It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The US Air Force announced late on 19 August the grounding of 82 of 969 Lockheed Martin F-16s still in service after finding structural cracks.
The grounding, which involves only the two-seat F-16D, could be lifted to allow aircraft to fly a limited number of flight hours with a temporary fix, the air force says.
Engineers are still analysing options for a permanent repair, the air force says.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
They need to can the F-35 and buy new F-16s. Just the opinion of a broken down Block 30 guy.....
originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
Buy some Euro fighter Typhoons to replace your F16's.....
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
What role do you think it cannot perform? Granted, it isn't a carrier airplane, but, crank up the F/A-18E/F assembly lines.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
Buy some Euro fighter Typhoons to replace your F16's.....
I would imagine it's much cheaper to fix what we have, especially when we have all the spare parts to fix them later on.
originally posted by: Xeven
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: PurpleDog UK
Buy some Euro fighter Typhoons to replace your F16's.....
I would imagine it's much cheaper to fix what we have, especially when we have all the spare parts to fix them later on.
Replacing longerons can get very pricey. Sounds like the front end of the aircraft could fall off. if it is a main structural longeron the aircraft may head to the bone yard.
It may be possible to repair them but if not replacement is not likely as you would basically need to break the aircraft all the way down to replace them. Not sure though. Never worked F-16 and not sure what longeron is cracking.
Who exactly is it you say you believe that claims that the F-35 is needed? Lockheed Martin, the US DoD guys that are lining up post military career jobs, senator's/congressman whose constituency has work promised to it that see's them re-elected, some guy on ATS or down the road? The F-35 program is a sham and the epitome example of turning a silk purse into a sows ear, it doesn't work, period. All it is, is arguably the greatest pork barreling sham ever created. It is nothing more than a job creation/profit scam/re-election scheme rolled into one. It is years late as evidenced by the original DoD/Lockheed Martin timetables, it is massively over budget and per unit cost, and it doesn't do what it was promised. Plus it keeps breaking on an all too familiar basis and lets not forget that slightly inconvenient problem of the contract breach over the alternate engine that saw the (arguably) better powerplant axed supposedly to "save money". And it simply cannot be afforded by anything other than fairytale economics. And that is before we get to the really sinister parts of this program. Do yourself a favour Occam (and others), do some more research on what is wrong with F-35 and what is truly driving it. I have been following this whole program since the earliest days and it cannot be afforded or purchased in anything like the dollars that a swathe of officials (both LM, US DoD and various allied governments/airforces) have promised on record that it would cost. You tell me how it can be afforded when even the cheapest A model is by most (non LM) estimates somewhere north of 140 million, the B model well over 200 million and the C model over 300 million?
Well those who I believe to have much more knowledge than you claim the F-35 is a multi role aircraft that is absolutely needed
I have no argument that the technology isn't required Zaph(although I believe not in the airframe/mission it is always linked too), and I'm not talking about the publicly available stuff but rather the technology lying underneath the skin that is the reason it can be sold to quit a few countries without risk of technology transfer (you know what I actually mean Zaph), my problem is that the airframe is wrong and it requires more than one airframe type for these mission sets t be efficiently carried out. I also disagree that it cannot be retrofitted onto existing platforms in an acceptable time frame because the chief naysayer in that is the F-16/F-22 manufacturer itself and that's LM who in a make believe world would hypothetically stand to gain more from selling F-35's over Raptors and Falcons (reality notwithstanding) . That and the F-35 is in 99% of cases vastly expensive and unaffordable overkill. Particularly if the US and its allies only have the stomach these days for PR wars in places that consider a .50 cal a "heavy" weapon. Much of what has happened the last ten years in the Middle east and now in Iraq/Syria could be achieved with turboprops, A-10's Ac-130's or at worst F-16 class fighters. Move up the case from that towards Russia and China and you need F-22 or better.
The technology required, and trust me, it IS required, isn't something that can be refit onto existing airframes within the timeframe that currently exists. At this point it's the F-35 or nothing