Forum: General F-16 forum

I received some very interesting replies to my previous post on the F-22's demise, and one of these mentioned the F-16 XL. I had wanted to to mention this aircraft before, but I couldn't find a good place to insert the thought that the USAF should have discarded the JSF in favor of more complete F-22 development and an uprated version of the F-16 using the F-22's powerplant (similar to Japan's F-2). This would have saved a great deal of money while still building up a useful 5th generation capability.

Unfortunately, a decision was apparently made by the USAF in the 1990s that it would only purchase low observable combat platforms in the future. This made it impossible to replace aging legacy fighters until comparable "stealth" aircraft were developed; it also discarded decades worth of manufacture experience that could have reduced cost on newer airframes.

The F-18 E/F/G Superhornet is much maligned for its lack of raw performance, but it enabled the cash-strapped Navy to procure fresh airframes and increased capability without the backbreaking cost of a completely new development program and the requisite fly-off. A "Superfalcon" could have likewise saved the USAF from being stuck with increasingly fragile planes as it is today.

With the F-22 canceled, and F-35 costs spiraling out of control, the USAF is now scrambling to update its dwindling force of airworthy 4th generation fighters in an increasingly futile effort to maintain superiority over emerging threats. Because of the USAF's hard-nosed attitude toward buying non-stealth aircraft, America may no longer enjoy a significant air-power advantage over its rivals by 2020.

All this speculation is probably pointless because the F-35 program is now "too big to fail," and the F-22's supply chain is all but shut down. Still, I would be curious to hear other's thoughts on uprated 4th generation platforms and whether it is still possible to cancel the F-35 in favor of something cheaper while restarting F-22 production.

F-16.net Sponsor

Fair enough perspective 1st503 and one which will clearly remain a legit, hypothetical debate and analysis for years to come. Thanks for the contribution here. Thumb

Definitely, it could be argued that a 'Hi-Lo' force structure could have included a more AF centric and evolved AF airframe to satisfy the 'Lo' catagory. But this requirement of course evolved into the STOVL based joint fighter concept which was convincingly sold/pursuaded to AF/DoD planners in the early 90s.

Arguably, an evolved F-16 platform would have been today the most cost effective option to have been taken. Such an option could have certainly evolved into an operational derivative of F-16XL later on (by 2000s imho). It could have been further evolved to become fairly LO, yes. Perhaps more LO than F-15SE claims and could have been a sufficient, modern element to the mix until the late 20s or even later if required. Navy could have gone with the new build concept proposed by NG for its next-gen asset, I believe it was called the AS-14? Or whatever it was called. New operational airframes would have been delivered to USN and USAF today at affordable and sustainable prices, freeing up budgets and decision making to decide the Service's future developments (per requirements).

Anyway... going forward, I still support an evolved 4.5+ F-16 interim aircraft option. I'm not sure if LM is capable of it, and for face-saving alone, AF might rather 'stopgap' with an evolved next-gen Super Hornet and maybe Eagle mix, if anything?

An F-16XL derivative might be too much out there in R&D land for now though, to be reasonable, but who knows. In the interim however, I would support a block 60+ variant. Rather than an F119 type engine, a next-gen GE F110 advanced augmentation motor could be feasible. A 33.5k lbf class would be quite powerful and mated with a 6th gen fluidic thrust vectoring nozzle would definitely give 'high-performance'. Other modifications and evolutions could come along likewise, but such a program would need to be accelerated as in YESTERDAY.. ASAP, if to make it effective and plausible, imho. Shrug

It's about time we get more Army guys on this forum. Airborne!

I'm going to assume that the USAF will upgrade the F-16 Block 40/42/50/52 fleet for service further into the future. At the very least they'd have to be getting AESA radars and some more advanced passive sensors. I'd also assume as much for the F-15C/E fleet in addition to Legacy USMC/USN Hornets.

Apparently the USAF has set aside around 200 or so low hour F-16A aircraft (most I think were Block-15 ADF birds) at AMARG for possible reactivation. I think reactivating these F-16As would be the cheapest interim solution until the F-35 comes on line. We could give these older birds new life with the following upgrades:

- full MLU, Falcon STAR, Falcon Up, etc
- SABR or APG-80 AESA radar system
- color moving map display system
- Scorpion HMD
- latest model F100-PW-229 engine
- IRST pod
- HTS capability

F-16AM+ aircraft for the USAF (probably more for the ANG) would be a cost saving alternative to purchasing brand new airframes. I imagine companies would be competing pretty hard for the upgrade work and would offer the US tax payers a good deal. There's plenty of experience out there when it comes to upgrading F-16s with MLU and what not, so I bet Ogden or some other place could crank F-16AM+ aircraft fairly quickly.

