>Lockheed Martin is ramping the F-16 Falcon back into full rate production, planning to build 48 of them per year by 2025
>this is in spite of the fact that all American orders for F-16s ended in 2017 as the US Air Force pivots toward the F-35; all future F-16 production is for export only
https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/09/lockheed-aims-hit-f-16-production-goal-end-2025/390422/
How can such an old plane get such a second wind?
Is this basically the end of the line for Gripen/Rafael/JF-17/etc.?
Block 70? Its radar and improved engine are just good in 90% of the world. Most countries don't have long range SAMs.
Yes, these are all Block 70 (F-16V) spec airframes, wether they get the cool upgraded radar and specific software capabilities depends on the customer.
Wasn't the F16 made by general dynamics?
yes, until it merged into lockheed martin
Better than Boing being Boing while selling "all new" F-15s and F-18s
GD didn't merge into LM. Lockheed straight up just bought the F-16 design off of them and took over production.
It's not a second wind at all, it's just trucking on as always.
The 4F program for the air force is built on the following:
>F-16
>F-15EX
>F-35
>F-22 -> NGAD
The F-16 is just a cheap to maintain airframe that can maintain readiness at higher levels than the more expensive stuff, and can pull off missions in less restricted airspace, where flying an F-35 would be wasteful.
>it's just trucking on as always.
only six new F-16 airframes were constructed this year
Yes? It's trucking on. The plane has a long lifespan that's still viable for a decade into the future, after its replacement will start getting sought after.
F-15EXs are being newly built, on the other hand.
asshole
I am, but I don't see what about that post is assholish, except the general willingness to argue.
You made him look bad. Apologize.
>except the general willingness to argue.
lol no one here is arguing, except you. can't you see that? why are you so argumentative?
Yes, and it's ramping up to 48 in 2-3 years as they have a large number of pending orders on new airframes.
>F-15EX
>5EX
like pottery!
It's really remarkable watching Falcons mating. Isn't nature wonferful?
>The F-16 is just a cheap to maintain airframe that can maintain readiness at higher levels than the more expensive stuff, and can pull off missions in less restricted airspace, where flying an F-35 would be wasteful
How does the F/A-18 not do this?
By being a Navy aircraft and not an Air Force one. USAF never had F-18s in active service.
Only some countries determined to operate off of highway runways bought them for their air forces.
>How does the F/A-18 not do this?
Because of interservice rivalry masked as different mission profiles. The F-35 program did away with it, for good reasons
and NGAD brings it back because it turns out the Navy really doesn't want the same capabilities the Air Force wants, and designing an aircraft to do both was incredibly time-consuming, and expensive and resulted in a worse aircraft for both services.
That's fine for a multi-national export fighter meant to churn out 3000+ units, but that's not gonna fly for a high performance balls to the walls no compromise fighter like USAF and USN NGAD will be (F/A-XX for the navy).
Dude it's terrifying how much your country spends on military shit.
>designing an aircraft to do both was incredibly time-consuming, and expensive and resulted in a worse aircraft for both services.
Developing the F-35A, B and C was far cheaper and faster than the combined F-16, Harrier and F/A-18 they were replacing
Twin engine means more cost.
Also means more alive? Doesn't that save you money in the long run?
i vaguely recall reading something about how small air forces want twin engines to minimize loss of air frames which would be catastrophic to readiness levels but in larger air forces the cost of operating/maintaining a large number of twin engine craft outweighs the increased number of losses as the larger fleet can more readily absorb said losses
Wrong on both counts. Also engine reliability mostly doesn't matter since the turn of the century, almost all engines (military and civilian) are reliable. Single engine planes are usually chosen strictly for performance reasons, like the fact that the F-16 just used the F-15's engines being as those were powerful and mature, but it didn't need two of them.
The F404 was designed to be far simpler and cheaper to operate
wasn't sold in the same numbers as the f-16 so doesn't have nearly the same robustness in terms of supply
F-16 maintainer here, it’s a bitch to maintain. But maybe if they ramp up production then we’ll have more spare parts domestically, so that’s nice
>Rafale
India is still buying them since they don't want to buy American, Russian, or Chinese, and their domestic aerospace program (like their whole domestic MIC, all the way down to small arms) is now well below the point of bad comedy.
>Gripen
No foreign sales since 2014, most of its potential market share has been devoured by the F-35, and the remaining niche it could have filled has indeed been utterly cucked by the F-16.
>JF-17
Buy Chinese if you want cheap. China will likely take over from the USSR/Russia as THE supplier to anyone who wants hardware, but cannot or will not buy Western.
>MiG/Sukhoi
lol/lmao
>India
>their domestic aerospace program (like their whole domestic MIC, all the way down to small arms) is now well below the point of bad comedy.
How does a country their size fail so fuckingly bad? It’s made worse by the inflated ego/arrogance as well.
Can't compete with American wages and so we've been brain draining anyone who's even moderately competent since they'll work for substantially less then an American will.
It’s not just the salaries, it’s the quality of life. As much as you will hear second gen Indian American women bitch about blah blah white supremacy while they go to elite level colleges, their parents left behind everything they knew in India in part because they didn’t want their daughter getting gang raped on a bus and then murdered in a religious riot over how a 9 cocked elephant-goat-woman gets offered burn incense.
