Multi-Role fighter (MR-X) F-16 Replacement ("4.5 Generation Fighter")

[kaiserd]

I think the comparison with an armed T-7 is a non sense. The competition should be evaluated as being, the F-35 on one side, and the various 5th Gen like projects like the KFX.

When AMCA, TFX, KFX (and Plan B?) will be fielded in service, what room would be left for a classic F-16? F-16 doesn't have the range, the load out and the speed/performance ratio of an f-15EX.

But the whole point of the MR-X was the supposed need for a lower cost (buy and operate) complement to the F-35 (and partial F-16 replacement).
As many argued here updated existing or new production F-16s probably the best bet given lower development risk, immediate availability, much much lower development costs etc.
Particularly as many here argued a relatively small demand/ market for a new build aircraft in this class.

Really not a lot to do with the F-15 (far too expensive to buy and operate for the low-cost-complement role).

 

[rooster]

I think the comparison with an armed T-7 is a non sense. The competition should be evaluated as being, the F-35 on one side, and the various 5th Gen like projects like the KFX.

When AMCA, TFX, KFX (and Plan B?) will be fielded in service, what room would be left for a classic F-16? F-16 doesn't have the range, the load out and the speed/performance ratio of an f-15EX.

But the whole point of the MR-X was the supposed need for a lower cost (buy and operate) complement to the F-35 (and partial F-16 replacement).
As many argued here updated existing or new production F-16s probably the best bet given lower development risk, immediate availability, much much lower development costs etc.
Particularly as many here argued a relatively small demand/ market for a new build aircraft in this class.

Really not a lot to do with the F-15 (far too expensive to buy and operate for the low-cost-complement role).

How are a fleet of short range flying radar reflectors with a light missile load any good for the US and potential future conflicts in the pacific? Even the 15x is no good for that scenario.

 

[kaiserd]

I think the comparison with an armed T-7 is a non sense. The competition should be evaluated as being, the F-35 on one side, and the various 5th Gen like projects like the KFX.

When AMCA, TFX, KFX (and Plan B?) will be fielded in service, what room would be left for a classic F-16? F-16 doesn't have the range, the load out and the speed/performance ratio of an f-15EX.

But the whole point of the MR-X was the supposed need for a lower cost (buy and operate) complement to the F-35 (and partial F-16 replacement).
As many argued here updated existing or new production F-16s probably the best bet given lower development risk, immediate availability, much much lower development costs etc.
Particularly as many here argued a relatively small demand/ market for a new build aircraft in this class.

Really not a lot to do with the F-15 (far too expensive to buy and operate for the low-cost-complement role).

How are a fleet of short range flying radar reflectors with a light missile load any good for the US and potential future conflicts in the pacific? Even the 15x is no good for that scenario.

1) I never thought the MR-X was a good idea
2) The argument for a MR-X-like aircraft (or some upgraded or new build F-16s instead) is that for a limited set of missions you don’t need the full suit of the F-35s capabilities and you can do the mission with a smaller cheaper more efficient aircraft than a F-15 variant. The argument is that, for example, dedicated ANG air defence squadrons may not need more than the equivalent capability of an F-16V.
3) I don’t fully agree with that argument, and even if such an argument could be convincingly made we would be talking about a relatively small fleet that probably makes the development of a new type for this role unviable (hence probably better to economise, stick with an F-16 type for that limited role and spend the money saved on more F-35s and your follow-on top tier combat aircraft).
4) I agree that such a fleet would not be suitable for a conflict in the Pacific (or in Europe for that matter). Hence why I think at most this could only be a limited role/ relatively small number requirement.
5) In fairness the F-16 isn’t really a short range or light weapon-load platform (a critical advantage over any T-7 based solution for a role) in comparison with it past and current contemporaries and would only be so if one is completely fixated by potentially unrealistic expectations of what is required and can be achieved with a new heavy top-tier airframe developed with the Pacific in mind.

