Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
After F-35: An F-16 fire sale?
26 views
Skip to first unread message
David E. Powell
Jun 14, 2013, 11:59:23 AM6/14/13
to
If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap F-16s, and maybe Navy and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes? Even if the F-16 sticks around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available for sale or for provision to allies as foreign aid?
This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
Bill Shatzer
Jun 14, 2013, 2:00:57 PM6/14/13
to
David E. Powell wrote:
> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap F-16s, and maybe Navy and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes? Even if the F-16 sticks around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available for sale or for provision to allies as foreign aid?
>
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
F-16s remain in current production - all for foreign orders I believe.
> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap F-16s, and maybe Navy and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes? Even if the F-16 sticks around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available for sale or for provision to allies as foreign aid?
>
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
Almost half the total production run to date has been foreign orders.
As the USAF transistion to F-35s will phase out the oldest and most worn
F-16s first, I suspect the export sales of clapped out F-16s will be
minimal except, perhaps, as a source of spare parts. Folks who want
F-16s would seem unlikely seek obsolescent models approaching the end of
their useful airframe life.
dump...@hotmail.com
Jun 14, 2013, 2:05:40 PM6/14/13
to
On Jun 14, 8:59 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:
with
reserve units), over 4,200 were produced, and America has hundreds
in storage. The end of the Cold War in 1991 led to a sharp cut in
U.S.
Air Force fighter squadrons. Moreover, the new F-35 will be replacing
all U.S. F-16s in the next decade. So the U.S. has plenty of little-
used
F-16s sitting around, and an ally that it would like to beef up
militarily."
Source:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/F-16-Beats-The-F-35-4-27-2010.asp
Plenty of used F-16's have been available since the end of the
Cold War.
wrote:
> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap F-16s, and maybe Navy and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes? Even if the F-16 sticks around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available for sale or for provision to allies as foreign aid?
>
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
"While the U.S. still has about 1,300 F-16s in service (about half
>
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
with
reserve units), over 4,200 were produced, and America has hundreds
in storage. The end of the Cold War in 1991 led to a sharp cut in
U.S.
Air Force fighter squadrons. Moreover, the new F-35 will be replacing
all U.S. F-16s in the next decade. So the U.S. has plenty of little-
used
F-16s sitting around, and an ally that it would like to beef up
militarily."
Source:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/F-16-Beats-The-F-35-4-27-2010.asp
Plenty of used F-16's have been available since the end of the
Cold War.
tutall
Jun 14, 2013, 2:06:42 PM6/14/13
to
> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap F-16s, and maybe Navy and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes? Even if the F-16 sticks around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available for sale or for provision to allies as foreign aid?
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
F-16 is already a for export only product. Has been for quite a
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
while.
Procurement of a new advanced fighter will not change that.
Keith W
Jun 14, 2013, 2:48:17 PM6/14/13
to
are at AMARC but they seem to have had a hard life and may well
be approaching their fatigue limits.
The first two F-16's arrived at AMARC in 2007 so the hyperbole
about 1991 is a little overdone. What happened is that the ANG
replaced its older aircraft with the F-16A's in the early 90's
If we look at those 2 F-16's we see that they are not exactly unused
Aircraft #84-1260 was first accepted by the USAF back on October 31st 1985
and served with the 17th TFS at Shaw AFB, South Carolina. During Desert
Storm
the aircraft deployed with the 33rd TFS ' After the war the aircraft flew
with the
Kansas ANG and then the New Jersey ANG who retired the aircraft on September
18th 2007.
Aircraft #84-1295 was first accepted by the USAF on February 12th 1986 and
served
at Ramstien AB, Germany with the 86th TFW. It too was a Desert Storm
veteran
with the 10th TFS. After the war the Viper was sent to the Kansas ANG ,
the Vermont ANG and finally operated by the New Jersey ANG
So what we have here are aircraft that are the best part of 30 years
old and were in service for over 20 years. They are nothing like as
capable as the later models, particularly when it comes to
avionics and radar fits, they cant carry the latest BVR missiles
and I for one would not care to take one up afainst a Mig-29
or Su-27.
To find anything like the capability of the F-35 you have to
be loking at the F-16E/F block 60 and that was an export
model for the UAE.
Keith
Daryl
Jun 17, 2013, 4:58:25 AM6/17/13
to
On 6/14/2013 9:59 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap F-16s, and maybe Navy
> and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
Even if the F-16 sticks
> around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
for sale or for provision
? to allies as foreign aid?
> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap F-16s, and maybe Navy
> and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
Even if the F-16 sticks
> around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
for sale or for provision
>
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
>
But you won't find it in rec.aviation.military. Just own up to your own
> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
>
responsibility like I do mine. We go down burning together.
You are being treated like a terrorist on the Usenets. GEt used to it.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 17, 2013, 5:57:11 AM6/17/13
to
In article <kpmj3e$lbv$4...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>
> You are being treated like a terrorist on the Usenets. GEt used to it.
just like a terrorist to deflect his terrorism by calling others the
terrorist.
check your credit cards lately?
Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2013 9:59 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> > If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap
> > F-16s, and maybe Navy
> > and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
> Even if the F-16 sticks
> > around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
> for sale or for provision
> ? to allies as foreign aid?
> >
> > This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
> >
>
> But you won't find it in rec.aviation.military. Just own up to your own
> responsibility like I do mine. We go down burning together.
it's only you that is burning. must gall you
> On 6/14/2013 9:59 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> > If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap
> > F-16s, and maybe Navy
> > and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
> Even if the F-16 sticks
> > around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
> for sale or for provision
> ? to allies as foreign aid?
