Forum: General F-35 Forum

Change Course To Protect F-35 | F-16 Set Example of Concurrent Development
May. 7, 2012 | By GORDON ENGLAND

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... nav%7Chead

"Why is the F-16 fighter jet so successful, with 4,500 airplanes delivered and, 30 years later, still in production, while the F-35 is a continuing struggle?...

...To date, there are 138 versions of the F-16, as well as 15 block changes, with each block a decisive improvement in capability.

The contrast with the F-35 is striking. In the past two years, DoD planners have cut 426 F-35s out of the five-year defense plan. Assuming those numbers remain firm, it will now take the F-35 program about 17 years to deliver what the F-16 achieved in seven. No wonder the F-35 unit cost is not coming down as fast as originally planned...."

Long post - best to read it at URL.

F-16.net Sponsor

1. The early blocks of F-16 were not Multi-Role
2. Parts for F-16s are relatively expensive due to so many different versions.
3. The F-35 is doing at IOC what the F-16 did not accomplish (in mission set) until much later blocks.
4. Cuts to the program are economic in nature, not a reflection on the F-35's capabilities.

SpudmanWP wrote:

1. The early blocks of F-16 were not Multi-Role
2. Parts for F-16s are relatively expensive due to so many different versions.
3. The F-35 is doing at IOC what the F-16 did not accomplish (in mission set) until much later blocks.
4. Cuts to the program are economic in nature, not a reflection on the F-35's capabilities.

I wonder if that might not be part of the problem though. By building out a fully loaded Mercedes instead of a Camry, have the program directors priced themselves out of the affordability niche? (And by program directors, I'm looking at you, DoD.)

The F-16's great selling point - it's genius - was that it was a high performance air-frame, cheap. Bolt on what you need after the fact, it's up to you what to get and how much you want to spend.

That gives customers a lot of flexibility, especially when finances get tight.

Well we all know the F-16 ain't cheap no more...

Last time the U.S. bought them, they cost $102 Million Each.

Now the going price appears to be between $80 and $100 million Each.

Glad we're moving on to the '35. I say spend the money and make it work...don't go the way of the Comanche and waste all that money.

-Check

stereospace wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

1. The early blocks of F-16 were not Multi-Role
2. Parts for F-16s are relatively expensive due to so many different versions.
3. The F-35 is doing at IOC what the F-16 did not accomplish (in mission set) until much later blocks.
4. Cuts to the program are economic in nature, not a reflection on the F-35's capabilities.

I wonder if that might not be part of the problem though. By building out a fully loaded Mercedes instead of a Camry, have the program directors priced themselves out of the affordability niche? (And by program directors, I'm looking at you, DoD.)

The F-16's great selling point - it's genius - was that it was a high performance air-frame, cheap. Bolt on what you need after the fact, it's up to you what to get and how much you want to spend.

That gives customers a lot of flexibility, especially when finances get tight.

Which customers would want a non-BVR lightweight fighter with no AI radar, and no A/G capability though? I'm not seeing a lot on the F35 that could be left out and easily added in later that'd save money.

The F35 to an export customer isn't horrendously more expensive than the equivalent production stage F16.

I mean, you're getting the AESA radar as standard, the EO system you'd have to spend $3m and give up a pylon to on the F16 - there's a pretty good spec as base.

The F-16 is still a great buy today. But that same train of though is why some countries still fly the Mig-21, F-5 and a half dozen air frames that were designed out of a very basic requirment. I understand the point of view, but in the case of the F-35 comparing it and its priceing is an apples to oranges comparison. Yes your going to get power windows, A/C, tilt and cruise in the base model but removing them to justify price is like removing the door on your car to justify price. The basic package is also more than an A/G or/and A/A. Your buying ELINT, RECCE, A/G, A/A, and AWACS situational awareness. So what it comes down is if you cant afford it than you cant afford it.

stereospace wrote:

I wonder if that might not be part of the problem though. By building out a fully loaded Mercedes instead of a Camry,

The IOC (for the Blk2B F-35B) is a S-10 pickup, F-35A/C IOC is a Chevy Lumina, and the later Blks (5/6/7) get it to Cadillac status (more radar modes, more weapons, more AAMs internal, Cooperative EW, NGJ, AARGM, DIRCM, etc).

stereospace wrote:

Bolt on what you need after the fact, it's up to you what to get and how much you want to spend.