 

[jsport]

Air Force Keeping F-16s, Not Moving Toward Fighter Derived From MR-F or T-7 for Now - Air Force Magazine

With upgrades, F-16s can serve as a numbers-builder in the combat air forces until the 2040s, program officials said.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Allan511]

Hello everybody. First post.

Read earlier in post about Lockheed not being able to supply necessary amount of F35’s, and therefore we need Light weight alternative.
Someone suggested Saab Gripen.

Does anyone here think Saab could scale the Gripen line to do even a fraction of what Lockheed can?

I am a Gripen fan but remember seeing one purposing wildly before crashing.

I am an ex Canadian armed forces member who worked as an engine mechanic on CF18,s. I am still a fan. I remember Go teams coming up from McDonald Douglas to X ray the vertical fin bases for cracks.

I think the F20 was sexy. Range and payload issues. I also worked on CF5,s. Great little fighter.

All aircraft have issues. We all have our favorites.
The proof is in the pudding.
Check the battle stats.
Give me an F15, F16, F18, or F22.

Jury is still out on F35,s, but I believe more countries are signing on. Can’t remember who.

I have always thought we needed a lower cost light weight fighter similar to the F15, F16 mix.

Today there are fewer companies that can make it happen than in the 60,s, 70,s, and 80,s. Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, Saab. Even then they typically partner up.

Today there are no easy answers.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Hi, welcome to the forum.

Read earlier in post about Lockheed not being able to supply necessary amount of F35’s, and therefore we need Light weight alternative.

Iirc, the biggest F-35 maintenance issues atm are the I-level and D-level maintenance for its F135 engines. Pratt and AF initially thought that the maintenance of individual modules(I-level) and components(D-level) wouldn't cost that much time and therefore only procured handful of reserve modules. As it turned out, both the I- and D-level is not able to keep up with the O-level maintenance(i.e. swapping modules out). They eventually ran out of reserve modules to fit in to the jets and modules in I-level maintenance facilities are bottlenecked. It'll eventually get sorted out by procuring more reserve modules and expanding I- and D-level maintenance capacity; which is exactly DoD's plan.

Does anyone here think Saab could scale the Gripen line to do even a fraction of what Lockheed can?

Since the Brazilians bought the F-39s, we should consider the combined Svensk-Brazilian production capacity when considering possible Gripen production rate. The problem, on the other hand, doesn't actually lie on the production capacity in the first place. For most of the first world countries, Gripen for its price is just too small in comparison.

 

[TomS]

Hello everybody. First post.
Read earlier in post about Lockheed not being able to supply necessary amount of F35’s, and therefore we need Light weight alternative.
Someone suggested Saab Gripen.
Does anyone here think Saab could scale the Gripen line to do even a fraction of what Lockheed can?
I am a Gripen fan but remember seeing one purposing wildly before crashing.
I am an ex Canadian armed forces member who worked as an engine mechanic on CF18,s. I am still a fan. I remember Go teams coming up from McDonald Douglas to X ray the vertical fin bases for cracks.
I think the F20 was sexy. Range and payload issues. I also worked on CF5,s. Great little fighter.
All aircraft have issues. We all have our favorites.
The proof is in the pudding.
Check the battle stats.
Give me an F15, F16, F18, or F22.
Jury is still out on F35,s, but I believe more countries are signing on. Can’t remember who.
I have always thought we needed a lower cost light weight fighter similar to the F15, F16 mix.
Today there are fewer companies that can make it happen than in the 60,s, 70,s, and 80,s.
Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, Saab. Even then they typically partner up.
Today there are no easy answers.

The obvious thing would be for Saab to work with Boeing, as they are on the T-7/

But the basic question remains -- what could the Gripen offer for the USAF that the latest F-16 doesn't do already, with an established maintenance base and training pipeline? It's not that much cheaper to fly, especially with US manpower costs.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Those are 2015 numbers. For 2019, F-35 cost has improved with a CPFH (Cost Per Flight Hour) down to something like ~32000$. That from my mem.

