Pentagon plans 2018 F-16 upgrades

The U.S. Air Force plans to go forward with plans to upgrade and extend the life of 300 F-16s to protect the service in case the F-35 experiences more delays in the course of its development.

Col Mark Mol, programme manager at the USAF’s F-16 System Programme Office, spoke to Dave Majumdar at Flight Global providing more details on the service life extension program (SLEP) and a combat avionics programmed extension suite (CAPES) upgrades the Air Force plans to make.

Air Force officials have chosen Block 40, 42, 50 and 52 F-16C/Ds to receive the upgrades in the fleet.

Engineers will upgrade the 300 Fighting Falcons’ avionics with new radars and advanced software. Each F-16 will receive a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, a new Terma ALQ-213 electronic warfare system, an integrated broadcast system (IBS) and a center display unit (CDU), according to Majumdar’s report.

F-16’s life expectancy tops out at 8,000 flight hours. A SLEP upgrade could extend those life spans an additional 2,000 to 4,000 flight hours.

The Air Force plans to upgrade the first of the 300 F-16s in 2018.

Lockheed Martin will receive a sole source contract to provide the upgrades. Other defense companies have taken notice of the need to upgrade the F-16 as international air force leaders expect the F-16 to fly for decades to come.

Floyd McConnell, vice president for BAE Systems’ Integrated Avionics Solutions, said at the Farnborough Air Show that he forsees a multi-billion dollar market to upgrade F-16s — whether it’s in the U.S. or the international market. Twenty five countries fly the F-16 and McConnell says it’s about time Lockheed Martin had some competition when offering upgrades to these buyers.

Some inside the Pentagon have argued the Air Force would be smart to invest more money extending the life spans of the F-16 fleet, rather than spending more on the F-35’s development. U.S. Air Force Maj. Joe “Buzz” Walter presented a brief that has made its rounds through the Pentagon and Congress that shows how many more planes the Air Force could keep if it shifted some of its F-35 investment dollars toward upgrades to F-16s.

About the Author

Michael Hoffman
Michael Hoffman is the executive editor at Tandem NSI and a contributor to He can be reached at
  • Lance

    Doing the same to F-15Cs too adding helmet missile guidance and new radars.

  • Joakim

    Truth is: F-15C and F-16C are better weapons systems than F-22 and F-35. More flexible platforms, and with new sensor suites and avionics they offer comparable capability at a fraction of the cost relative to F-22 and F-35.

    • Pilgrimman


    • Uranium238

      Where exactly is your proof to justify this? From what I recall, the F-15 and F-16 show up on radar just fine. Try tracking a Raptor in the sky at 45,000 feet without drop tanks and the fuselage detectors removed.

      • Rikard

        Some says that IR sensors are closing in at be so powerfull that no stealth can hide an airplane no more..

        • Chuck

          How well does IR work through clouds?

      • Joakim

        Robert Gates spoke at length about this : Better to procure a good number of latest version Arleigh Burkes than one Zumwalt. Weapons systems should be versatile, not exquisite. When F-35 becomes operational in 2020 it’ll be a good system, but at a horrendous program cost. Postitive is that DoD will have won hard fought lessons.

        • Benjamin

          If they had procured the original amount of F-22 planned which was about 750, I am pretty sure the F-22 would be competitively priced right now.

          Also the price of the modernized Arleigh Burke has gone up drastically. The Flight II does not have nearlyenough power generation capability as what is needed in future ships unlike the DDG-1000.

      • tiger

        The problem for the F-22 is, the damn pilots are getting sick trying to get there. Worse the AIM120 missiles they use will have motors that fail.

        • Chuck

          The F-22 had nothing to do with the pilot sickness for starters, it was their flight suits, in particular, the g-suits, that were the problems. Second, the AMRAAM motors are getting a second source supplier, and the motors are good in all but the coldest weather. While we want motors that will work all the time, the fact is, the AMRAAM motor would work just fine under most conditions.

          • ltfunk2

            works fine just not under combat conditions LOL

    • Tiger

      However they have been flown to death for 10 years. Thus the need for the SLEP.

    • tony

      If I had my way I would build new 15 16 bodies with body mods to suit what has been learned. since cloak is still a joke and fantasy I would put on a mod. computer worked directed energy weapon that could actively defend against sams and AAA take the F35 engine and put on the 16 and same with 15 and 22.
      Just a thought.

    • Chris

      You know what would be even better?


      You can hang bombs, rockets, etc off the old Thunderbolt. Put a sniper pod on. Wire it up to drop JDAMs and maybe AIM-9Xs with a JHMCS.

      I haven’t done any serious costing on this but I’ll bet you could have 10 completely upgraded P-47s for the price of a new F-16.

      Of course, it might be even better to go to a Spad. A Spad with an AESA radar would be fantastic. It could turn inside anything flying today at 130 mph, 2000 feet. I wonder how easily one could rig a modern Gatling to fire through a Spad’s propeller with interuptor gear? That might requre some reengineering.

      If we ever fight the Luftwaffe circa 1943 again, these ideas should be seriously considered.

      • tiger

        The A-29 project is a more reasonable idea.

      • ChuckL


        An interrupter to fire through the prop would so reduce the rate of fire that the Gatling would just be wasted money. Of course ou culd hang them in pods under the wings.

      • James Habermehl

        I’m sorry, Chris, I clicked “thumbs down” before I finished reading and realized you were being sarcastic. Please consider your rating to be one more “thumbs up” for pointing out the stupidity of similar ideas.

