The F-22 is beautiful and efficient....................
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.
I have worked on the industrial side of the military/industrial complex for about 33 years. EVERY new weapon is promised to replace every old weapon of similar type in an effort to get it funded. The new weapon can’t just be an better or updated item that will replace some narrowly defined device. To get it funded, it has to be a super weapon that will do away with the need for all other weapons in that class. Like Charlie Brown and Lucy’s football stunt, Congress falls for this line every time. The littoral combat ships are a good example. They were very expensive, and, as it turns out, a total waste of resources. But to get them funded, the navy promised that they would do away with the need for a huge swath of other equipment as they would do the job better and cheaper. My project ended up canceled because of this as the relatively small helicopter on the littoral combat ships could not tow our sensor, regardless of what the navy had promised. They promised that if this ship was funded it would do away with the need for the much larger helicopter that was actually required to tow our probe. The claim was ridiculous on its face, but Congressmen are not technically inclined and accepted the navy’s assertions.
Stealth is great. But you hardly need stealth for the majority of AF missions. There will always be a need for agile, fast brawlers and slow flying, heavily armed ground defense planes. You don’t need to spend a few hundred million per copy for those missions. And, you increase the danger to all that investment by using it in an environment that is not ideal for it. (Evidence the fact that the AF is trying mightily to get a few propeller driven planes funded for low intensity conflicts. So far, because the planes do not promise enough, they haven’t bought many.)
To my way of thinking, this new aircraft is the military industrial complex looking for a new money pit project. Take the existing airframe of the F-16 and gut it. New engine, add an electronics package to handle new and future weapon systems. Back up the fly by wire system with manual controls and a few critical analog gauges to augment digital screen.
I had the fun of watching a Navy F-16 (Top Gun) and a Adversary A-4 go at it near NAS Fallon. I nearly crapped my pants when I saw that F-16 turn inside the A-4. Nothing, so I thought could beat an A-4 in a turn. From the ground the aircraft looked to be turn on their wingtips like tops. Ironically both aircraft use a modified delta wing configuration. In fairness to my Skyhawks, the F-16 is purposefully built for 9gs and was fly by wire. The Skyhawk used cables and hydraulics, and we had to replace a lot of rivets that day😀. We have the right airframe, so use it. Short term supposedly that is more expensive than designing a new aircraft, long term it is cheaper, you already have the manufacturing capability to build new airframes. The Air Force has pilots, technicians and ground support equipment ready to go.
Old school is the best school.........................
Oh, brother, the last thing we need is for the code to be BLM or queered up. And generally speaking, universities only have experience in software with thousands of lines of code, not millions.
November Sierra Sierra.
That definitely looks “new and improved”!
China gets much more out of their expenditures.
Labor and healthcare is a fraction of their costs as opposed to the US and development is nearly free.
Personally I think that the F16 is one of the best warplanes the world has ever seen. It’s also one of the coolest looking. I remember back in 1980 when I was in tech school at Sheppard there was a poster of several jets and their turning radius. And the F16 had the best of them all.
Last year the Air Force was saying that it was planning to replace the F-22’s in 10 years.
I thought this was about the stupidest thing I ever heard. So because our F-35 is so high tech and delicate you will only practice in simulators. When the need arises for you to actually fly, you will practice in a T-38. Maybe once a month we will let you takeoff and land an actual F-35. Is that what he meant, or did I misunderstand him?
I believe he just made a really strong case for building drone fighters and getting rid of pilots.
The F-22 is beautiful and efficient....................
Climate change will kill us all before then..............
I love the Raptor
The problem with bringing back any legacy system is supply. There are literally thousands of parts in something like an airplane. Even if you have all the technical specifications, the vast majority of those parts are no longer available and the companies that made them no longer exist. The tooling to make specialized parts has likely been long thrown away, destroyed or lost. (I have been involved in reverse engineering legacy systems and, mostly, they have to be redesigned and that is not cheap.)
Planes built today are designed for the add-on systems they will carry, which is much cheaper than trying to retrofit those sensors and weapons into a spot that was not designed for them. Also, piston planes require a type of gasoline that is forbidden by the EPA. (Not to mention a host of other issues that make piston engines more problematic than the far superior turbine engines that replaced them.)
Counting for cost of living we still spend twice as much as China and Russia, respectively. We do have a much larger global military presence than either of those countries which could make up the difference in spending.
Sorry. Can’t say I support the patriot-purged, commie-
led military. No toys for you. Slash the budget and defund.
____________________________________________________
Amen! There are more walls and troops guarding the Degenocrat Party in Washington than guarding our borders. The days if simping for our new “Wesley Clark”-led military need to come to an end.
I worked on the NFWS and VF-126 F-16Ns back in the late 80s. The Navy pilots LOVED flying the F-16.
However, they nearly tore the wings off in a a few years. I think they only had them for 6-7 years.
The Navy are now flying a some older A models (maybe with some mods) at Fallon.
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.