There is nothing more pathetic than an indian stuck in india. They have no one that can make planes since those that can, leave.
They don't feel a pressing need to arm up, so they don't do much about the typical third-world shenanigans fucking up their defense projects.
Despite the skirmishes with China and having Pakistan on their border?
>Gripen
Brazil.
The F-16 and the F-15 are the most effective combat airframes ever deployed and the Viper specifically probably has the highest cost-effectivity ratio of any plane on Earth. With its upgrades it can do everything any other plane can it's just not stealthy.
>it can do everything any other plane can
>it's just not stealthy.
So it can't. Without stealth, aircraft are completely inferior in modern air combat. I'd compare it to having NVGs or not, when fighting at night.
The stealth aircraft can detect, lock-on and fire on the non-stealth one without the inferior aircraft ever actually seeing the enemy on its own radar. Stealth is a complete game changer.
>even when its replaced with F-35s
The F-16s aren't being replaced by the F-35s at all. They're a complementary system, a cheaper-to-fly plane that can maintain readiness and presence in places where the F-35 isn't needed.
The F-16s will also have their own replacement in the future, but those will then again work alongside the F-35s.
Nope, the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, when the USAF has a full fleet of 1500+ the F-16 will be relegated to the ANG. The future "cheap" option is drone wingmen, they'll be paired with the F-35 and NGAD.
F-16s will be kept in the Air National Guard for a long while though.
You're both right. There have been no F-16 airframes "retired and replaced" yet because the Air Force is attempting to do it and Congress is blocking them.
There were supposed to be 125 F-16C/Ds sent off (to Ukraine instead of the junkyard hopefully) this year but one Congressman (Carlos A. Giménez R-Fla.) managed to singlehandedly force the USAF to keep them against their will
I'm really gonna be forced to vote democrat if I want to keep making sure we kill russians huh...
This is the problem with first past the post unfortunately
In a ranked choice preference system you'd be able to give your vote to the "kill all Russians" party secure in the knowledge that it will not be wasted by doing so
I will personally chair the TZD party assuming this guy isn't available
why is he so red?
holding in the maniacal laughter he gets from the prospect of witnessing russia collapse a second time
I'd vote for Holden Bloodfeast, he sounds based.
You aren't fooling anybody, you were going to do that anyway.
>but one Congressman (Carlos A. Giménez R-Fla.) managed to singlehandedly force the USAF to keep them against their will
Russia could've gotten the multipolar world they wanted if they stuck to their strengths (psyop, subversion, paying off american "lawmakers")
too bad they chose violence
TZD
i would guess that his district benefits from the f-16 supply line rather than him being a plant but i wouldn't be surprised either way
>when the USAF has a full fleet of 1500+
In 30 years at this rate. Last I checked, the USAF was getting 48 F-35s a year, while the F-16 is bound to start getting a replacement contract in maybe a decade+ now. So the F-16 will be abandoned way before the USAF actually has all the F-35s it wants.
>The future "cheap" option is drone wingmen, they'll be paired with the F-35 and NGAD.
That's not "cheap," anon. That's way more costly than having just a single airframe truck bombs onto target or provide CAS. The USAF NEEDS a fast aircraft that can perform missions in more tolerant, less contested airspace, to fill the gaps where modern, more maintenance intensive airframes can't, or would be too expensive.
>F-16s will be kept in the Air National Guard for a long while though.
Yes, but not because the F-35 replaces them, but because the F-16s own replacement aircraft gets put into action.
>You're both right. There have been no F-16 airframes "retired and replaced" yet because the Air Force is attempting to do it and Congress is blocking them.
USAF is planning to start the process in about a decade, last I read something about it. So attempts to get it done now are just the prelude, really. They'll keep throwing the budget at congress and sometime in the future they'll let it through.
>the F-16s own replacement aircraft
Fuckin source me on that one bud, literally NO ONE has said a single word about this future concept you're talking about as if it's a done deal, despite NO MIC doing R&D or readying a prototype for such a plane.
You're talking out of your ass about something you WANT to happen, but there hasn't even been so much as a rumor to suggest it's even being considered right now.
It's literally in the first paragraph of the wiki page with a source you newhomosexual cretin.
>This is the F-35 Lightning II, which will replace various tactical aircraft, including the US F-16, A-10, F/A-18A-D, AV-8B, EA-6B and British Harrier GR7, GR9s and Tornado GR4. The projected average annual cost of the program is $12.5 billion with an estimated program life-cycle cost of $1.1 trillion.[2]
i'm asking for a source on the F-16 being replaced by something OTHER than the F-35.
Everybody knows it
Can't you read?
Yes, it says the F-35 will replace the F-16.
The poster I originally replied to
was saying there is a future aircraft, NOT THE F-35 that will instead be replacing the F-16.
I am asking for a source for THAT.
I know the F-35 is replacing the F-16, that's what i've been saying this whole time.
Nigga can't even follow a comment chain on PrepHole and accuses me of not being able to read, fuckin incredible.
ironic
That guy is right and you're wrong. F-35 has always been the designated F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier replacement. There was never a time this wasn't the plan. The F-35 already has replaced the F-16 in the SEAD role, which was the F-16's most dangerous combat role before the F-35.