    • ChuckL

      The F-35 is wasted money. It is less capable of combat maneuvering than a 1970’s F-4 and is slower than a 1959 F-106 which also carried more A-A weapons.

      The F-22 is the best air superiority weapon currently in the world. If the problem with pilot breathing is the fancy suits, perhaps the attire should be replaced with the near space suits used in the SR-71.

      There are trwo possibilities that do make sense. The Lockheed F-15 Silent Eagle at about $110,000,000 each or the F-22 at its designed production rate at about $150,000,000 each. Both of them need a Quantum-well IR detect and target system, which has a range of currently about 50 miles.

      This idea of upgrading old aircraft just gives us old planes with longer life spans, which are incapable of countering the Sukhoi T-50 or the Chinese J-20. If they actually provided good capability this wouldn’t be too bad a deal. but they actually provide half or less of the capability of the F-22 at 85 to 90percent of the cost.

      The only correct solution is total reinstatement of the F-22 with the addition of a Quantum well IR system, which was originally planned and dropped for cost reasons.

      The major problem is that our Congressmen and senators have a major problem understanding that they should not be deciding what old equipment should be kept over the wishes of the military. This costs much wasted money in maintenance.

      • zbigniewmazurak

        Absolutely right, Chuck! The F-22 is the ONLY fighter capable of ensuring continued US air superiority for decades to come. The introduction and mass production of various Flanker variants has already make the F-15 and the F-16 impotent and obsolete. When the PAKFA and the J-20 enter service, they will irrevocably make these aging legacy aircraft obsolete, impotent, irrelevant, and useless. At that point, the USAF might retire all of them and scrap them, and thus save itself the expense of flying them. The F-22’s production should be resumed at full steam, and the IRST should be reinstated to it. Only the F-22 can defeat the PAKFA and the J-20.

      • F22Addict

        Right on, bro. Everyone says the F-22 is too expensive, but if we go to war with Russia or China, or anyone who buys planes from those countries?? Combat loss costs of 4 generation fighters will be much more than if we were using more F-22s, not to mention the insane combat effectiveness of the F-22.

        If you have a strike package of B-52 bombers escorted by F-22s, the F-22s will jam up or destroy the AAA and SAM radar trying to detect them, and kill virtually all air-to-air threats. Could a 4 generation fighter do as much against a modern threat like Russian or Chinese tech? No way.

        F-22 may seem too expensive now, because we do not face a sophisticated modern threat, but who can tell the future? I cant…

        • Tiger

          I would suggest the smarter & cheaper thing to do is not get in such fights in the first place. Force should always be the last option to diplomatic disputes. You also put too much faith in a plane over a pilot. Most German & Japanese Aces smoked Allied pilots by skill & tactics. Not equiptment

        • Surrender is the cheapest option. Of course if you are willing to line up on your way to the gas chambers, I am not.

    • Truth

      Obviously, you haven’t flown any of the above platforms. F-15C and F-16C are completely defenseless against an F-22. Neither platform ever sees the F-22 and are killed long before their radars are able to find the Raptor. Yes, it’s true the F-22 is far more expensive than Eagles and Vipers but have you or anyone else in the forum seen what the “other guys” are doing?? We are behind the power curve folks.

      • Tiger

        Killed how? The plane makes the pilots sick & the missiles are faulty.

    • zbigniewmazurak

      Utter garbage, which only proves how ignorant you are. The F-15 and F-16 are decisively inferior to the F-22. They are less flexible, dramatically less survivable, and dramatically less agile compared to the F-22. Their wing loading T/W ratio is inferior to that of the F-22, making them less agile. The F-15 has the same top speed and service ceiling, but is not stealthy (and neither is the F-16) and would therefore be easily shot down by an F-22 or by adversary aircraft. They lack the modern avionics and sensors of the F-22 and the F-35, and the stealth fighters’ sensors and avionics cannot be installed on the F-15 or the F-16 (e.g. the F-22’s APG-77 radar is too big for either, and these old aircraft can’t carry the F-35’s DAS either). Even with new sensors and avionics, they would still be decisively inferior to both the F-22 and the F-35. The sooner the USAF retires these old, expensive-to-maintain aircraft that crack up in the air, the better.

    • Mick

      The F-35 matches the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous and sustained high-g performance, and outperforms it in stealth, payload, and range, on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability.

    • You might want to read the article on the website link before saying that the F-15 is more versatile than the F-22 or the F-35. According the the head ofAir Force development team plainly explains that an F-35 can deliver more in the theater than a dozen legacy plains. True an F-15 is better in a dogfight than an F-35, but that is not it’s mission. It is a sense and shoot aircraft that can take out opposing aircraft before they ever know they are around and from a much longer range. The different aircraft have different mission objectives. The F’35 can perform the roles of an A, B EA, and even an E (like an E-2) because of their available configuration options.

  • Raraavis

    What the US needs is a cheap to build and cheap to fly long range light bomber with no bells and whistles that can be used in low threat environments that doesn’t require a 200 million dollar stealth plane.

    • Nick

      Isn’t that the B-52? Sounds like you want a 747 with a bomb bay, which is more or less a B-52

      • Raraavis

        Well you can’t build new B-52’s and they burn a lot of fuel. I was thinking of something much much smaller. Like a Gulfstream G650 with a bomb bay filled with Small Diameter Bombs.

