lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (DRCOA1: :LENOCHS) (04/18/91)
From: "DRCOA1::LENOCHS" <lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil>
Peter Stockschlaeder asked (in Volume 7, Issue 4) if the concept of
using F-16s as the Wild Weasel replacement was prejudicial against dual
engine fighters (i.e., the F-15).
While I'm not privy to the actual reasoning, I would suggest that the
reason for using the F-16 is that the Falcon is a newer aircraft than
the Eagle, by about 10 years. Also, the Falcon is replacing the
Phantom as the 'majority airframe' of the tactical air force. Parts
for Falcons will be more readily available in the future, both from the
factory ('till it closes) and from the cannibalization of a very large
fleet.
Statistically (from the May *1989* issue of Air Force Magazine):
YEARS Total Average
AGE: 0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15 15-18 Fleet Age
F-15 103 110 207 263 32 3 718 7.5
F-16 451 319 212 33 0 0 1015 3.8
Another consideration is that the Falcon is easier to maintain than the
Eagle. The F-16 was designed around the Line Replaceable Unit concept,
where boxes are replaced on the line and repaired in the shop. The
F-15, by contrast, requires more maintenance manhours per flying hour
because of the lack of integral LRUs. (I hasten to add that the F-15
does indeed have lots of LRUs, however, they were not part of the
initial concept, and many critical electronic functions are 'hardwired'
into the airframe.) The advanced avionics of the F-16 allow the
modifications required to perform in the suppression role to be made
more easily and more quickly.
Finally, it is worth noting that the F-105 Thunderchief was the first
dedicated radar suppression aircraft, but it assumed this role after
the F-4 gained pre-eminence in the fighter-bomber role. The F-4
assumed the Wild Weasel role when the F-15 was well on its way to
production. The F-16, now with the ATF prototypes in the air, may well
follow this path.
As a new thought, has anyone (including the AF :-) ) given any
consideration to an RF-117?? Consider, no diversionary missions, no
MIGCAP, less exposure of inteded target. Just a thought.
--
Loyd M. Enochs (ex-USAF) - Dynamics Research Corporation - Andover, MA
Computer Systems Analyst - Smart Data System (F-117 Maintenance and
Operations computer system)