why replace the f-16 with the f-22 raptor when we could just upgrade the f-16 i mean i know the f-22 to is great BUT

In a sentence?

Range at Speed.

The F-16 was designed for the NATO environment based on SEA experience for which a combat radius on the order of 300nm was considered more than sufficient.

To get even this much capability, men like John Boyd pressed the limits in stuffing every available inch of the airframe with fuel but the reality remains that the Viper carries almost as much fuel in two 370 gallon tanks as it leaves the ground with, internally.

We now operate on a different mindset from that of a throwaway aircraft designed to force the Russians to fight on Germany's soil before we were forced to use nukes.

And the foremost consideration of this is the ability to hit targets from distances at which we are barred from normal airpower basein tactics by either political denial or ballistic/cruise missile threats. Including carriers.

If you've read _Eurabia_ it will be increasingly obvious where the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean basin are going territorial waters of other nations and in particular, who our next 'high tech' enemy may well be.

Which is where things get tricky because it's not just the ability to reach a target /once/ (as the Israelis did in attacking the Osiraq facility, some 550nm from their starting point, their F-16s dropping all tanks to clean the airframe up and still coming home with only 800-1,200lbs internal fuel) but to do it over and over again with sufficient tempo as to reduce the (air defense) threat rapidly and effectively.

Before it can shift and compensate to sustain itself in the face of overhead targeting and the like.

The F-22 officially has only about a 150nm supercruise radius 'into and out of the target area' but given they had to use the PMTR to fully qualify it's signature and performance profile, it's true supersonic capability is probably closer to 600nm, straightline.

What this means is, in combination with low observables, it can fly out 450nm. Tap a tanker and go fence-in for another 250-300nm, hit it's target and come back to tap the tanker again before heading home.

At an average 600-700 knots and with a standoff reach of upwards of 80-100nm.

More than twice what an F-16 force could do, fighting its way in all the way from the border.

And because the F-16 has to carry all that gas to even make the attempt, two of it's four heavy weight wing pylons are neutralized (i.e. it can carry HARM -or- PGM, but typically not both) which means that, because it is not stealthy in any real way, it also has to dedicate at least 25% of it's force escort and defense suppression missions.

Thus you end up with an ATO (daily fragged mission tasking order) that may look something like this-

120 F-22 X 4hr sortie intervals with X8 GBU-39 = 4 sorties per day or 3,840 aimpoints serviced.

Vs. 400 F-16s X 8hr sortie interval with X8 GBU-39 X.25 for X2 AGM-88 = 1.5 sorties per day X 300 aircraft or 3600 aimpoints per day.

The ability to rapidly, saturatively, hit a distant target is _extremely_ important. Both because it allows as small force to represent itself as if a much larger one.

And because it keeps the pilots from having to wear themselves out doing essentially NOTHING for the 90% of the mission (between target and homeplate) in which they are effectively high priced airline passengers operating on autopilot.

Tired pilots make dumb mistakes and where the manning fraction (pilots per airframe) is at 1.23 and falling, we cannot afford to steal from other squadrons to support deployed units either.

Finally, because it makes it much harder to hit that force coming home while multiplying the effectivenss of a small tanker team in enabling every aircraft it refuels to drop bombs on the enemy rather than fly TARCAP or whatever.


CJ