Posted on 02/26/2021 5:57:41 AM PST by Red Badger
Going back to the drawing board again could see the ageing F-16’s replaced in 2040, once they’re 60 years old. The United States Air Force announced the need for a new multi-use fighter jet to replace its aging F-16 fleet, while stressing that it would not feature the same high-price tag and technological prowess of the F-35.
The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth generation aircraft that would replace the F-16.
Instead, Air Force Chief Brown suggested they would develop a “fifth-generation-minus” fighter jet.
Nearly twenty years ago, the USAF set out to develop a replacement to the F-16’s successor, but the program only continued to grow prohibitively expensive as more cutting edge technology was poured into it. When it grew too expensive, other nations were brought in as partners to offset the runaway costs.
In an ironic twist, the F-35 has become the kind of dilemma it was initially supposed to resolve. Now, a new fighter jet is needed to meet the needs of the US Air Force.
Running the F-35 for 66 years is expected to cost $1.182 trillion, on top of its already hefty development cost of $397.8 billion. The F-35 costs slightly less than $100 million per plane. But cost is the least of its concerns.
Bugs and flaws
In spite of its advanced technology and cutting-edge capabilities, the latest stealth fighter suffers from structural flaws and slew of challenges.
Most recent among them is a structural engine flaw and shortage in its production.
The F-35’s engine problem is partly based in not being able to deliver them for maintenance as fast as needed, in addition to a problem with the heat coating on its rotor blades which shortens engine lifespan considerably.
Defense News described it as a “serious readiness problem”, suggesting that as soon as 2022, nearly 5 to 6 per ent of the F-35 fleet could be effectively grounded as it waits for engine replacements.
Another challenge is the plane’s software. Most modern fighter jets have between 1 to 2 million lines of code in their software. The F-35 averages 8 million lines of code in its software, and it’s suffering from a bug problem.
To fix this, the US Department of Defense is asking three American universities to help figure it out.
The fighter jet also suffers from a slightly embarrassing touchscreen problem. After making the switch from hard flipped switches to touch screens, pilots report that unlike a physical switch that you’re confident has been activated, touch screens in the plane don’t work 20 percent of the time says one F-35 pilot.
Aging fleet, modern enemies
Amid all these challenges, To justify his decision, Air Force Chief Brown compared the F-35 to a Ferrari.
“You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ fighter, we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight,” he said in a press conference on February 17.
In a nutshell, Brown wants to limit how often the F-35 is being used, as then develop a less advanced replacement.
The current fleet of F-16’s are old. Even the newest variants among them were bought in 2001. To replace the thousand F-16’s the USAF uses as a workhorse fighter jet will be a tall order. Ordering more F-16’s isn’t an option either, if only because they’re falling behind the technological curve.
Russia is already fielding its considerably cheaper Sukhoi-57 5th generation fighter jet. While it does not boast the technological prowess of the F-35, there’s considerable doubt that the F-35 could stand up to the Su-57 in a one-on-one dogfight.
This is mainly given the F-35 excels in fighting from a distance. China is also fielding it’s twin-seater J-20 fighter jet, which promises considerable offensive capabilities.
In essence, the F-35 was designed to have ultimate technological superiority. But doing too much means compromises in design.
To adapt to different demands, the F-35 has multiple, costly versions. Lockheed Martin provides a regular version suited to land operations, one specifically designed for aircraft carrier take-off, a smaller naval variant, not to mention a vertical take-off variant.
But having so many versions of the F-35 leads to a much more complex design. Resolving issues in one variant, doesn’t mean they’re resolved in the rest.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing to prevent the next fifth generation ‘minus’ plane from encountering the same challenges that brought the F-35 to its current predicament.
More dangerously, developing a new jet could take decades. Two decades by the F-35’s benchmark. By then, the F-16’s will be nearly 60 years old.
The Harrier never could fulfill its mission of operating in a combat environment in a forward area because it simply could not land in the middle of nowhere near a FOB or at the time an LP/OP and had to fly from an airfield no different than any standard jet. It had to take off and land like the zoomers you dislike because if it did not it could not carry a large enough payload to support ground forces.
Unlike you I was in the Corps and working in NAVAIR during the debate to keep Harriers or stick with legacy airframes until the F-18 was operational. Obviously you did not read the link I sent you. Either you are just looking for an argument or you are just a dumbass.
In the Bloggers & Personal forum, on a thread titled US admits F-35 failed to replace F-16 as planned, needs new fighter jet, OldGoatCPO wrote:
As Sailor not a wannabe, no Navy Ships is a FOB as no Navy ship is a “base.” Maybe in some war video game you played but not in the real Navy. Duhh!
***Take a fricken writing class. Your sentences do not make sense.
The Harrier never could fulfill its mission of operating in a combat environment in a forward area because it simply could not land in the middle of nowhere near a FOB or at the time an LP/OP and had to fly from an airfield no different than any standard jet.
