Clean sheet F-16 replacement?

Feel free to discuss anything here - as long as it is F-16 related.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 809
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post26 Feb 2021, 09:47

Fox1 I thought the F-35 was supposed to be the F-16 replacement? The fact we are now buying the F-15EX, have discussed potentially buying new build F-16's and are now talking about developing a 4.5 to 5th Gen fighter that isn't an F-35 in which to replace the F-16 is a bit concerning. Do these moves indicate that the Air Force thinks the operational cost of the F-35 is going to be so great that they can't afford to operate a large force of them?

Isn't the F-16V supposed to have some "F-35 DNA" in it isn't it? Build that both new and remanufactured F-16s we already have with enough flight hours to get the production line humming (but there's the rub - aren't they ALL getting long in the tooth)? Much as I would love to see a F-16XL reborn with a Diverterless supersonic inlet (what the hell China sure as hell has that in the J-10!) :shock: and all the bells and whistles. We're just speading ourselves too thin alway's pursuing the next best thing. Can't be doing that with the global economy going to hell in a handbasket thanks to the Coronavirus. And I haven't heard any news about the Federal Deficit in a while (afraid to Google it up, don't think I'll like what I find).
steve2267 I give you the F-35V... just rip out the EOTS, DAS, get rid of the helmet and put a good old fashion HUD in it. Comes with basic stealth built in....

I LIKE steve2267 idea but as XanderCrews pointed out doesn't solve the current F135 woes, the devils :twisted: in the details (which of course kinda pokes holes in my F-16V+ idea too)! :doh:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post27 Feb 2021, 23:48

Or couldn't we just pull as few retired F-16s out of Ammarc? I thought we had tons of early model birds there. If your going this route, you dont need Aesa to chase hijacked aircraft or escort bear bombers.
Offline

boilermaker

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post17 Mar 2021, 23:36

Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 01:26

boilermaker wrote:It is called the F-36?

https://hushkit.net/2021/03/17/the-f-36 ... saf-wants/


THAT would be cool.
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

Boman

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1567
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004, 19:22
  • Location: Norway

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 07:01

People seem to overlook that it is only a study, not a firm decision in any way. Too many websites report this as if the decision has already been made, but it is only a study. Any potential outcome of this study is still far away, let alone any new fighter design.
Best regards
Niels
Offline

martini123

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 05 May 2021, 12:44

Unread post05 May 2021, 12:50

This talk of designing a new 4.5 gen fighter from scratch is crazy talk. They are not that stupid.
Imho, this is a negotiation bid against Lockheed. Problem is Lockheed is both daddy to F-35. And to F-16. So wont be super happy about having to cut down on sales of juicy super expensive F-35. In favour of F-16 upgrade. So USAF threatens to bypass Lockheed for the replacement of F-16.

Of course talking crazy talk about 4.5 gen from scratch could be to just softball somethinig really unpopular. Like buying a Euro canard. But the USAF would never do something like that. Hence, it is a negotiating tactic. Renewing the F-16 platform and buying a bunch of brand new ones is the only sane way to go. So that's what they gonna do.

And this is not even saying the F-35 is a bad plane. It is absolutely if not the, then one of the, most capable fighters in the world. With truly uniqe capabilities. Imho, going for super high computer power and for situational awareness was the right thing to do. However, the F-35 has ended up being the hi of the hi-low mix. When it started out to be the low. So they need a low, that works today. For many reasons. Losing a stealth fighter in Syria or Iran or some such. Would be a really bad thing. So they want to be able to use the low when at all possible. And maintenance, price, flight hour cost etc. Well, f-16 forum know that a lot better than me. I just made an account to put forward my thought that its about negotiating with Lockheed. Because it was not mentioned in thread yet.
Last edited by martini123 on 05 May 2021, 17:21, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post05 May 2021, 15:22

martini123 wrote:And maintenance, price, flight hour cost etc. Well, f-16 forum know that a lot better than me. I just made an account to put forward my thought that its about negotiating with Lockheed. Because it was not mentioned in thread yet.


What about those maintenance, price, flight hour costs etc.?

F-35A costs less than $80 millions per piece.

This is less than F-15EX or EF Typhoon, and not much more than new F-16 models or Super Hornets.

But per payload at the ranges where those payloads want to be delivered, F-35A is much cheaper than new F-16 or Super Hornet, because it has carriers much more usable payload.


F-35 costs a lot to maintain because it's a NEW plane. Not because it's a stealth plane. Designing even newer plane would make the maintenance costs INCREASE.

In couple of years, F-35 will become cheaper to fly than F-15. Per-plane it might never become cheaper to fly than F-16, but when same mission can be performed with half the number of F-16's, it might become more economical to use than F-16 also.
Offline

martini123

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 05 May 2021, 12:44

Unread post05 May 2021, 17:17

@hkultala
I am sorry, your argument is with General Brown and the USAF, not with me. I am taking their analysis that they want a cheaper to run and less complicated "low" for the F-35 "high" at face value. But express doubt that they are serious about developing a clean slate 4++ gen fighter.
If you can convince General Brown and the USAF to make a statement where they reiterate your cost analysis of the F-35, I will be happy to take that as gospel in further comments that I make.
Offline

Boman

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1567
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004, 19:22
  • Location: Norway

Unread post05 May 2021, 17:34

Chill gents. Gen. Browns speach is picked apart and taken out of context by far too many newsreporters and online journals.

If you look into what he actually said, it was that he wanted a study to see what could/would/may be required. NO decisions have been made, NO new fighters are on the table.

So no need to get all worked up about this, it is only a study
Best regards
Niels
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2281
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post14 May 2021, 21:56

May 14, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak
The Air Force will ask Congress to retire 421 legacy aircraft through 2026, replacing them with just 304 new fighters, according to fiscal 2022 budget talking points obtained by Air Force Magazine. The savings derived from operating a smaller fleet will be put toward acquiring new systems such as the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter later this decade, and a new Multi-Role fighter, called MR-X, in the 2030s.

--

Beyond the FYDP, and potentially into the 2030s, the Air Force expects about 600 “post block” F-16s—C/D models from Block 40 on—to remain in the force with with some upgrades, useful in both permissive and some competitive environments. The transition to the MR-X is expected “in the mid-30s.” This new airplane will be a “clean sheet” design, created by digital methods, and the “decision point” to launch the program is now expected to be “six to eight years away,” according to the document. The MR-X “must be able to affordably perform missions short of high-end warfare.” The F-35 could potentially fill this role, but only if its operating costs could be “brought significantly lower.”


https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-w ... -new-ones/



MR-X? not sounding much like a James Bond villain - good luck with that.
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7524
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 May 2021, 06:23

The USAF would be extremely lucky to even get the NGAD Fighter in service my the mid 2030's. So, hard to see the MR-X doing so....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7524
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 May 2021, 06:25

Also, sounds like the MR-X would be a replacement for the F-35. As the NGAD is the F-22 replacement.........
Previous

Return to General F-16 forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests