@@BonejanglesTVthere was a game in the 90's where you headed a mercenary force equipped with a flight of F-16s and a C-130 brought up the rear. Interesting gameplay!
Better than losing several planes due to air defense vs them surviving to fight another day. Stealth pays in war time. Flight hour cost stings in peacetime but its necessary to have the capability to fight, win and come home
@cjjk9142 Since 4 F-35s would cost $160,000, that same budget would only support about 6 F-16s. Considering all the advanced weapon options that the F-35 has, how much better it is overall, and the fact that the aging F-16s will only increase in maintenance costs, the F-35 is a much better deal than the F-16 and we may see a new king of Exports soon.
Yeah, I'm amazed at how close in purchase price they actually are. Plus, as production continues, new block variants usually have maintenance costs fall. At least that's what happened with many 4th gens. One big expense is the stealth coating on the current stealth fighters. However, there's the new ceramic ram coating, which will be more durable, which should drop costs on maintenance and hold up to supersonic flight. Current coatings can be damaged by bad weather. As for the range while stealth. Don't forget they are working on stealth drop tanks and pylons that break away with effecting stealth when dropped. I think I've even heard the break away pylons may be usable for some weapons. Their primary use will be for the raptor but will be useful for the F-35 as well. I'm not saying the external tanks and weapons won't reduce stealth while being carried. However, when you drop the tanks, the pylons will break away clean, returning it to full stealth while in flight. Sandbox did a story on it.
@@garreth629yeah don't be surprised the they start doing the same with the missile pylons. With the range the aim260 is going to have its more than feasible that a stealth fighter could use them up first from a distance where their stealth isn't as important and then head in clean. Could you imagine locking a "dirty" f35 only for it to return fire and disappear?
As a UK citizen, I've heard we are going with the Sopwith Camel option. Would have been a spitfire but the remaking machining tools would have been cost prohibative.
The question is more F15EX vs F-35, especially for countries like Japan, Canada, and Australia who cover vast areas of interest. Easier decision for most of Europe.... though one could argue GB could use a couple squadrons of F-15EX to do what the Tornado GR4 once did. No more heavy bombers, no more Tornado strike aircraft... everything done by a Eurofighter or a F35B. Not a lot of flexibility there.
As an Aussie...we could really use the F15EX to cover the vast land mass and sea around us. With Wedgetail directing the Eagles and Lightnings. Awesome would a dedicated EW version of the F15EX, like the Growler is.
The F15EX isn't really a competitor to the F35. It's a competitor to the F-16 and similar fighters for countries that are not allowed to buy the F-35. For countries who ARE allowed the F-35, they're probably better off getting those, unless you're confident you'll only be facing inferior opponents. The US can use both, obviously. With the F-15 serving as missile trucks or in situations where the airspace is not contested.
What DCS can’t replicate the awesome EW capability and situational awareness the f-35 has for SEAD missions. F-35 is easily the best publicly acknowledged SEAD jet in the world .
its like having an even better growler for free in an aircraft that combines the best of the f-16 and super hornet with none of their drawbacks into a hyper agile 5th gen stealth fighter airframe
irl the F-35A has a 34% better lift to weight ratio and has a similar thrust to weight ratio in combat load with the F-35A having better rate of climb and better acceleration due to the massive size and thrust of the engine being able to push against a larger square area of air. Block 3F also made the F-35A more agile in the 2 circle fight as well as being much better in the 1 circle, its drag is also over 40% less than the F-16 in combat load due to internal bays and complex vortex generators greatly reducing surface drag. the only time the f-16 ever had a chance in a dogfight was when the F-35A was still a prototype with a highly unoptimized FCS
I noticed that you are using the default DCS PAC-2 system, in game it has a default reflection_limit = 0.049, making it unable to target any objects with less than 0.049 RCS. You could try using Currenthill's PAC system, it has a 0 reflection RCS limit, so it should be able to target and shoot down your "stealth" aircrafts at a much reduced range.
I don't know about that, obviously hyperbolic but we have 107 active Typhoons with the ability to build more if needed. Plus the UK is big on being able to develop, upgrade and build planes themselves, can't do that with the F-16 (tho Japan did)
Im not sure how much the F-15 EX will end up costing per unit, but if its closer to the F-16 cost then that would by far be the better option as the EX is essentially a completely new 4th gen air superiority jet built on a proven frame.