If the AF doesn't want to go the F-16AM+ route then I'd recommend going the direction of the F-16E. Testing and development has already been paid for by the UAE. All we have to do is buy them. I also believe there's already a training program in place in Tuscon, AZ. Training USAF pilots with prior F-16 experience would most likely be easier, faster, and cheaper than training UAE pilots and techs. A couple of focused months in AZ would probably be all the aviators and maintainers need to get up to speed on the Block 60. That's my take anyways. One might argue that the LM plant is busy enough with trying to handle both F-16 and F-35 production. If that's a problem, I wouldn't take issue with having the USAF's F-16Es being built in South Korea, Turkey, or Europe.

Here's something to consider. I believe many nations allied to the US hold off on their defense purchases until they see what the US military buys. Now if the USAF buys 4 or 5 squadrons worth of F-16Es, would that not help validate the aircraft to potential customers? I specifically have India and Brazil in mind as they are looking for new multirole fighter aircraft. That's something to think about!

I don't know if "unfortunate" is an appropriate description of the USAF decision to develop a stealthy replacement for the f-16. Rather, it was a sensible approach in response to the predicted threats that the new a/c would be facing during its operational life. The F-35 gestation period has had its delays and issues but in several more years I'm confident it will achieve IOC and it will bring a whole level of capabilities above that of any warmed over F-16 or F-18SH.

Quote:

I don't know if "unfortunate" is an appropriate description of the USAF decision to develop a stealthy replacement for the f-16. Rather, it was a sensible approach in response to the predicted threats that the new a/c would be facing during its operational life. The F-35 gestation period has had its delays and issues but in several more years I'm confident it will achieve IOC and it will bring a whole level of capabilities above that of any warmed over F-16 or F-18SH.

Agreed. In the meantime, though, we need something to fill the gaps.

discofishing wrote:

Quote:

I don't know if "unfortunate" is an appropriate description of the USAF decision to develop a stealthy replacement for the f-16. Rather, it was a sensible approach in response to the predicted threats that the new a/c would be facing during its operational life. The F-35 gestation period has had its delays and issues but in several more years I'm confident it will achieve IOC and it will bring a whole level of capabilities above that of any warmed over F-16 or F-18SH.

Agreed. In the meantime, though, we need something to fill the gaps.

Of course.The sensible thing to do is extend the life of selected legacy jets. I'd avoid buying new-build jets as much as possible. Like the chart says - 'Invest in the Future, Don't Modernize the Past"..

I can't help but wonder why a 'souped up F-16' thread is in the 5th gen section...

discofishing wrote:

Quote:

I don't know if "unfortunate" is an appropriate description of the USAF decision to develop a stealthy replacement for the f-16. Rather, it was a sensible approach in response to the predicted threats that the new a/c would be facing during its operational life. The F-35 gestation period has had its delays and issues but in several more years I'm confident it will achieve IOC and it will bring a whole level of capabilities above that of any warmed over F-16 or F-18SH.

Agreed. In the meantime, though, we need something to fill the gaps.

I too agree with popcorn, but throwing money at old F-16's to fill the gap is hardly a future proof or inexpensive solution. An upgraded F-16 would almost certainly be late itself, afterall there doesn't seem to be anything thats on time thesedays in the world of defence.
The whole idea of dragging out the F-16 is just asking for more trouble, even more so if it has to go into combat against a well equiped adversary.

The USAF could have had SuperFalcon in service by the early 2000s, and would not have had to pay for R&D.

However, when the go decision had to be taken, in 1994-95, it was too much of a threat to JAST (cheaper, sooner, better in all respects except LO) and while it would have allowed the USAF to fully fund F-22 into a multi-role platform, it would have left the poor iddle widdle Marines without a jet, left the Navy without a follow-on to Super Hornet, and was not seen as a Euro-crusher.

And JAST was going to cost $28 million and be in service by 2010...

Well JAST could have been scrapped and you'd now have the shiney new souped up F-16's that you'd prefer. You'd also have put yourself in a position where potential enemies can run rings around you in thier Euro canards and Flankers, not to mention soon to be 5th gen fighters. And then what? You'd still have to develop a 5th gen fighter to counter those threats.