That is a problem with a VLO fighter that is highly integrated. Those subsystems have to be designed to fit inside the F-35, not bolt onto the outside. Otherwise you end up looking like the cancer-ridden F-15/16 that we have today with it's bumps, protrusions, and gadgets sticking out everywhere.

Imagine the cost and loss of features if the component had to be designed to fit a small space instead of designing the component first and then designing the F-35 around it.

On the other hand, had they followed the F-16 model, they'd have designed a basic high performance, VLO aircraft. Once the tooling is done, it's easy to build and relatively cheap to buy. Let the competition begin for radars, radios, sensors, etc.

If the USAF wants to build out a few squadrons like Techno Fighter from the Future, fine. Go to it. Do we really need an entire air force equipped like that? I doubt it.

Again, the beauty is the flexibility. Maybe I don't NEED AESA radars on all sixty of the aircraft I'm buying, maybe I just need it on 20. That might save country X enough to fund more training, or buy a patrol ship they need too.

In addition, there's more contractors competing to build radars, or it allows a country to procure an indigenous radar and keep their defense contractors employed and productive.

This whole Vun Bihg Faktory has a very Soviet Union vibe to it, don't you agree? It saves a few rubles in the short run (maybe) but kills competition and innovation over the long run. Historically, it's never been a good idea. Ask the Russians how that plan worked out for them.

SpudmanWP wrote:

1. The early blocks of F-16 were not Multi-Role
2. Parts for F-16s are relatively expensive due to so many different versions.
3. The F-35 is doing at IOC what the F-16 did not accomplish (in mission set) until much later blocks.
4. Cuts to the program are economic in nature, not a reflection on the F-35's capabilities.

Plus it was an entirely Air Force project at that point with one variant. If we had specified avionic and sensor compatibility and let each service do their own airframe, they might be in service right now.

stereospace wrote:

On the other hand, had they followed the F-16 model, they'd have designed a basic high performance, VLO aircraft. Once the tooling is done, it's easy to build and relatively cheap to buy. Let the competition begin for radars, radios, sensors, etc.

If the USAF wants to build out a few squadrons like Techno Fighter from the Future, fine. Go to it. Do we really need an entire air force equipped like that? I doubt it.

Again, the beauty is the flexibility. Maybe I don't NEED AESA radars on all sixty of the aircraft I'm buying, maybe I just need it on 20. That might save country X enough to fund more training, or buy a patrol ship they need too.

In addition, there's more contractors competing to build radars, or it allows a country to procure an indigenous radar and keep their defense contractors employed and productive.

This whole Vun Bihg Faktory has a very Soviet Union vibe to it, don't you agree? It saves a few rubles in the short run (maybe) but kills competition and innovation over the long run. Historically, it's never been a good idea. Ask the Russians how that plan worked out for them.

This plan would not work for a VLO fighter due to no knowing what space, cooling, vibration needs, etc are required for the avionics.

In a VLO fighter you can NEVER go external with your basic avionics. Look at what happened with the F-16 over the years. It gained a spine, blisters, pods, etc that would completely destroy a VLO fighter's RCS.

Then there is the issue of increased development/retrofit costs when changes have to be made due to having to adapt the avionics later. Everything changes once you start adding avionics, especially heavy items like radar units.

You are trying to compare the F-16's initial timeframe & SDD cost to the F-35's, without adding the decades of development time and money that it took to get the F-16 to be a decent multi-role fighter. The DoD & the Partner nations learned their lessons from the F-16 program and decided that it was more cost effective to spend the time & money up front to get a capable multi-role fighter from IOC rather than get hundreds of cheaper, role-specific fighters that they would have to later spend billions upgrading (if at all) or replacing because upgrades would be too expensive (ala F-16 A/Bs).

There is also the issue of economy of scale in training, maintenance, and parts. If you have multiple versions floating around with parts from several companies, then your lifetime costs skyrocket.

It's worth remembering that the LWF was envisioned,to,cost,$3M each in a production run of 300,aircraft. The F-16 has come a long, long way from those, early days.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Change Course To Protect F-35 | F-16 Set Example Development