This question is like asking if a country should buy tricked-out P-51 Mustangs or F-16s. The F-35 is so much more advanced than every other jet in production that the only reason not to replace everything with them is because we can't build and and supply them with spare parts fast enough. Yet.
It is not that simple. The F-35 costs much more to keep airborne then for example a Gripen E, there are many situations where 5 Gripen and a Awacs is supperior to equally priced flight hours of 3 F-35. If you need to take off with a F-35 to shoot down a Toyota Hilux, a F-16 or Gripen would be well good enough and cost half as much to take down the target.
@@larsjrgensen5975 For some customers that may be true, but if one can afford a fleet of Gripen E, one can afford a slightly smaller number of F-35s, and get much more out of them. Such is the expense of sustainment that most countries don't get the option of more than one primary strike fighter airframe; the choice between an F-35 that can do vastly more than any 4th-gen fighter and will stay relevant as a serious frontline fighter for decades to come, and the Gripen, which will not, is fairly obvious. No one has procured new Gripens who has had the choice to procure the F-35.
For future reference, the F-35 has 2 hardpoints in each weapon bay, but one in each (Station 5 and 7) can ONLY carry the AIM-120 (and I'm assuming the AIM-260 in the future). Station 6 is between the bays and is only used on the B and C models (gun pod) as you already know.
Also, for the F-35, if it wanted to go full A/A mode, in the near future, I do believe it will be able to carry 14 BVR and 2 sidewinders. (non-stealth of course)
@@TheGeocacheHunter AIM-9x has also been tested using DAS for targeting. It's not hard to believe at all, it was in the original design presentation in the plane, it just takes time to prioritize, test, and implement these things.
Haven't watched the engagement yet. My prediction is that in a fair BVR fight the F-35 takes it every time, but if you were to equip a larger for with F-16s, to simulate a nation's ability to to field more aircraft for the same cost, I believe it would begin to even out
You asked about range/endurance. This isn't really here nor there but an F-35A holds around 18,250 lbs of fuel internally while F-16 carries just 7,000lbs internally. FWIW, Wikipedia lists the effective combat range as over double for the F35 vs F16 on a similar mission profile. Something not mentioned is besides the bag/fuel tank options, some F16s have been fitted with CFTs. Still, I'd give the F35 the edge in range no matter what band-aid the F16 uses.
16:08 easy way to test would be same scenario which clears field quests and loiters after longest which is more deadly, and could continue to the next fight or two
You can reduce the F-16 RCS even further by using the supersonic diverterless intake (the F-35 intake) and reduced RCS afterburner outlet. Enough to reduce detection range to 20 miles or so
This way of thinking already existed in the 1970s. They figured out they still need some dogfight abilities. That is why a cannon was added on the F4E.
Australia has the 35. And our Hornets when we had them, and Supers,had/have every upgrade the USN had, even more than other Euro or North American operators.
The answer I guess is a mixture. I’ve seen a few of our F-35s fly around the air base nearby. They seem to slide through the air with a ripping sound, that’s the best how I would explain it. Compared to our F-18 growlers. 🇦🇺
FInland evalueted 8 years Gripen, Raphale, Typhoon, Superhornet with growlers and F-35. And they made a decision to buy 64 F-35s because none of those other 4g+ fighters wouldnt stand a chance against F-35.
@@saltyfloridaman7163 F-35 dont get in dogfights and if that happens its in range of sidewinders without other plane even knows its there. Dont think that umerica spended all that money to make it worse than planes that it will replace.
I think a country should either wait or go with the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The cost per flight hour is extremely important for smaller countries and the Gripen is only $6K per hours. And we have learned that if you are a smaller country expect your airfields to be hit within hours and only the Gripen (of those jets) is made to fly from any good road.
Most air battles today will be BVR. Reduce it down to a dogfight with infinite ammo and all pilots of the same skill level and i think the Falcons come out on top every time.
