• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Air Force eyes budget-conscious, clean-sheet fighter jet to replace the F-16

Lord Tammerlain

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
30,786
Reaction score
15,088
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
US Air Force eyes budget-conscious, clean-sheet fighter jet to replace the F-16 (defensenews.com)


The U.S. Air Force could be in the market for a brand-new, advanced, fourth-generation fighter jet as it looks to replace its oldest F-16s, the service’s top general said Wednesday.
The Air Force has started a study that will describe its preferred mix of fighters and other tactical aircraft that will be used to help build the fiscal year 2023 budget. That result could include a brand new “four-and-a half or fifth-gen minus” fighter with capabilities that fall somewhere in between the 1970s era F-16 and stealthy fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35 joint strike fighter, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown.


snip


Investing in another fighter type could be a hard sell for the Air Force to make to Congress, particularly with several fighters already in production.
The Air Force has not officially deviated from plans to buy 1,763 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing jets from Lockheed over its program of record, although internal documents from the Air Force’s future warfighting cell have indicated a plan to curb orders at 1,050 jets, Aviation Week reported in December.
Click to expand...

I had thought the F 35 was meant to replace the F 16 in general. I think the air force is not happy with the F35 if they are planning on cutting their purchase from 1763 to1050
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
US Air Force eyes budget-conscious, clean-sheet fighter jet to replace the F-16 (defensenews.com)

I had thought the F 35 was meant to replace the F 16 in general. I think the air force is not happy with the F35 if they are planning on cutting their purchase from 1763 to1050
Click to expand...

The F-35 was forced on all the U.S. armed services by Congress and intended to replace effectively ALL tactical fighters in U.S and allied service.

If they had a choice and if many of U.S. allies had not bought into the F-35 program already, the U.S. military services would've long cast it aside.
 
Dayton3 said:
The F-35 was forced on all the U.S. armed services by Congress and intended to replace effectively ALL tactical fighters in U.S and allied service.

If they had a choice and if many of U.S. allies had not bought into the F-35 program already, the U.S. military services would've long cast it aside.
Click to expand...

At least it is not truly horrible like the LCS has been
 
Now that the swamp has retaken Washington suddenly the military industrial complex needs another project.

Because even though the F-16 is a proven design and equal or superior to what the Chinese are flying it wouldn’t make the MIC enough money just to keep making the F-16
 
The US military has too many weapons in too many places (essentially ready to attack any and every place on Earth). If we were truly defending our land, then we only need a small percentage of that weaponry.

And we shouldn't be selling weaponry.
 
Antiwar said:
The US military has too many weapons in too many places (essentially ready to attack any and every place on Earth). If we were truly defending our land, then we only need a small percentage of that weaponry.

And we shouldn't be selling weaponry.
Click to expand...

Wrong, we should be the world's premiere arms dealer. Nobody ****s with the arms dealer.
 
Antiwar said:
The US military has too many weapons in too many places (essentially ready to attack any and every place on Earth). If we were truly defending our land, then we only need a small percentage of that weaponry.

And we shouldn't be selling weaponry.
Click to expand...

Really?

Globalists like yourself would be the first one's screaming if the USA pulled every weapon, jet, submarine, carrier, soldier, airman, marine, and sailor back stateside.

The world economy would be rocked
 
Antiwar said:
The US military has too many weapons in too many places (essentially ready to attack any and every place on Earth). If we were truly defending our land, then we only need a small percentage of that weaponry.

And we shouldn't be selling weaponry.
Click to expand...

The U.S. military is at least one third smaller than it was in 1991.

And you can't defend something without offensive capability.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Now that the swamp has retaken Washington suddenly the military industrial complex needs another project.

Because even though the F-16 is a proven design and equal or superior to what the Chinese are flying it wouldn’t make the MIC enough money just to keep making the F-16
Click to expand...

You don't realized I suppose that'

1) Development of the F-35 was ordered by Congress.
2) It was supposed to save money in the long run.
3) By replacing not only the older F-16s, but the older F/A-18s, the A-10, AV-8B (including those AV-8Bs, Harriers in foreign service).
 
Dayton3 said:
You don't realized I suppose that'

1) Development of the F-35 was ordered by Congress.
2) It was supposed to save money in the long run.
3) By replacing not only the older F-16s, but the older F/A-18s, the A-10, AV-8B (including those AV-8Bs, Harriers in foreign service).
Click to expand...

A-10's aren't going away any time soon.

They are the best fixed wing troop support platforms in history.
 
RetiredUSN said:
A-10's aren't going away any time soon.

They are the best fixed wing troop support platforms in history.
Click to expand...

Good. Their political resilience is as impressive as their air to ground performance given the U.S. Air Force has hated them for 45 years.
 
Dayton3 said:
Good. Their political resilience is as impressive as their air to ground performance given the U.S. Air Force has hated them for 45 years.
Click to expand...

They should have been given to the Army and the Marines.
 
Dayton3 said:
Good. Their political resilience is as impressive as their air to ground performance given the U.S. Air Force has hated them for 45 years.
Click to expand...

The USAF didn't hate the A-10 lol, and it didn't consider retirement until the limitations of the platform became clear.

The Army can fellate it as much as they want, but it's past its prime.
 
I am no expert in this area but it seems to me that the future should be in mass manufacturable autonomous weaponry, both defensive and offensive.
 
There's always been a need for light fighters.
Aircraft like the F-35 or Eurofighter are massive overkill for missions like Afghanistan where you already have air superiority.
You could do the same job with cheaper modern jets.
The UK and partners are designing a new Jet for entry into service in 2035 and Germany and France are joining forces to do the same so I'm unsurprised the US is also looking to the future.

I have always had a soft spot for the F-16 though as it's a wonderful aircraft and just looks right somehow to me.
I do hope the US keeps some in service even if just as part of display team that can tour the world.

Long live the F-16.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Like any fighter, the F-35 bugs will be worked out.

Even with it's current bugs, it's still the baddest multi role fighter on the planet.
Click to expand...

And way to expensive when Lockheed’s for-profit markup is added. Produce them at cost.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The USAF didn't hate the A-10 lol, and it didn't consider retirement until the limitations of the platform became clear.

The Army can fellate it as much as they want, but it's past its prime.
Click to expand...

Oh please, the Air Force has been trying to mothball the A-10s since the mid 1980s.

Most of the USAF brass hated the A-10s for one huge reason: The staggeringly high number that crashed during training (hitting the ground).

You might not like this but air forces tend to dislike aircraft that are prone to crashing. Same reason the U.S. Navy (despite the public image) hated the F-14 Tomcats.
 
Questerr said:
Who cares. The per unit cost is way too high.
Click to expand...

Your markup claim is the essence of your argument so logically you should know what it is.

Regarding unit cost you do know that development costs have to be amortized over each production unit.

Do I need to explain amortization to you?
 
Dayton3 said:
Your markup claim is the essence of your argument so logically you should know what it is.

Regarding unit cost you do know that development costs have to be amortized over each production unit.

Do I need to explain amortization to you?
Click to expand...

They certainly do when they are being produced by a for-profit company delivering value to shareholders. When being produced at cost by state manufacturers they don't. Which is how Russia, China, and even some of the European countries are able to field greater numbers of similar generation aircraft at far lower per-unit costs.

Why do we allow capitalists to make profits off the blood of American servicemen, I will never understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom