Looking into past air force setups and some historical conflicts, we often see shortcomings of certain platforms emerge. Most of the time, these are mitigated by employing a variety of models. Today, however, the jack-of-all-trades-F35 is set to become the only major airborne weapons platform for many western militaries. Other models are increasingly getting old and many will end production soon or are already being replaced by the F35. It is capable, no doubt, but is it versatile enough? Wouldn't the time be right for an alternative stealth multirole fighter with a slightly different focus, whether developed by the USA themselves or partner nations?

Well, the F-35 was supposed to replace the A-10 which the USAF has decided it cannot. It's expensive. The USAF is considering the purchase of additional F-16s to replace some F-15s. The US Navy is considering buying more F/A-18s and lowering the number of F-35s.

France and Germany are studying a joint 5th Gen fighter.

SAAB has the Gripen E coming soon.

And China is hoping to export the FC-31.

mxaxai wrote:

Looking into past air force setups and some historical conflicts, we often see shortcomings of certain platforms emerge. Most of the time, these are mitigated by employing a variety of models. Today, however, the jack-of-all-trades-F35 is set to become the only major airborne weapons platform for many western militaries. Other models are increasingly getting old and many will end production soon or are already being replaced by the F35. It is capable, no doubt, but is it versatile enough?

When the design is right it often corners the market. The F-4 is a good example, used initially as a naval aircraft, transitioned to Air Force and was exceptional as an export, especially given it is still in use today.

mxaxai wrote:

Today, however, the jack-of-all-trades-F35 is set to become the only major airborne weapons platform for many western militaries. Other models are increasingly getting old and many will end production soon or are already being replaced by the F35. It is capable, no doubt, but is it versatile enough?

If we go by stats alone the F-35 exceeds all the aircraft it has been designed to replace in their respective roles. Each variant flies further, higher, faster and is better armed. Its sensors are superior, its RCS and IR signatures are orders of magnitude lower. All this for a jet (F-35A) that the USAF has indicated costs approximately 15% more than the F-16 to operate.

mxaxai wrote:

Wouldn't the time be right for an alternative stealth multirole fighter with a slightly different focus, whether developed by the USA themselves or partner nations?

There is no current alternative and any attempt to create one is going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. The production rate and operator base of the F-35 will be such that it is highly doubtful any other new aircraft will be able to effectively compete on acquisition and operating cost, making it very difficult to penetrate the market.

Slug71 wrote:

Well, the F-35 was supposed to replace the A-10 which the USAF has decided it cannot.

Not quite. The USAF has tried to retire for A-10 for a number of years and free up funding, and personnel for F-35 acquisition but have been denied the opportunity. I’d expect another attempt in early 2018.

Slug71 wrote:

It's expensive. The USAF is considering the purchase of additional F-16s to replace some F-15s.

That consideration is long gone. From 2015

“Consequently, F-15s and F-16s will serve longer and will outnumber F-35s and F-22s through the late 2020s,” Aerospace Daily &Defense Report notes. The article furthermore explains:

The service is looking at a three-tier force, with 300 F-16s and some F-15s being modernized “to augment the F-35 and F-22 in a high-end fight” and others assigned to low-end operations, while the contemplated 72-aircraft buy (an Air Force wing) would sustain force numbers and provide additional modern aircraft.

Interestingly, a senior U.S. Air Force official revealed that “the last time we looked, this was more expensive than buying F-35s in bulk.” However, he confirmed that the option of purchasing 72 aircraft is nevertheless still on the table.

https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/f-35-too-expensive-us-air-force-might-buy-72-new-f-15-or-f-16-fighter-jets/

Even in 2015 it was more expensive to buy an additional 72 F-15 or F-16s than it was to buy the F-35A.

The USAF are considering upgrading and life extending a number of F-16s for a host of reasons, including potentially replacing F-15Cs (which require a far more expensive upgrade to remain flyable past 2025)

Slug71 wrote:

The US Navy is considering buying more F/A-18s and lowering the number of F-35s.

The USN has yet to cut back on F-35C orders and was always going to be the last to reach IOC with the jet. One of the primary reasons being the USN still had an active production line delivering SH aircraft for USN service.

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

It's expensive. The USAF is considering the purchase of additional F-16s to replace some F-15s.

That consideration is long gone. From 2015

“Consequently, F-15s and F-16s will serve longer and will outnumber F-35s and F-22s through the late 2020s,” Aerospace Daily &Defense Report notes. The article furthermore explains:

The service is looking at a three-tier force, with 300 F-16s and some F-15s being modernized “to augment the F-35 and F-22 in a high-end fight” and others assigned to low-end operations, while the contemplated 72-aircraft buy (an Air Force wing) would sustain force numbers and provide additional modern aircraft.