Actual US data are not difficult to find. The USAF publish each year those numbers.

May be Brown see something great with the NGAD demonstrator and the Digital century series, something abble to solve the cost of flight, it is since the end of the year they spoke about it

No, they just want a new plane before 2070 to go alongside the F-35. Do we need reminders that JSF's earliest initial CONOPS involved combat action over the DDR and USSR, two countries which haven't existed for the majority of most armed forces' personnel's lives, and that Lockheed's SSF started somewhere in Reagan's second term? It's a very old program once you get down to the whole "joint Air Force/Marines/Navy supersonic strike aircraft for the XXI" bit.

The problem clearly isn't cost, either per hour or flyaway, as F-35 is cheaper than a Gripen now and compares favorable with F-15 in hourly costs. The problem is that F-35 took 40 years to go from paper to mass production and was almost 20 years overdue. The next plane could very well never materialize given a typical development time that's better measured in human generations rather than years.

That's what the whole New Century Series is about: fast development of relatively (relatively, as in "cheaper than F-22", or NGAD, I'd imagine) cheap aircraft in short timespans. Maybe it's possible. Maybe it isn't. While I have my doubts since I imagine a lot of MIC failures to deliver are structural issues relating to macroeconomic factors beyond DOD's control, I think there's evidence for both sides for the moment.

The USAF just wants new fighters popping up every 5-10 years instead of every 30-40 years. Otherwise the USAF will be "leapfrogged" in capability by competitors like the PLAAF inside 20 years, who have already managed to produce two different stealth fighters inside a decade of development and production time.

The most obvious successful program run for the USAF recently was the T-7 Red Hawk, and that stayed pretty close to the initial schedule of "around 2020", lagging a couple years. A weaponized version of the T-7 could replace the F-16 pretty easily and fill that fighter gap while slowly being incremented upon with new aircraft, something akin to, but not as drastic as, the Super Hornet. Another alternative might be Americanized F/A-50s or something, but that would eat into Lockheed's manpower and industrial output, since it would be competing with itself, and that isn't good.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Maybe another argument (which I think should be) PRO a clean-sheet MR-X/MR-F...

Air Force Official: We‘re ‘Starting to Lose Our Lead’ in Propulsion | Air & Space Forces Magazine

John Sneden, head of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s propulsion directorate, warned about reduced competition and funding.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Kat Tsun]

Would have probably been smart to procure F-35s with both F135 and F136 tbh, akin to the 50/52s, but I guess they assumed Pratt would still be making F119s these days.

 

[Sundog]

Maybe another argument (which I think should be) PRO a clean-sheet MR-X/MR-F...

Air Force Official: We‘re ‘Starting to Lose Our Lead’ in Propulsion | Air & Space Forces Magazine

John Sneden, head of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s propulsion directorate, warned about reduced competition and funding.

www.airforcemag.com

He's partly right. However, nobody else even comes close to having an engine like the AETP. It's just the beginning of the campaign blitz to re-engine the F-35. Which I think should be done. But just say the F-35 will be much better with the new engine and it helps the technology base. We don't need the baseless scare mongering (Referring to the article author). And we do need both contractors, GE and P&W to make an engine to fit the same aircraft and compete them against each other in batches, that much is true. I've never liked having all the eggs in one propulsion basket with the F-35, or any other fighter, because of what could happen with fleet groundings. If half of the fleet has one engine and the other half has the other, there's less of a chance of the entire fleet being grounded for an engine problem. Yes, it will cost more in terms of operating and maintenance costs, but the USAF will just have to budget for it. We're buying F-35s in enough quantities that it should be doable with an aircraft buy this large.

 

[Sundog]

Would have probably been smart to procure F-35s with both F135 and F136 tbh, akin to the 50/52s, but I guess they assumed Pratt would still be making F119s these days.

