Lockheed is proposing new F-16G similar to what Boeing did with the F-15EX for quick acquisition: https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/lockheed-pitches-advanced-f-16g-us-air-force

Also there has been some talk of reopening the C-17 line. Between the constant deployments, tactical training requirements, and ordinary airlift operations, either a SLEP or new production of the C-17 is probably in the near future pending the glacial pace of acquiring a future airlift capability.

Regarding the C-17, undoubtably the tools and fixtures were probably scrapped!

3 minutes ago, Vito said:

Regarding the C-17, undoubtably the tools and fixtures were probably scrapped!

I thought so too so it would be interesting to see how they would accomplish this.

It is worth pointing out that the Russians made virtual copies of the B-29 (Tu-4) without the aid of computers, 3D scanning, modern metrology instruments, maintenance and technical manuals, original jigs, etc. so I would think it’s not impossible to reopen a line to build the C-17.

35 minutes ago, HeyEng said:

I thought so too so it would be interesting to see how they would accomplish this.

It is worth pointing out that the Russians made virtual copies of the B-29 (Tu-4) without the aid of computers, 3D scanning, modern metrology instruments, maintenance and technical manuals, original jigs, etc. so I would think it’s not impossible to reopen a line to build the C-17.

The Russians did not "benefit" from our acquisitions process.

2 hours ago, HeyEng said:

Lockheed is proposing new F-16G similar to what Boeing did with the F-15EX for quick acquisition:

Many years ago I worked in the acquisition/test world for a staff job…trust me when I say the vast majority of the time there is nothing “quick” about that horrible process.

17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Many years ago I worked in the acquisition/test world for a staff job…trust me when I say the vast majority of the time there is nothing “quick” about that horrible process.

As an F-16 Flight Manual Manager for Lockheed, I approve of this. In a dream world, I would like to see an F-16G Block 80 with the Block 60 GE-132 engine.

If they restart the -17 line, build the B model

More cowbell (according to AI)…

1. Shorter Landings: Designed to land on austere or rough airstrips of 2,000 feet or less (compared to the standard C-17A's requirement of about 3,500 feet).

2. Center-Truck Gear: Featured an extra landing gear truck in the middle of the fuselage to better distribute weight on soft or damaged fields.

3. Self-Deflating Tires: Included specialized tires to improve traction and performance on unpaved surfaces.

4. Double-Slotted Flaps: Added advanced flaps to increase lift and control during steep, short-field approaches.

5. Better Protection: Proposed with improved self-protection and defensive systems

Unless Boeing could surge the EX line and the USAF could consolidate to one 4+ gen fighter type, then -16G seems reasonable, if the acquisition shenanigans could be avoided

I say build the new Vipers. 2 of 2 IADs in my experience have not been the 10 ft giants we’ve been told by the IC. Not scoffing, but also plenty of real world evidence to suggest 4G (and especially 4.5G) still have a lot to offer. We’ll never have the density with 5G+, accept that and move forward accordingly.

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

1. Shorter Landings: Designed to land on austere or rough airstrips of 2,000 feet or less (compared to the standard C-17A's requirement of about 3,500 feet).

2. Center-Truck Gear: Featured an extra landing gear truck in the middle of the fuselage to better distribute weight on soft or damaged fields.

1: Won't happen. As it is, the C-17 already needs what amounts to fully graded airfield that's missing an actual hard surface (concrete or assault). In the past, the literature didn't even call it 'unprepared'. It was SPRO Semi-Prepared Runway Ops.
2: A center truck and dirt are mutually exclusive. A center truck invariably scrubs (moves laterally) during every turn, not to mention the tight handling required on small LZs. A center truck will destroy any unprepared or semi-prepared surface. There's no way around that geometry.

The C-17 was the best we had at the time. We should have built way more, especially with the ER mod. What we need now is more of them or more bigger lifters. C-17s rarely bring mass to small LZs. That's invariably what C-130's or their successor is for.

Putting C-17's in the dirt or small LZs is a party trick (think one time JFE), not an actually strategic sustainable capability (such as long term resupply to small bases with dirt fields in the Pacific. Either find a new plane, or build a runway that can take a C-17.

IF they make a B-model, it either needs to be significantly smaller (which they'll honestly never do), or larger and more efficient...which my layman's understanding of aerodynamic modification of airplanes tells me is a limited returns proposal. Could they put a plug into a C-17? Seems doubtful.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by FourFans

21 hours ago, HeyEng said:

Lockheed is proposing new F-16G similar to what Boeing did with the F-15EX for quick acquisition:

Also there has been some talk of reopening the C-17 line.

My cynical view is that the F-15EX was bought as a form of corporate welfare to Boeing, to help them keep their St Louis site open. The fact that the Air Force was able to get more iron on the ramp was just a side benefit.

I don't foresee the Air Force buying new F-16s. Lockheed's F-16 production line is busy satisfying existing foreign sales, and is in no danger of closing. And Lockheed has no desire to sell the USAF F-16s, as every F-16 they sell us is potentially one less F-35 order.

Additionally, every time I see a news story about "USAF looking at restarting C-17 production," I feel like there is an embedded caveat that's missing. The AF knows they need to get a new cargo aircraft program going. And they know there are at least some in Congress who will say "Why can't we just restart C-17 production?" So, the AF (and Boeing) are going through the motions of putting a dollar figure on what it would take to restart C-17 production. Spoiler alert, the result they come up with will be: "It's more cost effective to just design a new aircraft," because that's the result everyone (Boeing, the AF, etc) wants.

7 minutes ago, Blue said:

And Lockheed has no desire to sell the USAF F-16s,

It’s literally their idea. And it’s not a zero sum game with the F-35.

8 minutes ago, Blue said:

My cynical view is that the F-15EX was bought as a form of corporate welfare to Boeing, to help them keep their St Louis site open. The fact that the Air Force was able to get more iron on the ramp was just a side benefit

It’s a very capable jet. Still would have preferred we buy Rhinos, but I’m sure there are valid sustainment reasons the AF stuck with the strike family. So while there is surely some amount of military complex going on, it was far more than just that.

7 hours ago, FourFans said:

1: Won't happen. As it is, the C-17 already needs what amounts to fully graded airfield that's missing an actual hard surface (concrete or assault). In the past, the literature didn't even call it 'unprepared'. It was SPRO Semi-Prepared Runway Ops.
2: A center truck and dirt are mutually exclusive. A center truck invariably scrubs (moves laterally) during every turn, not to mention the tight handling required on small LZs. A center truck will destroy any unprepared or semi-prepared surface. There's no way around that geometry.

The C-17 was the best we had at the time. We should have built way more, especially with the ER mod. What we need now is more of them or more bigger lifters. C-17s rarely bring mass to small LZs. That's invariably what C-130's or their successor is for.

Putting C-17's in the dirt or small LZs is a party trick (think one time JFE), not an actually strategic sustainable capability (such as long term resupply to small bases with dirt fields in the Pacific. Either find a new plane, or build a runway that can take a C-17.

IF they make a B-model, it either needs to be significantly smaller (which they'll honestly never do), or larger and more efficient...which my layman's understanding of aerodynamic modification of airplanes tells me is a limited returns proposal. Could they put a plug into a C-17? Seems doubtful.

Good points, I’m leaning towards a new design and specifically the blended wing body

19 minutes ago, Blue said:

. Spoiler alert, the result they come up with will be: "It's more cost effective to just design a new aircraft," because that's the result everyone (Boeing, the AF, etc) wants.

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