F-22 Cancelled - F-35 may be Cancelled - Buy more F-16's?

>> These are honest questions, please don't flame me. <<

We've seen the F-22 cancelled due to spiralling costs. We may soon see the F-35 cancelled due to spiralling costs and delays. (The F-35 is between 57% and 89% over-budget, 4 years late and north of 120 million per copy.)

Does it make any sense in these difficult fiscal times to buy upgraded F-16's and F-18's and to keep the F-15 production line open?

The Russians and Chinese do not seem to be building anything (in numbers) that can touch the F-16, F-15 or F-18 and will not be for years and years.

Yes, cancelling the F-35 would screw over the Marine Corps, but the days of having everything are a thing of the past.

BTW: Are there any advantages to the Japanese F-2 variant of the F-16?

Thanks!

Bronc

I just found a lot of discussion as to what to buy in the F-35 Forum.

Question: All the mathematical models of warfare (Lanchester's Laws and various other equations) consistently (decisively) suggest that Quantity is FAR more important than Quality in combat.

So why not field F-16 (Advanced) variants in large numbers, along with F-15's and F-18's as opposed to incredibly small numbers of $250-$350 million 5th Gen+ aircraft?

If the training is equal, the math says (3) three 4th Gen. fighters costing a combined $90 million will defeat a single $300 million 5th Gen fighter EVERY TIME.

Bronc

While that may be what the numbers say, I honestly don't think it is 100% accurate. The difference between the F-22 and the F-35 and all of the legacy fighters is too great for the quantity VS. Quality argument to be really valid here. As for cancelling the F-35, I think that may be a bit on the extreme side of things. No one in the USA has even remotely started saying "lets just scrap the whole darn thing". If people are baulking at the current costs, imnagine of all of those costs produced NO aircraft for any service. That would be a true waste. The -16,-15,and -18 are all great planes, but lets move ahead even though everyone else hasn't produced a comparable aircraft. If we had used that logic, the F-15/F-16 would have never replaced the F-4 because "The Russians and Chinese did not seem to be building anything" better than upgraded F-4Es. Sometimes its worth the $$$ to have something no one else does (B-2, F-117, F-22)

Okay, done giving my non-expert thoughts

We've seen the F-22 canceled due to spiraling costs.

Not to pick nits here, but there's a difference between "canceled" and "capped". The Navy's A-12 was canceled. The Army's Commanche was canceled. Neither one of those aircraft made it to production. The Raptor was never "canceled". It obviously went into FRP but production was capped at 187.

Carry on....

They would be infinitely stupid to back off on the F-35 program at this point, in my humble opinion.

Still, they should purchase/refurbish a minimal contingent of F-16 aircraft to at least bolster the ANG for the time being- but then again, that would make too much sense.

They would be infinitely stupid to back off on the F-35 program at this point, in my humble opinion. Confused

Still, they should purchase/refurbish a minimal contingent of F-16 aircraft to at least bolster the ANG for the time being- but then again, that would make too much sense. Rolling Eyes

I agree. I don't think the F-35 will be terminated at all. There will be threats from the government, but the program will survive. Parts of it need to be terminated though, like the F136. We can let other countries pay for the F-35B development and give it to the USMC later once it's proven in foreign service (remember the Harrier?). We could even put the F-35C on hold now and just focus on the F-35A since the Navy is still receiving brand new Super Hornets.

I still am an advocate of taking 200 or so F-16A ADF aircraft out of AMARG and giving them the MLU update (and perhaps the SABR too) for use in the ANG. I've read that the USAF was considering this at one point in 2000 and already has airframes set aside. That would be the best interim solution. If that isn't a go, then brand new F-16 Block 52+ aircraft should be purchased and then sold to an ally once the F-35 comes on line.

broncazonk wrote:I just found a lot of discussion as to what to buy in the F-35 Forum.

Question: All the mathematical models of warfare (Lanchester's Laws and various other equations) consistently (decisively) suggest that Quantity is FAR more important than Quality in combat.

So why not field F-16 (Advanced) variants in large numbers, along with F-15's and F-18's as opposed to incredibly small numbers of $250-$350 million 5th Gen+ aircraft?

If the training is equal, the math says (3) three 4th Gen. fighters costing a combined $90 million will defeat a single $300 million 5th Gen fighter EVERY TIME.

Bronc

Dude...get back to your cube and don't come out 'til we tell you it's ok.

If I have a four-ship of Raptors or JSFs; I'm gonna turn an entire SQUADRON (that's be 18-24 jets) of 3rd/4th GEN fighters into teeth/hair/eyeballs, and they'll never detect me or my flight mates...

Questions? Mathematical modelling only works so far during statistical analysis...leave the operational/field/tactics and survivability testing up to the warfighters who know.

Horhay

Yeah...that's what EVERYBODY says who has never done the math. If provided in sufficient numbers, the F4F Wildcat alone would have won the war in the Pacific over the superior, but far less numerous Zero. The math also explains how the Russians regained air-superiority over the Luftwaffe in 1943 and why the Me-262 failed to achieve it.

Circa 1945 propeller driven aircraft firing missiles would decisively achieve air-superiority over all 187 Raptors given enough time and if provided in sufficient numbers. The math is as certain about this as 2+2=4. (The issue of pilot survivability would have to be made a null set, but this was exactly the Russian's thinking in 1941, 1942 and 1943, and by 1944 the game was o-ver for the Germans.)

I know this is a hard pill to swallow for the quality over quantity crowd (fighter jocks and all) but the math isn't even debatable. (That is: isn't debatable by someone who has done the equations.)

Bronc

They all got motors...

I say buy more B-52s! If you want, mount AMRAAMs on them, and make them UCAVs...

