F 16D Fighting Falcon!
-
dude, this is really out of my depth. What does the LOAN do? Btw, can you explain why Thailand also?Originally posted by Joe Black:Say, I've got some interesting questions and wonder who knows the answers (Viper52 perhaps
)?
Is the batch of Block 52+ Vipers that is about to be delievered has Low-Observable Asymmetric Nozzles installed on to the F100-229 engines?
Will RSAF refit the current Block 52 Vipers with LOAN too?
Another hypothetical questions I have got is that... would it be a wise decision if Singapore (perhaps partnering Israel and Thailand) persue the Multi-directional thrust-vectoring technology and retrofit the entire fleet with this. It will give all our Vipers an instant capability to deal with Su-30MKK on a 1 to 1 basis.
Eager to hear different comments from all you military nutlites !!! -
Hey guys,
Any1 here noe what is the number of C & D versions of the 20 F-16s blk52+ that were ordered in year 2000? -
eh correction...2000 deliveries were not in Blk 52+ but Blk 52, often call Cj/Dj in USAF(they used this ver as SEAD role).Originally posted by gary1910:Hey guys,
Any1 here noe what is the number of C & D versions of the 20 F-16s blk52+ that were ordered in year 2000?
You can refer to here -
Errr...Duotiga, Gary1910 is asking about the 20 ordered in 2000, not those delivered that year. Those 2000 orders have not been delivered yet.Originally posted by duotiga83:eh correction...2000 deliveries were not in Blk 52+ but Blk 52, often call Cj/Dj in USAF(they used this ver as SEAD role).
You can refer to here -
Joe Black, your answers:
- no idea
- no idea
- while it sounds like an interesting and exciting proposal, I wonder about it's feasibility. Unless we band together (maybe with Taiwan as well?) and sponsor the project, it is almost certain the project will not go anywhere (US will want nothing of it as the USAF will view it as a threat to their F-35 program). Another issue is high risk vs low potential returns. The F-16 user air forces might also view it as a threat to their plans for buying JSF. IMO I wouldn't bother, get an interim type like RSAF and wait for the JSF. -
oh, i was misunderstood thenOriginally posted by Viper52:Errr...Duotiga, Gary1910 is asking about the 20 ordered in 2000, not those delivered that year. Those 2000 orders have not been delivered yet.
you are right on this -
Originally posted by Viper52:
Funny how the Americans are so scared that F-35 project might be terminated. It is more like that they find the Raptors too expensive that the JSF. Given that JSF has become an "internationalised" project, I don't think any sane GAO officer will write some stupid reports to cane it. However, the same cannot be said about the Raptors. My feeling is that the Raptors should only be purchased as silver bullets given that the attention now are on UCAV development.
- while it sounds like an interesting and exciting proposal, I wonder about it's feasibility. Unless we band together (maybe with Taiwan as well?) and sponsor the project, it is almost certain the project will not go anywhere (US will want nothing of it as the USAF will view it as a threat to their F-35 program). Another issue is high risk vs low potential returns. The F-16 user air forces might also view it as a threat to their plans for buying JSF. IMO I wouldn't bother, get an interim type like RSAF and wait for the JSF.[/b]
Anyway, I keep finding that US has the bad habit of canning cheaper and near/immediate term benefit projects. They shouldn't have stopped the MATV and Multi-directional Thrust Vectoring projects. I'm sure that would have given the Vipers an equal level of playing field against the Sukhois by now. Just image, what a thrust vector Block 60 can do. I'm sure it will beat almost anything at dogfights.
I think the over reliance on BVR engagement is going to hurt USAF one day. They only starting to bridge the WVR gap that the Russians and the Israelis have created with the introduction of AIM-9X and JHMDS. I still believe that a thrust vectoring plane will still give any pilot an edge. -
Despite the fact that JSF is an international project, the US is still the major provider of funds and research into the project. Should funding from the US side be cut, the whole program goes, no matter what the partners say.Originally posted by Joe Black:Funny how the Americans are so scared that F-35 project might be terminated. It is more like that they find the Raptors too expensive that the JSF. Given that JSF has become an "internationalised" project, I don't think any sane GAO officer will write some stupid reports to cane it. However, the same cannot be said about the Raptors. My feeling is that the Raptors should only be purchased as silver bullets given that the attention now are on UCAV development.
Anyway, I keep finding that US has the bad habit of canning cheaper and near/immediate term benefit projects. They shouldn't have stopped the MATV and Multi-directional Thrust Vectoring projects. I'm sure that would have given the Vipers an equal level of playing field against the Sukhois by now. Just image, what a thrust vector Block 60 can do. I'm sure it will beat almost anything at dogfights.
I think the over reliance on BVR engagement is going to hurt USAF one day. They only starting to bridge the WVR gap that the Russians and the Israelis have created with the introduction of AIM-9X and JHMDS. I still believe that a thrust vectoring plane will still give any pilot an edge.
Do not for a moment underestimate the politicians ability to cut programs. In a similar vein to the US not getting Block 60s so the USAF will claim to have a need for F-35s, consider:
- USMC electing out of SuperBug for F-35
- USAF opting out of Block 52+ and CFT-ed Vipers as they don't want to have long range Vipers (to back up their need for more and new tankers)
Defence funds for new projects is only that big in the US context, I can fully understand why the services want to cut off their noses in the short term for what they see as long term gain.