View Full Version : New F-16 Replacement
And there goes the USAF planned buy if 1763 x F-35As. As a reminder the F-35 was supposed to be the cheap “low end” replacement for the F-16.....
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/02/clean-sheet-f-16-replacement-in-the-cards-csaf-brown/
“Clean Sheet” F-16 Replacement In The Cards: CSAF Brown
WASHINGTON: Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown is launching a study, in tandem with DoD’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), (https://breakingdefense.com/tag/cape/) on the service’s future mix of tactical aircraft......
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, (https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/secaf-brown-mulls-streamlining-of-air-force-commands-barrett-announces-e-aircraft/) and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) (https://breakingdefense.com/tag/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.”.....
Asturias56
18th Feb 2021, 07:34
" a new “four-and-a-half-gen or fifth-gen-minus” fighter"
But wasn't the whole point of the F-16 NOT be anywhere near state-of-the-art but cheap enough to buy in bulk? Especially so it could be sold in vast quantities to Johnny Foreigner?
Vzlet
18th Feb 2021, 09:23
I'd say that the F-16 certainly met that original goal. That the aircraft has since been able to absorb decades of added capabilities is testament to the brilliance of the design.
Not_a_boffin
18th Feb 2021, 11:33
Arguably, the jets that entered service in the 70s represented the point where airframe performance stopped being the dominant factor, to be replaced by signatures and sensor/weapons integration.
Lots of developments in the weapons and targetting pods - plus relative lack of a peer competitor post 1989 - meant those basic airframes were "good enough". The significant (and highly expensive) exception being true LO capability.
Before those 70s frames, most types had a front-line service life of 20 years or so, less the further back in time you go. These days, the benchmark is closer to 40+ years for the basic configuration (if not batch/block).
Salute!
I don't know what this new guy is thinking. There could be more politics in there than we "proles" know about.
As far back as the late 90's and the JSF flyoff, and being in the bidness back then, plus staying connected with state of the art weapon development and ...... I do not know of anyone who thot the JSF was gonna be cheaper than the F-16, The goal was to reduce overall DoD acquisition/support budget that is not possible with three new planes and all their logistics tail. Despite misgivings by many of us after the TFX debacle back in the 60's, the doggone thing seems to have worked, despite adding an array of new equipment and computer technology.
The current acquisition cost ( unit cost the way DoD figures it, which is not a simple amount of $$$ at the production facility) of the F-35 is extremely competitive with the latest block Vipers. And those things are not LO and do not have the "friendly folks" coordination capability that the F-35 provides.
A bare bones Viper would be a real bargain for the "low end" of capability in the modern arena. Its aerodynamic capability would be damned good, and it could carry and effectively employ many new weapons. The logistical infrastructure/supply lines would already be there, making operational costs low. But it would still not have the overall capabilty of the F-35.
... Gums sends...
Asturias56
18th Feb 2021, 15:20
yeah but you might get more than 60% of them airborne at any one time Gums..................
Less Hair
18th Feb 2021, 15:45
If one would make them unmanned the cost/dangers of not being stealthy would not matter so much and one could fully exploit their high g maneuvering potential for missile avoidance and such.
Salute!
@ Asturias
The advertised availabily now is 70% or so. I do not have the exact equipment list that determines full mission capability (FMC) for the beast, but unless the motor, the cosmic radar and the Darth Vader helmet cannot be replaced easily, you have problems. Otherwise....
When dealing with $$$ you get to "fix" things, govment outfits will whine amd moan and.... The USAF criteria for FMC is harsh, and if you can get the thing airborne without some pissant backup system working or even something like the "here I am" doofer the F-35 uses when not "cloaked", they will launch the things. Been there, done that, and in combat with two different jets.
