F-35 vs F-16

In order not to hijack the F-35 thread I thought it best to create a thread specifically for discussing the advantages and disadvantages that these two fighters have over each other.

Advantages of the F-16 over F-35?

Well, the F-16 is already available and operational.

Other than that and since we have little information on the F-35, anything people might say is speculation.

Cost

Hi,

I think you would need to specify a bit. For example: Do you mean F-35 A B or C and F-16A pure Air-to-Air Version or do you speak of the F-16C. Or even F-16I with CFTs? Maybe the F-16XL? Anyways have fun discussing these things :-)

Regards TaccoZ

Cost

How much does the F-16 cost? How about the F-35? Lets divide by versions with specifics. How much does F-16A block 10 and supporting equipment cost and lets adjust due to inflation? How much does a F-35A and supporting equipment?

The F-22 and F-35 are actually no more expensive than the legacy fighters in general if they were produced in equivalent numbers.

While it might be true that "The F-22 and F-35 could be no more expensive than the legacy fighters in general if they were produced in equivalent numbers. "

they're not, so the economies of scale disappear...

While it might be true that "The F-22 and F-35 could be no more expensive than the legacy fighters in general if they were produced in equivalent numbers. "

 

they're not, so the economies of scale disappear...

It does not disappear, it's just part of the equation. So, I still do not think we have enough available information. I would like to learn more. I have been looking at .mil/.gov sites trying to learn program cost. So I ask

How much does the F-16 cost? How about the F-35? Lets divide by versions with specifics. How much does F-16A block 10 and supporting equipment cost and lets adjust due to inflation? How much does a F-35A and supporting equipment?

It does not disappear, it's just part of the equation. So, I still do not think we have enough available information. I would like to learn more. I have been looking at .mil/.gov sites trying to learn program cost. So I ask

My basis for that statement was a peer reviewed journal article from my university database. Ill try to dig it up, but im not even sure i can send you the whole thing legally, as it costs money noramlly to aquire and i have access though my school. I will try to quote the relevant info when i dig it up again

So far I found this ( this is a direct link to a pdf file)

http://archive.gao.gov/f0902b/100100.pdf

In it it states F-16 program cost 13.8 billion in 1977. Still looking for more info but how much is that after inflation?

Well, the F-16 is already available and operational.

Other than that and since we have little information on the F-35, anything people might say is speculation.

2nd the motion, bill is passed :)

http://www.janes.com/article/43962/first-australian-f-35a-completes-maiden-flight

ours won't be fully operational until 2023

"The first F-35s are expected to arrive in Australia in 2018, with initial operating capability slated for 2023"

So far I found this ( this is a direct link to a pdf file)

http://archive.gao.gov/f0902b/100100.pdf

In it it states F-16 program cost 13.8 billion in 1977. Still looking for more info but how much is that after inflation?

"What cost $14 in 1977 would cost $53.08 in 2013."

(http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi)

I used 14 for easier reading.

Oh, not Sprey again........

So far I found this ( this is a direct link to a pdf file)

http://archive.gao.gov/f0902b/100100.pdf

In it it states F-16 program cost 13.8 billion in 1977. Still looking for more info but how much is that after inflation?

About 54 billion.

edit: sniped:

"What cost $14 in 1977 would cost $53.08 in 2013."

(http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi)

 

I used 14 for easier reading.

"What cost $14 in 1977 would cost $53.08 in 2013."

(http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi)

 

I used 14 for easier reading.

About 54 billion.

 

edit: sniped:

Thanks, ok we don't have all the details but at least now we can compare the cost to F-35 2012. This should let us know if what HiWay (and many others) keep posting about cost. Once we can compare the cost then we can compare what did the Nations buying the F-16 got in comparison to what the nation buying F-35 are suppose to get if the aircraft achieves all the performance goals it claims.

Such a vague question, in what context? Real World combat situations?

I agree, aircraft are hard to compared with all specifics laid out, even harder in such broad questions, hence my first post on this thread. Normally those question are done to get people in to a typical forum fight. We all know that someone just got to come in and say item "A" is better than item "B" and it will quickly turn into a huge 300 page argument about the same topics we have seen countless times.

Oh, not Sprey again........

I agree Rangi, not this again. Hopefully it won't ruin the conversation

Cost (unit and operational) is all I can think of for the F-16. Everything else for the F-35.

It does not disappear, it's just part of the equation. So, I still do not think we have enough available information. I would like to learn more. I have been looking at .mil/.gov sites trying to learn program cost. So I ask

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

 

Thanks, ok we don't have all the details but at least now we can compare the cost to F-35 2012. This should let us know if what HiWay (and many others) keep posting about cost. Once we can compare the cost then we can compare what did the Nations buying the F-16 got in comparison to what the nation buying F-35 are suppose to get if the aircraft achieves all the performance goals it claims.

