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

[crusader377]

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.

The problem is the services wants all of their aircraft to do the high end mission yet the high end mission are not what we are fighting. Even the affordable F-16 is still an expensive aircraft. While the F-35 replacement is overkill for 90% of the missions we are actually flying.

A JDAM capable A-4 Skywak or A-7 Corsair would have been just as successful as all of the F-16, F-18, F-15E, F-22, and now F-35 missions that we have flown over Iraq or Afghanistan in the last 15-20 years.

I'm not saying to get rid of the high-end aircraft at all but why burn up airframe life on your high end tactical aircraft in places like Afghanistan when you can buy a cheaper plane for a quarter or third of the cost to do the same mission?

[chuckman]

The problem is the services wants all of their aircraft to do the high end mission yet the high end mission are not what we are fighting. Even the affordable F-16 is still an expensive aircraft. While the F-35 replacement is overkill for 90% of the missions we are actually flying.

A JDAM capable A-4 Skywak or A-7 Corsair would have been just as successful as all of the F-16, F-18, F-15E, F-22, and now F-35 missions that we have flown over Iraq or Afghanistan in the last 15-20 years.

I'm not saying to get rid of the high-end aircraft at all but why burn up airframe life on your high end tactical aircraft in places like Afghanistan when you can buy a cheaper plane for a quarter or third of the cost to do the same mission?

The Air Force wants things that go fast or blow up bigly. Low and slow CAS/attack isn't of interest, unless it can be added on as a +1. That's what I loved about the old A-4, A-6, A-1.... one mission, and they did it very well. Not a jack of trades, just a master of one.

Overseas asking the CCT or JTAC/TACP guy for CAS and the best we could get was a B-1 or B-52? Ahhhhh, thanks but no thanks.

[crusader377]

I think the biggest problem with the our miltary procurement of tactical aircraft was the F-35. I'm not saying the F-35 is a bad plane but it is simply unaffordable due to the over ambitious design goals from the beginning. Remember the USAF, Navy, and Marine Corps wanted to build a stealthy and affordable replacement initially for three very different aircraft. The F-16, the F-18, and the AV-8B Harrier. Then with the premature cancellation of the F-22, the USAF wanted the F-35 to replace some of its F-15s. thus adding even more requirements to the program.

I would argue that the F-35 would have been a workable program if the design goals were simply to make a F-16 and legacy F-18 replacement. Making the USMC VTOL F-35B version was stupid and it added alot of complexity and cost.

[Grand58742]

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.

No, I meant bringing the F-16 line up like the F-15 line is being done for the F-15EX, I.E. the Block 70s that are being produced right now. Not a new aircraft, but rather a new "Block" for US specs.

[crusader377]

No, I meant bringing the F-16 line up like the F-15 line is being done for the F-15EX, I.E. the Block 70s that are being produced right now. Not a new aircraft, but rather a new "Block" for US specs.

The F-15EX really is not that much of a change over the F-15SA and F-15QA which was purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar respectively. I think the F-16 Block 70 if priced right would be a good option but the original article said the USAF wanted a new design 4.5 generation fighter which implied not an F-16.

[Grand58742]

The F-15EX really is not that much of a change over the F-15SA and F-15QA which was purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar respectively. I think the F-16 Block 70 if priced right would be a good option but the original article said the USAF wanted a new design 4.5 generation fighter which implied not an F-16.

Yeah, they tend to be idiots like that in wanting a clean sheet design then overcomplicating the matter.

(I can say that, I'm retired USAF)

[crusader377]

Yeah, they tend to be idiots like that in wanting a clean sheet design then overcomplicating the matter.

(I can say that, I'm retired USAF)

I don't know what they are getting at. They want something better than the F-16 but not a F-35? What metric are they using, size/weight class? So do that want something conceptually like a Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale. However both of those aircraft are as costly if not more than the larger F-15EX and the Eurofighter costs may be similiar or higher than the F-35.

Also, what missions are they looking to accomplish with this intermediate fighter?

[vicious_cb]

The F-15EX really is not that much of a change over the F-15SA and F-15QA which was purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar respectively. I think the F-16 Block 70 if priced right would be a good option but the original article said the USAF wanted a new design 4.5 generation fighter which implied not an F-16.

4.5 gen is a joke, they are literally just legacy fighters with some RAM paint and maybe some new avionics and AESA radar when a batch 14 F-35A flyaway cost is ~72 million these days.

[lowprone]

The Air Force procurement system is like a spoiled rich mans kid nothing but the fastest, sexiest, most expensive jet is good enough for them.
That they are so specialized they can't do 90% of the things tactical aircraft need to do is of no consequence, we'll just buy something else to
do those jobs, can't have F-35's attacking artillery formations.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The Air Force wants things that go fast or blow up bigly. Low and slow CAS/attack isn't of interest, unless it can be added on as a +1. That's what I loved about the old A-4, A-6, A-1.... one mission, and they did it very well. Not a jack of trades, just a master of one.

Overseas asking the CCT or JTAC/TACP guy for CAS and the best we could get was a B-1 or B-52? Ahhhhh, thanks but no thanks.

How much CAS is dumb bombs and how much is Smart munitions? They make it sound like most everything is precision nations. If so why do you even need a strategic bomber meant for penetrating the Soviet union? Put a modded 737 up there.

I think the biggest problem with the our miltary procurement of tactical aircraft was the F-35. I'm not saying the F-35 is a bad plane but it is simply unaffordable due to the over ambitious design goals from the beginning. Remember the USAF, Navy, and Marine Corps wanted to build a stealthy and affordable replacement initially for three very different aircraft. The F-16, the F-18, and the AV-8B Harrier. Then with the premature cancellation of the F-22, the USAF wanted the F-35 to replace some of its F-15s. thus adding even more requirements to the program.

I would argue that the F-35 would have been a workable program if the design goals were simply to make a F-16 and legacy F-18 replacement. Making the USMC VTOL F-35B version was stupid and it added alot of complexity and cost.

China is trying to wear out the Taiwanese Air Force by constantly probing them. you need cheaper to operate and buy aircraft to deal with that and keep your killer Punch frosty.

Making the F 35 Vtol seems like an unnecessary feature, but it allows the British to operate two carriers, Japan to flip their helicopter carriers to something more useful quickly, and our small deck amphibious to be used differently. I still don’t think it’s worth the compromise on the airframe. But it’s more than just the Marines.