Inventory replacement is not monolithic and takes place over years.
>as if it's a done deal
Of course it's not, because the Air Force is dependent on the politicians to approve its budget, but the F-16 is planned to be replaced in the 2030s with a multirole aircraft that's yet to exist; something for more permissive airspaces, some 5th-gen(-) airframe that's not quite as costly to fly and maintain as the big girls. I'll see if I can dig up some reliable articles or something of people talking about it.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/air-force-holding-off-developing-new-f-16-replacement-for-now
I didn't read this one.
>There was never a time this wasn't the plan.
Except now and in the near past, under Brown, who is now the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The F-16 is specifically being kept alive and upgraded until its replacement gets found sometime in the future.
You can argue that the congress or senate will stop the plan, but the plan does actually exist.
>but there is going to be no sudden new successor to the F-16 popping up. That successor is the F-35.
It's not sudden. The Air Force has its 4 fighter plan for the future, which includes the F-16 being flown into the 2030s when its multirole replacement gets fielded. Something cheaper and more simple than a F-35 or NGAD.
> Brig. Gen. Dale White, program executive officer for fighters and advanced aircraft
> White also revealed to the media that he hasn’t received any instructions to begin working on the F-16’s successor
> MR-F/MR-X initiative seems to mirror this idea, but the Air Force has decided not to pursue it as a formal program at this time, though it could become the route it takes as the years pass and a need for an F-16 replacement draws closer.
You're talking about something that is decades away, something airforce hasn't even approved to do, and something even the airforce says could just be F-35As, F-35E (new design for F-16 replacement) or a whole new aircraft.
Yes, but that means the F-35 is NOT the designated replacement for the F-16, contrary to what was claimed here ITT.
And considering the maintenance costs and readiness rates, it's unlikely the F-35 will actually be a replacement for the F-16. You don't need such a high performance aircraft for the kind of operations a superpower mostly spends its time doing. It's only in peer warfare where the F-35 and F-22/NGAD are truly needed. While it's necessary to prepare for those conflicts, it's unlikely for any of those to happen before our civilization itself starts collapsing.
No nagger it does NOT mean that, it means the airforce is studying to determine IF they want to use something besides the F-35.
Are you really this fucking dumb?
Just because you WANT something to be true doesn't mean it is.
>No nagger it does NOT mean that, it means the airforce is studying to determine IF they want to use something besides the F-35.
>Just because you WANT something to be true doesn't mean it is.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-16s-to-serve-nearly-two-more-decades-replacement-choice-still-6-8-years-away/
They absolutely do want to use something else than the F-35. It's more a question of if the politicians allow it. It is as you said, it's a question of WANT. But the desire is still there. It's NOT a done deal.
>The F-16 can be that “one airplane that can do a lot of low-end missions, and remarkably cheaper than a fifth-generation platform, and it can do them well,” he said. It can “satisfy an objective in the Middle East and a week later, fly [combat air patrol] over a point on the U.S., and do a homeland defense sortie. It’s pretty amazing. And do that at half … [the] operating cost of any other air platform we have out there.”
>Rather than a high-low mix, Nahom said USAF’s future fighter force structure would be better described as a bell curve with the bulk being low/medium capability F-16s and medium/high capability F-35s.
>All of that, he said, is “a question for another day. The good thing is, we don’t have to do anything right now. We’ve got 18-20 years of life left on 600-plus F-16s that are doing great work for our nation.” The decision on how it will be replaced is “probably six, eight years away,” he said.
>A year ago, the Air Force began discussing its “4+1” fighter roadmap, which forecast a new fighter to succeed the F-16 in the 2030s. Called the “MR-X,” -- described as being “generation 4.5,” -- to keep its cost down. -- F-35 could be that aircraft if its purchase price could be “brought significantly lower,”
Don't you dare compare the F-16 to the Blitzfighter, you rancid asshole. That's foul.
Please show me a USAF document, interview, statement or something that says the F-35 is designated to replace the F-16.
>Please show me a USAF document, interview, statement or something that says the F-35 is designated to replace the F-16.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii/
> The F-35A is the U.S. Air Force’s latest fifth-generation fighter. It will replace the U.S. Air Force’s aging fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons
Sorry, anon:
>(Current as of April 2014)
That's not topical. The 4 fighter plan is modern, still in force as of early 2023, and it involves the F-16 being kept afloat until its replacement is decided roughly a decade into the future.
>F-16 being kept afloat until its replacement is decided roughly a decade into the future.
Isn't the replacement to the F-16 the F-35?
Not as of now. The F-16's replacement is undecided, but the Air Force is pushing for a cheaper (to fly and maintain) alternative to the F-35 which can fill a niche in the kind of operations like Afghanistan and Iraq were. But the actual decision is going to be made about a decade from now, when the F-16 is determined to be outdated / the airframes are facing the end of their flight hour lifespans. The newly built frames will be transferred to the ANG, while the replacement will take the F-16's place abroad.
The last A10 was built in 1985 lmao that thing is fucking Invincible.
Last B-52 was produced in 1962 and won't be taken out of service until at least the late 2050s.
ONE
HUNDRED
YEARS
It is likely that we will have B-52 airframes flying 100 years after their original in-service dates.