        • Anlushac11


          And F-111 is retired. I think Australia has already retired theirs as well. If not the Super Hornets will replace them.

          Looking forward to seeing what the F-16 upgrades will be. If USAF were smart they would capitalize on the Block 60 upgrades Lockheed and UAE have already funded instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

          • Praetorian

            Not only are they retired, the Aussies buried them in a landfill.

            Sad way to go for these aircraft.

          • paul

            They only buried the rest of the G models (training FB’s) not dismantled. Four C’s were dismantled but the rest are awaiting museum disposition. Yes, the F-35 is nothing more than a stealthy F-16, which in itself is a poor bomber and an obsolete dogfighter. No range and no manuverability with bombs on board. The Pentagon always hated the F-111 becasue it wasn’t a zoomey asset, but whenever they need a penetration bomber, it was there. The F-15E has half the range and can’t penetrate except at altitude with EW and SEAD assets. Oh Well…

      • tiger

        There is nothing light about a B-52. Think more F-111….

    • Praetor


    • SMSgt Mac

      Which would be perfect for use over your own territory, some t’urdworld countries (only the very poor ones) and……that’s it. Maybe DHS would be interested, but I think perhaps we wouldn’t want them to be interested.

      • SMSgt Mac

        That should have posted in response to ‘Raraavis’. odd.

      • Raraavis

        What percentage of air operations over Iraq or Afgahinistan was there any serious threat to aircraft? Less than 1%. We don’t need to use expensive stealth fighters and bombers to drop a SDB on Jonny Jihads hut.

    • Rusty

      Look at the projects for the T-6 Texan II. Looks like it’s about to fill the role the A-1 Skyraider and OV-10 left behind. Not fast, but if you look at our current conflicts, long range is not necessary. We occupy local bases and operate locally.

    • MAC

      They have those; they’re called drones. Wait until we can refuel them in the air and they can stay on station for a week.

    • Perhaps we can call it a F/A-18…..

  • Sev

    How about a sudden surprise attack on the enemy without warning so we can end the war before it even starts. WHy alert the enemy of our plans? Send in UAV “Kamikaze” drones to soack up their missile defenses and then use some long range munitions to take out remaining surface threats and then send in our squadrons to bomb the piss out of them

    • Brandon

      Yea they want that capability but it will never be used. Politics and the U.N. will cry and moan all day long if we did such to Iran or North Korea despite having dealt with them in the U.N. for a the last score of years…

  • TonyC

    The F-16 is a good fighter and should be kept in service as long as possible.
    The bench mark for potential adversaries of the US is the F-16’s agility, not the F-15 as would be expected. There is liited space for avionics upgrades in a small airframe, it will be intersting to see how Lockheed Martin shoehorns an AESA radar
    in that nose?

    • Brandon

      One would think the newer electronics would be smaller and lighter. I guess AESA Radars are still too new to be compacted? IDK because Im not a technical guy.

      • Chuck

        There are already two AESA radars proposed for the F-16, the RACR and the SABR. Both are scalable to even below the sixe of the F-16s nose. In fact, both have flown in F-16s already, during industry tests.

        • Andrew

          Lockheed Martin has already built F-16 Block 60s with AESA Radars for sale to other countries. I think we can do it for our own.

    • tiger

      Current planes can already match the F-16’s abilities.

    • Smilin’ Jack

      In the F-15 vs F-16 fight, it all depends on altitude!

    • Rob

      How about reopening the F-16 and F-15E productions lines incorporate some stealth coatings and upgraded sensors, radars and an upgraded avionics suite. I’m sire this would be cheaper than the F-22’s and F-35’s the government wants to buy.

      • Praetorian

        Both production lines are still open. With the Saudi Arabia order for 84
        F-15SA, The F-15 line should be open past 2015. I also think the F-16 line is backed logged until late 2014.

        • Guest

          Hi Praetorian

          Boeing claims the F-15 production line has extended into the 2020’s.

    • Joe

      All the new F-16’s are already being delivered to our customers with AESA Radars. They apparently fit quite well.

  • Nicky

    I think the USAF should just upgrade the F-15 to Silent Eagle and upgrade the F-16 to block 60 standard.

    • tiger

      That does little for other users of the F-35. Nor does it keep contractors & subs as busy as a new airframe does. You missing the bigger picture here.

    • utley

      An F-16 Blk60? 85 million bucks a pop. Might as well buy another F-35 at that price…

  • Chops

    So lets see,we pay 100 mil per copy more for each LM F35 and we also pay LM to upgrade 300 F16s because the F35 program is way behind schedule and way ove budget.What’s wrong with this picture, or is it just my imagination that LM is giving the American taxpayer a real working over?

    • tiger

      Sounds like you should buy stock in LM.

    • Anonymous

      It’s the Military industrial complex welfare system. And removing 1 dollar from this machine means the end of America – according to one political party.

      • straps

        Maybe if your D loving Generals had the guts to tell him off in the first place a couple of Presidents back we would not have this stupidity. I have been saying for years THE FIGHTER MAFIA must be stopped. We do not need either fighter they are both sacreligious wastes of money for no logical reason. Zero F117s were shot down zero F15s were shot down in the last 2 wars but we should junk them for these planes that kill our pilots? Great logic in that wasteland called the Pentagon

        • Dave

          One F-117 was shot down in Bosnia. F-15 and I believe also the B-2 are the only combat aircraft that has not be shot down during combat and non-combat operations.

