F-16.net

Proposal to kick around (much appreciative for any input, pro or con):

Consider inevitable US defense budget pressures. Realistically, work on the basis of a reduced USAF share of overall budget over the next 3-5 yrs. What is your plan going forward??

One proposal for consideration:

1) +/- 150 USAF existing block 50/52 converted to larger-winged, Agile Falcon type variant, with added AESA and perhaps CCV and 2-D vectoring. (Good until mid-2020s).

2) +/- 150 USAF F-16AT type variants produced with component materials, latest avionics and passive sensors (maybe including DAS variant in dorsal spine), LO aspects, 2-D vectoring and perhaps powered by F-22's F119 engine: from about 2012-2016.. good until 2030'ish. Co-develop this model for Export economy of scale intentions.

3) Above Viper mods could bolster the F-16 contribution to mid-term tactical air deterrence, with strategy of decreasing dependence/expenses on full-rate F-35 production liabilities (perhaps to 500 USAF F-35A), and allow economic and planning flexibility for a seamless transition into a mid-2020s 6th gen tactical fighter to better maintain superiority.

All views welcome. Thanks.

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2007 Posts: 20 Status: Offline

This sounds like a pretty good proposal. My only concern is the airframe age/hours of current USAF blk 50/52 jets. If another MSIP program could be instituted and the frames strengthened, it would be a great program. Smile

geogen,

i hate to say it, but you aren't going to see much in the way of major upgrades to the F-16 by the USAF in the future. the F-35A is the main plyer right now and all money that could be used to put, per se, AESA radar, structural improvements, enhanced rwr/ecm into the F-16, they just aren't going to happen. why do you need AESA radar and enhanced manuverability to drop bombs on the Taliban and Al Queda when the APG-68 and current flight control software are doing the job well enough right now? The AF wants to fly these airplanes into the boneyard and wants to replace them 1 for 1 with the F-35. of course we would hope that would happen, but the economics just aren't there. in a perfect world you would see a gradual shift from the f-16 and A-10 to the F-35, but since we are in the Forever War, the F-16 and A-10 will fly until the AF believes that there are enough F-35's and you will see the 4th gen quietly put out to pasture. now don't get me wrong, i would love to work on and see the F-16 fly until 2030, but with the F-35A, F-22A and UAV's present and future, the F-16 in AF service is going to end sooner then later.

1) - No
2) - No
3) - No

The USAF will not be purchasing more F-16s... (Right or wrong...)

They may spend a little money here/there for minor updates, but no big $$ for major modifications or upgrades. All possible funding will be going towards new aircraft.

The massive strain being put on them by a long term "engagement" will wear them down twice as fast as normal. Even Desert Shield/Storm didn't put this type of wear/tear on the airframes.

Sorry guys, but the Viper's days are numbered and counting down for the USAF... Cheers

Oh, and the F-16AT (Agile Falcon) is called the F-2. Remember? the US Government sold the F-16 to Japan so they could benefit from all of USA's aviation research and technology! Doh

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

And the F-2 proved to the Japanese what we (USAF) already knew, that the AF was not nearly the airframe it was marketed to be. The JASDF has suffered from wing cracks and other structural issues.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Posts: 30 Status: Offline

This would probably only be worth looking at if the F-35 program fails and is cancelled. Also a flat 2D thrust vectoring nozzle like on the F-22 would be difficult to implement, and would not provide any useful stealth advantage for the F-16. A 3D thrust vectoring nozzle would be better.

The F-35 design could be better in my opinion, but it still promises to be a great aircraft. I don't really see a need for such a F-16 if it enters service as planned at a decent price.

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 16, 2008 Posts: 30 Status: Offline

A better idea would be to resurrect the XL, put a LO thrust vectoring exhaust on it. But that will never happen. Unless the USAF wakes up and realizes that their is a call for long range, fast, interdiction/strike aircraft that don’t need to be super stealthy to get the job done. The F-35 is basically a slightly faster, stealthier version on the old RAF Buccaneer with a better electronics package!!! Or they could go the really cheap route and start developing more, faster, better drones. That will never happen either.