That being said, it wouldn't shock me if by 2060 we were in the process of retiring them from service.
considering its role there's really not any reason to replace it. They could make something better but not better enough for it to be worth it.
its a replacement is a C-5 cargo dropping JASSMs lmao
It is, but it's also a slow turd that can't fly in airspace if the enemy has MANPADs. They got grounded in Iraq and the F-16 took over its role more than successfully.
Can't really go on DCS pvp with that thing, I discovered, even my $70 A-10C II gets immediately shat on by autistic fast movers.
In air superiority this thing will fucking murder anything on the ground for days, but yeah, it immediately melts to red air who knows their shit.
Soooo... what are the ~1,700 F-35As replacing, then? I am not aware of another aircraft type that the USAF has in active service in those numbers. Are you trying to claim that the F-35 is "in addition to" the F-16, rather than "instead of"?
>That's not topical. The 4 fighter plan is modern, still in force as of early 2023, and it involves the F-16 being kept afloat until its replacement is decided roughly a decade into the future.
Thats not going to happen considering the financial degeneracy of the federal state. There is simply too much debt in a situation where the dollar has to be defended by raising interest rates. There is a small potential for a soviet union tier implosion in the next 15 years.
>babby's first financial crisis
I am John American from Ohio oblast and I am afraid my pension will not save me from the soon failure of the American federal home reserve
brokerage bank system.
I am demoralized.
I don't know who to believe. On one side, we have an official Air Force release. On the other, some trash from TheDrive.
god we've attracted a Spreytard
>not the designated replacement
It literally is and they're giving them out to national guard units, are you fucking stupid?
>Inventory replacement is not monolithic and takes place over years.
It still hurts my brain to contemplate, even though I know it's true, that Desert storm involved
>more M60s than Abramseses
>more F-4s than F-16s
>more diesel carriers than nuclear ones
And that's with the US still being the best funded and fastest advancing military in history, really puts into perspective the "most niggas in WW2 were working with horses and bolt action rifles" reality
Call it videogame logic or whatever but I think fundamentally most people are averse to recognize it because it's not sexy
Yup, people fail to realize the brand new shit being shown off is NOT what we have available around the world at our beck and call for any situation.
What we're currently retiring is likely more accurate to what we have available around the world within a few hours notice.
The higher-end kit is kept closer to home, and takes decades to disseminate out into the wider force.
As you noted, we still had non-nuclear carriers operating in service in 2007. Despite having our first nuclear-powered carrier all the way back in 1961.
Yeah it's a trip innit. I honestly feel like going "wait a sec what" to your point of F4s. Are we talking Turkish contingent and Saudi airforce and all the others, or did the US actually use less F16s than F4s in Desert storm?
There are only 3 SEAD wings in the Air Force. Spangdahlem, Shaw, and Misawa. All 3 fly 16’s. Try again
See pic rel for source
The USAF doesn't have HARMs that fit internally inside the F-35A and they won't have them until next year at the earliest.
once that happens though, F-35As should replace the F-16 for the SEAD role.
> On October 23, 2023, Finland has been given permission by U.S. State Department to proceed with purchase of up to 150 AGM-88G AARGM-ERs.
these are the ones that fit inside the F-35A/C
>F-35As should replace the F-16 for the SEAD role.
f-35's are already obsolete.
Is everyone really going to memoryhole the fucking F-35 to hype what whatever the next gen thing is?
just brownoids
don't bother arguing with them, they don't care about what's true, only what they can use to construct a world that flatters their bitterness
facts
>F-16s own replacement aircraft
Anon, there are F-35s in the ANG right now. The F-16 is a dead end (see the CFTs bolted onto her poor, thin, toned body over the years) and the F-35 is the future. F-15EX will be used for continental defense and maybe bomb trucking in the future depending on how they like it, fuck the F-16V might even make a reappearance, but there is going to be no sudden new successor to the F-16 popping up. That successor is the F-35.
Please just buy C:MO and try it out for a bit anon.
Ah, they don't understand because they play too many videogames, got it
>thin, toned body
>big girls
>giantess squad
This board makes me hornier than /a/ or /e/ ever could damnit
By the fast bomb truck logic, I guess I don't understand why we also don't still have F4s, since they have a higher payload than an F16 and a proven track record until recently (with the nips).
>Without stealth, aircraft are completely inferior in modern air combat
Le wrong.
You can clamp a German Taurus on it's belly, fly into Taurus range and let it go, so it destroys the Kremlin, without getting your planeroo into AA range.
Did you really think Germany will not give them Taurus?
Stealth is a meme
It's absolutely not. Radar is the equivalent of sight to humans. If you can't see your enemy, you're completely undermined in combat. Imagine having to fight at night against an enemy with NVGs. That's what it's like for a non-stealth aircraft to fight a stealth one. You get shot at accurately, but the only indication you have of the enemy's position is their gunfire. All you can do is react to what they're doing, leaving you completely vulnerable.
But a flying missile truck can't get a lock-on on enemy stealth aircraft with its own on-board radar before the enemy gets to launch his own missile. All it can do is either fire a maddog missile (no lock-on on the enemy, hoping the missile's own radar picks it up) or go defensive once it gets a warning of an incoming missile. It's suicidal. Even if you have AWACS telling you roughly where the enemy is, you're not going to be able to get a radar lock.