The "mission capable" criteria is based on a pure world, the contractual specifications of all the systems and worst case mission requirement. In the "real" world, you fight with what you have. Nevertheless, I saw our very first operational F-16 unit back in 1981 mobilize and launch all of their aircraft within 24 hours to pass their first readiness inspection. At kick off we had about 20 of the jets called "operational", and even when all the squad launched we had one or two with minor gripes. BFD. Could they fight? Yep. Did every single pissant thing work to advertised capability? Nope.
About the only plane I flew in combat that had damned near everything working like advertised was the Dragonfly. My recollection is we ran over 50 sorties a day with the FMC number at maybe 80% or so of our 24 platforms.
The way you find out what the plane will do is a 24 hour exercise starting with no notice versus the expected and unexpected threat. No notice. And then see what the unit can do with available kits and boxes and .... The planes since the Viper have many boxes for the avionics and engine electronic fuel controls that can be replaced easily.
Oh well, the naysayers can naysay. The doggone F-35 is turning out better than many of we old farts thot, and reminds me of the mid-nineties when we had to ask the outfit that hired us what "email" was, heh heh.
...Gums sends..
just another jocky
18th Feb 2021, 17:09
If one would make them unmanned the cost/dangers of not being stealthy would not matter so much and one could fully exploit their high g maneuvering potential for missile avoidance and such.
These days, if yr avoiding missiles, you've already lost.
Easy Street
18th Feb 2021, 19:12
Cynicism alert... with both of the European fighter programmes at critical stages of gestation, might this be expert trolling by the US, sowing enough doubt over LO requirements and export potential to make governments limit their commitment at the very point when a substantial investment would ensure viability? :cool:
https://twitter.com/FTusa284/status/1362373091209453570?s=20
ex-fast-jets
19th Feb 2021, 16:39
I am not against progress, but........
If it isn't broken, don't fix it........
The F-15 EX is progress - great......
I know nothing about the F-35 - but it doesn't look right......
The F-16 looks right - and when I flew it, I loved it.......
If an updated F-16 at the relatively low cost it attracts can be improved on what it already is, then it gets my vote.......
Of course, my vote is worth nothing............!!
Salute!
I am with you ex-fast, and I was skepticsl of the F-35 when they started to have problems with the HUD and then the ALIS logistics thing, but then the insiders started to give clues.
I talked with a pilot or two and some maintenance folks. The wrenchbenders thot ALIS was a POS, but not worse than what they dealt with in legasy planes. They thot it was as easy or better to replace LRU boxes but had to be careful due to coatings and seams and...
The pilots thot it was gonna be great and they had not even exploited the data transfer capabilities with other players.
I would rather have the USAF buy a stripped down Viper for a low end platform that could still bomb and fight A2A with most potential adversaries, especially if Vipers have the new 'winder. The old architecture can handle anything built to 1760 standards, so no problem there. So maybe enhance the comm and datalink, but if you want all the bells and whistles, go with one of the later blocks.
My feeling is there are "pressures" on the new CSAF from some folks that are not all in for the F-35 or think they can save money to use for other purposes/dreams.
..Gums sends..
P.S. Part of the press from the U.S. CSAF claimed that a low-end tactical plane could save 1.9 trillion $$$ over ten years. That is really funnny looking at the "covid relief" $$$ last year and the new proposal. LMAO.
Lima Juliet
20th Feb 2021, 12:46
Maybe time for BAe to dust off Tornado 2000 then... :}
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x600/2fff5ed4_0874_4f6d_bd7c_5773e97cb39c_e35e0306ab64a9418258937 3e6b6791ff4490209.gif
LateArmLive
21st Feb 2021, 00:59
[QUOTE=Lima Juliet;10994119]Maybe time for BAe to dust off Tornado 2000 then... :}
Great idea, as long as they replace the wings, fuselage and engines too! And remove the backseat...
Salute!
c'mon, Late Arm....
Fight fair! And don't forget the AESA radar and ......