I don't see the problem as being business for PW, but business for GE. They don't want to be left with one fighter engine manufacturer.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Maybe another argument (which I think should be) PRO a clean-sheet MR-X/MR-F...

Air Force Official: We‘re ‘Starting to Lose Our Lead’ in Propulsion | Air & Space Forces Magazine

John Sneden, head of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s propulsion directorate, warned about reduced competition and funding.

www.airforcemag.com

He's partly right. However, nobody else even comes close to having an engine like the AETP. It's just the beginning of the campaign blitz to re-engine the F-35. Which I think should be done. But just say the F-35 will be much better with the new engine and it helps the technology base. We don't need the baseless scare mongering (Referring to the article author). And we do need both contractors, GE and P&W to make an engine to fit the same aircraft and compete them against each other in batches, that much is true. I've never liked having all the eggs in one propulsion basket with the F-35, or any other fighter, because of what could happen with fleet groundings. If half of the fleet has one engine and the other half has the other, there's less of a chance of the entire fleet being grounded for an engine problem. Yes, it will cost more in terms of operating and maintenance costs, but the USAF will just have to budget for it. We're buying F-35s in enough quantities that it should be doable with an aircraft buy this large.

I agree the message is brought at a time when a decision is coming much closer on whether or not to equip future F-35 blocks with the AETP engine, and if so probably GE´s XA100 as PW seems to be rather pushing it´s F135-EPE then it´s XA101.
If a production-version of the GE XA100 would be chosen for future F-35 blocks, the 'future advanced engines & industrial base' problem would be partially solved near/mid-term. If AETP does not evolve into a production program for F-35 and there is no new (clean-sheet) fighter coming besides NGAD (and F/A-XX), then whatever/whoever comes out of the NGAP-program might well become the entire future.

Edit/PS:
With regard to alternate engine-options for the same aircraft, I´ve not yet made up my own final opinion on that matter.
Having 2 competing engines for F-15 & F-16 drove both manufacturers to provide the best possible solutions and performance.
Also, the future aircraft-inventory will involve much less different (high-performance) aircraft types then it ever did.
On the other hand, funding development of 2 engines for the same jet to then sometimes end up producing/using only of them ...

 

[Allan511]

How do I get a T-7 Red Hawk?
I’m serious. I want one.

 

[Dreamfighter]

How do I get a T-7 Red Hawk?
I’m serious. I want one.

You just wait till the end of the century and then you try to nick one from the scrap-yard.

 

[Allan511]

Hello everybody. First post.
Read earlier in post about Lockheed not being able to supply necessary amount of F35’s, and therefore we need Light weight alternative.
Someone suggested Saab Gripen.
Does anyone here think Saab could scale the Gripen line to do even a fraction of what Lockheed can?
I am a Gripen fan but remember seeing one purposing wildly before crashing.
I am an ex Canadian armed forces member who worked as an engine mechanic on CF18,s. I am still a fan. I remember Go teams coming up from McDonald Douglas to X ray the vertical fin bases for cracks.
I think the F20 was sexy. Range and payload issues. I also worked on CF5,s. Great little fighter.
All aircraft have issues. We all have our favorites.
The proof is in the pudding.
Check the battle stats.
Give me an F15, F16, F18, or F22.
Jury is still out on F35,s, but I believe more countries are signing on. Can’t remember who.
I have always thought we needed a lower cost light weight fighter similar to the F15, F16 mix.
Today there are fewer companies that can make it happen than in the 60,s, 70,s, and 80,s.
Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, Saab. Even then they typically partner up.
Today there are no easy answers.

The obvious thing would be for Saab to work with Boeing, as they are on the T-7/

But the basic question remains -- what could the Gripen offer for the USAF that the latest F-16 doesn't do already, with an established maintenance base and training pipeline? It's not that much cheaper to fly, especially with US manpower costs.

