Improving the F-16V

[+MigBuster]

Some interesting thoughts about improving the US low end fighter.

 

 

Miscalculation: the need for a new US fighter export strategy in the global fighter market Part 1

 

http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/miscalculation-need-for-new-us-fighter_7.html

 

 

 

Miscalculation: the need for a new US fighter export strategy in the global fighter market Part 2

 

http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/miscalculation-need-for-new-us-fighter_13.html

Edited January 15, 2014 by MigBuster

[+Stratos]

Pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing!!

[xrearl]

Yeman  Mig-21s Rebuilds?

[macelena]

Su-30MKA low end? I´m kind of a Flankerphobic, so i´m afraid this SOB can stand up to some if not all the high enders.

[+MigBuster]

Su-30MKA low end? I´m kind of a Flankerphobic, so i´m afraid this SOB can stand up to some if not all the high enders.

 

He does state in part 1

 

The judgement of what is considered low and high-end purely reflects pricing and not performance.

[macelena]

Oops, makes sense

[+ST0RM]

With AMARG full of early Block F-16A/Cs, I just dont see how this low-end jet can be appealing to an Air Force on a budget. We've seen the sale of several non-MLU Euro Vipers that were refurb'd and brought up to current status before being delivered. So why is this even an option?

 

Interesting article though. I just dont see the point of the project. It reminds me of the F-16-79 that was marketed and rejected!

[+MigBuster]

With AMARG full of early Block F-16A/Cs, I just dont see how this low-end jet can be appealing to an Air Force on a budget. We've seen the sale of several non-MLU Euro Vipers that were refurb'd and brought up to current status before being delivered. So why is this even an option?

 

Interesting article though. I just dont see the point of the project. It reminds me of the F-16-79 that was marketed and rejected!

 

Depends how you look at it - the F-16/79 was a massive downgrade over the Block 1/15 - you had an old J-79-GE turbojet with higher fuel consumption and 5860 lbs less thrust at AB compared to the F-100-PW turbofan and capability was intentionally limited. 

 

The F-16V on the other hand needs to be the most advanced version ever and offer capabilities (In a new airframe) at least on par with the Gripen if the US wants to stay in the lower cost market.

 

As far as the US goes what else does it have to offer? - I mean F-35 is not an F-16 replacement - its F-15 size, has far more internal hardware / avionics and stealth, will likely sell far less, will never be anywhere near as cheap to procure or run. and likely will only be sold to select countries.

 

If you did an F-35/79 - what would it look like - downgraded engine / radar,  the DAS & EOTS would probably be removed, the RAM coating left off, other materials used on panels - and now you (could argue )have a airframe far inferior to the F-16V in everything but range.  

Edited January 16, 2014 by MigBuster

[+ST0RM]

Not a direct comparison, I simply meant that like the F-16-79 was a downgraded F-16 for export. I see the F-16V as the same. Why not save some $$ and buy used airframes and upgrade them for a cheaper price? Unless the F-16V can match that.

 

But hey, the F-16V is probably better than our own old airframes ;)