...Gums sends...
typerated
21st Feb 2021, 01:59
I think he means this?
https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/UiYdAd-0t6zieVyjjtWBzj9GEcU=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/VGTS7NMJAVGYXL443K7H2T3C4I.jpg
tdracer
21st Feb 2021, 02:29
The chance that the USAF could source a new designed F-16 replacement that costs less than an F35A is precisely zero. By the time the USAF got through with everyone's wish list, the resultant aircraft would be twice the size of the F-16 and cost four times as much.
Heck, it was a bit of a miracle that the F-16 made it - and even it ended up nearly twice the size and weight of the original concept.
My experience on the 767-2C/KC-46 was quite the eye-opener. While Boeing certainly shoulders much of the blame for that fiasco, the contribution of the USAF brass was far from insignificant. We started out with a 767 - which was a fine, very successful aircraft - and the USAF seemed intent on totally mucking that up. Trying to explain to anyone in the USAF that a requirement was simply non-sensical - adding great complexity and cost for zero value added - was an exercise in futility.
Remember that cartoon of a camel being a horse designed by committee? Who ever came up with that had probably dealt with the USAF...
Asturias56
21st Feb 2021, 07:28
Not surprising - if you're appointed to a Committee or a Task Force to bring a new aircraft in to service how many points will you get for saying "its fine- we'll take it exactly as is..." - ZERO whereas you can load on something for every eventuality safe in the knowledge that you'll be long gone by the time the consequences are clear
It's not just the USAF - the Royal Navy has a distinguished record in doing the same
Evalu8ter
21st Feb 2021, 11:56
Best VFM, perhaps, would be a weaponised T-7 Red Hawk. Cheap as chips compared to a clean sheet design, plus no additional support / airworthiness chain to fund and by 2030 most of your pilots are already qualified on it, so as a first tour, or if an urgent need arose to bolster the front line, it would help get bums in cockpits quickly. Make it ‘more SAAB (ie Gripen) and ‘less Boeing’ and it could be an effective real ‘Gen 5 minus’ as opposed to the real Gen 5 / Gen 6 it is designed to prepare crews for. Probably not enough ‘pork’ for the current USAF Brass to get their noses into post retirement I guess......
The B Word
21st Feb 2021, 15:46
[QUOTE=Lima Juliet;10994119]Maybe time for BAe to dust off Tornado 2000 then... :}
Great idea, as long as they replace the wings, fuselage and engines too! And remove the backseat...
Why would they remove the Tornado’s best capability and reduce the IQ of those operating the aircraft by 90%? :confused:
Salute!
Gotta tellya, that a "clean sheet design" mentioned by the new administration CSAF likely has to do with those critters that are many - "poly" and then suck blood - "ticks". Been there, done that, For those not familiar with U.S. procurement, I shall review.....
We go from from looking at a potential or existing threat, and then initial "statement of need" to "operational requirement" to "request for proposal" to "proposal year" to "contract award" to "design review 1" then "design review x" then "new requirement/spec" then "prototype testing" and ...... In short, a career for a few folks both in USAF and contractors and the civil service butchers, bakers, clerks and even some engineers ( we call them engineers for life).
As Tdracer stated, we are talking years and $$$ and possibly some good seats at the opera or restaurant for the aforementioned critters. And IMHO the new tanker debacle was purely a result of those critters after the Airbus folks won the contract and a critter from the state of Washington exerted some pressure leading to a new contract for big B. One "good" thing about the Boeing plane was we could replace the human boom op posiiton with a cosmic 3d camera and yet still have a human operating the boom and the associated pay, health care and maybe retirement $$$ down the road. What did we gain/save? Nothing. I would hook up with a complete robot system if still flying.
90% of the money for a new Block 30 Viper has been spent, logistics path is here now, and the unit production cost would be stupid low, maybe lower than one of the proposed "light attack" systems.
I smell serious influence and policy decisions by the critters I described.
.. Gums opines...
