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/...ds-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), 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, 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.”.....

" 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?

Whole Point
 

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.

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...

yeah but you might get more than 60% of them airborne at any one time Gums..................

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..

These days, if yr avoiding missiles, you've already lost.

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:

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.

Maybe time for BAe to dust off Tornado 2000 then... :}

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1ff4490209.gif

[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...

I think he means this?

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/Ui...3K7H2T3C4I.jpg

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...

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

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......

[QUOTE=LateArmLive;10994446]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...

100% correct Gums

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.

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.

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)

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-zon...port-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

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...e-fighter-jet/

Got any credible supporting examples for that? Or is it just your usual blether?

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.

"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

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-zon...-in-five-years

Here's The Air Force's Questionably Ambitious Plan To Develop New Fighters In Five Years

The T-7 has been underdevelopment for over 6 years - hardly "quick"

Salute!

Good point, Astur
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...

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

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...

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