Posted on 04/21/2013 3:06:00 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
The U.S. Air Force prefers to use its F-16 fighters for everything. While the F-16 is a capable and versatile aircraft, the main reason for using it so much is because it is so cheap to operate. It costs the air force $23,000 per hour to operate an F-16C. Other fighters are much more expensive. An F-22 costs $68,000 an hour, while an F-15C costs $42,000 and an F-15E $36,000.
The only aircraft that beats the F-16C is the A-10C, which costs $18,000 an hour. But the A-10 is not a fighter and is optimized for ground support. The F-16 can also do that, but not as well. The other ground support aircraft, the AC-130U costs $46,000 an hour. That’s why these are being replaced by C-130 transports ($18,000 an hour) with special cargo containers consisting of sensors and weapons similar to those on the AC-130.
The F-16, like the A-10 can also drop smart bombs. Both aircraft are much cheaper at this than the bombers. The B-52H costs $70,000 an hour, the B-1B $58,000 and the B-2 $169,000. The problem with the bombers is that with smart bombs you don’t need a lot of bombs. So what the F-16 can carry (a dozen or more, depending on weight) is usually adequate in places like Afghanistan. For an attack on, say, North Korea, the bombers would come into their own, at least for the initial assault when there are a lot of targets to hit.
With the right sensors, missiles and electronic weapons plus well-trained pilots the F-16 can beat just about any other fighter out there. For stealth fighters, that would have to include sensors that can handle stealth. But stealth fighters often have the best sensors and electronics as well. Thus against most foes a well tricked out F-16 can do it all.
Butt ugly you mean?
Any woman who looks that good screams the same thing...:)
Ha...my old squadron...:)
I think you are basically right. Once firearms technology had produced the self contained cartridge and smokeless powder it only took a few years for John Browning and Paul Mauser to pretty much perfect many designs.
There still are no bolt actions which are really better than the 98 Mauser and even the old 91 and 93 Mausers were tactically as good as any.
Browning perfected the lever action in the model 1886, the automatic pistol with the 1911 and the pocket pistol with the 1899 FN .32.
Yes there have been some advances but overall they are hardly worth mentioning.
Same thing with fighter jets. The basic platform was pretty much as you say, on a plateau beginning with the 60s. There have been improvements but really how much has the basic platform improved? The real advances have been in computer and electronic technologies.
While I would prefer an F-16 for air superiority, they don’t hold a candle to an A-10 in the CAS role.
The A-10 is not a fighter?
Not a fighter means not being flown by fighter pilots.
Try saying that in the bar at Davis-Monthan or any other A-10 base.
Not a fighter?
Armed with A/A missiles, a gun that can reach out and touch someone, no matter the target, ground or air, and a platform other fighters don’t want to get in a phone-booth fight.
Not a fighter, indeed.
The writer that wrote the A-10 is not a fighter is a class A putz.
Was supposed to be a day, VFR jet with no radar-—politico’s wouldn’t have that.
I heard the Buff pilot came back and said: “I just took a dump in the John, your turn”
That would be F-15, of any variant. Has the stick, range and loiter.
...the main reason for using it so much is because it is so cheap to operate... $23,000 per hour... F-22 costs $68,000 an hour, while an F-15C costs $42,000 and an F-15E $36,000... the A-10C... costs $18,000 an hour... is not a fighter and is optimized for ground support. The F-16 can also do that, but not as well. The other ground support aircraft, the AC-130U costs $46,000 an hour. That’s why these are being replaced by C-130 transports ($18,000 an hour) with special cargo containers consisting of sensors and weapons similar to those on the AC-130. The F-16, like the A-10 can also drop smart bombs. Both aircraft are much cheaper at this than the bombers. The B-52H costs $70,000 an hour, the B-1B $58,000 and the B-2 $169,000.Drones will inexorably replace more and more fighter sorties, but also expand reach and breadth, particularly as they get more intelligent. Then Skynet will take over, and that'll be it. /s
I have a friend that once bet an F-16 pilot a case of beer that he couldn’t make him barf during a training flight. My buddy puked 4 times and was sore for a week.
yes, that was amazing. Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, even if not pretty or perfect form.
Thanks for sharing! :)
yeah, but a squadron of B52s is impressive too! :)
Each has its purpose and power. I remember too many nights at the O Club listening to various tables of pilots counter back and forth about their airframes...
Now I’m married to a retired naval aviator who chuckles and sarcastically states he is the only REAL pilot I ever dated! :)
loved the last line of your post! Thanks for making me smile!
The problem with the Navy is that they want an aircraft that will do positively everything.
The F-16 is the only fighter around that can take 9g’s.Probably more than the pilots can handle.But for a dog fighter its one of the Best.
I don’t think the F-18 even gets close.
I’m an old KC-135 driver. I left the AF in ‘84 from Dyess, and my very last day in the Force.....Dyess took delivery of its first B-1. Helluva sight to see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.