Interestingly, a senior U.S. Air Force official revealed that “the last time we looked, this was more expensive than buying F-35s in bulk.” However, he confirmed that the option of purchasing 72 aircraft is nevertheless still on the table.

https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/f-35-too-expensive-us-air-force-might-buy-72-new-f-15-or-f-16-fighter-jets/

Even in 2015 it was more expensive to buy an additional 72 F-15 or F-16s than it was to buy the F-35A.

The USAF are considering upgrading and life extending a number of F-16s for a host of reasons, including potentially replacing F-15Cs (which require a far more expensive upgrade to remain flyable past 2025)

From earlier this year.

The Air Force is looking at possible plans to retire the F-15C/D Eagle as early as the mid-2020s, officials told lawmakers Wednesday.

While the decision would mean divesting an entire aircraft class, officials said the F-15 capability would be replaced by the F-16 Fighting Falcon, a potential cost-saving measure that would allow pilots to train on fewer platforms.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... 2020s.html

That is not a new purchase of F-16s… just a proposal to upgrade a number of F-16s as evidenced below.

"We do have capacity in the F-16C community to recapitalize that radar to serve the same function as the F-15 has done and thereby reduce the different systems that we have to sustain and operate, so that makes it more efficient," West said about the effort to minimize the number of systems pilots operate.

The upgrade in question is already occurring for 72 F-16s to the NG SABR. The above option for replacement of the F-15C/D fleet involves additional F-16s upgraded with the SABR.

Not like you get a lot of flight time from fighters anyway but getting rid of 2 engine aircraft kind of makes transitioning to civilian airliners a little more difficult.

And before anyone says, I realize that the close proximity of the thrust lines from American twin engine fighters makes engine out's almost a non-event.

Actually very few air forces use deliberately a variety of fighter models. Only US, largest European countries and some Asian countries have two or more types of modern fighters. Most air forces use only one versatile fighter model and adapt it to all roles that they need. Most of those countries having several types have their fleet made of historic stock and stop-gap solutions.

Of course having only one fighter producer makes you vulnerable, but the generals and governments have to decide which vulnerability is the most urgent.

Andre3K wrote:

Not like you get a lot of flight time from fighters anyway but getting rid of 2 engine aircraft kind of makes transitioning to civilian airliners a little more difficult.

And before anyone says, I realize that the close proximity of the thrust lines from American twin engine fighters makes engine out's almost a non-event.

Not as many fighter pilots make the transition to civilian airliners; it is primarily the transport (C-130, C-17, C-5's) pilots and the maritime patrol community who are more likely to make the transition. It's not unheard of, but a little bit more rare.

Ozair wrote:

When the design is right it often corners the market. The F-4 is a good example, used initially as a naval aircraft, transitioned to Air Force and was exceptional as an export, especially given it is still in use today.
If we go by stats alone the F-35 exceeds all the aircraft it has been designed to replace in their respective roles. Each variant flies further, higher, faster and is better armed. Its sensors are superior, its RCS and IR signatures are orders of magnitude lower. All this for a jet (F-35A) that the USAF has indicated costs approximately 15% more than the F-16 to operate.

However, the F-4 had several shortcomings that only appeared on its first deployment to vietnam. Especially the focus on bvr missiles proved dangerous, leading to various versions with guns. It also had contemporaries in the US that were more powerful in the A2A role (the F-8U) and in the A2G role (the F-105 & F-111) - just not as flexible.
Similarly, the F-16 was produced extensively but not without the F-15 & F-18 existing alongside.

mxaxai wrote:

Wouldn't the time be right for an alternative stealth multirole fighter with a slightly different focus, whether developed by the USA themselves or partner nations?

There is no current alternative and any attempt to create one is going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. The production rate and operator base of the F-35 will be such that it is highly doubtful any other new aircraft will be able to effectively compete on acquisition and operating cost, making it very difficult to penetrate the market.

Maybe something like a stealth gripen could work? Even cheaper and lighter than the F-35. Or something that's more focused on the penetrating ground attack & EC/R role, twin engined and with a larger bomb bay. Preferably by another manufacturer to create some competition as well.

ThePointblank wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

Not like you get a lot of flight time from fighters anyway but getting rid of 2 engine aircraft kind of makes transitioning to civilian airliners a little more difficult.

And before anyone says, I realize that the close proximity of the thrust lines from American twin engine fighters makes engine out's almost a non-event.

