if to go for new F-16's or renew the current fleet. Surely going the referb route is the cheapest?

 

It would mean only new chassis and no conversion training... If you go for new F-16's the difference between that and going for refurb F-18's becomes less. You'll need new parts and crew training on both anyway. How about some Su-30MKI's ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and I'm sure we can find pilots to fly them.. for FREE. :biggrin:

 

Maybe not free, but pay for grad/law school and a little extra flexibility and I'll fly one :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe not free, but pay for grad/law school and a little extra flexibility and I'll fly one :good:

 

Hell, just pay for the JP-5 and I'll fly one - Anytime, Baby!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..