| Tango01 | 21 Nov 2015 1:04 p.m. PST |
…New F-15 or F-16 Fighter Jets. "The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might not be produced in sufficient numbers to maintain the U.S. Air Force's current operational capabilities due to budgetary constraints, according to Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. As a result the service is considering filling the capabilities gap with 72 Boeing F-15s, Lockheed-Martin F-16's, or even Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. "F-15s and F-16s are now expected to serve until 2045, when an all-new aircraft will be ready, and plans to modernize F-16s with active electronically scanned array radars and other improvements are being revived," the article states. U.S. Air Force officials and industry officials revealed as much at the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference, which took place November 17-19 in London. The U.S. Air Force "is struggling to afford 48 F-35s a year" for the first years of full-rate production a senior Air Force officer told Aerospace Daily & Defense Report…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mako11 | 21 Nov 2015 1:43 p.m. PST |
Not to mention the F-35C wingspar cracks issue that just surfaced. |
| doug redshirt | 21 Nov 2015 1:59 p.m. PST |
Too bad they didn't just do gradual upgrades to the above planes with new tech, while using money to build a couple of experimental planes to check new systems. Then once the bugs were worked out they would go into full production. I just don't understand this putting it up for bids and then selecting one plane. Better to do it gradually. That is what they did during 6 years of war in WWII. You built on what came before. |
| Generalstoner49 | 21 Nov 2015 2:20 p.m. PST |
Why not Silent Eagles to help bolster the small amount of F-22's? |
| Mako11 | 21 Nov 2015 4:33 p.m. PST |
Probably because we can't afford anything after paying for the F-35 development. |
| Bangorstu | 22 Nov 2015 8:40 a.m. PST |
Media here are saying the UK is going to up the order for the carrier force to 24 by 2023. Plus finally a Nimrod replacement so we don't have to beg you guys to cover our backsides for us.. |
| StarCruiser | 22 Nov 2015 9:17 a.m. PST |
Why is it, that every time I hear anything about the F-35 program – I think of this:
|
| Tango01 | 22 Nov 2015 2:50 p.m. PST |
|
| paulgenna | 24 Nov 2015 6:11 a.m. PST |
What they should have been doing all along. For each F-35 we can keep over 1000 troops in uniform for the year (using Pentagon numbers which are very high in my opinion, 100k per soldier). The F-16 has not lost a fight so keep them flying. |
| Bangorstu | 24 Nov 2015 8:02 a.m. PST |
Surely the time to replace the F-16 is before it starts losing fights? And it's not like it has ever been put up against decent opposition. |
 Legion 4  | 24 Nov 2015 9:44 a.m. PST |
And probably won't anytime in the near or not so near future …. |
| paulgenna | 25 Nov 2015 2:59 p.m. PST |
So Bangorstu, which country is going to put a decent showing? At the current level Russia is the only adversary that is really a concern unless a NATO country turns on the US. The next generation of aircraft will probably be remote and will be able to handle higher speeds. Why spend $80 USD-100 million for a plane that is not much better than the F-16. If we purchase the F-16 we can field additional troops and equipment for the same cost. |
