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.
We all love the birds we worked on or flew. I love my A-4 and to some extent the F-5 Tiger II. I was impressed by the F-16N and the EA-6B. I admired the F-14 and begrudgingly acknowledged the F-4s were great war birds. Despite being proof if put a big enough engines on a massive block of steel you could make it fly. The A-6 and the A-10 were awesome attack platforms. My dislike for the Harriers stems from my experiences on the A & C models. The fact that only the BaE Sea Harrier was ever sold as an export and only purchased by India, is very telling. The AV-8B fulfilled it's mission, but that same mission was also fulfilled successfully by other aircraft types around the world. Was the AV8 a necessity for the Corps or in its hubris did the Corps just want it?
You are incorrect. If the Harrier had launched without losing it's engine to FOD, it would have in all likelihood destroyed the road, preventing it's further use. The fact the A-4 could launch and relaunch from the road means the Harriers VSTOL capability while nice was not needed. This paragraph sums up my point better than I did: "However, by far the biggest reason that more countries don't operate STOVL planes is lack of need. As I said, you sacrifice a lot of potential capacity for a rather dubious capability, namely the ability to launch and recover a fighter off a reasonably short runway. Most countries have no shortage of airports or makeshift runways to operate from. Most countries also primarily have a defensive posture. And most military fighters can even use highways, for instance, in a pinch. As such, there is no need to give up performance for such a niche capability."
I am also correcting myself Spain and Italy also used the Harrier. I only knew of India converting a carrier for the use of Harriers. This is a good article on the issues with Harriers: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/why-harrier-jets-crash/
The A4s in your example had to reroute because they couldn’t land on the damaged sideroad makeshift runway. Returning Harriers COULD. If the road gets torn up where they land, you move 5 meters down the road. You can’t do that with an A4. You can’t land A4s on helicopter pads, either.
Airplanes crash. That’s nothing new.
The Harriers in the Falklands also took on fighters that were supposed to be superior, Super Etendards and Mirages. Undefeated air-air kill ratio, second only to the F15.
It makes sense, if we “need” a new fighter alongside the F35 which isn’t fulfilling its mission, to build on a proven concept of VIFFing, carrier capable, helicopter pad capable, remote landing strip capable. Thi time around to design the thing as a fighter first rather than a bomber. An air-superiority-assist fighter that goes straight to the front lines for CAS duties once air superiority is achieved.
You can find 200 feet of road anywhere in the world.
There was one air-air engagement in the Falklands that was particularly telling. Harrier vs. Mirage IIRC. They got into a turning knife fight and both fighters were running out of fuel so they both broke off.
The Mirage never made it home, luzing both the pilot and the aircraft. The Harrier landed on a CARGO ship, full recovery of pilot and plane chalking up an air-air kill based on draining the enemy’s fuel tanks. No other airplane in the sky could match that until now, the F35 VTOL version. But the F35 is no knife fighter.
So your whole claim of air superiority of the AV-8 is the Falklands war of 1982? Seriously, well hell then lets talk about Vietnam.
The VSTOL vs STOL aspect of the jets are debatable. They perform better in STOL and can still carry a decent weapons load and fuel load. In VSTOL they have to balance the fuel and weapons load to the weight required to do a vertical take off, leaving them short of fuel and weapons.
Throughout it's history the Harrier was a greater threat to its own aircrews then enemy fire ever was. VSTOL is nice to have but has never proven necessary except maybe theoretically. To be honest, the day of WWII or even Vietnam dogfights has ended. The aircraft is just a weapons delivery system with a human nominally at the controls. It is about the weapons not the expensive delivery system. We have reached a point where aircraft like the Harrier and F-35 require computers to fly because no regular pilot can do it effectively without a computer. Guess what that means? We will soon no longer need pilots for any aircraft. That is until somebody deploys an effective EMP weapon that would cause an F-35 to damn near fall out of the sky.
The reason Harriers didn’t operate from FOBs is they didn’t have to. But they were the only airframe that could have at the time. A supersonic Harrier would help fill the niches of a “new fighter jet” for assisted air superiority, plus it would work as a CAS bomber once air superiority is attained. None of the other platforms could do this except for the F35, but the air force wants a knife fighter.
I don’t recall the Kuwaiti Air Force (presuming that’s what KAF stands for) having Harriers. If Harriers can’t land, then surely no other jet fighter could land.
I’ve noticed that when we talk airframe versus airframe, you zoomer guys always revert back to the ordinance argument. As if a Cessna with AIM9’s could take out a Super Etendard. It’s a tell that you are luzing the argument.
Yes that’s most of my claim of Harrier air superiority, the Falklands, because that’s where they’ve seen the most air-air action. Gigantic duhh factor.
We’re talking air-air, and you disingenuously bring up that several were “shot down” but not in air-air engagements. It is almost as if you can’t talk apples to apples because you know the outcome of the discussion, so you throw in red herrings vs. apples.
It is true that in Vertical Take Off mode they have fewer weapons and fuel, but no other aircraft (other than F35 now) can match that.
The Harrier had the tightest turn rate, beating all comers due to viffing, even though it’s a heavy wing loading craft.
