What's old is new again (possible F-16 replacement)

[Grand58742]

I said for a long time, the USAF, USN and USMC would never been able to afford a wholesale replacement of the current inventory with the F-22 or F-35 system. Both were far too expensive for a complete inventory swap which is why the USAF plowed ahead with the F-15X (Now the F-15EX) funding and replacement of legacy F-15C and D models as well as the USN going with the F/A-18E and F system:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...-first-flight/

The service expects to buy at least 144 F-15EX aircraft, but the contract includes options to allow the Air Force to purchase up to 200 jets.

Congress first included funds in December to purchase eight F-15EXs through the fiscal 2020 spending bill, and lawmakers approved spending $1.2 billion to buy 12 F-15EXs in fiscal 2021. According to the Air Force’s FY21 budget request, the service plans to buy another dozen planes in FY22, procuring 14 F-15EXs in FY23, and ramping up to 19 jets per year in both FY24 and FY25.

Of course, now they quietly admit just maybe the F-35 isn't going to exactly be the cheapest alternative to the F-16:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...lace-the-f-16/

The Air Force has started a study that will describe its preferred mix of fighters and other tactical aircraft that will be used to help build the fiscal year 2023 budget. That result could include a brand new “four-and-a half or fifth-gen minus” fighter with capabilities that fall somewhere in between the 1970s era F-16 and stealthy fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35 joint strike fighter, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown.

“If we have the capability to do something even more capable for cheaper and faster, why not? Let’s not just buy off the shelf, let’s actually take a look at something else out there that we can build,” Brown told reporters during a Defense Writers Group roundtable.

Brown’s comments are the first time an Air Force official has spoken about introducing another fourth-generation aircraft into the service’s fighter inventory. In January, former Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper disclosed that the service’s ongoing study will also weigh whether to buy new-build F-16s from Lockheed Martin.

“As you look at the new F-16 production line in South Carolina, that system has some wonderful upgraded capabilities that are worth thinking about as part of our capacity solution,” Roper told Aviation Week.

I mean, coulda told you that a decade ago...

Anyway...

It has sparked the interest in people going crazy over the idea:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...r-jet-concept/

Obviously, that's someone's wet dream of a potential F-16 replacement, but it looks to draw on the F-16XL concept (though with twin tails) and doesn't rely on stealth. Which makes sense if that's what you're going for.





Regardless, I've always thought a mix of high and low tech would have been the solution. High tech for the "opening act" of any future warfare, low(er) tech for the sustained fight.

I'm almost expecting an A-10 replacement proposal to come out soon lol

[BoringGuy45]

The military has two approaches to new technology:

1. If it's faulty, could be improved, or even a total piece of shit, they double down and keep using it and claim that it's "adequate". Report failures of equipment in combat? That means whoever makes the hunk of junk is about to get a new billion dollar contract!

2. If it's a great, almost timeless piece of technology that was years ahead of its time when it was invented and is still the best thing today, they will spend billions of taxpayer dollars trying to replace it with something uber expensive that was doomed from the beginning to not be technologically viable.

[utahjeepr]

It will be interesting to see how the changing priorities of the Corps impact the direction of Marine Corps Aviation. The F-35 ain't exactly a forward deployable aircraft that the Corps is going to need going forward in their restructuring.

[crusader377]

I have mixed views on this, although the USAF does need to recapitalize their tactical aircraft fleet, I sort of question the need to develop a new 4.5 generation fighter especially since it finally looks like the F-35 costs are lowering. I think the most recent F-35s were in the $80-90 million dollar range which is not that much different than the F-15EX. I do think the F-15EX has a limited role due to its high payload/range performance. Furthermore the USAF is already developing a 6th generation fighter to supplement and eventually replace the F-22. I don't think it makes sense to design a new 4.5 generation figther while we are actively procuring 5th generation fighters and developing a 6th generation aircraft.

R&D is a huge component of military aircraft costs and any newly developed 4.5 generation fighter might not be cheaper and perhaps may be more expensive than the F-35 such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Any new fighter aircraft is going to cost probably 60-70 million easily which is not that much cheaper than a F-35.

I actually think a smarter idea would develop a modern low cost attack aircraft utilizing alot of commercial of the shelf technologies which would be well suited for the low/medium intensity conflicts that we have been fighting for the past 20 years. Something conceptually more like a modern A-7 corsair. Have very tight budget goals say, $25-$30 million per aircraft and see what industry can do.


The A-7 in its day cost well under half of what its fighter contempory at the time (F-4 Phantom) and its operational costs were less than a 1/3 of what the Phantom was. While offering similar or better range and payload performance. Yes it was only subsonic but in the whole scheme of things fighters spend very little time in the supersonic flight regime.

http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_A7.htm

[Grand58742]

I have mixed views on this, although the USAF does need to recapitalize their tactical aircraft fleet, I sort of question the need to develop a new 4.5 generation fighter especially since it finally looks like the F-35 costs are lowering. I think the most recent F-35s were in the $80-90 million dollar range which is not that much different than the F-15EX. I do think the F-15EX has a limited role due to its high payload/range performance. Furthermore the USAF is already developing a 6th generation fighter to supplement and eventually replace the F-22. I don't think it makes sense to design a new 4.5 generation figther while we are actively procuring 5th generation fighters and developing a 6th generation aircraft.

