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.

In a dream world, I would like to see an F-16G Block 80 with the Block 60 GE-132 engine.

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by Sua Sponte

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 yesterday at 05:29 AM1 day 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

On 9/20/2026 at 11:52 AM, HeyEng said:

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

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

4 hours 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.

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.

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.

Edited 23 hours ago23 hr by Sua Sponte

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

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

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).

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

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).

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

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by pbar
spelling

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

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

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.

40 minutes ago, FourFans said:

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.

Yup

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

9 hours ago, sketch2 said:

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

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.

On 9/21/2026 at 8:15 AM, brabus said:

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

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.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Blue

Maybe someone doesn’t want to spend Z06 Corvette money when a cheaper Stingray Corvette will fit their needs just fine. The Stingray and Z06 are built at different assembly lines. By ordering Stingrays, that assembly line doesn’t shut down, your employees aren’t laid off, and you now have two assembly lines building products for different customers and their requirements.

There are some customers who also want Z06s and Stingrays, not just one or the other.

Edited 15 minutes ago15 min by Sua Sponte