Kamov,

While I support initial block F-35A procurement by DoD, I'd concur with you and others supporting a pipeline alternative development project of a modernized F-16XL/AT type variant (possibly with TVC and perhaps GE-132 or even F119 power) and even a block III SH. The XL/AT type were seen as threatening to both ATF(F-22) and JSF (F-35), thus it was apparently swept under the rug arguably like GM did with the EV-1, but that's another story.. Whistle

One flaw being evident re: JSF however, was/is it's co-dependence on so many assumed factors (such as schedules and assumed foreign customers). Well, plans and budgets change of course, in both DoD acquisition and foreign - e.g., Australia's latest proposal in force size. How high support/logistics costs could soar, without dynamic economies of scale could be another issue?

Unfortunately, the F-35A is probably a couple years too late (I could be off on this, but it's one viewpoint) as many AFs are wanting to recapitalize ASAP as economically as possible, yet perhaps politically unwilling to buy something extremely complex/new they can't yet 'try'. And while I wish a production F-35A was available now to enter foreign fly-off competitions, such a proposed F-16AT which could have been developed by now or available sooner even than F-35A, could have been capturing sales already for LM (from those unwilling/unsure vis-a-vis F-35). A sort of hedge opportunity not exploited perhaps.

One of the main counter-points to a 'Super' F-16XL/AT variant option is that the 'old teen series' can't hold their own against modern Mig/Su and modern IAD. Well, that's a cop-out and even an insult, imo. The failure to sufficiently upgrade radar/sensor/avionics/comms/engines/weapons is where the edge is being lost. (I.E. failure to deploy METEOR on F-35 until 2016 at earliest?)

So while I sincerely hope for the F-35 to prove itself as a superior deterrence platform, once operational, I'd hope too that optional pipeline, priorities and engineering prowess are not lost.

I have to ask of those that espouse the need for an "alternative plan"... WHY?

What about the F-35 program can fail to such a degree that an entirely new aircraft would be needed?

Almost every component of the F-35 has been developed, to some degree, in earlier generation aircraft.

Elite 2K Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2823 Status: Offline

geogen wrote:

While I support initial block F-35A procurement by DoD, I'd concur with you and others supporting a pipeline alternative development project

I've already heard this song before, when it was called the F-20 Tigershark.

Lower cost alternative to a more technologically advanced airframe, and available for export.

Northrop was touting their product very aggressively. Only problem? No one was interested.

Another problem with the Tigershark, was that other countries balked when they saw that the U.S. was not going to purchase the F-20. Exactly the same scenario we have here.

The countries who have invested their money in the F-35 are going to get their money's worth.

It is going to be an excellent strike fighter, with technology, and weapon delivery capability that no other country currently posesses, and that exceeds all current strike fighters, like the Viper, Hornet, Harrier, and Warthog. Also remember, no other country to date posesses LO technology. This is a HUGE selling point for the F-35.

Hate to be blunt, and disappoint the fanboys, but the next step for the Viper, at least the Blk. 15 A/Bs within the next decade, will be orange wingtips and stabs, and parked on Death Row at Tyndall and Holloman.

SpudmanWP wrote:

I have to ask of those that espouse the need for an "alternative plan"... WHY?

What about the F-35 program can fail to such a degree that an entirely new aircraft would be needed?

Almost every component of the F-35 has been developed, to some degree, in earlier generation aircraft.

Spud,

I personally prefer to classify myself in this topic as an 'optional' espouser and not so much a direct 'alternate' obsesser. Sure, there are those who are 100% outright anti-this one and that one. My case is not to see failure of the F-35 proving its capability and not see it go up in smoke (if at all possible by those who are driving it's business plan). Cool

Have I been critical of the entire F-35 business plan and agenda since aroud 2002? Yes. But now we're at a point of partial no return, where USAF needs at least some F-35 at 'almost' any cost (I'd support as much as $400 million per program unit cost) in order to at least 'stop gap' strategic deterrence until a necessary alternative could be produced. (under such an extreme scenario).