          • Johnny Ranger

            I thought a Strike Eagle went down over Libya?

  • Musson

    3 women were sitting around drinking coffee and talking about their love live. Woman #1 says, ‘Girls, my husband is a weight lifter. And, when we make love he is so powerful that it drives me crazy!” Woman #2 says, “My husband is a marathon runner. When we make love, he has such stamina that it is terrific.” They both look over to woman #3 for a comment.

    “Well,” she says. “My husband is lead engineer for the F-35 fighter program. We haven’t actually made love yet. But, when we finally do – he says it’s going to be incredible!”

    • Red

      That’s not really a fair analogy. It’s not like this is Lockheed’s first fighter; they’ve made plenty of aircraft before and this is a new and complicated project.

      • straps

        Yea and so is my kids little electric car. LM is screwing America and the Generals are fools just setting hemselves set up for a cushy job after retirement….IMHO…

    • One said my husband is a butcher. He has this game we play, called “Hide the Salami”.

  • YourMom

    If the US wants ti have the ULTIMATE and unchallenged Air power:, they have to:
    1) Buy at least 220 more F-22’s, and upgrade them all with the current set upgrades [increment 3.1, 3.2 (A and B) and 3.3], and add to that a new helmet system.. preferable the one used on the F-35.. oh and add the F-35’s EODAS as well. Filled with amazing sensors
    2)Upgrade all F-15s to Silent Eagle.
    3)Upgrade all F/A-18 to Super Hornet Block 3. Ohh and add more EA-18’s.
    4)Upgraded all F-16s to the newest pack, F-16V?
    5)Upgrade all A-10’s to an even newer level.
    6) Kill the F-35. Use the F-35 as a prototype, and make the other jets stronger.

    • tiger

      Till Will Smith has to fight space ships next July 4th, Challenged by what? It’s not 1940. Hell, its not even 1962. Folks in New Orleans, need protection from flood waters, not MiG’s. We need to solve problems by talking rather than bullets.

      Not turning hippie, just practical.

    • ghostwhowalks

      The Chinese are happy to lend the US the money to pay for it.
      Sounds like you are following the 1930 French strategy for winning the next war

    • Sean

      Finally someone who has a clue. couldn’t have said it better.

    • Red

      I agree with all this, except the part about canceling the F-35.

    • Chuck

      F-35 is already in production, killing it now would have wasted all the money to produce all the aircraft already produced and bought. We have already procured nearly 100 aircraft. We are also buying them at a rate of 30 a year, and that should increase significantly in the next few years. What you suggest is to stop the F-16 program for upgraded F-4s just as the F-16s were entering mass production. Besides, the F-35 has considerably more upgrade potential, than the F-16s. If you want to upgrade the F-16, just consider the amount of obsolete electronics that you would have to deal with. Remember, the F-16s were designed inthe 70s.

      • Guest


        The F-35 is a turkey.

    • HeavyArrow

      You know how much that will cost?
      With all of the people harping about costs of programs, upgrading everything to the standard that you are proposing would be insane.
      Upgrading older aircraft costs quite a bit of money you see.

    • blight_

      “Kill the F-35” is the same logic that froze us at 187 F-22’s and 20 B-2’s (though to be fair, the Soviets did disappear, so who are you going to throw masses of stealth bombers at? Or stealthed ALCMs?)

  • Warren

    Are chaff / flares useless? It seems to me that they are cheaper than a $150 million stealth airplane. It seems like we could put $150 million in R&D into chaff/flares that would fool any missile and then we don’t need stealth at all. Granted, I’m speaking as an outsider here, but we really can’t come up with some kind of cheap decoy that all non-stealth planes can use, rendering stealth unnecessary?

    • SMSgt Mac

      Chaff/Flares are more useful on an airplane that gets in a position where they are less likely to be needed, and there are limits to the physical and some electronic countermeasures you can carry. Ask B-1 drivers that flew in Operation Allied Force about how thankful they are the Serbs didn’t have MORE Surface-Air systems inbound, over, and egressing the target sets.

    • For 70’s and 80’s era radar, yes. For the newer SAM’s, they are just expensive ways to puff metal in the sky. Stealth is where it’s at.

    • Red

      Because one purpose of stealth is so that you can conduct an attack with no advance warning. If you have a non-stealthy aircraft that has chaff, flares, etc., then you can spoof the enemy’s missiles, but they would still have advance notice that they were about to be attacked.

      Plus, stealth also allows you to conduct an anonymous attack (in theory.)

    • Chuck

      New IR AAMs use imaging seekers that picture the plane as a figure, not just a heat source. Can’t really make a flare look like a plane. That is why IRCM are blinding the AAMs and SAMs by directly aiming a laser at their seeker, overloading the sensor, and guiding it off course.

    • zabba

      Replying to the Are Chaff / flares useless? You are more thinking of a traditional war where there are defined lines. There are no more lines. That will never happen again. Now you have to think in terms of overt and covert. Going into a country that just needs a couple of bombs to take out a target is what is useful now. Its not worth starting a war over, but is worth risking taking a couple of shots with out anybody finding out.

  • seeker6079

    Right now, a group of senior USAF generals are grasping this release with trembling fingers. They are thinking back to a week-long drunken debauch, a carouse of epic proportions. They are speaking with raspy voices and staring with red-rimmed eyes, and they are all having the same thought:
    “Wait. We decided to spend a reasonable amount of money to upgrade and extend a proven, effective and admired weapons system? Jeeeezus, just how blitzed WERE we?”