Not as many fighter pilots make the transition to civilian airliners; it is primarily the transport (C-130, C-17, C-5's) pilots and the maritime patrol community who are more likely to make the transition. It's not unheard of, but a little bit more rare.

Where are you getting your information? Care to provide some data to back that up? You are completely wrong. An airline would have no problem hiring a fighter pilot or any pilot. If he is military trained he/she can get a job anywhere! I am a former military pilot and I was involved in hiring. Why do you think the USAF is critically short of fighter pilots????

ThePointblank wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

Not like you get a lot of flight time from fighters anyway but getting rid of 2 engine aircraft kind of makes transitioning to civilian airliners a little more difficult.

And before anyone says, I realize that the close proximity of the thrust lines from American twin engine fighters makes engine out's almost a non-event.

Not as many fighter pilots make the transition to civilian airliners; it is primarily the transport (C-130, C-17, C-5's) pilots and the maritime patrol community who are more likely to make the transition. It's not unheard of, but a little bit more rare.

mmo is absolutely correct. A fighter pilot that gets out of the service at say his 9 year point with 2100 hours or so is just as likely to be hired as the same year point C-5 pilot with 4500 hours.

The military pipeline ratio has decreased significantly in the last 20 years because the number of pilots in the military has decreased and they keep offering bonus's to stay in. In the late 80's and 90's, a new hire class at most of the legacy airlines would be almost 50% former military and 40% of those were ex fighter jocks. That's about the same percentage of heavy vs fighter mix in the services. Single engine experience vs multi made no difference in your hiring chances as long as you had erased that "Limited to centerline thrust" restriction from your ticket. And that wasn't hard to do at all at your local FBO.

mxaxai wrote:

However, the F-4 had several shortcomings that only appeared on its first deployment to vietnam. Especially the focus on bvr missiles proved dangerous, leading to various versions with guns.

The F-4 (being near and dear to my heart since most of my military time was flying it) indeed had shortcomings in the early days of vietnam. But it was mainly lack of training of how to use the AIM-7s and AIM-9s and the reliability of the those two missiles that frustrated the pilots and led to poor kill ratios. But this has been discussed ad nausea on this board and others and in the last 4 years or so of Vietnam, training and reliability improved greatly.

The only US military F-4 that received the internal 20mm gun was the 'E' model. Every fighter pilot wants a gun!...However when you break it down, the F-4E got 25 or so mig kills in 'nam and only 6 were with the gun. That's a pretty high percentage, but improvements in the missiles and training produced more kills.

mxaxai wrote:

Maybe something like a stealth gripen could work? Even cheaper and lighter than the F-35.

No chance, it is beyond hard to retrofit stealth to an airframe and achieve F-35 RCS/IR signature reductions. The Gripen also has some significant limitations associated with it being a lightweight fighter, including payload and range. In the USAF case, anything below an F-16 is a step down and the F-35 has learned lessons from the F-16 by increasing internal fuel fraction and embedding sensors into the airframe to reduce overall drag and improve performance.

mxaxai wrote:

Or something that's more focused on the penetrating ground attack & EC/R role, twin engined and with a larger bomb bay. Preferably by another manufacturer to create some competition as well.

Big money required there. I don't think the USAF or other western air forces are overly interested in an airframe with a bigger bomb bay. The F-35A & C can carry two 2,000 lb weapons internally or eight smaller SDB weapons per A2G station. That is a great mix of weapon types and sizes and with the already impressive precision of A2G weapons bigger weapons are not needed.

The F-35 will also is slated to receive the Next Generation Jammer and AARGM so will be a highly capable SEAD platform.

mmo wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

Not like you get a lot of flight time from fighters anyway but getting rid of 2 engine aircraft kind of makes transitioning to civilian airliners a little more difficult.

And before anyone says, I realize that the close proximity of the thrust lines from American twin engine fighters makes engine out's almost a non-event.

Not as many fighter pilots make the transition to civilian airliners; it is primarily the transport (C-130, C-17, C-5's) pilots and the maritime patrol community who are more likely to make the transition. It's not unheard of, but a little bit more rare.

Where are you getting your information? Care to provide some data to back that up? You are completely wrong. An airline would have no problem hiring a fighter pilot or any pilot. If he is military trained he/she can get a job anywhere! I am a former military pilot and I was involved in hiring. Why do you think the USAF is critically short of fighter pilots????

Very true. The airlines will look at anyone with a military flying career, including helicopter pilots.

What counts are things like a sound understanding of the principles of flight as well as logged hours flying, effectively making decisions and a good medical record. The type of aircraft (fighter, tanker, transport, helicopter) isn't as important as a demonstrable ability to fly and to take command if necessary.