I've called the F-35 everything from a 'socialist fighter', and a 'mid- 90s MIC wet dream fighter' to a 'Bubble waiting to burst fighter'.

Many (and even the GAO) would have gone about the F-35 development and planning differently but that's another thread (I'm sure there's one here on it).

I'm just in the camp that's saying if done differently, and marketed as such, an F-16AT type variant with AESA, TVC, IRST, HMD, CFT and 65,000'+/min rate of climb could indeed be selling like hotcakes today perhaps to Brazil, Japan and India (as the most dominant multi-role fighter offered on the market) and perhaps for the next 10 yrs as well, as a competitive 'OPTION' to the F-35! Wow, company-company competition... novel concept. Smile

Moreover, it would simply be a strategic 'pipeline' advantage for whatever reason, in case US govt or DoD or USAF in 2,3,4,5 yrs from now decides to study 'other' concepts..

Instead of waking up one day, surprised with a massive hole to bridge, such as with our current Satellite situation and Space shuttle debacles, etc, etc.

Enthusiast Joined: May 14, 2007 Posts: 45 Status: Offline

Geogen; The normal precedence of fighter purchasing runs as follows;

1. Nice to have...
2. Want to have...
3. Need to have...
4. Can afford to have...
5. What you can get for free...

With the current economic situation, and the fact that the Army is currently involved in two bloody wars where we are losing our sons and daughters on a daily basis, the priority for purchasing new fighters is somewhere between numbers 4 and 5. Your proposal is most assuredly a 1. It's not going to happen.

Goegen,

Your plan would make the cost of both the F-16AT and F-35 programs more expensive than a single, unified program.

Also, your F-16AT would probability be more expensive than the F-35 due to economies of scale.

Good points Meteor/SM, thanks for legit input.

I don't know, I just see a potential market for some variant. Figure this: Not all 'friendly' Air Forces will be selecting the F-35 or even the SH block II for that matter, in the various recapitalization decisions for years to come. So, US should just yield and for example in 2012-2014 say: sorry guys, if you don't want the F-35 you can have a block 50/52, an F-15E, or a super-hornet II and that's the best we can do. Well, we're going to lose influence and stature, not to mention industrial base. We'll become a one pony show in a decreasing circus attendance.

IMHO, US must and should further modernize legacy craft and diversify innovative pipelines and competition... and not just think about USAF's need. That can only incur a negative strategic impact.

So the case can be made to offer an Agile Falcon type upgrade (with possible TVC and AESA) to current F-16 flown airforces as an economic modernization option. The alternative may be to upgrade to Gripen or even Mig for instance. Bascially; a $15-25 million high-end upgrade vs $55 million replacement.

Further, those Air Forces with a slightly bigger bank account in the same 2012-14 example and want to modernize, yet for technological/support/logistical upgrade reasons they decide against the F-35, what will US offer them? Something refined and state of the art, ready for immediate production? Or an offer to dust off old F-15E configs as an option (if that line is still open). And you can almost see these guys already shaking their heads on the SH !! (although I could also support a block III co-development, again for strategic planning).

So, by this date, such Super-Viper could be an extremely viable superior platform still, not the same as F-35, but solid alternative to hypothetical NG Gripen, Tranche 3 EF, Mig-35, Su-35, etc. And one which could easily get the contract otherwise lost all together for various reasons mentioned! That's the motive, nothing malicious against F-35 (and again, I hope to heck it performs as planned and can indeed fit USAF's budgets as advertised).

Just saying that if for any reason, the F-35A is curtailed or even F-35A production schedules can't meet USAF's recapitalization needs (e.g., in a hypothetical situation if more and more previously unexpected legacy craft are deactivated for whatever reasons), emergency pipelines could readily supplement strategic air combat deterrence.

The grim is faced with an unexpected scenario, with no plausible contingency in place. That's the case.

Why in the world would a government want a F-16AT (or other US based "alternative") when the F-35 will cost nearly the same yet provide a vastly greater capability?

As far as upgrades and modernization of an existing fleet, nothing is keeping them from doing that.

F-16.net

Forum: General

USAF F-16AT (or Agile Falcon) to supplement F-35?