Better job security for us 'engine guys' with 8 motors per aircraft.

TEG

Absolutely concur, disco..

The present, 'stay the course' JSF acquisition strat of course is incompatible with such an hypothetical gap-fill-augmented plan though. In fairness, this has been (remains) one of the common points of those belonging to the so-called, broad-ranging JSF critic camp, and rightly so. (IMHO). So indeed there is commonality between some critics and those more supportive of a modified, pro-JSF stance - which is a positive thing, politically at least, if one is supporting such a near-term policy-shift. I'm personally in the view supporting, as an example: aggressive MLU+ restorations in addition to new buy block 50/52++ (SABR) should be awarded all necessary and reallocated portions of pre-IOT&E LRIP procurement budgets, while maximal F-35A R&D proceeds. I'd even go as far as reducing mature Block III buys under early FRP, while continuing proven, more affordable gap-filling buys, and push all out for block IV F-35A maturity as the main procured model.

This more comprehensive, improved (once proven and mature) 5th gen block IV, coupled w/ fixed MYB pricing, could finally justify maximum F-35A procurement appropriations. That would be a far more reliable, strategically sound and risk-mitigating plan. To simply 'stay the recap course' however, assuming no secretive major-power conventional arms reduction/demilitarization implementation being implemented and not disclosed to public, is just dangerous and irresponsible, imho.

Were cancelling warfare in the future.....the world as a whole so no one needs to make any more planes. Cancell everything. Even F-16's. but keep the qf-4's I like those. Seriously? the F-35 will not be cancelled. period. No other options and waaay to much resting on it.

Yeah...that's what EVERYBODY says who has never done the math. If provided in sufficient numbers, the F4F Wildcat alone would have won the war in the Pacific over the superior, but far less numerous Zero. The math also explains how the Russians regained air-superiority over the Luftwaffe in 1943 and why the Me-262 failed to achieve it.

Circa 1945 propeller driven aircraft firing missiles would decisively achieve air-superiority over all 187 Raptors given enough time and if provided in sufficient numbers. The math is as certain about this as 2+2=4. (The issue of pilot survivability would have to be made a null set, but this was exactly the Russian's thinking in 1941, 1942 and 1943, and by 1944 the game was o-ver for the Germans.)

I know this is a hard pill to swallow for the quality over quantity crowd (fighter jocks and all) but the math isn't even debatable. (That is: isn't debatable by someone who has done the equations.)

Bronc

Screw your math!!! When someone steps up to defend my freedom and my country, I want them strapped to the very best fighter jet America can give them, period. I want them to also have the very best chances of completing the mission and COMING HOME.

discofishing wrote:Screw your math!!! When someone steps up to defend my freedom and my country, I want them strapped to the very best fighter jet America can give them, period. I want them to also have the very best chances of completing the mission and COMING HOME.

I'm with you on that!

Unless you plan on going Kamikaze(still not a good option), that kind of rationale is NOT logical. Great Britain didn't win their air war with numerical superiority, did they? They did it by recovering their downed pilots, and beat the larger opposition by strategy and careful husbanding of their air assets. Germany lost their air war through attrition, burning out their pilots, and having their industrial base completely plastered.

Quantity over quality works out ok for the most part in a ground war, but is a different story pertaining to aerial combat. During Desert Storm, the Iraqi Air Force had numerical superiority- didn't do them much good, did it? Better aircraft and aircrews have the decided edge in modern aerial combat and there is no denying that.

By the way- for those who love to compare prop planes armed with light cannons and machine guns to supersonic jets with high tech missiles, rapid fire cannons and serious amounts of digital/radar/computer assistance: this is the 21st century- live in the now and look to the future, it sure is no video game out there and it only takes mere seconds to die.

For that matter, only a few nukes can wipe out ANY opposition quick enough- dealing with the consequences is a different matter.

discofishing wrote: Screw your math!!! When someone steps up to defend my freedom and my country, I want them strapped to the very best fighter jet America can give them, period. I want them to also have the very best chances of completing the mission and COMING HOME.

I'm sure that we all agree with this, but sometimes an overwhelming Quality advantage is not possible, and when that's not possible, an overwhelming Quantity advantage is even better.

Attrition - from all causes - is an insatiable demon. Bringing a distinct numerical advantage into a fight and keeping that advantage with the ability to quickly build and replenish losses is what is MOST important.

War is a numbers game, not a quality game. Sure the Mk VI Tiger had a 50-1 kill ratio over Russian tanks, but factor in mines, artillery and "other enemy action" and that number goes down to 13-1. Now factor in "losses from all causes" (getting stuck, blown engines and transmissions, out of gas) and the number goes down to 2-1. The Germans build something like 1,800 Tigers and the Russians built something like 50,000 T-34's (not to mention all their other armor.) Guess who was getting MAULED after November 1942, and by August 1943, it was a blood bath.

In my opinion, our nation is making a huge mistake in building overwhelming Quality vs. High quality in overwhelming Quantity. The IJN made this mistake with their cruisers and destroyers and that didn't turn out very well either.

So the question remains, are newly-built variants of the F-16, F-18 and F-15 credible alternatives to the F-22 and F-35 if they are supplied in numbers?

Bronc

So the question remains, are newly-built variants of the F-16, F-18 and F-15 credible alternatives to the F-22 and F-35 if they are supplied in numbers?

Ask the mother, father, son, or daughter of a fighter pilot that question. Remember, we put living breathing human beings into these aircraft. Their job is exceedingly dangerous even in peace time. If you wanna play the numbers game and do math, then worry about how the hell we're going to pay for obamacare.

From my point of view, the REAL math is being done by the engineers. That math ended up producing the F-22, and F-35.