I'm one of those who would have favored an upgraded F-16 to get the US through the 2000-2020 year range, putting off the JSF until much later. In first upgrading the falcon with most of the technological advances you could equip in a fighter, you would be at liberty to add whatever features you sought in a fighter as they come online. The Falcon could have been used to perfect the HMD, all-round awareness, and networking capabilities that would inevitably be transfered into the next generation fighter.

The problem with the JSF is that they're developing more technological advances than they did in the F-22, which is leading to a more expensive fighter than they bargained for. Just having the B variant in itself presented so many challenges, yet they wanted to make it cheaper than the F-22 through commonality, while also integrating so many more electronic features into a much smaller airframe. One of the reasons the F-22 would have made a better testbed for all these features is because it had more room for expansion and it's supposed to be the world's premier air dominance fighter.

I would have favored a solution where both the F-16 and F-22 would be used as testbeds for upgrade technologies, serving for another twenty years. When the JSF-like program comes along, you could then integrate the best combination of proven technologies into what would become the F-35. If anyone wants to criticize that the F-16 lacks so much in comparison to the JSF, the benefit of this approach would have been that you'd have an easier transition going from an upgraded F-16 to the F-35 if you have some familiarity with the new technologies going in. You also could have developed experience in the high-low fighter combination via networking capabilities.

My vision of the F-16 would have been to take the two-seat block 52+ and integrate the IRST and possibly the HTS equipment within a single-seat airframe. Given how compact they made all these for the JSF, I'm sure they could have given the falcon many of the F-35's electronic features without the need for external pods.

The F-22 would also have had to evolve into a better strike aircraft, including the need for a navy variant. They did intend to build a carrier-based F-22, but didn't because of budget cuts coming late in development. They could still do this. They also could have taken the opportunity to integrate more carbon fiber into the airframe to take the place of RAM, reducing its upkeep costs in the process.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

I'm one of those who would have favored an upgraded F-16 to get the US through the 2000-2020 year range, putting off the JSF until much later.

You say that but you do realise an enemy flying decent modern fighters such as Euro Canards and Flanker variants would almost certainly have the upper hand in combat. Also with foreign powers having 5th gen fighters coming online before or around 2020 its not a good position to be in if you wanted to further postpone the JSF as you'd probably not see that come online till 2030 - 2035 unbder your plan.

I wonder if upgrading the retired F-117’s would be a viable option? Those things were bad assed! Cool

How about "Super-Varks" with new motors and advanced systems? Or "Super-Darts"?

Hell; while we're at it, just take some remaining B-52s with 4 new commercial engines and AESA radars and DAS. That could serve as an 'interim' bomber until 2060 when we can buy 4 or 5 'new' replacements to use until 2150 (or so....) I'm sure the remaining B-1s and B-2s can hold on a few more decades

I wonder why the USAF didn't persue the "Super-Mustang" when those Phantoms were so darn expensive!?! I'm sure with the missile technology at the time a "Super-Mustang" could have prevailed over those pesky MiG-15s and MiG-71s. Besides they would have had those .50 Cal guns when the Phantom didn't even have one! (ala F-35C talk!?!)

The "Super-Starfighter" could have certainly been cheaper (operationally speaking) than ever buying those ultra-expensive Eagles.

The Cold War could have been won at a much lower cost!

Doh

TEG

shep1978 wrote:

You say that but you do realise an enemy flying decent modern fighters such as Euro Canards and Flanker variants would almost certainly have the upper hand in combat.

No, actually I'm not aware of any other aircraft that can rival the F-22. Or do you mean those generation 4.5 eurofighters against F-16's with the same kind of improvements? Most certainly they would be very evenly matched, but that's why you'd use the F-22 to deal with such threats.

shep1978 wrote:

Also with foreign powers having 5th gen fighters coming online before or around 2020 its not a good position to be in if you wanted to further postpone the JSF as you'd probably not see that come online till 2030 - 2035 unbder your plan.

When exactly would they be having these fighters? You said 2020? That's assuming it doesn't take them 15-20 years of testing, developing, and deploying such aircraft. And it may be that they're not as capable as the F-22. The whole point of having the Raptor early on was to deal with such threats.

If a JSF-like program began in the 2015 range, it probably would have only taken 10 years to complete, as many of the technologies would already have been implemented towards upgraded F-16's and F-22's.

Forum: General F-16 forum

F-16E "Superfalcon" The Road Not Taken