But for some political games being played that I am not really aware of, the whole narrative is so terribly absurd on so many levels that it hurts:
> If the F-16 is not valid because its avionics are outdated but a 4G airframe is valid, then... change the avionics, no need for a new plane which will be massively more expensive to develop
> If the plane needs to be "clean sheet", why to make it 4.5G in the year of 2021, 20 years after you developed 5G and while you are designing 6G? VLO is suddenly worthless or economically not viable? When did they realize this?
> If the plane is to be only 4.5G, so not stealth in the way F-35 is, why not to do it unmanned in order to avoid pilots' lifes being risked?
> If the problem of the F-35 is cost (which was not some months ago while everyone was happy about starkly reduced procurement costs and optimistic about CPFH improvements), why not simply keep developing loyal wingman and other unmanned platforms? Integrate the F-35 with increasing numbers of UCAV in a way to increase numbers and leverage the networking capabilities of the F-35 to coordinate their operation, just as everyone else is doing or planing to do.
> If ageing of the F135 is faster than thought and lower capability is not a problem (4.5G narrative), then why not to detune the engine, instead of pushing for more thrust, more temperature and substitution with even riskier adaptive engines?
> Do they expect a clean sheet design to be cheaper, when development costs and risks are all considered, than already existing F-15EX? Really?
> “I want to be able to build something new and different, that’s not the F 16 — that has some of those capabilities, but gets there faster and uses some of our digital approach.” --> How do you get there faster by developing a new plane instead of changing the stuffing as has been proven fast, cheap and reliable so many times? Is today's technology so backwards that it cannot substitute the F-16 systems with more compact, modern and functional ones?
> The Air Force’s fighter fleet averages 28 years old, and “that’s not going to compete well with adversaries,” Brown noted. “That’s why this force mix study is so important: to bring down the average age, to have something relevant not just today, but well into the future.” --> Why not modernize your planes then? Is it strange than opting for "clean sheet" designs systematically ends up producing too expensive results which need to be cancelled in search of a cheaper alternative?
> How can it be that a newly developed plane like F-35 is not going to fulfil its main task, substitute the F-16, and at the same time is slated for replacement by NGAD? Is that not equivalent to prematurely cancelling the F-35 program?
We need to wait and see, but if the USAF would want to arise suspicions about the future of F-35 they could not do it better than with these latest statements...