Fighter Jets Thread: Target Locked

[Vassenor]

It's still better than the Su-57 Felon, and probably better than the J-20.

I mean first is vapourwear that some scientific modellers think isn't actually any less observable than a Rafale, and the second one is... vapourwear

I believe the term you were looking for is vaporware. Vaporwear is... something less than PG-13.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Anyone got thoughts on what would happen if we saw a revival of the F-20 Tigershark production line? We’re obviously far past that by now, but personally I think that the Tigershark would be the ideal aircraft to provide to Ukraine- it’s versatile, cheap to operate, easy to maintain, and it’s a great jet for both BVR and close-in fighting.

The F-20 failed because everyone it was marketed to bought the F-16 instead. If it came back today in a modernized form everyone who it would be marketed to would buy F-16s or Gripens instead and it would fail again.

Gripen is unironically what the F-20 wanted to be but never could

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

Anyone got thoughts on what would happen if we saw a revival of the F-20 Tigershark production line? We’re obviously far past that by now, but personally I think that the Tigershark would be the ideal aircraft to provide to Ukraine- it’s versatile, cheap to operate, easy to maintain, and it’s a great jet for both BVR and close-in fighting.

The F-20 failed because everyone it was marketed to bought the F-16 instead. If it came back today in a modernized form everyone who it would be marketed to would buy F-16s or Gripens instead and it would fail again.

The F-20 did have some genuine advantages over the F-16, though. It was only slightly less advanced than the F-16, and was cheaper and easier to maintain.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The F-20 failed because everyone it was marketed to bought the F-16 instead. If it came back today in a modernized form everyone who it would be marketed to would buy F-16s or Gripens instead and it would fail again.

The F-20 did have some genuine advantages over the F-16, though. It was only slightly less advanced than the F-16, and was cheaper and easier to maintain.

Gripen is unironically what the F-20 wanted to be but never could

[Diopolis]

The F-20 failed because everyone it was marketed to bought the F-16 instead. If it came back today in a modernized form everyone who it would be marketed to would buy F-16s or Gripens instead and it would fail again.

The F-20 did have some genuine advantages over the F-16, though. It was only slightly less advanced than the F-16, and was cheaper and easier to maintain.

But a Mitsubishi F-2 or a Saab Grippen is more advanced than an F-16, and is much cheaper and easier to maintain.

[Vassenor]

The F-20 did have some genuine advantages over the F-16, though. It was only slightly less advanced than the F-16, and was cheaper and easier to maintain.

But a Mitsubishi F-2 or a Saab Grippen is more advanced than an F-16, and is much cheaper and easier to maintain.

A Mitsubishi F-2 is literally an F-16 with the serial numbers filed off. It has also been out of production for a decade.

[Diopolis]

But a Mitsubishi F-2 or a Saab Grippen is more advanced than an F-16, and is much cheaper and easier to maintain.

A Mitsubishi F-2 is literally an F-16 with the serial numbers filed off.

Except somehow both better and cheaper at the same time.

[Vassenor]

A Mitsubishi F-2 is literally an F-16 with the serial numbers filed off.

Except somehow both better and cheaper at the same time.

The F-2 program was controversial, because the unit cost, which includes development costs, is roughly four times that of a Block 50/52 F-16

[Fartsniffage]

Except somehow both better and cheaper at the same time.

The F-2 program was controversial, because the unit cost, which includes development costs, is roughly four times that of a Block 50/52 F-16

When you build 100 of one aircraft and 4,600 of another the development costs really skew the cost per unit.

[Vassenor]

When you build 100 of one aircraft and 4,600 of another the development costs really skew the cost per unit.

So what makes the F-2 superior to a contemporary F-16?

[Fartsniffage]

When you build 100 of one aircraft and 4,600 of another the development costs really skew the cost per unit.

So what makes the F-2 superior to a contemporary F-16?

Nothing really. By the time GD developed the Block 50/52 it had caught up in every way.

[Vassenor]

So what makes the F-2 superior to a contemporary F-16?

Nothing really. By the time GD developed the Block 50/52 it had caught up in every way.

And yet the original contention was that the F-2 is superior to the contemporary F-16 and cheaper.

[Fartsniffage]

Nothing really. By the time GD developed the Block 50/52 it had caught up in every way.

And yet the original contention was that the F-2 is superior to the contemporary F-16 and cheaper.

Not my contention. Be better Vass.

[Dayganistan]

But a Mitsubishi F-2 or a Saab Grippen is more advanced than an F-16, and is much cheaper and easier to maintain.

The latest F-16V is better than the F-2 at this point given that the F-2 is over 20 years old. I'm not sure if the F-2 has had any considerable upgrades through its service life either. The Gripen and F-16 are roughly equivalents in terms of capability and cost, but you are correct that it's easier to maintain.

[Vassenor]

And yet the original contention was that the F-2 is superior to the contemporary F-16 and cheaper.

Not my contention. Be better Vass.

Hence why I said "the" contention, not "your" contention.

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

But a Mitsubishi F-2 or a Saab Grippen is more advanced than an F-16, and is much cheaper and easier to maintain.

A Mitsubishi F-2 is literally an F-16 with the serial numbers filed off. It has also been out of production for a decade.

While the F-2 was based on the design of the F-16, it is quite a stretch to call it a copy.

Compared to the F-16, the F-2 has a larger wingspan, a more powerful engine, greater range, better radar and target acquisition systems, and added anti-ship capability. Furthermore, the F-2s airframe has a different design that actually gives it a slightly smaller radar signature than the F-16, despite being physically larger.

[Vassenor]

A Mitsubishi F-2 is literally an F-16 with the serial numbers filed off. It has also been out of production for a decade.

While the F-2 was based on the design of the F-16, it is quite a stretch to call it a copy.

Compared to the F-16, the F-2 has a larger wingspan, a more powerful engine, greater range, better radar and target acquisition systems, and added anti-ship capability. Furthermore, the F-2s airframe has a different design that actually gives it a slightly smaller radar signature than the F-16, despite being physically larger.

F-2:

Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F110-IHI-129 afterburning turbofan, 76 kN (17,000 lbf) thrust dry, 131 kN (29,500 lbf) with afterburner

F-16C B50:

Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofan (for Block 50 version), 17,155 lbf (76.31 kN) thrust dry, 29,500 lbf (131 kN) with afterburner

So literally exactly the same engine.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

While the F-2 was based on the design of the F-16, it is quite a stretch to call it a copy.

Compared to the F-16, the F-2 has a larger wingspan, a more powerful engine, greater range, better radar and target acquisition systems, and added anti-ship capability. Furthermore, the F-2s airframe has a different design that actually gives it a slightly smaller radar signature than the F-16, despite being physically larger.

F-2:

Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F110-IHI-129 afterburning turbofan, 76 kN (17,000 lbf) thrust dry, 131 kN (29,500 lbf) with afterburner

F-16C B50:

Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofan (for Block 50 version), 17,155 lbf (76.31 kN) thrust dry, 29,500 lbf (131 kN) with afterburner

So literally exactly the same engine.

The engine is literally the least important bit of a fighter these days, after the airframe.

[Vassenor]

F-2:



F-16C B50:



So literally exactly the same engine.

The engine is literally the least important bit of a fighter these days, after the airframe.

The poster I was responding to claimed the engine in the F-2 was more powerful as one of the factors making the F-2 superior. The numbers say otherwise.

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

The engine is literally the least important bit of a fighter these days, after the airframe.

The poster I was responding to claimed the engine in the F-2 was more powerful as one of the factors making the F-2 superior. The numbers say otherwise.

Even if you are right about the engine, which you are not, you are still wrong about everything else.