Those are all transferable skills.

Channex757 wrote:

mmo wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Not as many fighter pilots make the transition to civilian airliners; it is primarily the transport (C-130, C-17, C-5's) pilots and the maritime patrol community who are more likely to make the transition. It's not unheard of, but a little bit more rare.

Where are you getting your information? Care to provide some data to back that up? You are completely wrong. An airline would have no problem hiring a fighter pilot or any pilot. If he is military trained he/she can get a job anywhere! I am a former military pilot and I was involved in hiring. Why do you think the USAF is critically short of fighter pilots????

Very true. The airlines will look at anyone with a military flying career, including helicopter pilots.

What counts are things like a sound understanding of the principles of flight as well as logged hours flying, effectively making decisions and a good medical record. The type of aircraft (fighter, tanker, transport, helicopter) isn't as important as a demonstrable ability to fly and to take command if necessary.

Those are all transferable skills.

The issue isn't skill, but the change in pay. Sorry, wasn't that clear on that front.

The USAF is paying big money in retention bonuses, especially for fighter pilots, to keep them in active service. With the retention bonuses being offered to fighter pilots ($35,000 per year in retention bonuses, plus everything else), the USAF is making it much more financially convincing for fighter pilots to stay in the service.

The USAF wants to bump retention bonuses up even more, especially for fighter pilots; I've read that the USAF wants the retention bonus to go up to $48,000 per year for fighter pilots, and I've also read that they still want it even higher, up to $60,000 per year, and this is in the current budget request.

On top of that, the USAF a while ago increased the commitment for pilots from six to ten years a few years ago. When that happened many of the military pilots, especially fighter pilots, started to stay in the full twenty years to get the retirement.

4th gen AC are not feasible in contested airspace so Air Forces are moving too slowly adopting the F35.

ThePointblank wrote:

On top of that, the USAF a while ago increased the commitment for pilots from six to ten years a few years ago. When that happened many of the military pilots, especially fighter pilots, started to stay in the full twenty years to get the retirement.

Again,I hate to disagree, but you have your facts wrong. Your comments about increasing the bonus, but the simple fact is it's not the money. Pilots are tired of getting deployed time and time again. The issue of quality of life is what is driving the massive exits. You specifically targeted in on fighter pilots, and ironically, that iw shere the realcrisis is. The USAF is 1500 short and it is getting worse.

I am aware of the commitment but that has no impact on getting hired. When I went through UPT the commitment was 5 years upon graduation. It was upped to 6 and then 10 with no reduction in hiring of pilots,in fact, retired pilots could get hired.

I don't have it handy but there was an analysis of staying in for 20 years and then going to the majors vs. getting out at the first chance. You are financially much better off getting out at the first choice vs. staying for 20. And, that was under the old retirement.

mmo wrote:

Again,I hate to disagree, but you have your facts wrong. Your comments about increasing the bonus, but the simple fact is it's not the money. Pilots are tired of getting deployed time and time again. The issue of quality of life is what is driving the massive exits. You specifically targeted in on fighter pilots, and ironically, that iw shere the realcrisis is. The USAF is 1500 short and it is getting worse.

I am aware of the commitment but that has no impact on getting hired. When I went through UPT the commitment was 5 years upon graduation. It was upped to 6 and then 10 with no reduction in hiring of pilots,in fact, retired pilots could get hired.

I don't have it handy but there was an analysis of staying in for 20 years and then going to the majors vs. getting out at the first chance. You are financially much better off getting out at the first choice vs. staying for 20. And, that was under the old retirement.

What's the OPs tempo at right now for the F16C/D - 6 on 6 off?

mmo wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

On top of that, the USAF a while ago increased the commitment for pilots from six to ten years a few years ago. When that happened many of the military pilots, especially fighter pilots, started to stay in the full twenty years to get the retirement.

Again,I hate to disagree, but you have your facts wrong. Your comments about increasing the bonus, but the simple fact is it's not the money. Pilots are tired of getting deployed time and time again. The issue of quality of life is what is driving the massive exits. You specifically targeted in on fighter pilots, and ironically, that iw shere the realcrisis is. The USAF is 1500 short and it is getting worse.

I am aware of the commitment but that has no impact on getting hired. When I went through UPT the commitment was 5 years upon graduation. It was upped to 6 and then 10 with no reduction in hiring of pilots,in fact, retired pilots could get hired.

I don't have it handy but there was an analysis of staying in for 20 years and then going to the majors vs. getting out at the first chance. You are financially much better off getting out at the first choice vs. staying for 20. And, that was under the old retirement.