 

 

 

Well here are some of the things not found on the F-16A B10:

EOTS

DAS

AESA Radar

Sensor Fusion

HMCS

EWS (Barracuda)

Datalink (MADL)

Stealth material & coating

A larger Airframe

You might have to subtract the cost of these capabilities to get a better comparison - getting those figures might not be easy :thumbup:

The F-35's internal load out is not impressive, once operational you'll more likely see it outfitted as such:

8 SDB and 2 AMRAAM are insufficient for CAS/ BAI?

2 JDAM and 2 AMRAAM are insufficient for strike?

I suggest you review the weapons loadouts that F-16s, or even A-10s, carry in combat. It is rare that they ever carry more than 2 air-to-surface munitions and 2 (occasionally four) self-defense air-to-air missiles.

External munitions on the F-35 will be the exception, not the rule.

 

1. Yes the F-35 features LE flaps, as recognized by moi from the onset.

2. No, the F-16 does not feature slats, it features full span LE flaps: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/p341.jpg

 

The F-4 does not feature the same automatic full span LE flaps as on the F-16, rather it used a combination of partial span slats and flaps.

You can argue semantics all you want; the fact remains that both have leading- and trailing- edge lift enhancing devices. If you want to get technical, the F-35 also has leading-edge flaps rather than slats, as they are a drooped control surface rather than a sliding extension or similar. Technically, the same is true of the F-4: it has leading-edge flaps. Perhaps not automatic, but they're there, and as close to full-span as the ones on the F-16.

Now you're assuming that the F-35 is more fuel efficient with similar combat loads.

Yes, because external stores are a huge source of drag, and the F-35 won't have them hanging off. Nor will it require draggy drop tanks to manage reasonable combat radius

The strength of the vortex is what matters, and the LERX on the F-16 is known to generate very powerful vortices during maneuvers - which is also very visible during airshows.

Yes, LERX generate a good vortex. But you have not addressed the issue at hand: HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW THE VORTEX ON THE F-35 WILL COMPARE? You do not know; you are simply saying LERX= good, therefore F-16 better. It's bad logic, and not supported by anything.

I suggest:

https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/CentennialofAviation/TechnologyandtheF-16FightingFalconJetFighter.aspx

Although more of the wing is covered up, the lift lost in that area is more than regained from body lift at high angles of attack when the lift generated by the wing begins to diminish because of flow separation.

EXACT same source as I had referenced myself; the fact is that the blending both loses and gains lift from different mechanisms- however, it is not a TRUE blended-wing aircraft, nor is it a lifting body. Either way, the F-35 has far more fuselage area to work with, and you STILL refuse to acknowledge that the F-35 has far more potential to generate fuselage lift than the F-16, simply because it has more fuselage area. You're happy to compare simple wing area to get "wing loading", but not to compare fuselage area to get "fuselage lift loading", because it would not fit your narrative. Yet somehow you're convinced that the tiny strakes on the F-16 generate more lift than the fuselage of the F-35, despite historical examples of aircraft flown on fuselage lift alone.

We shouldn't have to subtract from the F-35 but add the the cost of the original F-16 and see how long it took ( in terms of money since people say cost is best) for it to mature into the aircraft it is. Then compare what are we suppose to get with the F-35 from the beginning.

Many people say how much costly the F-35 is over F-16, but you get a lot more equipment up front on the F-35. So when you compare the cost of the original F-16 and see how little you get in comparison to all the equipment to the F-35 starts with, the cost is not that much different. Now the F-16 is a lot cheaper per unit now, but then the F-16 has been in service for over 30 years. How many program to improve the F-16? Cost of developing new systems etc. I think there not that different in term of cost.

As for other areas, we would need more info.

What also needs considered is relative cost of parts and constructions. I dont just mean taking then dollars and converting to now dollars. Relative cost means taking those conversions and making a proportional comparison to then airforce budgets, how large the airforce budget was compared the overall dod budget then as opposed to now, how much money the goverment had to spend then as compared to now etc. If I had 10 dollars then and spent on on the F-16, its not any different than if I had 100 dollars now and spent 10 on the F-35. Ten times the price, but not ten times as much in terms of how that hit the overall budget.

Even if we do this, there are still other considerations. For example, is air superiority in near peer conflicts more important than it was 40 years ago? How has the overall budget changed? Have concessions been made in other areas that justify enormous costs of fighter jets? Are we spending too much in other areas that could be cut to make room for more expensive planes? When we weigh all of this, how does it compare to the cost of the F-16 from day 1 to now, taking into account changes in threat and need? As you can see, making any direct comparison is quite complicated.

For example, against modern IADS, 4th Gen fighters are horribly over-matched. Obviously, air-power is just as key as it was in the 80's if not many times as important. Even presuming the the F-35 is in fact much more expensive dollar for dollar, it might be the case that the strategic need in near peer fighting makes that cost justifiable. If that is the case than any comparison is meaningless as what is spent today on one item is done for totally different reasons than money spent on another. Stealth is a absolute necessity if you hope to dismantle a modern IADS system, and when you consider the strategic responsibilities and concerns of a nation like the USA, every ounce of superiority counts.