I’m delighted we’re sending these over to Ukraine (though it should have been done a long time ago).
Question: the F-16s are planes. Is there some reason we’re loading them onto other planes for transport instead of flying them over?
Ease of transfer (one pilot vs multiple for a looooong flight, probably no refuel on the Antonow, and if so it eats less specialised stuff than the F-16s) and maybe even fuel efficiency, I would guess.
Also, one cargo plane raises less eye brows than a flock of fighters.
AN-124’s are extremely inefficient - it’s probably stopping 2-3 times on route, but still easier to arrange than flying each plane.
The maximum range for the F16 in “ferry” mode (max fuel, no weapons, pee before takeoff) is something like 4000km. The distance from Belfast (Maine) to Belfast (the original) is 4500km.
That would mean air to air refueling, which is expensive and risky. It would put major wear on the planes, which are not the newest to start with. And unlike the Antonov, the F16 comes with neither legroom nor bathrooms.
pee before takeoff)
Iirc the factor that limited early nuclear submarines the most from continuous dives was the toilets, they have limited storage for sewage and it turns out that draining those with a greater outside pressure is a pretty difficult task, at least if you want to stay undetected.
Now that they have figured that out the limiting factor is food.
You didn’t explain how they sorted it out so I’m assuming compost toilets or some form of slow torpedo that makes it look like the sub is pooing.
the F16 comes with neither legroom nor bathrooms.
But at maximum speed, it could in theory cover the 4500km in just over 2h (but probably with worse fuel economy and less range)
It does mean significant operational downtime: https://www.technology.org/2023/01/02/did-you-know-f-16-fighting-falcon-needs-17-hours-of-maintenance-for-every-hour-of-flight/
It’s safer for long distances, plus they won’t have to worry about refueling.