I think that Poland is looking to purchase additional wing of fighters. The most probable options are F-35, F-16, F-15EX, Eurofighter, KF-21, i think. HOWEVER, while Poland is thinking and considering these options, more and more countries take potential places in the queue...
hmmm, it's probably not equal to compare the same loadout, as each plane would have it's own typical loadout. some planes might carry more missiles, but that would be an advantage of that plane. I think it might be better to figure out what the typical loadout would be for a plane and mission. ♥
Reading on this I discovered Iran operates a 747 air refueling tanker - now that would be cool to see in DCS! (Aparently it lost out to the KC10 extender for the USAF and was then sold to them)
I'm not sure it would change the outcome, but given the title of the video, I think the comparison should have been set by the same cost (to your country) of F-16s vs F-35s. I.e. 2x as many F-16s.
One more thing is the fleet availability Cap..... Which for the F-16 is much much much higher.... As well as hrs of maintenance per flight hour ( lower ).....! So it does not matter if you have advanced fleet if it sits on the ground lot more while the Vipers are working hard! I mean the mission availability of the F-35's fleet is at 51% .... So if you have 20 aircraft you have 10 that can be used as of 2024 .... On the other hand the F-16 edges almost 90% rediness accross the fleet as of 2024!
What I would really like to know is, what's the barrier of entry that Lockheed sets to purchase an F-16? Like, what are the prerequisites? Do you need to be a foreign military? Can you just be like Arnold Schwarzenegger who has hundreds of millions of dollars and be like "hey I want to go buy a brand new F-16?" How the hell does it work? Because at the end of the day, Lockheed is an independent civilian-owned defense contractor..... They're not part of the US government at all.
@@harryspeakup8452 trying to separate the two is a bit silly since they are designed around one another. The F-35 is designed around the ability to fire long range missiles before it’s ever close enough to be seen. Removing those long range missiles (which the F-16 could’ve also carried) is literally handicapping the plane.
Hey cap if you ever do another mission involving U.S. forces from Okinawa: NEW: US Air Force will upgrade its presence at Kadena Air Base in Japan by deploying 36 F-15EX Eagle IIs to replace 48 F-15C/D Eagles. Misawa Air Base will be upgraded from 36 F-16 Fighting Falcons to 48 F-35A Lightning I
The F-16's main advantage is it is cheaper. The important thing is how many F-16s would you need to put in the air to overwhelm the F-35. You would also want to put into perspective over the course of a war and not just a battle/skirmish. Can you run more sorties with more F-16s? F-35s are useless if they are attacked while on the ground refueling/being repaired/rearmed.
Considering the price per unit of the F-35A is only about 25% higher than the F-16, it's a pretty clear choice. The F-35 has a proportionally much-higher return on investment.
Ngl this is so skewered to the F-16's favor. I could make a more realistic setup if you want. Well at least as realistic as possible considering DCS doesnt model some of the Lightning's best features.
@grimreapers It's super-complex ... especially when you add "in-country politics" to the mix (and the "build local") notion. We bought our entire 4 vessel submarine fleet in 1998 for $750m from Britain as fix-er-uppers. (This was at least 90% "on us" imo). They had been decommissioned by Britain in 1993. Critically needed for northern defense ... replacing 3 1960's Oberon class subs. One caught fire on the initial surface travel to Canada, killing an officer. We've since apparently spent $billions on retrofits and with no spare part availability, they've been in dry-dock more than at sea. Retrofits included changing torpedo tube's so ours would work, and cannibilizing Oberon '60s tech in some cases. Not our finest hour, sadly. Main point stands ... these decisions are complex! Our gov't messed up badly and still hasn't fixed it (again, imo). NB: I'm no expert and would welcome knowledgeable dissenting feedback.
I think it should be a 1:3 ratio. One F35: three F16’s so if it’s four F35 bought. 12 F16 for missile trucks and dog fighting, and destroying the rest of stuff. Use F35 to hit the radars for air defense; then bring the F16s in to clean up. Also one B21 on the outskirts with new missiles could clean up better then F16, the F16 is definitely needed for guarding from air targets looking for F35’s in air space.
The fact is, the F-35, whilst being more expensive, will likely be a contemporary super-weapon for many years, and the F-16, as amazing as it is, is just not exceptional enough for the next 10-25 years for a country that has an air force purely in case WW3 kicks off. Many European countries still had MLUs/Block 50s or even older F-16s until this year. Even the runway issue, where F-16s and Gripen are likely designed to be able to operate from roads, could be worked around if a country decides to procure F-35B/Cs with the S/VTOL or bulkier landing gear. Norway has landed F-35s on a road, after all. But there's things the F-35 has over the F-16 which weren't mentioned - Alternative carrier-based variants, DAS etc. Also feel like air-ground should've been tested, as well as robustness of each airframe (how many planes are operational at one time and maintenance timings) What's more fascinating is the fact France, a foremost European power, isn't interested in a Stealth design until Gen VI with their Future Combat Air System (FCAS) programme. Instead claiming the Rafale is a 'stealth killer' and is basically near stealth. Considering the UK, Germany, Poland etc are getting F-35s, it's something to monitor.
The French opting out of the F-35 isn’t so much that they are not interested in stealth, but rather that they are willing to sacrifice it in order to continue to develop and invest in their own domestic fighter industry. The Rafale is a good plane. But it is not a 5th gen aircraft by any stretch of the imagination and it’s actually more expensive than F-35a, at around 115 million. The French idea of strategic independence has rendered this a political issue and they have opted for a demonstrably inferior airframe as a result. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong choice, but they have definitively sacrificed something to make it. This same idea will cause and is causing a problem with FCAS. See the French want FCAS to be carrier capable, since they have a carrier. The other partner countries in FCAS do not. This conflict has already delayed FCAS, according to some accounts, out past 2040. This means the French might be stuck with the Rafale for another 20 years.
@@darylbas8216 Fair points that I agree with. But I will mention this didn't stop the likes of Japan, UK and South Korea from showing interest or purchasing F35s. But I'm not one to judge on French foreign policy with procurement! That's pretty humourous, because those exact things with FCAS happened with the Typhoon project. France wanted a carrier compatible air frame, and at this time the UK were scrapping catapult carriers
Capt, sorry I must disagree with your comments on the Falkland War, reading Sharky Wards excellent book, he stated the pilots on HMS invincible could loiter as directed but the pilots on HMS Hermies did not totally stick to the plan and got to Bingo fuel before they were replaced hence a gap in coverage.
There is some truth here, but also due to the Exocet missile fear, they kept the fleet further away and had the harriers fly low for a certain distance to avoid Argentina Radars so they couldn't find the fleet as easy, this meant that the harriers also didn't have as great a loiter time to stay and keep the Argentina aircraft at bay. They worked around this and were able to cause damage.
@grimreapers Capt, can I recommend Sharky Ward's excellent book it shows how he battled to get the Sea Harrier into squadron service and how as c/o on HMS Invincable he helped to fight the war, but told the commander of the fleet what he thought of his orders. Well worth the read !
@@Master-im7jc Ward was relentlessly his own PR man, and any account of his should be balanced against accounts by others present in the same theatre at the same time. They do not all align around his opinions
Over the next years, Germany is going to replace Tornados in the nuclear attack role with F35s. As these are two very different aircrafts, I wonder how effective the stealthy F35 is in this role compared to the extreme low level, all weather attack profile of the Tornado?
There isn't any controversy about air superiority. In the vast majority of situations, no F-35 pilot would let themselves get within radar detection range of a non-stealth fighter.
you are wrong in many parameters of F-16. Current Block 70/72 has radar is build on parts of F-22 and F-35 radars with similar specs, also it has Legion-ES EOS integrated in plane able to detect and track targets with low error. Meanwhile F-35 has EO *T* S which means it can be use not just for detection and tracking but also for targeting, which need of is given by the stealth ability of F-35 and is not really needed on F-16. Also the cockpit of latest Block 70/72 F-16 is very similar to F-35. Basically the F-35 is more expensive F-16 Block 70/72 with stealth capability and higher running costs when oversimplified.
I got a better idea. Why wouldn't you send two boatloads of SBS over to them islands to vandalise the SAM sites and then proceed doing your flyboy ops with BAe HAWKs? That would cost you less than a Royal Wedding.
I think you completely left out strike bombing capability? The F16 is frequently used in this role and my driveway definitely needs to have something with a 2000lb bomb.. SEAD,: wouldn't 4-F16 fly low behind horizon pop up and saturate with HARMs?