Asturias56
22nd Feb 2021, 07:47
100% correct Gums
henra
22nd Feb 2021, 09:05
Not surprising - if you're appointed to a Committee or a Task Force to bring a new aircraft in to service how many points will you get for saying "its fine- we'll take it exactly as is..." - ZERO whereas you can load on something for every eventuality safe in the knowledge that you'll be long gone by the time the consequences are clear
It's not just the USAF - the Royal Navy has a distinguished record in doing the same
In this category the World's Benchmark undoubtedly has to be the German Armed Forces Procurement. No one comes close to them in inflating requirements to the point of derailing every project. If it's not at least Gold- plated it is not considered adequate.
Regarding a cheaper and at the same time equally performing platform than an F-16: WTF?! How on Earth should that work?! And that as a new clean sheet development with 202x Salaries for the designers. Development costs have yet to be written off, which is long finished for the F-16. New revolutionary aerodynamic findings haven't been made since the F-16, it is still top notch in that department. It will get an AESA Radar soon. What exactly is it that it can't do that a new cheap design is intended to do???
To whome ever buys this story: Please give me your contact data, so I can offer you my used car.
Easy Street
22nd Feb 2021, 09:18
It all comes down to industrial strategy, which some see as verging on communism but proves its worth when you suddenly need to design and quickly ramp up production of something critical to national security, perhaps a vaccine for an emerging disease or perhaps a combat aircraft. Vaccine designers get to practice on the flu every year, and aircraft designers get to do weapons integration and occasional upgrade work, but the opportunity to work from a clean sheet comes around perhaps once in a career. The decision facing national security policy makers (ie broader than just Defence departments) is whether to keep the associated skills and experience alive: paying designers' salaries is precisely the point. This comes around every 30 years or so for the UK and France with their single companies but more often in the US given its intent to maintain domestic competition. To that extent the decision is a strategic one, almost unrelated to the tactical requirements of the day, and above the pay grade of generals or even Defence secretaries.
henra
22nd Feb 2021, 09:58
It all comes down to industrial strategy, which some see as verging on communism but proves its worth when you suddenly need to design and quickly ramp up production of something critical to national security, perhaps a vaccine for an emerging disease or perhaps a combat aircraft. Vaccine designers get to practice on the flu every year, and aircraft designers get to do weapons integration and occasional upgrade work, but the opportunity to work from a clean sheet comes around perhaps once in a career. The decision facing national security policy makers (ie broader than just Defence departments) is whether to keep the associated skills and experience alive: paying designers' salaries is precisely the point.
I do understand your general point. But why would you put them on a project that should deliver a 'bog standard' design, where copying of existing solutions would be the most viable approach.(If I were handed that task I would simply take the F- 16 design, at most add a few Cubic feet for a bit more fuel and electronic gadgets, maybe a few square inch more wing or even just clean up a few things that were learned during the last 40 years and be done with it) when at the same time designers are working on NGAD and stuff like that?
The concept could be, as I believe has been mentioned previously, rapid development using computerised CADCAM and aerodynamics to design a production model straight off the jigs rather than going through prototyping then redesigning fir production etc which can take decades.
Rather the company designs and sells their entire aircraft/systems design and the DoD orders one or two squadrons worth, as they used to in the 1950s as jet designs proliferated. You end up with multiple different types - but they can be specialised for roles and scrapped if they don’t work out. If one proves a major success you can order more.
It keeps design teams together and drives innovation, rather than being tied up in decades of negotiations and incremental changes, ending up with aircraft entering service with systems already decades behind modern design ( processors, memory, sensors etc).
And who knows what is already flying out there as a black programme. (And of course the reports that the B-21 programme is proceeding so fast and well is because they already had a black UAV design from which it grew)
chopper2004
22nd Feb 2021, 10:33
Best VFM, perhaps, would be a weaponised T-7 Red Hawk. Cheap as chips compared to a clean sheet design, plus no additional support / airworthiness chain to fund and by 2030 most of your pilots are already qualified on it, so as a first tour, or if an urgent need arose to bolster the front line, it would help get bums in cockpits quickly. Make it ‘more SAAB (ie Gripen) and ‘less Boeing’ and it could be an effective real ‘Gen 5 minus’ as opposed to the real Gen 5 / Gen 6 it is designed to prepare crews for. Probably not enough ‘pork’ for the current USAF Brass to get their noses into post retirement I guess......
