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.
Especially the idea that a low technology A-4 could beat them in ACM.Sure...if they are set up close to start. ;)
Using the existing frame, use lighter material where possible, then build in the new technology. You have a proven airframe for a low cost fighter that can be mass produced. The two biggest problem would be has GD disposed of the manufacturing equipment and the engine. You do not want to use old engines. Everything on an aircraft has high time. Anything currently associated with an F-16 has been through depot level repair more than once. All I am advocating is the use of an outstanding airframe. Capable of 9Gs and proven to be reliable. As for the A-1 as of 2017 the USAF was already testing various existing turbo prop aircraft to fill the A-1 role. Fuel type is not an issue. As far as I know the Navy and Air Force still use JP5 and JP4 which fueled those older aircraft. But again I am not advocating for bringing back the A-4M as it was when it retired. That would be nearly impossible as MacDonald Douglas sold the manufacturing equip as scrap years ago. Just pointing out we do not need to reinvent the wheel to fund the military industrial complex.
A Strike U instructor told me the rules of engagement were designed to force the F-14 pilots to get in close and maneuver against the more nimble A-4. He said truth be told in combat, the F-14 would probably take out an A-4 45 miles out. The A-4 would never even know he had been targeted until it was too late.
Gomer Brown was incompetently tapdancing that the F-35 was not to be used for "low-end" dogfights but only high-end dogfights, such as when the enemy sends out engraved dogfight invitations and Brown will RSVP whether he will send out the F-35 (with the pilot in dress blues) or some U.S.-borrowed British Sopwith Camel (with a tobacco-chewing pilot).
It's even possible that Brown has sent down orders that if an F-35 ever encounters a MIG 21 (or earlier) fighter plane in combat, the F-35 is to turn tail and run away so that an older, less fragile U.S. fighter plane can participate in the "low-end" dogfight.
Ferrari should sue the USAF for defamation in comparing their car to the F-35.
I love the irony of the conservative website followers, supposed experts in journalistic agenda, getting taken by the agenda driven journalists.
The Dems back in charge and the propaganda begins to cut funding for the F35.
The AF made it very clear that the reason they want some cheaper aircraft is that, “...you don’t take a Masserati out every day...you take it out on weekends... .
They don’t want to waste the flight hours o the F35 on doing basic air cap missions, anti insurgency, non peer missions. The F35 is for peer competitors...as in China.
Follow a journalist down the rat hole of helping the Dems to cut the F35, like they killed the F22. Ignorance is bliss.
In my experience companies and the military will always advocate for the most expensive option. For companies, the higher the cost the greater the profit. For the military, the greater the cost the greater the prestige and the promotions. There is no oversight.
It depends on the University. MIT and Carnegie Mellon, for example, are outstanding and both work the the DoD on grants and have for some time. MITs Lincoln Lab, for example, has been basically the Radar a radar tank for the DoD since the 50s.
The Air Force is bringing back the A1 Skyraider?
No. I was making the point that it would be nearly impossible to bring back an old piston plane, Below is an article that shows two of the possible propeller planes the AF would like to buy. As far as I know the AF wants about 500. But the likelihood is remote as they just aren’t sexy enough.
https://www.investors.com/news/air-force-light-attack-plane-f35-vs-f15/
The Harrier can turn inside the A4 AND the F16.
Air Force should just let the army take over close air support. They can keep the standoff support role. Let zoomers be zoomers, let warthogs be warthogs.
+1
Or the p47
F-35 formally known as F-111
The Barrier had a tighter turning radius than the F16, and beat it in NATO air exercises at better than 2:1 kill ratio.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1342535/posts?page=77#77
I hate autocorrect
Barrier should be Harrier.
“Air Force should just let the army take over close air support.”
Who does what role is a huge urination contest. No department is going to give up any role, regardless of how unsuited they may be for that role. It’s about funding and prestige.
I suppose the President could step in and make a command decision. But my guess is that implementation of that decision would be stalled or slow-walked until he was gone.
I suspect that a whole lot of things are wrong or would work better if they were reorganized or rearranged to different organizations. But every item on that list has constituents who profit from the status quo.
The Harrier has reached it’s best if used by date. The A and C were lawn darts no matter how well they turned. I never saw a Harrier Squadron come out and train ACM against us and I left in 89. We did train against Marines but just F-18s. They may have had Harriers practicing close air support with the A-6s, I did not work in that area. I am not sure the AV-8 were much of a air to air combat threat. I believe the Marine Corps through pure hubris and force of will made the Harrier work. But they never met the original goals and an A-6 was a far superior aircraft in close air support. A Harrier cannot carry a full combat load in VSTOL. In a traditional take off, it still cannot carry the same combat load proportionally as an A-4 and nowhere near the A-6. In hindsight, I wonder if the Corps had passed on the Harrier II and kept the active duty A-6 and A-4 squadrons for another five years, they could have gone all in on the F-18 and would have required fewer Squadrons and aircraft. They phased the F-4 out first, then the A-4 and then the A-6s. They could have gone with just the F-18. VSTOL is overrated technology. I was trained on the AV-8As and glad I went over to the A-4M. Harriers would make great kamikaze drones. The were designed to crash.
I just KNEW the F-35 software was written by Microsoft.
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.