Then don't use your dumb non-stealthy missile truck in missions where you expect to deal with stealthy adversaries?
War is a holistic endeavor.
But that goes back to the core argument that
>With its upgrades it can do everything any other plane can it's just not stealthy.
and that's just not true. The F-16 can't function in an airspace with stealthy adversaries, meaning it can't do everything any other plane can do.
It's got its own wonderful niche in less contested airspace, but it's not a plane for fighting against the peer enemies the USAF is preparing to fight against.
There's plenty of countries that would buy them, anon, stealth F-35 and all that shit is cool but it's really fucking expensive for casual countries, I imagine.
I still have no idea why South Africa bought gripens, they're cool and all but who the fuck are we supposed to fight?
>It's got its own wonderful niche in less contested airspace, but it's not a plane for fighting against the peer enemies the USAF is preparing to fight against.
So if you can create that less contested airspace in some way using some means, the F-16 suddenly shines?
I wonder if there is any such way to accomplish that for the USAF.
There are tons of countries that'll never get into the types of fights the big players like the US potentially gets into. F-16 is a good solution for basic air defense.
Im not an aircraft expert but if the F-16 is affordable to maintain and run then it could be a good seller. What is the competitor aircraft in its price/maintenance range?
>So if you can create that less contested airspace in some way using some means,
That's where the F-35 and other advanced systems come in. They're there to degrade the enemy's ability to maintain a contested airspace.
>the F-16 suddenly shines?
It doesn't shine, but it can pull off those basic bitch missions where needed. It's just a basic modern aircraft that's cheaper to fly and keep airborne.
And we're back at "don't use your non-stealthy missile truck in an environment that calls for stealth"
Nobody has argued against that ITT. What are you on about?
Which is maybe why the new builds are for export? for those not looking to go up against the USAF?
>Without stealth, aircraft are completely inferior in modern air combat
Flying missile trucks are still flying missile trucks.
The F-16 is the cheapest way to carry a missile where it needs to go in a reasonable amount of time.
>>So it can't. Without stealth, aircraft are completely inferior in modern air combat.
It's not gonna go up against stealth-capable airframes nor ir is it gonna encounter capable AD. Those new chinkshit and russhit fighters aren't stealth.
It's not going to be sent into a fair fight to begin with. The F-35s, F-22s and NGADs are what are going to go against those non-stealth Chink and Russian aircraft.
Never fight fair.
>F-35 and all that shit is cool but it's really fucking expensive for casual countries, I imagine.
They're not that expensive to buy at the moment because everyone's buying them, but they're very maintenance intensive, and require genuine professionals to keep them airborne. Cost of purchase is low, but cost of flying is not only fucking high, but needs modern, Western engineers.
>I still have no idea why South Africa bought gripens, they're cool and all but who the fuck are we supposed to fight?
Chinese supported African countries, like SA fought those Soviet-supported ones in the past?
Yes we weren't supported by anyone back then, only traded with Israel. Under global sanctions when fighting Angola / Soviet Russians / Cubans.
But I mean today those kind of fights aren't there anymore. At least not down here.
>But I mean today those kind of fights aren't there anymore
But a decade or two into the future? China's been building its presence up in Africa the way the Soviet Union did in the past, so there's a good chance those old conflicts might brew up again. Especially as Western Civilization goes deeper into its ongoing decline. That's bound to ruffle up some feathers globally.
SA will be on China's side anyway in the NATO-BRICS war, they might as well just get J-20s or whatever
Israel-adjacent (nuke programs don't lie) SA seems more like a somewhat West-aligned wildcard to me, but has the nation really declined so far as to side with the Chinks?
SA is very much a democracy in that everyone has their own opinions, we abstain from a lot of international shit, and the BRICS summit thing is more about economics (trade) than military allegiance type shit.
Also the fat cats in government love German cars way too much to want to piss off Germany ever.
South Africa is officially neutral on Israel and Palestine since the ANC took the government and there's no shortage of downright hostile and anti-zionist politicians in the ANC, including in the government. In fact, Israel cut off all its military development programs with SA in the late 1990s because of that.
Times change.
>South Africa is officially neutral on Israel and Palestine since the ANC took the government
The current South African government openly supprts Palestinians and are friendly with Iran because Isreal supported Apartheid South Africa.
Just this past week South Africa recommended that Isreal be referred to the ICC for war crimes.
I don't know about that, new SA is a weird place diplomatically, the natives in charge are way too fucking uppity for China, they like the French and bongs a lot too, it's complicated.
Like any dealings with China anywhere, it's complicated.
Dude, I can tell you now, SA and India would never enter a fucking war against NATO. BRICS is all trade shit, it's not a military league like NATO, in fact I'm pretty sure India wouldn't blink to join a kinetic fight against China.
Remember that poorer countries are under China's economic thumb, even some richer ones suck up to them on the daily.
If China decides to throw down, and get subsequently fucked up for fucking around and finding out, you'll see a massive diplomatic shift globally. Right now things are awkward everywhere.
SA will be another Zimbabwe in another decade or two, and about as relevant.
Service your jet in your shorts, bru. Gonna pound some commies.
>Chinese supported African countries, like SA fought those Soviet-supported ones in the past?
Anon, you understand that today and for the last 20 years South Africa is one of those countries correct?