  • TimUK

    The whole F22 doctrine is now flawed. Too few jets , large infra-red signature , Aesa will have far less aspect then the one to be fitted to the Typhoon, Stealth covering means it can never maintain maximum stealth in high temp operations, no IRST, and a missile that is unreliable at high altitudes.

    For the F22 to be effective it needs a high missile kill ratio and to remain undetected and also be in enough numbers to counter a much larger force.

    Lockheed and the USAF have weakened the air dominance of the US by a huge margin.

    • Praetorian

      Sure, the Typhoon cant even beat the Rafael according to Indian pilots. Lost to the F-35 in Japan, lost to F-15K twice in Korea. And the AESA radar ( CAPTOR ) wont be deployed until 2015.

      ” Aesa will have far less aspect then the one to be fitted to the Typhoon ”

      What do you mean ” will have ” far less. The AN / APG-77 is installed on 187 F-22’s
      and the Typhoon still has a M-scan radar and still uses the same missiles as the F-22. The MBDA Meteor will be an upgrade on the trenche 3’s right ?

      Pratt & Whitney says this about thier F119 engine :
      ” featuring the latest single-crystal superalloy blades and advanced cooling technologies ” Large infra-red signature my a$$.

      You are right, when the CAPTOR E – is installed – will have a larger aspect then current AESA radars. Until then your stuck with the M-scan.

      • Tim UK

        YOur talking about “Losing” ? I think you mean French Government bribes abd transfer of Nuclear Tech and US government pressure on S Korea and Japan.

        I guarantee the RAF Typhoon’s with Aesa will deal easily with the JSF and hold their own with the F22. The point I’m making is that the superiority of the F22 is not enough to overcome the low numbers , stealth maintenance issues, missile reliability and lack of side aspect aesa and IRST. Sure 400/500 F22’s would guarantee air dominance but that has not happened.

        The Chinese tactics must be to swarm any US F22/JSF/F15 force with huge numbers of medium/long range infra-red missiles so as to mess up their tactics and waste fuel. The doctrine of the USAF is now in serious trouble.

        • Praetorian

          Sure, sure US goverment pressure ? Your own country is going to buy the F-35, give me a break. And who are you to talk about #’s to the US. The UK is only buying 160 Typhoons.With 187 F-22’s, 175 F-15’s ” Golden Eagles “, 300 upgraded F-16’s, 300 upgraded F-15E’s , 10 carrier Battle groups ( 6 in the Pacific ) with over 1000 aircraft. And a growing # of F-35’s I think we are ok.

        • The great jessmo

          he doctrine of the USAF is now in serious trouble.

          Read more:

          I disagree with you sir. lets look at this.
          Assuming you have a South China sea or Taiwan crisis situation.

          12X B-2 with 200X SDB= How many targets hit in the 1st day?
          12X B-1 with 24 JASSms =
          12X B-52H with 24 X ALCMs =

          Now note that well over 2k targets have been hit ina single night
          And all of the strikes have come from CONUS, and Diego garcia.
          The U.S. Can put up these kinds of sorties daily.
          The problem is that You will need Tactical fighters, and escort to make your long range bombers more effective. The F-22 is effective, but the numbers will be stretched to the breaking point traveling long range.
          This is where the F-35s come in. It has just enough stealth to fill the critical gaps in numbers that you would need in this situation.

          1. The F-35 has greater range than the F-22
          2. The F-35 can hit more targets than a F-22 ( 4X Jassm from 600 miles away then 8X SDB)
          3. The F-35 is cheaper
          4. The F-35 will show up in the quantities needed to face a neer peer.

          Now throw 48X F-35 into the mix above each carrying 8X SDB and 2-4 jassm off the wings.
          The problem in a China crisis will be not running out of smart weapons.

          • tiger

            The USN & it’s Tomahawks can do the same thing cheaper, easier & are in the area already.

          • The great jessmo

            the doctrine of the USAF is now in serious trouble.

            1.Tiger, you missed the point. The point was that the Air force doctrine is broken. I proved that it isn’t.
            2.ships can take days to move, planes take hours.
            3.A 1-3 billion dollar warship isn’t necessarily cheaper to employ than a bomber. Do we want to get into a OHIO’S operating costs or a Burks manning and fuel costs?
            4. The Ships will run out of TLAMS Just like the bombers.
            5. Now put the 7th fleet and USAF bombers together, and you start to realize how trivial the Chinese taking out Guam really is. The U.S. could devastate China from CONUS Diego Garcia and the sea.
            6. The Chinese can put up maybe 2k SRBM strikes on Japan, Taiwan Guam and ships in the pacific. The U.S. can hit 2-3k targets a day! who do you think wins?
            7. The F-35 now fills and important Niche in between USAF bomber strikes, and Massive TLAM strikes.
            8. Until drones can self escort, and dog fight they will need escorts and or the ability to contempt engagement via stealth.

          • Tiger

            Sorry, but The Pacific Is the USN’s area of responsibility mostly. Before your bombers ever got to a tanker ( a weak link in your system); The USN has 4 SSGN’s on duty waiting for the call to fire in the region now. 154 Tomahawks a peice. Meanwhile your bombers are doing 15 hour flights to even get close. They can stay on station, undetected for months submerged. Meanwhile your tankers at Guam are sitting ducks. Take them out & your bombers are useless. That does not even add carrier airpower or surface forces.