That’s a good point chap, as it reminds me of this article stating T-7 offered to likes of Serbia as a supplement light Attack a/c Trainer
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35224/australia-serbia-emerge-as-first-potential-t-7a-red-hawk-jet-trainer-export-customers
Sometimes in engineering , the KISS principle should be the answer to complex requirements. Slightly digressing into my rotary wing industry, I’ve spoken to many a peep at Heli Expo stating that all they want for the next helicopter is old school and not something too high tech with all bells whistling to do the job.
By the time this F-16 replacement comes to fruition. It will be entering its 6th decade of service lol and the F-15 will be on Par with the Buff.
Gripen seems to be getting a lot of attention especially with the CF-188 replacement, wonder if it has a good fighting chance. Here’s the thing if say likes of Boeing teams up with Saab again then perhaps an Americanized Gripen could work out.
cheers
henra
22nd Feb 2021, 10:45
The concept could be, as I believe has been mentioned previously, rapid development using computerised CADCAM and aerodynamics to design a production model straight off the jigs rather than going through prototyping then redesigning fir production etc which can take decades.
Will CAD/CAM solve the Software/Avionics/Optronics development issues that plague today's Aircraft programmes 10x more than the mechanical design of the aircraft?
Henra,
Theyre already flying one prototype with an open architecture - who knows if it is an F-16+ aircraft as opposed to an F-22 replacement?
Regardless, the open architecture avionics and mission software might well port straight across.
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/
Not_a_boffin
22nd Feb 2021, 13:33
It's not just the USAF - the Royal Navy has a distinguished record in doing the same
Got any credible supporting examples for that? Or is it just your usual blether?
Not_a_boffin
22nd Feb 2021, 13:43
It all comes down to industrial strategy, which some see as verging on communism but proves its worth when you suddenly need to design and quickly ramp up production of something critical to national security, perhaps a vaccine for an emerging disease or perhaps a combat aircraft. Vaccine designers get to practice on the flu every year, and aircraft designers get to do weapons integration and occasional upgrade work, but the opportunity to work from a clean sheet comes around perhaps once in a career. The decision facing national security policy makers (ie broader than just Defence departments) is whether to keep the associated skills and experience alive: paying designers' salaries is precisely the point. This comes around every 30 years or so for the UK and France with their single companies but more often in the US given its intent to maintain domestic competition. To that extent the decision is a strategic one, almost unrelated to the tactical requirements of the day, and above the pay grade of generals or even Defence secretaries.
This.
When your "national capability" contracts to (literally) a handful of people who know the "why" behind a design decision / configuration (as opposed to the "how" or "what") you're in trouble. The "why" is very different to the "what" and the "how" - and changes over time. Why you did something a certain way twenty years ago, may very well not be relevant now or in the future. Which is why copycatting leads eventually to atrophy and loss.
Asturias56
22nd Feb 2021, 14:44
"The concept could be, as I believe has been mentioned previously, rapid development using computerised CADCAM and aerodynamics to design a production model straight off the jigs rather than going through prototyping then redesigning fir production etc which can take decades."
Oh no - not that again......... every 20 years the USAF decides to build in volume off the drawing board and it never turns out well - a prototype is a good idea. The point is that "designing for production" is better than building it wrong to start with
Oh no - not that again......... every 20 years the USAF decides to build in volume
The error there is the phrase “in volume”. The concept being, as I understand it, to keep design teams together by building/buying small production runs.
You might end up with fleets of around 100 airframes - but that’s where the USAF and USN seem to have ended up with the F-22 and F-35C anyway.
It’s what was proposed just over a year ago* - and what General Brown seems to have bought into....