>Those new chinkshit and russhit fighters aren't stealth.
Can you guarantee the Chinese won't have an actual 5th generation fighter by the 2030s or 2040s?
>I'd compare it to having NVGs or not, when fighting at night.
thing is, most of your troops don't fight at night and even then a good chunk of them will just be patrolling illuminated bases. Same way you only need stealth against opponents with
A) functional air force
B) functional air defense
once those are eliminated your priority shifts into CAS uptime and overall volume of fire, neither of which expensive stealth airframes provide
eh, you don't need stealth when you're intercepting a cessna that strayed too close to a football stadium. Sometimes you just need a cheap running plane, and the F-16 is that.
Yep, you're right.
The F-16 is gonna be serving the Air National Guard for many decades from now on. Even when the F-16 is dumped from from foreign deployments, they're gonna be flying above US soil.
Still a sexy plane, we should have bought F-16s. I think the maintenance would have fucked us over harder than the Gripens, though.
I can imagine the Gripens probably offered more local production compared to the F-16s. That's always a massive bonus for for fringe countries, after all.
It's incredibly gay that only 13 of the 26 actually runs / are under official maintainence, so whats the best approach here, you use the others for spare parts down the line or something?
I would assume it's a sort of option for wartime maintenance intensity. You keep 13 running now, but if ever it seems like SHTF, you can ramp it up and push all the 26 into action, at least for a while.
Like even the US only has around 55% readiness rates for its F-35s and 60-70% readiness for its F-16s and F-15s. Most aircraft are genuinely just grounded for the most part. But it's still very valuable to have those airframes stored somewhere when you really need to have them. 26 in the backround means that if any of those 13 active ones get shot down or worn out of action, replacements can be pulled out of storage.
As advanced as we get in terms of warfare, attrition and logistics are still what determine the outcome.
Makes a lot of sense, thanks.
why plane has carry handle
for use by giantess squad
naruhodo
Side looking L-band radar.
>the ONLY way that planes are used is to shoot down other planes
lmfao
How come the US refuses to send Ukraine any of their own F-16s?
Both the F-16 and the current Migs the Ukrainians have are mission-limited due to Russia's large anti-air weapon stockpiles. These stockpiles have been drained less significantly than Russia's dwindling artillery shells, so could last a while. This makes fighter jet planes less important than artillery, HIMARS, and drones to hunt down Russian airfields/anti air and destroy them.
>Russia's dwindling artillery shells
Cope, on /k/? It's more likely than you think.
My F-16s are too potent for you, Ukraine. You should find a country that sells weaker F-16s.
F-16 seller, I tell you, I'm going into battle, and I need only your strongest F-16s
Should we explain this to the young whippersnappers here, or just leave it as one of the internet's many mysteries, like The Jar?
USAF also ordered ~600 F-16V upgrade packages, and lockheed has apparently offered to include the option for SLEP (service life extension program) to give the airframes an additional ~13,500 operating hours.
Even if they aren't building new airframes lockheed has plenty of F-16 work ahead of them for at least the next decade upgrading the USAF fleet, which even when its replaced with F-35s will still be used in the Air national guard well into the 2040's or 50's.
So where does the fa-50 end up in all of this? They're supposed to be a budget f-16, but if LockMart is ramping up production, will the fa-50 still be a competitive offering?
Some things just can't be improved upon.
After the F5, the F-16 is my prefered USA jet.
Based F5 enjoyer.
In the good timeline we use roided up F20's and F23s
>Gripen
Likely. Their entire selling point is that it's supposed to be cheaper to operate, but when you have dozens of countries making parts for the F-16 that drives down costs and you can't even look at a western NATO aligned country without finding trainers, maintenance facilities and people familiar with the F-16 at this rate.
Why is it beyond the understanding of so many people that you need a plane that can affordably and with high availability fly 90% of sorties that occur worldwide every day that don't involve sophisticated enemy air defense?
We have the Super Toucan for that. Or uh that other one they picked. Crop Duster but the crops are poor people and the dust is a bomb.
see
in peace time most sorties involve policing passenger planes and passenger planes fly faster than super tucanos. you actually need super sonic jets to intercept passenger planes.
This is actually the kind of aircraft and mission that could be replaced by high performance drones.
That drone is unironically the only thing going for boeing right now.
That's not even Boeing's drone, XQ-58 is from some startup, Boeing's is MQ-28.
>XQ-58 is from some startup
>29 years old company
>3600 employees
>$1.5B in assets
>~$900M in revenue for 2022
>some startup
they might not be some massive player like Raytheon, Lockheed, Northrup, etc. But they're not some mom-and-pop either.
Imagine the pajeet spaghetti code that flies it.
100% that thing's going to have DLC and a season pass.
>100% that thing's going to have DLC
We call those "Block upgrades"
Not until they are jam proof.
Having a plane essentially in reserve for training and patrol pretty much means it has been replaced.
Level with me, Goose, is this a good plane to fly in DCS?
There are some really cool SEAD missions you can run with it. I mean, if dropping 80$ isnt a make or break for you and you love DCS, i dont see why not
I bought that A-10C II module and really enjoy it, hard as fuck to learn, but rewarding. Wouldn't mind something a bit quicker, though.