The answer to this is going to vary by country. How is your poliitical relationship with the US - if they wont sell you the F35 you can't buy it. What is your threat? And predicted threat? If you're not facing advanced GRAD or Electronic warfare environment then you likely don't need the F35, of course this could chnage and there is an advantage to forcing your enemy to up its game - especially as it's likely to in time of war. For most African countries there's literally no need to operate the F35 for example. What is your militaries capability at maintenance, the F16 is realtively difficult to maintain but the F35 depends on maintaining radar absorbant materials etc. Strong points of the F35 are stealth - so if you have competent enemy radars to defeat it's likely worth it (as your F16s will be much more vulnerable) F35 has much better radar, sensors and network warfare capability - does your country have a network it's capable of integrating with (or an aspiration to be part of one), can you use the sensors. In all honesty a mix of both types is probably optimal - you can use the F35 for missions where the threat is high enough and to take out air defence radars and sam systems and the F16s to do lower threat targets where you just need something to move the bombs.... Overall though if you are operating in a high threat environment the F35 may well end up being cheaper to opeate in that it's so much more surviviable and an F16 that's shot down and needs replacing is an awful lot more expensive than an F35 that returns to base, conversely if what happens to Ukraines Su27s recently happens and your enemy spots them on the tarmac of an airbase they are equally vulnerable to a bomb or missile.... I'm not sure range/endurance is the only thing for an air superiority fighter - by that metric bombers would be brilliant at it. But yes there is a difference between an interceptor and an air superiority fighter. By all acounts that I've read the F16 and F35 have roughly equivalent capabilities kinematically. Air to air refueling would only be important if the country buying it had tankers (which is very few countries) Certainly mentioned if you are a small country trying to maximise your contribuation and all round capabilities for not many airframes/pilots then an F35 defintiely gives you more bang for your buck.
In believing the F-35 is currently the best multirole fighter in existence, the type of countries that would buy F-16 instead of F-35 are as: 1) Those that are not on the trusted Allie list of the West/US thus are barred from purchasing the very capable F-35. 2) Those who are potential enemies of the West/US 3) Those who cannot afford F-35 with it's infrastructure setup. 4) Those who are trying to build a stealth multirole but are willing to accept a less capable 4.5 gen even 5th gen fighter. Note: Lately so called other countries 5th gen fighters are being developed with no internal bomb bay thus negating stealth, and one cannot measure up to the US/ F-35 network centric web and weapon systems capabilities of the F-35 Block 4.
My country of Singapore 🇸🇬 has purchased the F35 A and B to replaced the current fleet of F16 which has been in service with the Republic of Singapore Air Force since the early 90s. The F35 will be replacing the F16 by 2030.
Yeah, approaching the Patriots at anything more than wave top height was simply an insult to our intelligence. Plus, JASSM would be the choice for something as big as a Patriot.
@@grimreapers yep sure they have much better PK. But a swarm could still make it through. Also to be fair to F16 there should also have been MALDs used. They are part of its SEAD doctrine
I wonder to what extent the total lower cost of ownership (purchase price + operating cost) of the F16 overcomes all other advantages of the F35. That, if countries A & B had the same budget (for aircraft, for purchase & operation), that country A could put more F16's in the air than country B could put F35's, meaning at some point the equal budgets mean that the F16's can swarm the F35's to overcome the technological differences. As a historical example I site that during WW2 Germany had the vastly superior tank technology, but Russia could put enough lower tech tanks onto the battlefield to overcome the difference.
Range & endurance: F-16> purely on the fact adding drop tanks wouldn't compromise its main features, unlike the f-35. Cost: As mentioned, Good luck convincing the US to *allow* you to buy one ( f-35 ) without major concessions & reliance on that partnership to continue operation. This is why some partners, turkey/South Korea/few european countries. are making their own ( they have experienced issues with this before). Not trying to go full john boyd here, excellent testing. Just believe the discussion of countries has a bit more depth than "its 4th gen vs 5th" or pure numbers ( unlike what it is sometimes simplified into )
@@YankaBakasci Are you illiterate? Where did Hasard (not Hssard) Lee say that the USA doesn't already own the F-16 and F-35, as well as the other aircraft I listed?
@@Power5It's cumulative operating cost per hour for flight, Mx, cost of support programs, etc based on how often the US flew them. There's an ops cost study by the GAO from 2022 that goes into more detail
