What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

US Politics USAF looking at new fighter design to replace the F-16

Eliar

Well-known member
'Clean Sheet' F-16 Replacement In The Cards: CSAF Brown.



The study will include a "clean sheet design" for a new "four-and-a-half-gen or fifth-gen-minus" fighter to replace the F-16, Brown elaborated. Rather than simply buy new F-16s, he said, "I want to be able to build something new and different, that's not the F 16 — that has some of those capabilities, but gets there faster and uses some of our digital approach."

Brown explained that the idea would be to build on the lessons learned in digital engineering for the "e-series" T-7A Red Hawk trainer, and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD). In particular, Brown said he would like to see any F-16 replacement sport "open-mission systems" that would allow near-real-time software updates to meet new threats.

The idea of the tactical aircraft (TacAir) study is "to look at what is the right force mix," he said, explaining that the service needs fifth-generation fighters such as the F-35; it needs NGAD "to remain competitive against our adversaries;" and, it needs capabilities for the "low-end fight."

Somewhere lobbyists are slapping each others backs and getting ready.
 
"OK, so we made the new version of the F-16 with our disastrous F-35 program! What should we do next!?"

"Make another single-engine air-superiority fighter? But with slightly worse ability?"

"That seems like a complete waste of money! Great idea! When I take my civilian sector job I can make money off of this!"
 
F-35 is simply too expensive to replace the F-16. Especially in the export market a $80 million plane cannot hope to replace a $20 million plane just by offering better sensors and stealth. The same goes for maintenance. Many of the NATO partners and US allies which bought the F-16 by the hundreds won't be able to buy enough F-35s to retain their capabilities, which is also a big problem. Basically, F-35 is cool but too expensive to be the workhorse of NATO air superiority that the F-16 is.
 
The other reason why some at least Euro countries are starting to look at the Canard sideways? :p
If you mean Rafale, it costs as much or more than the F-35, so that's also not the solution. Though, if I had to choose between the F-35 and Rafale I'd shell out the extra money for Rafale, I think it's a better fighter. At least it can go supersonic more than once and can use the MBDA Meteor missile, currently the only one which makes the Su-35 and Su-57 nervous. Eurofighter Typhoon is even more expensive than both of them. The F-16 is so incredibly cheap because there were 4,000 of them sold, so the R&D costs per one plane are very low. That was also the plan for the F-35 but it didn't really work out.
If all of EU partners of NATO made the decision to go for Rafale, that could make it a lot cheper, but it won't happen because then the US MIC wouldn't get a bit richer than it already is, and that would be oh-so-against-our-values :)
 
If you mean Rafale, it costs as much or more than the F-35, so that's also not the solution. Though, if I had to choose between the F-35 and Rafale I'd shell out the extra money for Rafale, I think it's a better fighter. At least it can go supersonic more than once and can use the MBDA Meteor missile, currently the only one which makes the Su-35 and Su-57 nervous. Eurofighter Typhoon is even more expensive than both of them. The F-16 is so incredibly cheap because there were 4,000 of them sold, so the R&D costs per one plane are very low. That was also the plan for the F-35 but it didn't really work out.
If all of EU partners of NATO made the decision to go for Rafale, that could make it a lot cheper, but it won't happen because then the US MIC wouldn't get a bit richer than it already is, and that would be oh-so-against-our-values :)
The old versions of F-16 are incredibly cheap. The current ones, with non-shit avionics, are quite more expensive, though. I quite doubt you could get under 60 M$ per plane with a 'cheap' plane that isn't fodder for Su-35S or Su-57.
 
The old versions of F-16 are incredibly cheap. The current ones, with non-shit avionics, are quite more expensive, though. I quite doubt you could get under 60 M$ per plane with a 'cheap' plane that isn't fodder for Su-35S or Su-57.
I agree. We (Slovakia) are in the process of buying 14 planes (F-16 block 70/72, I hope it's the new C/D and not the refurbished V, that would be pathetic) for $1.6 billion, that is a little over $110 million each. That also includes training, armament, 2 years of service, ground equipment etc. So far we were using MiG-29 so basically everything on the ground needs to be replaced too. I didn't find info about how much of that price is the plane itself and how much is the rest, $60 million could easily be just the new F-16. Even so, it's half of a Rafale's price tag.
When our MoD was deciding which plane to buy, Rafale was one of the contenders and the stated reason for going with F-16 were the total operating costs over their service life. I'm sure there was backstage lobbying by our big brother, but even so the larger part was the price. As I wrote, I'm all for the EU deciding for one, home-built plane, and pushing the costs down by buying only that one, would be perfect. I don't like that our money is going out of the EU in this case. But we're just one little country of 5 million, this needs to come from the big guys - France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands. And I'm sure that US proxies like Poland and the Baltic states will sabotage it to the end.
We also bought Blackhawks, which makes even less sense. But that is the power of the US MIC lobby, and the EU is not willing to fight it.
 
F-35 is simply too expensive to replace the F-16. Especially in the export market a $80 million plane cannot hope to replace a $20 million plane just by offering better sensors and stealth. The same goes for maintenance. Many of the NATO partners and US allies which bought the F-16 by the hundreds won't be able to buy enough F-35s to retain their capabilities, which is also a big problem. Basically, F-35 is cool but too expensive to be the workhorse of NATO air superiority that the F-16 is.
The point is that Air Force procurement is no longer capable of making a functional fighter at reasonable cost.

All this means is that the US will be offering the 5th generation fighter for 80 million, and a 4.5 generation fighter for 70 million (a generous estimate) after all the cost overruns for the program get transferred over to the buyer. There is zero chance that this will somehow become an affordable option that also provides the capabilities of a 4.5 generation fighter. No one offers that now, and it is laughable to think that the USAF money pit will somehow crack that code.
 
There is zero chance that this will somehow become an affordable option that also provides the capabilities of a 4.5 generation fighter.
No problem, it will be solved with the following fighter program (for sure now) :) I'm sure with a little creativity they can get a 4++ gen fighter that will cost more than the 5th gen fighter, and then convince most of NATO to buy it.
 
No problem, it will be solved with the following fighter program (for sure now) :) I'm sure with a little creativity they can get a 4++ gen fighter that will cost more than the 5th gen fighter, and then convince most of NATO to buy it.
And by then, they will still use the nonsensical "generation" designation to sell their stuff.
 
And by then, they will still use the nonsensical "generation" designation to sell their stuff.
And here I thought they used bulls**t, bribes and blackmail... Maybe the gen designation is in the first category :)
 
To be honest this is the NATO countries dealing belatedly with the post Cold War slump.

Many of the countries that got lots and lots of F-16s got them essentially as gifts from the US as *military help* to maintain their abilities against the WarPac.

Gone are those days and Big Bad Russia or China are simply not enough of a danger for the US to shoulder the cost of rearming NATO.
 
Back
Top Bottom