Anyways, it's way more interesting, rewarding and mentally challenging than just buying call of duty or whatever.
No idea how the devs don't get vanned, but I saw one or their senior guys is literally ex CIA, so their legal is probably in check.
>Guys I know how we can get 10s of thousands of simulation hours on our planes
>Best thing we are gonna get paid for it
clever t b h
Lmao that's exactly what the CIA would do.
They actually use dcs officially to help train new a-10 pilots in VR, probably infinitely cheaper than massive military grade shitty sims, I guess.
So do high Gs really age aircraft that quickly? These fast aircraft don't seem to have massive shelf lives.
Is it better to fly with RWR off or do I turn my countermeasure shit on? No matter what I do some autist will always find me. (a-10c II)
With Russia being downgraded to North Korea tier cult of personality trying to survive the mess that is Ukraine there isn't really a need for more than Block70 F16s for most countries.
Even against China most of the shit you're going to face off against are shit tier gen IVs and Sukhois with worse engines rivaling that of Jumo 004 B flight hours.
Maybe with supply of migs and su aircraft under question, not to mention after sale parts, selling the F16 might fill that probable gap in the market.
I wouldn't buy Russian jets right now, wtf do you do if they implode into civil war or use up parts for their own aircraft.
The F-16 is justasgood for an overwhelming amount of countries out there who can’t into F-35’s. And really in this scenario there’s literally no competitors.
They're being built for late F-16 Viper orders, namely for some Yuro countries, Taiwan, Middle East and other F-16 users who want one final upgrade to their F-16s before they dip into the F-35 platform.
Wtf man we bought 26 fucking Gripens at full price, who the fuck were we gonna invade, the fucking South Pole?
gripen my dick
We (SA) only renewed servicing for 13 of them, rest will now rot, also one got written off in a ground accident(???) , fucking Swedes, man.
There was a year where service lapsed, the pilots couldn't even train on the simulator because the fucking software license ~~*expired*~~
What a scam.
Imagine how much money was embezzled by the government in getting the Gripens. Now you understand.
>muh cheaper flight hours
Since introduction the F-35 operational price has dropped from $41,986 to $33,600 per hour
The F-16 has increased from $8,278 to $26,927
The F-35 *is* "the cheap plane" of the modern day and anyone arguing otherwise is a contrarian retard
Not even Russian planes and cheap anymore, and chink planes are shockingly overpriced (probably because of the half-assed and prototype materials they're full of)
>F-35 operational price has dropped from $41,986 to $33,600 per hour
>The F-16 has increased from $8,278 to $26,927
Sauce of the numbers?
nta but
SA should sell this shit and just buy AA shit, jets are autistically expensive.
It means Lockheed thinks F-16s in Ukraine is going to be great for sales
Now listen here, we've got some great SAAB vehicles waiting for a new home, top of the line, Swedish too. Primo shit. Call us.
>this is in spite of the fact that all American orders for F-16s ended in 2017
Wdym, the last USAF F-16C Block 50 was delivered in 2005.
Rafale isn’t going anywhere the French have always made good fighters that they sell to purple third world countries.
EF and Gripen are most likely fucked.
JF-17 is trash if you want a good “cheap” Chinese fighter get a J-10C
PS the F-35 is trash.
I was shocked to hear the F-35 has higher workload doing CAS than the A10, which is a busy motherfucker. I thought the F-35 is all future tech 'n sheeeit
A-10 doesn't do CAS anymore, it does COIN. Slightly different role. F-35 doesn't do COIN.
Thank god for OA-1K
Wait so it scouts now? Sorry I just became an A-10C 2 II professional DCS pilot like three days ago.
COIN basically means some random Marine in the middle of nowhere is fighting two Toyotas and needs an airplane to come over and spray them with bullets or small bombs.
CAS means trying to destroy hardened tactical targets in a knockdown war.
Like a JTAC guy calls you in to do shit?
OA-1K is the new ISR/COIN aircraft for AFSOC
They've ordered 75 of them
>75
Oh gee, its fucking nothing.
So like the Mwari here in South Africa, it's used for anti poaching and shit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LOOK AT THIS FUCKING THING
LMAO!!!!!
It's good for anti poaching.
?si=6FYChkQFdwnTuaiw
I think it looks neat
It looks like the retarded cousin of a bronco
It's the Havoc from G Police
>no ejection seat
a plane made for retards
If you're being shot down in that thing you're over enemy territory anyway, you probably are better off without ejecting.
What are you talking about. You can just jump out of the plane. Adding an ejection seat does nothing.
Really good endurance, nice plane.
Modernized skyraider would have been more kino
That's just asking for problems, there is no reason to try to shove an old airframe into a new role when it's not like we can reuse any of the old airframe production line anyway, there could be SOME argument if you were saving on tooling or manufacturing overhead, but when you're just doing it because you think the Sky Raider was a cool plane, that's just fucking dumb and I think god every single day ideas like those aren't actually followed in aviation.
>be anon
>get all the way through air force academy
>don't fall for the engineering degree trap, do something easy so you can give the flight classes your all
>top of the class, first pick on what you fly
>the only slots available are for the OA-1K, or cargo
I doubt it will ever happen, but there is now a non-zero chance.