VTOL was not theoretical. If the Egyptians had it in 1973 they woulda done serious damage to Israeli fighters and bombers and tanks. And right here on this thread was another bombed out airfield example where the A4s had to divert to some other airfield while they were in the air. Not theoretical.
If the day of tight turning knifefights in the air are over, then the air force does not need a “new fighter”.
The Harrier does not have a fly-by-wire system, does not require a computer to fly it.
As long as we “need” a new fighter, it makes sense to upgrade the STOVL fighter to supersonic so that we can continue to fill those niches that you claim are so theoretical.
In the Falklands, the brits took 2 container ships and within a matter of weeks, converted them to ski lift carriers. Then the Harrier pilots flew out to them and, without any flight deck training prior, they landed on those 2 light aircraft carriers. Try THAT with your fancy zoomer jets.
The Japanese built a very good fighter prior to WWII. Very nimble.
Reflected the Japanese spirit of sword fighting.
The Americans built fighter that were good for drive-by shootings.
We built a lot of them.
We were training a bunch of replacement pilots.
We won because we fought smarter.
I did not say a Harrier is fly by wire, but it does have on board computers to assist in VSTOL. If they did not the AV-B and Harrier IIs would have been just more expensive American built lawn darts.
Again your history is lacking a bit. The Brits had no choice but to convert container ships because they decommissioned all but one carrier. Budget cuts. Desperation is the mother of invention. But don't believe me this is from a report issued in 1988 after the introduction of the AV-8B
“No mythical capability of the AV-8B aircraft
created by publication has been more distorted than the
aircraft's performance in the air-to-air regime.......”
“This myth is further supported by the belief that the
British’ “Sea Harrier” preformed outstandinably in the Falklands War. The reality is that most of the Argentine
aircraft were destroyed either on the ground or by the
British surface-to-air-defense systems.7 Those Argentine
aircraft that were engaged and destroyed in the air by the
“Sea Harrier” had already dropped their weapons on British
shipping and were operating at their maximum combat radius.
The aircraft could not afford to engage in defending
themselves and waste precious fuel needed to reach the
mainland; effectively they were defenseless.”
You can find the entire article on the Global Security website. Oh there was one more thing author had to say: “The United States Marine Corps
became so mesmerized by the V/STOL capability of the
AV-8B aircraft that it acquired an aircraft deficient
in its mission performance.”
This is the first time I read this article, but the authors opinions were well know by those of us heavily involved in Marine Corps Aviation in the 70s and 80s. IN fairness since that article was written, the AV-8B has gone through many upgrades including it's weapons computer systems and flight systems. But it is still a single engine jet in an environment where most zoomers prefer twin engines for speed and surviablitiy. The F-16 suffers from the same issue which is why the USAF wants to replace a proven airframe.
I go back to the fact that you have to brag about British Jump used in a small regional war that took place what 38 years ago. What have the Harriers done lately, that a fancy zoomer cannot do?
Sorry. I meant the 6 day war in 1967.
I don’t care about the background of Brits decommissioned carriers. I care that they slapped together 2 light carriers out of container ships and went into BATTLE with them. And the Harrier pilots landed on those carriers with ZERO additional training. You simply cannot do that with any other fighter aircraft of its day.
You like to criticize the Harrier for the hype and not working to its designed mission. When exactly did a mission design like those set of light carrier feats ever come into the spec? They didn’t. Only the Harrier coulda done what the Harrier DID.
I think your ‘glonal security’s article is simply bullshiite, easily countered by all the other field reports.
As far as ‘what have you done for me lately’ , the harrier has been operating since then in situations where air CAP has remained in place and the runways haven’t been bombed out. In the Falklands they even flew CAP missions themselves.
How many of your zoomer craft can operate on helicopter cruisers? How’s their turning radius even today against the harrier? How many can go down past the stall speed of 3 miles per hour in a knife fight? How many can stay past bingo fuel in a fight and land on a cargo ship?
Forgot to add, how many zoomer jets can land on a makeshift carrier with NO additional training?
Answer to all those questions is: none.
1967, not 1973.
Here is an image of the Harrier landed on a CARGO ship. It doesn’t get more FOB than that.
https://images.app.goo.gl/StzNnTksqQZhrXV56
Here is a picture of the Harrier landing at the FOB at San Carlos during the Falklands.
https://images.app.goo.gl/F1LkxPso4wM9VizFA
Show me pictures of your zoomers doing that.
Here is a picture of the harrier about to land on a navy
FOB, aka a converted cargo container ship. Show me some zoomers that can do THAT.
https://images.app.goo.gl/DESSczm4pLhk6gm96
Dude, you are really stretching here. Do you even know what a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan is? That is a ship, period. It is not some mythical Navy FOB. As a Sailor I find it insulting that you would even call a ship modified or not a FOB. Try again or better yet stop before you really look foolish.
Yes I know what a FOB is. The reason the harriers didn’t operate in such things in Afghanistan and Iraq is because the runways were not bombed out and carriers were available and CAP was in place. Duhh. But they operated exactly to spec on the FOB at San Carlos, contrary to your assertions that it didn’t operate in any FOB in action.
A Navy ship QUALIFIES as a navy FOB. Duhh.
As a sailor you can just either accept the facts on the ground and let the Argentinians call it the ‘black death’ that saved you or stick your head further in the sand.
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.