Baseops Forums forum

I think there are a lot of reasons the defense primes like Lockheed float a new program (F-16G). And not all of those reasons are because they eventually want to sell it. As the USAF retires its F-16s, I think Lockheed wants to do whatever they can to convince potential FMS customers that the F-16 is still a frontline, first-world fighter. Putting together some notional F-16 variant that the USAF "could" buy is part of that. Valid point that it's not a zero sum game regarding the total number of F-35 and F-16 tails. Should have said "every dollar spent on a new F-16 is a dollar not spent on a new F-35." When it comes to the bucket of money to spend on aircraft procurement, it is indeed, in many respects, a zero sum game. And while I don't have Lockheed's books in front of me, I'd wager they are much more incentivized (profit and otherwise) to sell F-35s over F-16s. Just some pontificating from my spot in the cheap seats of the industry.

I was there....it was electric and epic. As the players were walking off the Ole Miss PA folks EPICALLY trolled LSU and played Garth Brooks "Calling Baton Rouge" at volume 10.

Should be room in the Boeing Everette facility. They just moved a 737 line there but they're only producing 767s/KC-46s, 777s and now 737s. It's an impressive facility.

Yup This is the time and opportunity to bring innovation and advance Air Mobility.

I've been waiting for that for a while now. Been lots of legit concepts, but it's never caught on. The bulk capacity in that design is staggering. Combine that with some limited stealth, and a whole new level of airlift is just waiting to occur.

There was a 12-year gap in production between the C-5A and the C-5B, so there is precedent.

This is a tapatalk usage poll.

Possibly but only 20 KC-135s have MPRS but you have a point on the -46 and -30. I was thinking this and should’ve included it in my post but if the -16G / F-21 concept gets traction I’d advocate for a 4.5 fighter with a matched CCA as the operational capability. Said CCA being based on a real already flown air vehicle like a -25 or -47; organic tanker, arsenal, sensor & comm node, decoy if required, etc… to address the tyranny of distance and some of the tanker demands. Some question(s): Is this an ACE capable jet? Should we just use these resources to get a much more capable UCAS flying sooner rather than later? Is this the right jet to bring mass to the force? Is there another option that could be had at say 2x (or 3x if a light jet) to a -16G and bring coverage and enough capes? Do we need another fighter or another jet? Medium weight bomber perhaps…

There is no reason to have a UARRSI and a probe when there are KC-135 MPRS pods and all KC-46 and KC-30 MRTT have boom and drogues (except the UK one which only has drogues).

The USAF was asking about Block 80 F-16s. Lockheed sells Block 70/72 F-16s to plenty of FMS customers who didn’t purchase F-35s. In my opinion, corporate welfare is giving Boeing, who hasn’t designed and manufactured a new fighter aircraft that wasn’t a McD design since the P-26, the F-47 contract.

The biggest problem is the plant in Long Beach where they were built closed down a decade ago, not sure if theres another feasible plant just sitting around vacant somewhere otherwise they'd have to build a brand new one which would be very expensive. But I'm sure theres probably a few Senators whom would champion it being built in "their" districts

Good points, I’m leaning towards a new design and specifically the blended wing body Probably but if we have to do Kabuki theater to get to that so be it. It would eat up some fuel capacity in the CFTs but why not look at the F-21 concept we proposed to the Indians Keep the UARSSI and have the probe