Cargo/Tanker route can still be rewarding, especially if you're truly a top dog, top postings would be (eventually) Airforce one, or similar VIP transport. Though I think technically either OA-1K or Cargo/Tanker would allow you to do later training for VC-25 and similar roles as one of the prerequisites is flight training on Cargo/Tankers or an ISR platform which the OA-1K is.
Either way there are still neat things to do even if you can't be a fighter pilot.
cargo pilots get to actually fly a lot
>participation award the plane
Maybe next time find an american partner that puts your design forward in the 2nd round of the competition instead of putting forward a different design.
the A-29 didn't even compete in the 2nd evaluation and was obviously not selected because of this.
The early F-35 software didn't have as much automation as the current version does. Software takes longer and costs more than anybody expects it to, but at least it's relatively easy to upgrade.
I'm glad they replaced the Aardvark with something equally sexy
Unless you're fighting F22s or F35s, the F16 probably stands up well even against the latest trash exported by Ivan and chang, and it's cost efficient.
Have you considered that a world war may break out which would necessitate reinforcements due to air losses?
I sleep until stealth falcon variant becomes reality
Autonomous drone F-16 when?
Aside donning her babushka for Ukraine, how much more adoption and proliferation would it take for ye olde Fighting Falcon to become the AK-47 of the skies?
jets can't fly over contested airspace. all they do is haul and release missiles and glide bombs from far away.
It's almost as if the economy isn't slated to do well for the foreseeable future so the Air Force is coping buy buying more multirole fighters rather than hyper expensive stealth fighters. Just my thought.
>it's almost as if (ignorant nagger conjecture)
>coombait.png
thanks for playing, sudaca
Will they ever add canards to the F-16 one day? or they will make her just fatter and fatter?
Aerodynamics and airframes are mostly figured out. Engines and electronics can be upgraded and replaced.
~~f-16~~
What an insult to Russian - not a fancy 5th gen fighter but a F-16 is deemed enough to stand against Russia's air force!
It's cheap, it's proven, most nations have already built systems for it, it's good enough for the vast majority of stuff.
48 a year isn't a lot anyway.
f16 is extremely good against insurgents with rusty aks and anti air missiles from 60s
f-16 is overkill for coin
It's for countries that don't have permission to buy F-35s or can't afford to wait in line for F-35s. It's not any cheaper than the F-35 to purchase, and it's not necessarily all that much cheaper to fly (thanks to the new, more expensive avionics).
>can't afford to wait in line for F-35
doesn't make sense.
mic is ramping up production of f-16.
why don't they ramp up f-35 instead?
They *are*. But there are hundreds of orders already in the queue (as in ordered, not just proposed), which will take several years to clear out. If you think Russia or China or somebody might decide they want your land within the next 2-3 years, F-16s might look interesting.
Is the f-16 going to be a not shit mig-21 replacement for petty tyrants in shithole nations then? Might be cool.
Lockheed is waiting for a LRIP contract from the USAF. And that is dependent on the cost per unit of the f-16, because surprise standing up aircraft production in a place that has never made aircraft means you have no one who knows how to do it.
All this kvetcing about F-16 exports and nobody has actually run down the sales
Jordan is buying twelve
Turkey has been offered forty
Taiwan was sold sixty
India is looking at potentially one hundred, possibly more than two hundred
existing F-16 users account for hundreds of upgrade kits, ASSUMING their host nations choose not to relife the airframes or buy new airframes
that's enough work for a decade for a fighter factory at full chat
doesn't mean the USAF is buying any for themselves
>giving anything to the turks
i hate this world
That was part of the price for Finland and Sweden.
Remember that at one point they took actually a part in the F-35 program.
What if you could take a time machine back to say 1983, walk into a conference room full of high-ranking defense officials, take the podium, introduce yourself as a time traveler from the year 2023 and then tell them that the F-15 and F-16 are still in production. The laughter would be deafening. Someone would shout "Hey, this guy knows how to start a show!" followed by even more intense laughter. Back then they probably thought we would be flying space ships with laser canons by now.
>"Also guys, you're not gonna believe what the Russians are doing in 2023"
All you'd have to do is explain that the Soviet Union collapsed in the '90s. In 1983 any official would remember the budgets being slashed in the late '70s after Vietnam and could understand the same thing happening once the Soviets dissolved.
It might be more surprising that the F-4 would be sticking around into the '90s, the EA-6B until 2019, while the F-14 upgrade programs were still several years away, extremely limited, with the type retired outright in 2006. Or that the S-3 was retired in 2016 with the antisub role taken over entirely by helicopters. The F/A-18 being scaled up into the Super Hornet would probably also be unexpected. I'm not sure how they'd feel about the EF-111, brand-new in 1983, being retired fairly early with no direct replacement and only the Navy having dedicated EW aircraft.
fortunately the F-15s and 16s of today are vastly different from original ones so it's not really that surprising. 737 is from the 60's and still being made today, similar story.
Thank you Joe Brandon for getting us ready for WW3.
Beats most modern fighter used by ziggers. Its cheaper and even thirdworld can afford them.
>most
beats everything, best thing they've got included, esl
Yes, you fucking retard, I pointing out that "most" is incorrect because the F-16 handily shits on any and every Russian aircraft ever produced. If anyone is ESL here it's you.
my condolences, you're retarded