The idea for a clean-sheet 4.5th-generation aircraft was inspired by the digital engineering work that allowed Boeing to design the T-7A advanced jet trainer in a few years and the work that also allowed the service’s top-secret Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform to be designed and test flown in a matter of years, says Brown.
“If we’re going to do software defined, and we have the capability to do something even more capable for cheaper and faster, why not?” he says. “That’s what we’ve learned with our e-series approach with the T-7, and, what we learned with the NGAD. So, the question is: What is the son of NGAD?”
* https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29875/heres-the-air-forces-questionably-ambitious-plan-to-develop-new-fighters-in-five-years
Here's The Air Force's Questionably Ambitious Plan To Develop New Fighters In Five Years
Asturias56
23rd Feb 2021, 07:14
The T-7 has been underdevelopment for over 6 years - hardly "quick"
Salute!
Good point, Astur
a prototype is a good idea. The point is that "designing for production" is better than building it wrong to start with
You have just nailed the original Viper contract, the so-called "sale of the century". Two prototypes, great performance, but the folks at the JTF that were in our first squadron ( 16th TFTS) and at HQ claimed the GD Viper was gonna be easier to produce en masse. If you compare the YF-16 with the FSD version, F-16A, the biggest modification was not aerodynamic or related to the flight control system, but avionics for the A2A and A2G missions and it was primarily the radar.
By golly, GD was cranking out about 3/4 of a squadron each month in 1980. Maybe a whole squadron of the things. We were flying down to Ft Worth 2 or 3 times a week to pick up new ones, and MacDill was doing the same from Tampa. So you do the math.
We shall see.
..Gums sends...
Coochycool
24th Feb 2021, 03:01
Howzabout just dusting off the YF-23?
And if somebody wants to mess around with it to appease current politico/industrial goals, then let them give it the mid-life update it woulda been getting now....if it had been built back then when it shoulda been.
Awaiting incoming.....
Cooch
Howzabout just dusting off the YF-23?
Making a guess, as a non-professional....
Because it was only ever a prototype and never went through EMD and was built in 1990 so the team which designed it would now be in their 60-70s. The engine it was built around no longer exists, nor the electronics or software which wasn’t open architecture.
The stealth technology was the same costly first generation type as used in the F-22 which would need to be replaced, which would lead to a complete airframe and shut line redesign. (e.g. 3D laser sintering of metals such as titanium will allow major weight saving and redesign of structural,elements - which change stress loads leading to further changes etc etc)
All the above, plus incorporating modern composite materials would almost undoubtedly make it more expensive and lengthy than starting with a clean sheet design, because you’d have to work out what you had before working out it could be modified into what you want rather than just starting anew.
Salute!
Great discussion but we must look at the "contribution" of the critters I described a few posts back.
I look around for entities across the globe that have the ability to exert force all around the world and not for conquest. Still looking for more than one. Maybe a few that could use military instruments of policy for their basic survival or way of life. But not on a global stage.
The U.S. foreign policy is now going thru a change, so we must watch and try to understand. The threat to the policy the new guys wish to implement and even the U.S. homeland security itself, have to be considered.
Gonna be interesting next two years.
..Gums sends...
dagenham
25th Feb 2021, 15:12
Gums
As you have been around since pontious was a pilot, could i ask you how the F16 and F15 where viewed back in the day? was there a group back then that thought the answer was new F4s
I only ask, as do we see the F16 airframe as the ultimate airframe and is there nothing more we can get from aerodynamics, propulsion as we well as electronics?
very interested in your sage views
t43562
25th Feb 2021, 16:08
Will CAD/CAM solve the Software/Avionics/Optronics development issues that plague today's Aircraft programmes 10x more than the mechanical design of the aircraft?
If it follows other industries then there will be a point where the available computing power will allow a kind of very generalised system to be developed which it will be possible to "port" from one aircraft to the next. Then you will not really ever be writing new software but developing a "flight system" that will be able to run on every aircraft you own down to drones. A single improvement for one aircraft will potentially help all of them.
