The title says it all. the Dutch Air Force sold 15 F-16MLU to Jordan for 76m in 2013. Seems rather low, 6m a pop, for a F16MLU. Are any other deals known?

https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... miljoen-op

I would assume that well used F-16 are going to be dirt cheap. There are hundreds if not thousands of them. I am surprised they got that much for an “as is” sale honestly.

They are well used, 1980 vintage, but they are MLU so equal to block 50/52. They should be good for another 10 years of service.

Dutchy wrote:

They are well used, 1980 vintage, but they are MLU so equal to block 50/52. They should be good for another 10 years of service.

10 years used to be a long time. Now we see people keep fighters around for 30-50 years it seems like. 10 years almost sounds like a rental anymore. Looks like Jordan gets a pretty good deal for aircraft. They have bought around 80 over the years and can’t have spent a ton on them.

I think there is a strange market anymore for aircraft. The MiG-21 was kind of a low cost staple along with some French aircraft and things like the F-5 or F-104. There just aren’t many low cost options like that that do much for you. I mean if it can’t at least use AIM-120 it’s basically chum to any modern opponent. They just don’t make new cheap light fighters anymore. A lot of nations seem destined to fall off the fighter cost curve right?

Even used F-16’s are a lot more complicated than the WVR fighters they would replace. You need some knowhow to operate them.

It would be fun to see the flight hours on record for each a/c. The MLU process buys back some flight hours but I didn't think it was a full reset. They must be tired birds. I wouldn't be pulling the stick too hard if I was a Jordanian pilot.

smithbs wrote:

It would be fun to see the flight hours on record for each a/c. The MLU process buys back some flight hours but I didn't think it was a full reset. They must be tired birds. I wouldn't be pulling the stick too hard if I was a Jordanian pilot.

The "funny" thing is that the F-35 was sold to the Dutch public that our F-16MLU were indeed too tired to operate for another 10 years or so. And then they sell them to Chili and Jordan (and perhaps others).

Here we go again, another poor country forced to take F35’s.

Could it be that the Dutch AF knows an F16 and it’s pilot won’t survive for any length of time in a contested environment?

Planeflyer wrote:

Here we go again, another poor country forced to take F35’s.

Could it be that the Dutch AF knows an F16 and it’s pilot won’t survive for any length of time in a contested environment?

?

Perhaps another poor country lied to by its politicians?

Dutchy wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Here we go again, another poor country forced to take F35’s.
Could it be that the Dutch AF knows an F16 and it’s pilot won’t survive for any length of time in a contested environment?

?
Perhaps another poor country lied to by its politicians?

I don’t think so. In the case of the RAAF former RAAF group captain Peter Layton warned that the RAAF could no longer extend the Classic Hornet’s life beyond its current retirement date of 2022 without the fighter becoming “operationally obsolescent’’. So it is not necessarily hours on the airframes as much as it is how the platform performs operationally. In the context of the F-16, the US is already funding AESA radar upgrades to a significant number of F-16s and the F-35 is already replacing F-16 squadrons in USAF service so there is merit to the operationally obsolescent claim.

How hard is to understand that a 40 yr old airframe will get most of your pilots killed in the first few hours of combat?

Planeflyer wrote:

How hard is to understand that a 40 yr old airframe will get most of your pilots killed in the first few hours of combat?

Hey mate,
A blunt but graphically effective statement. I couldn't agree more.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Ozair wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Here we go again, another poor country forced to take F35’s.
Could it be that the Dutch AF knows an F16 and it’s pilot won’t survive for any length of time in a contested environment?

?
Perhaps another poor country lied to by its politicians?

I don’t think so. In the case of the RAAF former RAAF group captain Peter Layton warned that the RAAF could no longer extend the Classic Hornet’s life beyond its current retirement date of 2022 without the fighter becoming “operationally obsolescent’’. So it is not necessarily hours on the airframes as much as it is how the platform performs operationally. In the context of the F-16, the US is already funding AESA radar upgrades to a significant number of F-16s and the F-35 is already replacing F-16 squadrons in USAF service so there is merit to the operationally obsolescent claim.

yes, fine, but the argument wasn't "operationally obsolescent claim", but tired airframes.

Dutchy wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

?
Perhaps another poor country lied to by its politicians?

I don’t think so. In the case of the RAAF former RAAF group captain Peter Layton warned that the RAAF could no longer extend the Classic Hornet’s life beyond its current retirement date of 2022 without the fighter becoming “operationally obsolescent’’. So it is not necessarily hours on the airframes as much as it is how the platform performs operationally. In the context of the F-16, the US is already funding AESA radar upgrades to a significant number of F-16s and the F-35 is already replacing F-16 squadrons in USAF service so there is merit to the operationally obsolescent claim.

yes, fine, but the argument wasn't "operationally obsolescent claim", but tired airframes.

Another option is that the Dutch birds are coming up against another service life limit based upon the current usage levels by the Dutch AF, and a structural refurbishment was not economical based upon the operational service life of the aircraft.

I would imagine both Chile and Jordan have different flight profiles with their aircraft that would reduce wear and tear. Also, I expect that they would find it would make sense for them to have another structural life extension done based upon the expected service life for the aircraft for them.

I understand it all from an operational perspective and I wasn't against replacing the old birds, just from a communication perspective this isn't a good thing. They just should have been honest and explain this to the Dutch taxpayer and not framing it like they did.

As far as I know the price was so low, as the birds were up for periodic depot maintenance which was paid by the customer. And as you do not replace a fighter fleet from one day to the other a remaining service life of 10 years for the existing fleet is a perfect starting point for the introduction of a successor, so that you have 5-7 years of side by side operations left with some reserve.

You also have a SLEP program and it is quite the vipers did not have that completed.

Planeflyer wrote:

Here we go again, another poor country forced to take F35’s.

Could it be that the Dutch AF knows an F16 and it’s pilot won’t survive for any length of time in a contested environment?

How contested is Latin America?
ME may be other thing, but even there many air forces fly with equally obsolete equipment, if they get those in the air at all.

(Another issue is plane crash by metal fatigue etc)

YIMBY wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Here we go again, another poor country forced to take F35’s.

Could it be that the Dutch AF knows an F16 and it’s pilot won’t survive for any length of time in a contested environment?

How contested is Latin America?
ME may be other thing, but even there many air forces fly with equally obsolete equipment, if they get those in the air at all.

(Another issue is plane crash by metal fatigue etc)

Chile's position is pretty secure; Argentina's air force is virtually non-existent, Bolivia isn't a threat, so the only major threat avenue is Peru, but the Chilean Air Force is larger, and I would argue is a better equipped, more professional and better trained force to begin with.

Planeflyer wrote:

How hard is to understand that a 40 yr old airframe will get most of your pilots killed in the first few hours of combat?

Better hurry with that B52 replacement!

Dutchy wrote:

I understand it all from an operational perspective and I wasn't against replacing the old birds, just from a communication perspective this isn't a good thing. They just should have been honest and explain this to the Dutch taxpayer and not framing it like they did.

it will be another 10 years before we have all ordered F-35s in operation and by when the last F-16s can be retired.
It's all very much long term planning.

F27Friendship wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I understand it all from an operational perspective and I wasn't against replacing the old birds, just from a communication perspective this isn't a good thing. They just should have been honest and explain this to the Dutch taxpayer and not framing it like they did.

it will be another 10 years before we have all ordered F-35s in operation and by when the last F-16s can be retired.
It's all very much long term planning.

So I have ten years to become the (junior) minister of defense, so I can take a ride in one

(I had my chance and blew it, sadly enough)