          • Chuck

            How many TLAM Blk IV do you have in the inventory. Compare that with the hundreds of thousands of JDAM kits and SDBs currently on hand. We will need every one of them too.

        • tiger

          Tim, For heaven sakes loose the China boogyman. What is there to gain from either side by fighting? It makes as much sense as RN planners in 1905 eying the USN as a foe. We need China, & they need us. Where are your magic planes even going to fly from? South Korea? Japan? Not likely. Guam? The air distance from Guam the Shanghai is 1920 miles or 3090Km.

    • Chuck

      No, Congress and the administrations have done that. The F-22 should have been continued at a lean production rate designed to allow upgrades to the fighter, and to allow it to fight with UAVs in support.

    • banzai

      The comment, “Stealth covering means it can never maintain maximum stealth in high temp operations” is flat wrong.

    • So many falsehoods it is hard to know where to start.

  • BlackOwl18E

    The USAF is losing faith in the F-35A fulfilling their needs and the automatic $500 billion defense budget cuts have clouded the future of the JSF. The F-22 is great but it’s also unsafe and wasn’t built in enough numbers to be effective. F-16s and F-15s are still going to do the main work and will continue to serve the USAF for more decades to come.

    The US Navy was the first of the services to start seeing the flaws of the JSF. They should cancel the F-35C and just buy more Super Hornets as well as the Block III upgrades. Silent Hornets would be nearly just as good as F-35s in performance, but are considerably much cheaper to produce, acquire, and operate over the long term.

  • Mitchell Fuller

    The AF is putting itself out of the flying business by the poor weapons platform decisions it has made with the F22 and the F35. I looked up the fighter strength of AF over last 10 years and it has fallen significantly

    Upgrade the existing fighter platforms (as other commentators have written) and look at licensing the Gripen NG as a replacement for F-16 in future. Cancel F 35 program and use money to get fighter numbers back up. You still have to have quantity with quality in the defense environment

    • William C.

      Replace the F-16 with an even smaller airframe that has less thrust to work with? Despite the focus on the strike mission? Gee, great thinking there.

      • BlackOwl18E

        The Gripen NG is actually going to be better than the F-16 at many other things like short field take off, maintainability, and it has very good range for a fighter its size. It features a lot of radar-signature reduction features and makes extensive use of composite materials for a low radar cross section. It packs plenty of precision guided firepower. Along with that it uses a version of the proven F414 engine from the Super Hornet.

        The really cool thing about the Gripen is its rugged airfield capability. The Gripen’s short field take off performance allows it to land on almost any kind of road. Using only a couple of trucks, Swedish air crews were able to train how to provide fuel, weapons, and basic maintenance to Gripens in ordinary city streets within the time span of a matter of minutes. They were extremely paranoid over the idea of the Russians taking out all their airfields and developed this method to keep in the air. The Gripen NG is a superb aircraft and I think it would serve us well. The only reason I’m opposed to buying such an aircraft is that it is not American-made and I want to keep jobs here in the US. I often wonder if crews that operate with the Super Hornet, which also has good rugged air field performance, could be trained to do the same thing that the Sweds do with the Gripen.

        • tiger

          A lot cheaper too. The Swiss made deal with Saab last week to buy 24 to replace their F-5 force.

        • Jojo Azucena

          I totally agree with you abut the Gripen NG. The Gripen NG is the new F16 only better. The only advantage of the F16 with the Gripen Ng is that it has been combat proven. But with this kind of configurations for a Gripen NG i think that it is just waiting for a real war to really prove itself and then it would be a revolutionary war plane.

          Gripen Ng is equipped with AESA radar, IRST(for stealthed enemies no airplane can hide their heat signature), True STOL(i saw them in a couple of you tube videos which is amazing), and most of all they can carry the latest missiles like IRIS-T(better than Sidewinder x), and Meteor(better than AIM120D or AMRAAM).

    • Nicky

      The Gripen NG is a nice bird, but it is not the kind the US Air force wants. A Gripen NG is more suited for Small to Medium sized countries that want a Multi Role Fighter. They don’t want a high end fighter like the F-16 or SU-27. A Gripen NG would be more suited for countries like the Philippines, Thailand, South Africa New Zealand and even countries like Taiwan, or Mexico. A Gripen NG is a Multi Role fighter that would be suited for countries who don’t want a big air force, but want a sizable and manageable air force

      • Guest


        I totally agree with your explanation. Small fighters with low capability are more suited for Small to Medium sized European, some Asian/South American countries that want a Multi Role Fighter. Indeed, the Gripen NG is a aircraft that would be suited for countries who don’t want a big air force, but want a sizable and manageable air force.

        Another reason why small airframes are ideal for those countries is because they are surrounded by the small vast land areas and their range is not important for the requirements and also the fact is that European/Asian/South American nations have more surrounding air bases when the aircraft has an engine failure or hydraulic problems that can make an emergency landings which are ideal for short range fighters with either single or two engines.

  • mi1400

    US sattelites pick ballistic missile launch hundreds of miles away using IR sensors… granted F22 can dump heat in fuel tansk etc etc but when an F22 enters danger zone the advanced IR sensors can make F22 uy pee in his pants because not only he doesnt know how many IRs are trying to catch him from ground… because above all its/IR is passive tracking too unlike radar alerting pilot of locks.

