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.
You make w a y too much sense. The Congress critters will never understand it.
The whole point of the harrier was that it could take off when the runway blows up, such as happened to the Egyptian Air forces in 1967 and 1973. It was NOT designed as an air-air fighter, but as an attack aircraft that could take off and land when there was no runway. It had a heavy wing loading, and yet it took on light wing loaded turn-rate-from-hell fighters and beat them in exercises and in air-air in the Falklands.
In combat, the F15, Harrier and SU27 were the only undefeated air-air kill ratios.
https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use/
Yes it is past its use-by date, but if they’re gonna build a new aircraft they should keep these fulfilled roles in mind. I doubt you ever landed on an aircraft carrier on the way to a battle without ANY prior training. That’s what the Harrier pilots did. I would suggest we pull out the plans for the cancelled P.1154 supersonic Harrier and just do it with updated technology without mission creep.
Programmer Sum Ting Wong.......................
The idea that our military budget is higher because of labor costs is, first, wrong, and, second, laden with policy implications.
Right in the article that talks about adjusting for purchasing power parity (as opposed to using exchange rates to adjust currency values) it says:
“this is comparing the entire Chinese budget to part of the US budget”
Let’s focus on the cost of weapons systems:
F-35 - this was always a boutique weapon system. Like the F-22 and the B-2, it offers real advantages in certain scenarios. But, could never support ground forces, it doesn’t have the stand-off range that our aircraft carriers need, it doesn’t have the flight time needed to patrol, it doesn’t have the ordinance load needed to be a workhorse, and it is unknown how it would perform in an airspace crowded with threat and enemy aircraft (because of the real time demands on its supporting radars would be overtaxed). The air force repeatedly lied to Congress about these limitations. And, even now, when the air force is admitting to what critics of this weapon system have known all along, there are still defenders that are claiming the thing is affordable.
What about the navy’s disasters of the littoral combat ship, the Zumult class whatchamcallit, and the ongoing disaster of the USS Gerald Ford?
On paper, the Gerald Ford’s electronic catapult system looks good. And, who knows, maybe the Navy will one day get the thing to work. In the meantime, the Gerald Ford has turned into a sinkhole for defense expenditures. As a test bed, it’s one thing. To commit to replacing all of our Nimitz-class carriers with Ford-class, before the Ford-class is certified, is scary.
As for complaining about the manpower cost of the armed forces, what democracy drafts people into the military nowadays? Switzerland and Israel are most prominent. And the draft in these two countries is for (1) universal military training and (2) reserves. Not for projecting military force all over the world.
I’m o.k. with a draft the purpose of which is to defend us, here at home. I understand that during the Cold War, defending us here meant standing up to communist around the world. I also understand that, for a time, it looked like the war on terror was also global. But, it’s clear now that a better policy to deal with radical Islamic terrorism is to be energy independent and stay out of the domestic affairs of effed-up countries.
Regarding that urination contest, perhaps they should just start a Close Air Support Command. Put the Marines flying Harriers and F35, the Army flying Helicopters, V22, A10s, put the drones in there and the navy flying.... nah, we don’t need the navy in this command. This is a groundpounder CAS command.
Give them their own budget, let them decide if they wanna keep A10s, artillery, JDAMs, whatever they decide is most effective.
“We need a more effective way to drop rainbow flags on our enemies.”
The Air Force was created in 1947 by an act of Congress. Similarly the Army was also created by an act of Congress. Getting the present day Congress to agree to a new command would be an amazing feat. Getting the various holders of those assets to release them would be a miracle. I suppose it could be done, but it would take a major effort and I don’t see where anything like that would rise to the top of anybody’s list of things that must be done. Trump, for example, was tied in political knots about impeachment. Biden is lucky to remember his name. Nobody in politics presently gives a damn about whether people are killed on the battlefield because they can’t get air support. If they did care, we wouldn’t be in the continuation Forever War today.
The way to create this command is to set up a Congressional committee and then lead them to right conclusion, create all the paperwork and convince them it was their idea and the president was not involved.
Uh ... US Space Force was created recently. It stands in relation to the Air Force as the Marines stand in relationship to the Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force
Point taken, but my impression from Kevmo’s comment was he wanted to combine the personnel and assets from multiple commands into one command including Marines, Army and Airforce, to create the Close Airsupport Command. So, it wouldn’t be the same as the Marines are to the Navy as the Space Command is to the Air Force. To me, that means a new command structure.
I think the combined arms approach is working well. A Marine told me he could call in a target and it might be hit by any service.
In 1990 the Iraqi's bombed the Kuwait airfields rendering them useless. The Iraqi forces were stunned to find the Kuwaiti AF A-4KUs still attacking their columns. Eventually they discovered the A-4s were using roads next to the airfields as runways. Iraqi's bombed those and the aircraft still in the air evacuated to Saudi and Bahrain.
Marine Corps flew them for dissimilar ACM in the 80s.
I saw them on Dets to Yuma.
I gotta an idea.
Produce F22 Raptors snd make some of them carrier capable.
Okay, maybe not.
5.56mm
ok
I misinterpreted as to where you were headed with your discussion.
I seem to recall the F-16 was planned as a cheaper, simpler companion craft to the more complex and fancy F-15.
The original thinking saw the F-15 leading the attack force into combat, using its more powerful radar and avionics, alongside a swarm of lighter F-16s that would do most of the actual dogfighting.
But then the Air Force brass hats started adding roles for the F-16, pulling off its “fighter plane” wings and replacing them with “fighter-bomber” wings with hard points for bombs, adding electronics and radar, etc. The “lots of cheaper” plan went by the boards. Sound familiar?
Your last paragraph paints the exact picture where harriers woulda kept going even where A4s couldn’t. That is what it was designed for.
And in air-air exercises, the harrier easily beat A4s because it could turn inside them and had no stall speed which is where knife fights end up.
It wasn’t smoke and mirrors. The threat of luzing airfields was real. Just ask the Egyptian air force about that.
The Harrier was used in combat in the manner it was sold to congress during the Falklands war and scored an undefeated air-air record second only to the F15.
My experience is Carnegie Mellon sucks - over priced has been consultants. Just my 2 cents
I won't fight over Carnegie Mellon but I'll defend MIT to the death. Over my 30 year career every engineer I've worked with from MIT was just brilliant. I don't throw that word around much, they all earned it. It really is a cut above.
I have a much more moderate view of MIT grads from a 37 year career. In over all effectiveness not much different then cow college grads like myself. The really “brilliant” MIT grads I dealt with were really happy to tell you they graduated from MIT. I had one who would work it into every conversation no matter how mundane. All in all the “cost” dealing with and managing their personalities more then detracted from their brilliance.
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.