R&D is a huge component of military aircraft costs and any newly developed 4.5 generation fighter might not be cheaper and perhaps may be more expensive than the F-35 such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Any new fighter aircraft is going to cost probably 60-70 million easily which is not that much cheaper than a F-35.

I actually think a smarter idea would develop a modern low cost attack aircraft utilizing alot of commercial of the shelf technologies which would be well suited for the low/medium intensity conflicts that we have been fighting for the past 20 years. Something conceptually more like a modern A-7 corsair. Have very tight budget goals say, $25-$30 million per aircraft and see what industry can do.


The A-7 in its day cost well under half of what its fighter contempory at the time (F-4 Phantom) and its operational costs were less than a 1/3 of what the Phantom was. While offering similar or better range and payload performance. Yes it was only subsonic but in the whole scheme of things fighters spend very little time in the supersonic flight regime.

http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_A7.htm

I think "develop" is fairly subjective so to speak. I'm wondering if the current production line of F-16s (specifically the Block 60 and 70 enhancements) would be adequate for the intended purpose? No need to reinvent the wheel like you said, but it would be far easier (and probably cheaper) to modify an existing system with the new bells and whistles rather than a clean sheet design.

[chuckman]

The A-7 in its day cost well under half of what its fighter contempory at the time (F-4 Phantom) and its operational costs were less than a 1/3 of what the Phantom was. While offering similar or better range and payload performance. Yes it was only subsonic but in the whole scheme of things fighters spend very little time in the supersonic flight regime.

The Navy and Marines faced the same thing; they had the A-4 Skyhawk at about $860K vs the F-4 at about $2 mill. MUCH better than the F-4 in CAS and attack roles. Contrast that against the premier all-weather attack AC, the A-6 Intruder, at $43 million.

[Grand58742]

The Navy and Marines faced the same thing; they had the A-4 Skyhawk at about $860K vs the F-4 at about $2 mill. MUCH better than the F-4 in CAS and attack roles. Contrast that against the premier all-weather attack AC, the A-6 Intruder, at $43 million.

Interesting article on the A-7

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ca...fig-1591155307

[chuckman]

Interesting article on the A-7

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ca...fig-1591155307

Wow. Great read, thanks. Had no idea about the -F variant; nor the all-weather A-10.

The services have a long and well-earned history of poor choices. It seems that the A-7F would have been a great choice.

Edited to add, I was just in eastern NC, took my family to the beach for a few days. We stopped in Havelock (Cherry Point MCAB), took their pic in front of an A-6 they have on the side of the road. I remember growing up in eastern NC....F-4s and B-52s from nearby Seymour-Johnson AFB, A-4s and A-6s from Cherry Point, and OV-10 Broncos from New River. Not to mention the helo's. A great place to love aircraft.

[vicious_cb]

I think "develop" is fairly subjective so to speak. I'm wondering if the current production line of F-16s (specifically the Block 60 and 70 enhancements) would be adequate for the intended purpose? No need to reinvent the wheel like you said, but it would be far easier (and probably cheaper) to modify an existing system with the new bells and whistles rather than a clean sheet design.

Crusader is right. You can't just use the existing F-16 production line to make a modern version of the F-16XL, they are completely different airframes and would require an all new production line. Remember the F-16XL was competing for the what is now the Strike Eagle role and won for the very reason that the Strike Eagle could be built on existing production lines while the XL could not.

[crusader377]

[QUOTE=Grand58742;2947942]I think "develop" is fairly subjective so to speak. I'm wondering if the current production line of F-16s (specifically the Block 60 and 70 enhancements) would be adequate for the intended purpose? No need to reinvent the wheel like you said, but it would be far easier (and probably cheaper) to modify an existing system with the new bells and whistles rather than a clean sheet design.[/QUOTE


The problem is the new build F-16 Block 70s are still in the $50-$60 million dollars per plane. The F-16 Block 60 is actually the best version but it was built specifically for the UAE which paid for its development. I think the USAF wants something better than the F-16 but cheaper than the F-35 which I don't think can be done unless you build a large number of them which would jeopardize the F-35 program. The thing is the F-35 is down to $80-$90 million per plane but still expensive to operate.


The problem is that from the mid 1990s to the early 2010s the USAF with the exception of the extremely specialized and very high-end F-22 bought practically no tactical aircraft while utilizing the existing fleet heavily in Afghanistan and Iraq. So now alot of our aircraft are near the end of their service life and we can't build or afford F-35s fast enough to replace the existing F-16s and F-15s.

The thing is to make any affordable tactical fighter aircraft, you need a large production numbers to recoop develoment costs.