    • straps

      Yea and exactly what other nation on planet earth has that capability? Somalia?
      Somebody has to pay for this stupidity an I say layoff notices to the entire Pentagon planning and acquisition depts…

    • Looking down through the atmosphere is different than looking sideways through it. When looking down, most of the air is near the earth, and all the weather/clouds are low compared to the sattilite. . Looking sideways you get all the problems of weather and differential density.

  • Josh

    Gotta love the Lockheed business model… just in case the F35 is further delayed, the USAF gives them a big fat contract to upgrade the Vipers. Win-win.

    • tiger

      Sounds like LM is a better Stock buy than Facebook will ever be…..

  • Ron

    Northrop Grumman Help!!!bring back the YF23 from moth balled!!!

    • tiger

      The world does need a new “Cat” plane in the sky.

      • Ron

        You must not care about your tax money, Northrop is tested and proven. Had the Gov. went with Northrop instead of Lockheed we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

        • Praetorian

          Ron, I think you missed what tiger was trying to say :
          Grumman built the
          F4F Wildcat
          F6F Hellcat
          F7F Tigercat
          F8F Bearcat
          F-14 Tomcat
          Also the F9F Panther

          • Ron

            My bad I thought his original statement was ” this world doesn’t need another cat”.

          • Tiger

            You learn fast young Jedi Knight. Skipped the Cougar, Tiger & experimental Jaguar swing wing however from the great Grumman “Cat” legacy.

    • Jason

      Best fighter ever designed. Thrown away for politics.

  • The Teen Series (F-15,16 and 18) are deaded than Elvis now that the Russians are selling their S-300 and S-400 SAMs. Give me a Table VIII certified PAC-3 crew and I could shoot down any upgraded F-16 ,F-18 or Silent Eagle.

    Why did China build the J-20? Enough stealth to defeat AEGIS and Patriot. And challenge the F-16’s in the pacific. Take those out and they own the sea.

    It’s only a matter of time until the Chinese and Russian SAM’s wind up in the hands of countries that hate us.

    Pundits during the cold war kept saying “Make cheaper aircraft, less high tech.” Then Desert Storm happened. Low tech aircraft died by the dozens. Pwnd by American air power.

    I’m a 14E, in Air Defense we study these things. The USAF needs a stop gap until the F-35 comes on line. It’s PASSING its goals. It’s FLYING. Only 300 upgraded F-16s? Yeah the Air Force is just making do. Nothing can stop the advance of metal fatigue.

    “F-16’s life expectancy tops out at 8,000 flight hours. A SLEP upgrade could extend those life spans an additional 2,000 to 4,000 flight hours.”

    Just long enough to get taken out by the newer SAMs.

    • Chops

      Too bad no one has ever devoloped an anti air countermeasure like submarines have–seed the area being attacked with something similar to sonobuoy sized decoys that have a heat and radar signature similar to a fighter or light bomber–they can only have a limited number of top line AA missiles to throw at these things I would guess.

      • drago

        If every air force did that, things would quickly descend into a visual range gunfight, and Pierre Sprey will be laughing his FAO.

    • The F-16s after upgrade will be great unmanned targets for the first day of the war, a replacement for the NGC Chukars used in Desert Storm.

  • Pappa51

    The future of the AF is UCAV. Unless they are going to turn the F-16’s into Drones; this is all academic. I’d bet that the F-35 will be the last of the manned fighter/bombers. Wish it wasn’t so. . .

    • DAY


      • blight_

        Predators can be controlled by GCS, and Firebees were controlled by C-130 motherships. Not all drone control must be out of Creech.

  • Tim Uk

    The fact is the JSF has been warped way beyond its original goals due to the failure of the F22 program. Which has left the US with a way too expensive and tech laden plane. It can barely afford never mind it’s allies.

    The US share of foreign weapon sales has collapsed over the last twenty years because the weapons are too expensive allowing foreign competitors in and increased proliferation.

    A terrible error for Foreign and Strategic policy and ultimately self defeating.

    • BILL D

      Not only that but our refusal to share the programming codes with our most trusted allies has cost us billions in sales.

      • ziv

        The only allies we have that won’t share our codes with our enemies, directly or indirectly, are Australia and Japan. And Japan would use full access to our codes to speed up their own fighter program so that they won’t have to rely on our jets in the future. So, best case, 15 years down the road we will be competing with the Japanese for foreign arms sales. Worst case, Japan decides they can’t fight the future/China’s numbers and throw their lot in with China and we end up in a Cold War against our own technology.

  • tony cabato

    just cancel all the legacy fighter & buy more F-22A raptor with software 3.3 version of another 600 more for the air-force, 500 forward swept wing variant 500 F-35B ,

    • Tiger

      Well when you write out a check, the Uncle Sam might think about it.

  • Red

    I have a question: Is it possible for the government to penalize a defense contractor that has cost overruns and delays, by disqualifying that contractor from winning, say, any defense contracts for several years?

    That would send a message.

    • Tiger

      Well Senator X, I guess we won’t be backing you next election cycle…..

    • blight_

      Oh noes, someone is for big government and GOVERNMENT WAAAASTE.

      (Even though it’s actually response to the industry signing deals they couldn’t deliver)

    • Certainly it is possible, and it has been done. Look at Fairchild Republic….