I hadn’t really looked into the T-7. Very impressive.
I noticed it uses the F404 engine.
It could possibly make a low cost F-16 replacement using the F-414.

 

[mkellytx]

How do I get a T-7 Red Hawk?
I’m serious. I want one.

You just wait till the end of the century and then you try to nick one from the scrap-yard.

No just find a bunch of ex-fighter pilots and some VC's, form your own adversary company and buy 30-40 up engined with F414's

 

[Kat Tsun]

Would have probably been smart to procure F-35s with both F135 and F136 tbh, akin to the 50/52s, but I guess they assumed Pratt would still be making F119s these days.

I don't see the problem as being business for PW, but business for GE. They don't want to be left with one fighter engine manufacturer.

What? That doesn't really track at all. General Electric makes the majority, if not all, fighter engines for DOD now. No one is buying F100s after all this time since Strike Eagle, or won't be for very long, and P&W may be forced to close up its military arm in the coming years as a result.

This is definitely a "P&W was supposed to win Raptor engines and GE was supposed to win JSF engines" because that somehow makes sense if you genuinely believe you'll get 750 F-22s and 1,500 F-35s. It's roughly the same number of engines, so they should be having equal business. In reality it should have been "JSF and Raptor have GE/PW engines designed to fit in their engine bays al a F100/F110 for the Eagles" but that was too forward thinking at the time I guess.

Either way DOD clearly expected P&W to be producing F119s much longer than they did. This never happened. Ergo, Pratt now has little reason to remain in the military turbofan business, since it's just been a conga line of GE winning contract after contract. In the long run, DOD's gonna be left with one fighter engine manufacturer, one fighter manufacturer (Lockheed), one bomber manufacturer (Northrop), etc. etc.

That might change given some dramatic and sudden increase in the competence of US industrial economic management, but it would probably need to be soon since the last major engine Pratt prototyped was the F135. In the meantime they'll probably be keeping their fighter engine division on a "hot standby" building prototypes in labs and testing VCEs, on their own dime from selling marine turbines and large engines for airliners, while waiting for NGAD to start bending metal sometime in the 2040's, on a distant promise that they might get a contract for a new fighter engine.

Alternatively, GE could just implode due to the ongoing finance shenanigans and the USA will be left with no modern engine manufacturers for a good while.

Really the lesson from the past few decades of US aircraft development should be that sole source contracting and "winner takes all" methods of budgeting was a mistake and that purchasing multiple models of aircraft and different engines to fulfill the same general role is likely pretty viable in terms of maintaining an ever shrinking MIC's diversity. It's always better to have three small boutique ateliers than one big conglomerate megaplant, after all.

This probably won't be a lesson implemented by America though, but rather by the PRC, since they seem more keen on mass production and savvier at industrial planning in general. Whether it's just a scaling thing or actual competence is anyone's guess I suppose.

 

[GTX]

What? That doesn't really track at all. General Electric makes the majority, if not all, fighter engines for DOD now.

Really?

F-35: best part of 2000 yet to be delivered to the USAF/USN/USMC with P&W F135s still the only option (despite GE's hopes to get in there)
F-15: Still majority have P&W F100s which even if not all new production still plenty of spares work to go
F-16: Still majority have P&W F100s which even if not all new production still plenty of spares work to go
F-22: P&W F119s which even if not all new production still plenty of spares work to go
F-18E/F: GE F414s
F-18A/B/C/D: GE F404s

and P&W may be forced to close up its military arm in the coming years as a result.

I doubt you will see that. If nothing else the F135 line (both new production and MRO - remember that all F135 engines globally go via P&W for MRO) will keep them profitably in the game for many years to come.

This is definitely a "P&W was supposed to win Raptor engines and GE was supposed to win JSF engines" because that somehow makes sense if you genuinely believe you'll get 750 F-22s and 1,500 F-35s. It's roughly the same number of engines, so they should be having equal business.

Since when - having been involved with the F-35 program for over 15yrs now and particularly with the engine side of things, and dealing with both GE and P&W, I have never seen any comments along the lines if this.

Ergo, Pratt now has little reason to remain in the military turbofan business, since it's just been a conga line of GE winning contract after contract. I

And yet GE lost out on the F136.

 

[Allan511]

How do I get a T-7 Red Hawk?
I’m serious. I want one.

You just wait till the end of the century and then you try to nick one from the scrap-yard.

No just find a bunch of ex-fighter pilots and some VC's, form your own adversary company and buy 30-40 up engined with F414's

Looking for partners. Lets do this.

 

[mkellytx]

No just find a bunch of ex-fighter pilots and some VC's, form your own adversary company and buy 30-40 up engined with F414's

Looking for partners. Lets do this.

Lol, may capital is tied up in another venture. I can offer my non-rated aircrew services to run stuff in the back, think the flight suits should still fit and the wife should be able to take my rank off…

 

[Allan511]

No just find a bunch of ex-fighter pilots and some VC's, form your own adversary company and buy 30-40 up engined with F414's

Looking for partners. Lets do this.

Lol, may capital is tied up in another venture. I can offer my non-rated aircrew services to run stuff in the back, think the flight suits should still fit and the wife should be able to take my rank off…

A couple of years ago I saw three CT114 jet trainers for sale, and someone bought them.
They needed J85can 40 engines, but looked pristine other wise.
I did a lot of test flights in them. Snowbird aircraft. Real sports car.
If they come up for sale I may seriously need partners.

 

[Kat Tsun]

What? That doesn't really track at all. General Electric makes the majority, if not all, fighter engines for DOD now.

Really?

F-35: best part of 2000 yet to be delivered to the USAF/USN/USMC with P&W F135s still the only option (despite GE's hopes to get in there)
F-15: Still majority have P&W F100s which even if not all new production still plenty of spares work to go
F-16: Still majority have P&W F100s which even if not all new production still plenty of spares work to go
F-22: P&W F119s which even if not all new production still plenty of spares work to go
F-18E/F: GE F414s
F-18A/B/C/D: GE F404s

and P&W may be forced to close up its military arm in the coming years as a result.

I doubt you will see that. If nothing else the F135 line (both new production and MRO - remember that all F135 engines globally go via P&W for MRO) will keep them profitably in the game for many years to come.

This is definitely a "P&W was supposed to win Raptor engines and GE was supposed to win JSF engines" because that somehow makes sense if you genuinely believe you'll get 750 F-22s and 1,500 F-35s. It's roughly the same number of engines, so they should be having equal business.

Since when - having been involved with the F-35 program for over 15yrs now and particularly with the engine side of things, and dealing with both GE and P&W, I have never seen any comments along the lines if this.

Ergo, Pratt now has little reason to remain in the military turbofan business, since it's just been a conga line of GE winning contract after contract. I

And yet GE lost out on the F136.

What I get for stepping outside my comfort zone. Bleh.

I recant the specifics, but the gist is that there isn't enough worksharing between major design houses of complex weapon systems, when prior complex weapon systems had plenty of alternative sources for major line items.

It's somewhat bizarre, rather backwards, and frankly seems a rather silly idea to do when contracts for major procurement items like fighter jets and main battle tanks are ever shrinking for the foreseeable future. Maybe if America were contracting three or four JSF-type aircraft for separate firms it could get away with sole source of an engine per aircraft program, but something like Block 30/32 F-16s had two engines from two design houses, so it isn't clear why JSF couldn't have done this IMO.

Maybe it'll happen at some point in the future though who knows. It's just far more realistic, I think, to try to diversify the existing production line of JSF to incorporate multiple firms producing whole aircraft (or at least line items like AFE did with F-16, but maybe incorporating Alternative Fighter Radars and such), than trying to make a plane slightly faster than JSF. Especially with the current macro trends of the US's industrial economy.

