F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[JSFfan]

Ah yes, the old build it now and we'll fix it later

smsgtmac wrote
For instance I did note the Block 10s were when the F-16 became nominally ‘useful’ militarily. I’ve described it elsewhere as a WVR “knife-fighter”. It is just that the first ‘full’ capabilities, the ones the AF as an institution wanted all along, came with the Block 30/32.

Oddly, though FSD was turned on in ’75, as late as 1977 there were still NO formal requirements that had been finalized. From the April GAO report "Status of the F-16 Aircraft Program. PSAD-77-41" (which BTW also expresses concerns over F-16 'vulnerability' and other seemingly familiar concerns):

Quote:
In January 1975, the Air Force selected a derivative of the General Dynamics prototype to be the Air Combat Fighter or the F-16. On January 13, 1975, the Air Force awarded a F-16 full-scale development contract to General Dynamics. At that time, the using command, Tactical Air Command, had no specific requirement (Required Operational Capability (ROC)) for the lightweight fighter aircraft…

…Although the Secretary of Defense signed the Memorandum of Understanding and the preliminary contracts, he has not signed the F-16 Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) which becomes an agreement between the Air the Force and the Office of Secretary of Defense for program cost, schedule and performance goals, and thresholds. As of January 31, 1977, the Air Force has prepared three drafts of DCP 143 for the F-16 aircraft program. The latest DCP draft, dated May 18, 1976, is being reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although an F-16 DCP has not been signed, the draft version is used as a source document for program management.

But within the same document, the GAO does note the 'planned' armament and mission:

Quote:
Air-to-air mission armament
The F-16 air-to-air armament consists of the 20--mm M61A1 cannon and up to six AIM-9J/L Sidewinder missiles. The Sidewinder is a short range infrared guided missile. In anticipation of the development of a new, more effective radar missile, the Air Force has directed the F-16 contractor to provide the space, weight, power, and cooling provisions necessary for such incorporation.

Air-to-surface mission armament
The F-16 air-to-surface armament includes the Maverick missile, a close air support antiarmor weapon. It will also carry a variety of guided and unguided bombs and will be certified to carry nuclear weapons. Currently, the Air Force considers the F-16's mission mix to be 50 percent air-to-air and 50 percent air-to-surface
.

And even later, the report gets more specific as to what TAC was preparing to levy as requirements:

Quote:
POTENTIAL NEW REQUIREMENTS
The Tactical Air Command did not have a ROC prepared for the F-16 when full-scale development was started in January 1975. The Tactical Air Command's ROC document for the F-16 is still being reviewed by Headquarters USAF. We are unable to comment on the reasonableness of the requirement, however, because Headquarters USAF denied us access to the document.
Tactical Air Command officials stated that the F-16 needs the following equipment to enhance its mission effectiveness or to reduce life cycle costs: an internal rather than a podded external electronic countermeasures set, a Joint Tactical Information Distribution System terminal, a new beyond-visual range air-to-air missile, an engine diagnostic system, a global positioning system receiver, and a video tape recorder..


Farther down in the details that followed, the GAO mentions the expected need for a radar upgrade to replace the original one:

Quote:
New beyond-visual-range missile
Tactical Air Command in conjunction with the Navy has developed a Joint Service Operational Requirement (JSOR) for a lightweight, beyond visual range missile that can be carried in the F-16, F-15, F-18, and F-14.
SPO officials said incorporation of a radar missile in the F-16 would probably require a modification of the F-16 radar and the stores management system, incorporation of missile interface units, and new pylons.

So while the program proceeded into FSD without any real requirements (a lesson for the future?) much of the capabilities sought with the first official requirements list would not come until the Block 30/32.

What is most interesting to me about the F-16 birth and development is how the popular myth of an AF command structure being “dragged to the altar” to buy the F-16 was created in the process. It was really a case of the AF leadership at the highest levels deciding to pursue the LWF the AF wanted (versus the one that had been pushed by the LWF Mafia and was at the time dead in the water) to complement the F-15, because the AF could get more bang for the buck with a ‘high-low’ fleet than they would have gotten with an all F-15 force. Young-uns never hear about how the high-low mix was designed to replace the F-4s because we couldn’t replace the F-4s one for one with all F-15s. As the F-4 was a Fighter-Bomber, and as the F-15 development team’s initial creed was ‘not a pound for air-to-ground’, why would any reasonable person declare the F-16 should not have had air-to-mud capability from the start? The simpler-cheaper, maneuverability ‘uber alles’ crowd has been crowing from the time the F-16’s Configuration Control Committee (that was working on what the AF wanted to put in the requirements mentioned above) was formed under Gen. Alton Slay (the ‘mafia’ disparagingly called it the Configuration Add-On Committee) down to the present day.
The LWF Mafia didn’t get the plane THEY wanted, and woe be unto those who might question their original vision as being desirable. Yet they struggle mightily when asked to account for the incredible success of the planes they’ve denigrated over the years (they usually discount the opposition).

I hate stretched development timelines as well, but the Customer is getting what they want. They want lower annual costs to fit within annual budgets that increase costs and schedule overall.