> >
> > This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
> >
>
> But you won't find it in rec.aviation.military. Just own up to your own
> responsibility like I do mine. We go down burning together.
>
> You are being treated like a terrorist on the Usenets. GEt used to it.
terrorist.
check your credit cards lately?
Daryl
Jun 17, 2013, 7:40:42 AM6/17/13
to
On 6/17/2013 3:57 AM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article <kpmj3e$lbv$4...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/2013 9:59 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
>>> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap
>>> F-16s, and maybe Navy
>> > and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
>> Even if the F-16 sticks
>> > around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
>> for sale or for provision
>> ? to allies as foreign aid?
>>>
>>> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
>>>
>>
>> But you won't find it in rec.aviation.military. Just own up to your own
>> responsibility like I do mine. We go down burning together.
>
>
> it's only you that is burning. must gall you
You act like I am the only one to lose due to this. I can tell you have
> In article <kpmj3e$lbv$4...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/2013 9:59 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
>>> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean cheap
>>> F-16s, and maybe Navy
>> > and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
>> Even if the F-16 sticks
>> > around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
>> for sale or for provision
>> ? to allies as foreign aid?
>>>
>>> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
>>>
>>
>> But you won't find it in rec.aviation.military. Just own up to your own
>> responsibility like I do mine. We go down burning together.
>
>
> it's only you that is burning. must gall you
nothing to lose.
A couple of your buddies actually think I am being harmed outside this
area. My work is actually getting more hits and people using the sites.
They are not there just for Military at all. It's for everyone and
has content for everyone. The Military Side of Things is just a very
small part of it. But since I have one of the largest Public Domain
Sites in Existence, even the DOD stiff is considered Public Domain. I
don't exclude it since it is part of the whole picture for public
domain. For you to believe any other way is just arrogance at it's peak.
http://tvmoviesforfree.com should get you started. It's over 1000
public domain tv and movie videos. Full length. But I know you won't
enjoy it with that lemon mouth and sugar cube ass you have.
>
>>
>> You are being treated like a terrorist on the Usenets. GEt used to it.
>
>
> just like a terrorist to deflect his terrorism by calling others the
> terrorist.
>
> check your credit cards lately?
>
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 17, 2013, 2:36:15 PM6/17/13
to
In article <kpmsjo$gti$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>
> A couple of your buddies actually think I am being harmed outside this
> area. My work is actually getting more hits and people using the sites.
brave words, but unsubstantiated claims are your speciality aren't they
or should that be arndt they?
> They are not there just for Military at all. It's for everyone and
> has content for everyone. The Military Side of Things is just a very
> small part of it. But since I have one of the largest Public Domain
> Sites in Existence, even the DOD stiff is considered Public Domain. I
> don't exclude it since it is part of the whole picture for public
> domain. For you to believe any other way is just arrogance at it's peak.
no, arrogance is for you to believe that anyone would believe any of
your unsubstantiated claims, especially when your forum still continue
to not work
>
> http://tvmoviesforfree.com should get you started. It's over 1000
> public domain tv and movie videos. Full length. But I know you won't
> enjoy it with that lemon mouth and sugar cube ass you have.
aw, projecting...a sure sign that this is getting to you.
Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 3:57 AM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article <kpmj3e$lbv$4...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/14/2013 9:59 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> >>> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean
> >>> cheap
> >>> F-16s, and maybe Navy
> >> > and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
> >> Even if the F-16 sticks
> >> > around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
> >> for sale or for provision
> >> ? to allies as foreign aid?
> >>>
> >>> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But you won't find it in rec.aviation.military. Just own up to your own
> >> responsibility like I do mine. We go down burning together.
> >
> >
> > it's only you that is burning. must gall you
>
> You act like I am the only one to lose due to this. I can tell you have
> nothing to lose.
true, very true. must gall you
> On 6/17/2013 3:57 AM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article <kpmj3e$lbv$4...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > Daryl <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/14/2013 9:59 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> >>> If and when the US starts getting F-35s in good numbers, will it mean
> >>> cheap
> >>> F-16s, and maybe Navy
> >> > and Marine F/A-18s, for our friends and allies who want more planes?
> >> Even if the F-16 sticks
> >> > around in a good number of unit, won't there be some F-16s available
> >> for sale or for provision
> >> ? to allies as foreign aid?
> >>>
> >>> This will be a few years off, but I'm just thinking here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But you won't find it in rec.aviation.military. Just own up to your own
> >> responsibility like I do mine. We go down burning together.
> >
> >
> > it's only you that is burning. must gall you
>
> You act like I am the only one to lose due to this. I can tell you have
> nothing to lose.
>
> A couple of your buddies actually think I am being harmed outside this
> area. My work is actually getting more hits and people using the sites.
or should that be arndt they?
> They are not there just for Military at all. It's for everyone and
> has content for everyone. The Military Side of Things is just a very
> small part of it. But since I have one of the largest Public Domain
> Sites in Existence, even the DOD stiff is considered Public Domain. I
> don't exclude it since it is part of the whole picture for public
> domain. For you to believe any other way is just arrogance at it's peak.
your unsubstantiated claims, especially when your forum still continue
to not work
>
> http://tvmoviesforfree.com should get you started. It's over 1000
> public domain tv and movie videos. Full length. But I know you won't
> enjoy it with that lemon mouth and sugar cube ass you have.
Daryl
Jun 18, 2013, 3:00:32 AM6/18/13
to
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 18, 2013, 3:39:45 PM6/18/13
to
In article <kATvt.72475$on6....@newsfe18.iad>,
it's not arrogance when I'm correct but then you were just projecting
again, weren't you
again, weren't you
0 new messages