All the functions that need to be certified in some way will be split off so that their slower pace of evolution doesn't hold the rest back.
Essentially it will have to be made cheaper by not actually writing new software for every aircraft but continuously evolving a software platform and using it everywhere.
steamchicken
25th Feb 2021, 17:27
I think this is what the US is trying to achieve with the "digital engineering" stuff around the B-21 and the rumoured demonstrator of the new fighter.
You mean like MOSA?
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/mosa-fvls-invisible-digital-backbone/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235078670_Achieving_AFRL_Universal_FADEC_Vision_With_Open_Ar chitecture_Addressing_Capability_and_Obsolescence_for_Milita ry_and_Commercial_Applications_Preprint
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16722050/pentagon-reinforces-mandate-for-electronics-design-opensystems-standards-like-sosa-face-and-victory
https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/sensors/sensor-open-systems-architecture-sosa-enabling-the-next-generation-of-flexible-and-adaptable-radar-systems
Salute!
@dagenham
I was there at the beginning of the F-14, A-10, F-15, but flying mudbeaters - A-7D. I was a big proponent of the F-15, and there was no doubt USAF needed a new "general purpose" fighter other than the F-4 to replace the F-100 and F-105, plus support the F-15. The A-7D was a bomb truck, and very good one. My fellow Sluf drivers and I resisted the A-10 as far as replaceing the A-7D, but the thing was gonna be great in the VietNam scenario. So a few wings would be great, but we all gave it low chances of surviving two days in the Eastern Europe Fulda Gap scenario.
In the mid 70's nobody wanted an upgraded F-4!!! We had the idea of the hi-lo mix and many light weight fighters. The LWF program resulted in the sale of the century, and that little rascal turned out to be a great air-to-mud plane, with an inherent defensive capability.
If we want a new "low end" or "mid" capability, I do not see how you could beat a block30 Viper with an AESA radar and new comm gear to coordinate with others. No new motor or anything else. Might have to have a new fire control 'puter to accept the F-35 code, but the basic Viper avionics architecture was the easiest to add new stuff from the time it showed up.
...Gums sends..
Jackonicko
28th Feb 2021, 16:15
Who'd have guessed that Saab and Boeing would be able to design and build a production ready, new, clean sheet of paper trainer design that met all the KPPs and requirements, and was able to beat the existing, fully amortised T-50 and M-346 on both price and costs.
And to do so by a handsome margin.
That's what digital model based design does for you.
Then you add truly modular and open architectures, so that you can port across existing mission systems, and can upgrade software and hardware in a truly agile manner, avoiding the obsolescence issues that already plague the F-35, for example.
And that's how a clean sheet of paper new design could be better AND cheaper than friend Gums'
"Block30 Viper with an AESA radar and new comm gear"
Asturias 56 said:
"Oh no - not that again......... every 20 years the USAF decides to build in volume off the drawing board and it never turns out well - a prototype is a good idea. The point is that "designing for production" is better than building it wrong to start with."
That's true of the old way of doing things, it's plainly less true today.
As soon as you start thinking that tinkering with F-16s is the answer, you're just demonstrating that you don't 'get it'.
Salute!
Over on the" F-16 dot net" forums related to the F-35, there's a lotta discussion about the issue, and as with this forum it is very country-oriented. However, you folks that dominate here are welcome to contribute there, hmmmmm.
Where various countries and/or "pacts" go is gonna be interesting. We are not back to the 70's and 80's in terms of technology nor several regional alliances with their interests at heart. We are in the assymetric warfare scenarios as we were when I flew in 'nam. So the planners are trying to balance the never-ending pissant conflicts with the hopefully remote possibility of conflict among peers. The latter is what the F-35 and maybe a supplemental platform is concerned with.
I flew during the operational evalution an aircraft at the late part of the exercise, and it was in combat.
The thing was designed for the host nation to use/defend itself. Nevertheless, the thing was so damned good at CAS and in the low threat environment that USAF kept it there until the "first end of the war" late 1972.