  • Noj

    The P8 modified to carry 55 SDB’s would be great for low intensity and BVR engagements. If it could carry 4 Tomahawk’s, even better. Kill and replace JSF with F-18E/F and P8’s. Having these would reduce the flight hours per year of the current “real” bomber fleet quite a bit. While I’m off in fantasy land, a pair of Patriot Pac 3’s to keep curious fighters at arms length.

    Assuming the 325 billion earmarked for the JSF gets cut to 150 billion I would split the money as follows.
    46 billion for 200 bomber versions of the P8 (230 million with new weapons bay and IRST)
    104 billion for 1552 F-18E’s

    Compare that to 1200 F-35’s and it seems silly to keep the program.

    Even a restart of the F-22 line, could yield 1 “B” P8’s, 7 F-22’s and 20 F-18E’s for every 24 F-35’s.

    • Red

      “A pair of Patriot Pac 3’s to keep curious fighters at arm’s length” – are you seriously suggesting that Patriot missiles be mounted aboard a P-8??????

  • 355TFSAMU

    The F-35 program seems like a pig. I think we need the F-35s but, geeze.. What’s up with getting them on-line. Bureaucracy? Is that the issue? We have to compete against Russia and China who are both quickly outpacing us. If we decide we don’t want to compete anymore then teach your kids to appreciate vodka and chop sticks, oh and no freedom.

  • freedom fighter

    you all should be charged for espionage

    • Thomas L. Nielsen

      I ran the above through Google Translate, the updated version with the Troll – English translation feature, and it still came out as gibberish. And not even funny gibberish at that.

      Please try harder next time.

      Regards & all,

      Thomas L. Nielsen

  • hugh

    cx F35s, xfer AF tactical mission to land/sea capable Navy. AF would have bomber and cargo mission. save many dollars.

  • hugh

    sole source to lockheed? more cost overuns and delays

  • justme

    ahhh .. outsource .. that is the answer …. India, Japan, China … anything is possible

  • Billy the Boomer

    Fighters are fun! Bombers and Tankers make policy.

    • Tiger

      Lt. Jake Grafton: “Fighter pukes make movies. Bomber pilots make… HISTORY!””

      Quote From “Flight of the Intruder”

  • USAvenger

    US has to start thinking abt how to deal with china. china is gg to have lots of cheap planes, or even convert their old J6, J7 and even J8 into drones for kamikazi attacks. or use them as baits. can the expensive and few F22 n F35 afford to be overwhelmed by these cheap planes? like wat the Iran strategy, these countries use large and cheap weapon system to overwhelm the expensive and few US system. they r gg to overwhelm US carriers with 100s of cheap missiles n suicide boats. a few getting through is good enough for them.

    In addition, as US starts a arm race with china, it cant afford to be brought down by expensive n ineffective weapon systems. n with the state of the US economy, it will be very taxing for US. US has to be innovative enough to produce efficient n cheap systems. if not, china is gg to win the arm race with their cheaper n larger number of weapon systems. is all abt productivity!

    cyberwar is another big issue..given today’s environment, cyberwar could be the first to go. with all the cyberwar happening behind the media, n under the surface of smiling politicians on the newspaper. n it is cheap, china is aggressively building up their cyberwar, together with their SOE selling cheap trojan electronic equipments to the US n other countries. if the US lost the first round of cyberwar, it could lead to devastating lost of weapon systems n hardware. especially at the critical time of the war.

    Please be prepared!

  • Air

    Fact is stealth is required for a survivable air-frame in the 21st century. Problem is not with beating other air-frames in air to air encounters but with surface to air batteries or SAMs.

  • Deltadagger

    People–people— start the B-1 Lancer bomber system up the US AIR FORCE has 68 B-1B on Alert duty today the F-35 is a joke


    What the AF and all branches of our miltary needs to do is grow a pair, cut through all rules of engagement and all the other B.S. our well trained and willing men and women are forced to follow and use what we allready have and get the job done. Oh quit selling or giving our technolgy to other countries. Ed F. retired AF



  • Freeman

    Nature of combat is changed significantly since the cold war. SAMs have improved tremendously, on range missiles and precision ordinance has come to the point, fighter planes would not have significant role in future war. These things can work well for US Air force,
    1.Upgrade existing fleet of F-16s and others.
    2.Improve long range missiles to take out enemy targets.
    3.Improve radar capabilities to identify and destroy intruding aircrafts.
    4.Invest more money on drones program rather than F-35 like fighters.

    End of the day, fighter planes and technology would not make much difference for American Air Force in the technological backdrop of China and others. Spending more to develop expansive programs like F-35 would not justify the cost or capabilities to counter future threats. It’s the culture, trading of men, focus on radars development, bvr systems, long range but cost effective non nuclear missiles, and drones program.

  • Zspoiler

    Why don`t they build F-16 XL with upgrades.

  • Viper jet 16

    The f-16 is a very good jet fighter. But they are replaced by f-22,f-35,t-50 and other fifth generation jets.We can upgrade it with advanced radar targeting systems and stealth technology, a upgrade for speed mach 2.8 to intercept enemy jets and a delta wing like f-16xl and then it would become a fifth or sixth generation high tech jet fighter.

  • William

    The old F15 and F16 jets should be kept flying as long as possible, right up to the point where their engines explode or their wings rip off. At that point the pilot simply ejects to safety. After all, that’s what ejection seats are for. This way, you know that you are pushing the planes right up to their maximum lifespan. I do that with my cars, I drive them right up to the point where the engine fails or the tires become bald (or they blow out even though they are not yet bald. )