It would probably be a necessary stepping stone to actually making something like the "New Century" happen anyway.

 

[GTX]

Block 30/32 F-16s had two engines from two design houses, so it isn't clear why JSF couldn't have done this IMO.

First up the F-16 didn't start off with two engines. The GE F110 only came onto the scene after 10yrs of pure P&W F100 operations when the USAF implemented the Alternative Fighter Engine (AFE) program in 1984.

Secondly, the F-35 JSF did have two options for many years. The GE/RR F136 was developed/tested from 2004 - 2011 and was originally planned to be an alternate engine. It always had an up-hill battle against the P&W F135 though. It was always 'second fiddle' and was first excluded from the US Defense budget in 2006 but was later reinstated. From 2006 to 2010 the Defense Department continually did not request funding for the alternate F136 engine program, but Congress maintained program funding. I suspect the reasoning here was that the Defense Department was playing games knowing that they could not include it (thus spend on other things) but that congress would have their back - kind of a 'having your cake and eating it too' game (which they still play).

Then in March 2011, the Department of Defense issued a 90-day temporary stop work order after Congress failed to pass the defense budget. GE & RR continued to work on the engine program with their own funds but were limited to design work only, as the stop-work prevented their use of the existing hardware. Therefore. they reduced their team on project from 1,000 workers down to 100. Then in a further blow. on 25 April 2011, the Department of Defense ended the contract with GE and demanded that the engines built to date be turned over. The final death came after self-funding the project for ~6mths, but seeing the writing on the wall, GE and RR announced on 2 December 2011, that they would not continue development of the F136 engine because it is not in their best interest.

You can see more on this here and here and here - note that the turning point was really in 2010/2011 when the tea party-backed Republicans refused to support its funding and played other shenanigans with the Defense budget.

It's just far more realistic, I think, to try to diversify the existing production line of JSF to incorporate multiple firms producing whole aircraft (or at least line items like AFE did with F-16, but maybe incorporating Alternative Fighter Radars and such), than trying to make a plane slightly faster than JSF. Especially with the current macro trends of the US's industrial economy.

They don't have multiple firms producing who aircraft but there are multiple firms producing major chunks (ignoring even more diversity at the sub-component level:

And besides the main LM Ft Worth plant there is also the Italian Final Assembly and Check Out/Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul & Upgrade (FACO/MRO&U) facility in Cameri.

 

[Kat Tsun]

That's unfortunate wrt the F-35 multiple engine options. Maybe it'll come back later at some point, at least I'd hope it would.

Also while that's true re: multiple contractors, those firms making chunks seems less like a genuine attempt at diversifying an industrial base (when's the last time Fokker even made a fighter?) and more a political lobbying effort to make F-35 indestructible for national parliaments tbh. It's not much different than how the Typhoon's production was chopped up into wildly geographically segregated pieces to provide work sharing to different companies/countries and ended up inflating the cost and timelines needed to produce whole fighters.

There are probably some unfortunate macroeconomic trends at work here though, like the US industrial workforce being at extremely low levels of staffing, and industrial jobs generally being difficult to find work for/expand factories, but it just doesn't seem like it should take 30+ years to go from prototype to mass production tbh.

Typhoon had those delays happen because of fairly typical politicized chicanery regarding work share, but America is ostensibly one country that can just make planes, and speaks a single language. Of course, L-M is doing the whole politicized chopping up of production across Congressional districts to ensure its program remains funded, but that still shouldn't lead to the fairly significant delays I'd think because there's no language or national standards barriers to hop over like with Typhoon. The latter of which were the main issues with the chopping up and timeline/cost escalations, not the chicanery itself.

Of course since F-35 is finally stabilizing and holding down prices for actual mass production, I guess it's just stumbling across the finish line to victory, whereas Typhoon never actually recovered even with the new Tranche 4s.