***Complete bullshiite. A FOB was established at Port San Carlos during the Falklands crisis and the Harrier operated exactly as it was designed to do, knocking off a full hour off the round trip to the carriers.
It had to take off and land like the zoomers you dislike because if it did not it could not carry a large enough payload to support ground forces.
***Dude. It did that because it COULD do that. It’s not like A4s could have taken off vertically once the runway was knocked out, like as happened in Kuwait in the next decade.
Unlike you I was in the Corps
***Playing the elitist card.
and working in NAVAIR during the debate to keep Harriers or stick with legacy airframes until the F-18 was operational.
***And lucky for us, there were no surprise attacks against airfields at the time such as happened to Kuwait GW1 or Egypt 1967.
Obviously you did not read the link I sent you. Either you are just looking for an argument or you are just a dumbass.
***Either you are just a dumb fighter jock or a dumbass.
I was there, in the 70s. I trained on the AV-8A and C, worked on every model of the A-4, except C, F-5 Tiger II, T-38 and BaE Hawk. I was an all systems QAR on OA-4Ms and an Avionics and Airframes QAR for Lockheed. I have worked for the militaries of three different nations including one during wartime. I was boots on the ground living the dream in Desert Storm. You are obviously just a wannabe.
I point you to air2air kill ratios in combat.
https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use/
That is my starting point. Fuq off with your wannabe insults.
Going in depth on those combat kill ratios, we find a platform that fulfilled its mission that no other aircraft could fulfill. Second only to the venerable F15 in air2air kills, and the F15 was DESIGNED as a fighter while the Harier was DESIGNED as an attack aircraft/bomber.
It makes sense for the air force to keep fulfilling those niches if it really does want a new zoomer. Revive the P.1154 supersonic Harrier project with modern avionics, modern materials engineering, modern power plants. DESIGN it as an air superiority assistance fighter, with niches in CAS that no one else can fill.
What is it with this wannabe reversion argumentation tactic?
Why can’t you guys simply argue apples-to-apples comparisons?
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4065396/posts?page=45#45
The Russian offensive was carried out in a very “classic” manner. Initially—as the Israelis had done in 1967—with the destruction on the ground of the air force in the very first hours.
***The Ukes should buy up every single Harrier on the market. They’re being phased out but they’re far cheaper than F35s. Less bureaucratic blocking paperwork as well.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3937861/posts?page=62#62
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1342535/posts?page=226#226
To: Blood of Tyrants
Fascinating. Thanks for pointing me to this.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4050755/posts?page=53#53
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/army-air-force-pitted-jet-fighters-attack-helicopters/
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
Blake Stilwell
Posted On June 18, 2019 16:05:50
The Army and Air Force once conducted an air-to-air combat experiment between jet fighters and attack helicopters. Called J-CATCH, or Joint Countering Attack Helicopter, it was not the first of its kind but the most conclusive using modern technology.
Final ‘Top Gun 2’ trailer will give you ‘Goose’ bumps
The results showed attack helicopters proved remarkably deadly when properly employed against fighter aircraft. And it wasn’t even close.
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
And for once, it’s not the F-35’s problem!
First conducted by the Army using MASH Sikorsky H-19s, airframes developed in the 40s and 50s, the modern J-CATCH test started in 1978, as the Soviet Union expanded their helicopter forces. Of special concern was the development of the Mil Mi-24 or Hind helicopter gunship. The four phase J-CATCH experiment started in earnest with the Army, Marines, and Air Force participating in simulations at NASA’s Langley labs.
The second phase was a field test, pitting three AH-1 Cobras and two OH-58 Scouts against a Red Team force of UH-1 Twin Hueys and CH-3E Sea King helicopters and developed many new helicopter air-to-air tactics and maneuvers designed to counter the Russian Hind.
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
The Russian Hind.
Phase Three is where the fighters came in. The Air Force chose F-4, A-7, A-10, and F-15 fighter aircraft to counter whatever the Army could muster in the exercise. The F-4 and F-15 were front line fighters with anti-air roles while the A-7 and A-10 had air-to-ground missions.
For two weeks, the helicopters trounced the fighter aircraft. The fighter pilots in the test runs sometimes didn’t even know they were under attack or destroyed until the exercise’s daily debriefing. The Army pilots were so good, they had to be ordered to follow Air Force procedures and tell their fixed-wing targets they were under attack over the radio. This only increased the kill ratio, which by the end of the exercise, had risen to 5-to-1 in favor of the helicopters.
Air Force fighters got wasted by Army attack helos in this combat experiment
Even the mighty BRRRRRT has its limits.
The fourth phase of the exercise saw the final outcome of the test: fighters should avoid helicopters at all costs, unless they have superiority of distance or altitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.