I shall refuse to comment in public about the two countries' politics and USAF use of the plane other than CAS and other "direct" support missions of the ground forces of both countries plus some folks from OZ and RoK units
.No doubt we must plan ahead, but there is no quick fix in less than 2 or 3 years other than more Vipers to act as bomb trucks and a few A2A scenarios depending on the theater and expected threats, both in the air and the ground air defense system. I see the F-35 as the ultimate Weasel system, so let the Vipers bomb and sweep and such. The Mudhens ( aka F-15E) are doing well as penetrators and such, now, but the F-35 will do as well or better in a very short time.
Gotta go, but a great thread as long as "mods" let it go.
...Gums opines...
Salute!
Make no mistake, from this old fighter pilot, there is a niche for something between the A-10 and the F-35. As of now, the Viper and maybe the Mudhen fill the gap.
If a country is willing to spend the $$$ or pounds or rubles or....., and start from scratch and then field the critter in 6 or 7 years, minimum, I say go for it. OTOH,
That's what digital model based design does for you.
Then you add truly modular and open architectures, so that you can port across existing mission systems, and can upgrade software and hardware in a truly agile manner, avoiding the obsolescence issues that already plague the F-35, for example.
The F-16 had a multiplex bus avionics design that put the F-14, F-15, A-10, F-4, F-111 and F-18 to shame. If your weapon or gizmo could talk on the 1553 bus following the NATO protocol for 1760 wepons and basic mux bus protocol, then you could plug stuff in day and night. The other ones I mentioned required dedicated boxes and unique electrical and "logical" (read "computer") interfaces that required hardware and several systems' software modifications. Go see how the F-18 launched a HARM or Harpoon. The Viper got the Slammer first due to its "open" archecture all the way back to late 70's. The Norwegian Penguin required a fire control computer and maybe some SMS code, but the thing basically plugged in on a store station. The HARM was best designed and implemented for the F-18, and required special boxes in the plane. DItto for the Harpoon. As my job was to integrate new wepons on old planes and old weapons on new planes, I speak from experience in these matters.
So I don't buy the cosmic computer model design stuff as panacea. Sure, helps in the mechanical form, fit, function, but what I saw was software failures in basic design and system design that could not be corrected sitting in front of a screen and "tinkering" with this module or the other. Further, the sfwe folks fought ADA and other efforts/standards that alowed straightforward plug and play because they had their "special" code or interface and did not like the "standard" demanded by several NATO and U.S. application standards.
A good original design that considers downstream requirements is not all that hard if you have both good systems engineers, armament system gurus and demand the software folks get away from the keyboards and quit "hacking".
/rant off
..Gums...
SLXOwft
24th Jun 2022, 19:11
Old news (28 February 2022, widely reported at the time in the industry press but I don't think mentioned here), I'm slightly amused the USAF is following the ANG in upgrading Vipers with AESA. 608 block 40 and 50 airframes will receive in addtion to AN/APG-83 and Link 16 a further 20 mods. UK still hasn't got AESA in it's no.1 AD aircraft :ugh:.
Looks like the only replacement for a F-16 maybe an upgraded F-16 after all.
https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/news/article-display/article/2948183/f-16-fleet-undergoing-largest-modification-work-in-history/
'A number of the modifications have already started and will continue over several years. Overall, PoBIT* involves six major commands, more than 18 bases, multiple companies, and contracts totaling approximately $6.3 billion'
Brian Brackens, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Public Affairs
*Post Block Integration Team
A reflection of the hole that the USAF/ANG is in with the cost of replacement aircraft.
The average age of the F-16 fleet is now 30 years. The average age of the F-15C fleet is now 38 years.
The replacement F-15EX buy has cut and capped at 80, now earmarked to carry the new HACM (echoing the M31 and Kinzhal) with the Sec of State for the AF informing Congress in April that, as airframe life runs, the remains F-15C units will either be replaced by unmanned aircraft - or not at all.