I've heard, anecdotally, that most airlines are seeing a decrease in military pilots making up the new recruits. Take that as you will regarding the numbers of military pilots leaving for a civilian life.

The USAF is also working on quality of life enhancements; for example, there is a review underway to see if certain staff work that is being done by rated pilots can be done by someone else, lessening the workload on pilots, and also working improving quality of service as well, to make it more engaging and rewarding to stay in the military.

ThePointblank wrote:

I've heard, anecdotally, that most airlines are seeing a decrease in military pilots making up the new recruits. Take that as you will regarding the numbers of military pilots leaving for a civilian life.

The USAF is also working on quality of life enhancements; for example, there is a review underway to see if certain staff work that is being done by rated pilots can be done by someone else, lessening the workload on pilots, and also working improving quality of service as well, to make it more engaging and rewarding to stay in the military.

I apologize to other users, as this thread is off target, but anyhow....

It is not antithetical, it is factual. However, it is not because pilots are electing to stay on active duty longer, it is because pilot production is low. The same, if not more, percentage of pilots eligible to separate do.

My last assignment in 1984 was at Randolph AFB, training pilots to be instructors in the T-38. We had to go speak with a 4 star, who was the head of ATC. The same line was pitched then as is being pitched now. Pardon my sarcasm, but I will believe it when I see it.

If I were in charge of procurement for military aircraft, I would stay away from US, Chinese or Russian aircraft. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that there is not a version of GM's OnStar built into the software that would allow the Pentagon, Kremlin or Chinese military to shutdown your airforce if you were to come into conflict with them.

I believe Canada asked to be given access to the software code for the F35 as part of their participation in the development.

They were refused.

prestwick wrote:

If I were in charge of procurement for military aircraft, I would stay away from US, Chinese or Russian aircraft. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that there is not a version of GM's OnStar built into the software that would allow the Pentagon, Kremlin or Chinese military to shutdown your airforce if you were to come into conflict with them.

I believe Canada asked to be given access to the software code for the F35 as part of their participation in the development.

They were refused.

That would be a huge concern for Canada considering the political climate to the south!

prestwick wrote:

If I were in charge of procurement for military aircraft, I would stay away from US, Chinese or Russian aircraft. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that there is not a version of GM's OnStar built into the software that would allow the Pentagon, Kremlin or Chinese military to shutdown your airforce if you were to come into conflict with them.

I believe Canada asked to be given access to the software code for the F35 as part of their participation in the development.

They were refused.

The only other nation given access to the software coding was Israel after much haggling, but EW is one of their strong suits and they demanded it. The Brits don't have it either. As much as the US and Canada act like frenemies, I think there's no chance Canada would need to worry about the US shutting down their AF. It's a primary line of defense for North America.

tjh8402 wrote:

prestwick wrote:

If I were in charge of procurement for military aircraft, I would stay away from US, Chinese or Russian aircraft. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that there is not a version of GM's OnStar built into the software that would allow the Pentagon, Kremlin or Chinese military to shutdown your airforce if you were to come into conflict with them.

I believe Canada asked to be given access to the software code for the F35 as part of their participation in the development.

They were refused.

The only other nation given access to the software coding was Israel after much haggling, but EW is one of their strong suits and they demanded it. The Brits don't have it either. As much as the US and Canada act like frenemies, I think there's no chance Canada would need to worry about the US shutting down their AF. It's a primary line of defense for North America.

The Israeli's don't have access to the software coding; they were only given software plug and play interfaces for their hardware only. The Israeli's only have as much access as an app maker for an iPhone.

thumper76 wrote:

That would be a huge concern for Canada considering the political climate to the south!

Given Canada didn't and still doesn't have access ro the classic Hornet source code I don't see why no access to the F-35 source code is any different.

ThePointblank wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

prestwick wrote:

If I were in charge of procurement for military aircraft, I would stay away from US, Chinese or Russian aircraft. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that there is not a version of GM's OnStar built into the software that would allow the Pentagon, Kremlin or Chinese military to shutdown your airforce if you were to come into conflict with them.

I believe Canada asked to be given access to the software code for the F35 as part of their participation in the development.

They were refused.

The only other nation given access to the software coding was Israel after much haggling, but EW is one of their strong suits and they demanded it. The Brits don't have it either. As much as the US and Canada act like frenemies, I think there's no chance Canada would need to worry about the US shutting down their AF. It's a primary line of defense for North America.

The Israeli's don't have access to the software coding; they were only given software plug and play interfaces for their hardware only. The Israeli's only have as much access as an app maker for an iPhone.

Ah thanks for the clarification