It's quite a strange tale really, the less advanced plane (JSF) took thrice as long as the more advanced one (Raptor) to hit production, and much longer to actually pull prices down. I do wonder if F-35 was just missing gaps in funding of its various testing phases through the 2000's that kept pushing it back 6-8 months at a time, perhaps due to GWOT funding demands it gets put on the backburner. I suppose that's the charitable explanation.

I'm still sorta under the impression that "opening up" JSF's TDPs through licensed manufacture by other notable national concerns, or just outright nationalizing the plane's design, to shift to a general production by firms like Boeing and General Dynamics or something, might help improve both the industrial throughput and lower initial and lifetime costs. Seems a better move than a Digital Century, or warming over a plane like T-50 or T-7, for the MR-X, since L-M has finally gotten the production schema down pat and the machinery and such actually exists to make the plane.

Talking about going through the problems of making another wall climbing exercise of doing multiple (Digital Century) or singular (MR-X) planes in the modern US economy seems like industrial defeatism though. F-35 is, for the most part, fine, it just needs more factories making whole planes and more concerns producing alternative sources of line items. Better than trying to downcycle F-35 production or sap resources from it for a armed trainer, really.

T-7 might be a good basis for a modern F-5 unironically, but for export only and on Boeing's dime with token DOD support I guess. Unfortunately that market share seems to have been eaten by F-16V. :v

 

[GTX]

I think you should read more on the history of the F-35 (just avoid the misguided rants of those such as Pierre Sprey and others who put out all sorts of gibberish) to understand exactly what has occurred. Comments such as "L-M is doing the whole politicized chopping up of production across Congressional districts to ensure its program remains funded" is not quite the case.

 

[njiiaf]

It's quite a strange tale really, the less advanced plane (JSF) took thrice as long as the more advanced one
(Raptor) to hit production, and much longer to actually pull prices down.

It is technically 3 separate aircraft after all. And the sensors are more advanced than the Raptor’s.

 

[GTX]

It's quite a strange tale really, the less advanced plane (JSF) took thrice as long as the more advanced one
(Raptor) to hit production, and much longer to actually pull prices down.

It is technically 3 separate aircraft after all. And the sensors are more advanced than the Raptor’s.

Exactly. In fact, the entire avionics suite is more advanced.

 

[Allan511]

It's quite a strange tale really, the less advanced plane (JSF) took thrice as long as the more advanced one
(Raptor) to hit production, and much longer to actually pull prices down.

It is technically 3 separate aircraft after all. And the sensors are more advanced than the Raptor’s.

Exactly. In fact, the entire avionics suite is more advanced.

Avionics is definitely one of, if not the major contributor to development delays.

 

[片翼的妖精]

It's incorrect to say the J-10 is 'a lot more capable' than an F-16. Very simplistic analysis.

Degree of Modernization: The J-10 is a relatively new design, and its avionics and weapons systems may be more modern in certain aspects, particularly in the later models.

Air-to-Air Missiles: The J-10 is equipped with China's domestically developed air-to-air missiles, such as the PL-10 and PL-15, which may compare favorably with the AIM-120 series and AIM-9X missiles equipped on the F-16, and even surpass them in certain respects.

Electronic Warfare Capabilities: The J-10 possesses robust electronic warfare capabilities, enabling it to conduct electronic interference and self-protection, which is a significant factor in modern aerial combat.

Thrust Vector Control: Certain latest variants of the J-10, such as the J-10B, may be equipped with Thrust Vector Control (TVC) technology, which can enhance the aircraft's maneuverability and combat capabilities in the air.

Use of Composite Materials: The J-10's design may incorporate a higher usage of composite materials, which helps to reduce the weight of the aircraft and improve its performance.

Cost-Effectiveness: As a domestically developed fighter aircraft, the J-10 may have lower production and maintenance costs, which is an advantage for large-scale equipment and operation.