Congress Daily (subscription required) reports the following:
As the Air National Guard grapples with an impending fighter jet shortfall that will threaten its ability to protect U.S. airspace, its supporters in Congress and the Pentagon want the Air Force to consider all possible solutions — even buying Navy F-18s to fill the gap.
Lawmakers and other National Guard boosters are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Defense Department and the Air Force, charging that officials have no workable plan to deal with the Guard’s aging fleet.
They argue that 80 percent of the Air Guard’s F-16s, which fly the majority of Air Sovereignty Alert missions, will retire years before their replacements are ready, depleting units of the aircraft they need to secure domestic airspace.
The workhorse F-15 fleet isn’t in much better shape, having been grounded for three months after one broke apart in November 2007 during a training mission over eastern Missouri.
As a result, the Air Force, the service funded to supply airplanes to the Air National Guard, is being told by Congress to explore every option, including buying F/A-18s.
The article goes on to say:
Boeing said it hasn’t had any discussions with the National Guard about the F-18s. But one defense official said it’s an area the Air Force should review.
“I think the taxpayer demands we look at this because it’s an efficient, highly capable aircraft that can sustain our force structure through this risky period,” the official said.
The Air Force is focusing its budgets on the F-35, which eventually will make its way to the Air Guard. But leaders insist they are open to other solutions, if necessary.
Of course the Air Guard has shared type/model/series with the Navy before in the form of A-1s, A-7s, and F-4s.
At the same time, if I’m a Guard pilot, fighter gap or no, I’m hoping the Air Force holds out for the JSF.
(Gouge: NC)
– Ward
{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m no expert on this, but wouldn’t National Guard pilots who are trained to pilot F-15s and F-16s have to go through expensive traing to retrain the pilots to fly F-18s? Wouldn’t they also have to buy news parts and all that…yada, yada, yada.
The solution to this is so simple, but I guess we need Gates or the Congress to force the point with the Air Force.
Replace the whole Guard with Predator UAVs! Let robots defend America.
Check your numbers F-22 cost more in the region of 250-300mio each and is mady by lowest bider and half of them are only partly ,half will have data sharing and only a few helmet mounted hud with cueing and now we hear that the stealth coatings are not up to specs so mechanics spend more time fixing and there are probably more issues that that haven be fixed and is a waste of money as an National Guard machine.
This is an excellent idea.
Which means it won’t happen.
Seems to me that F-15SE option fits the bill nicely. Existing platform that pilots know how to fly. Logistical chain in place for support. Upgrades like fly by wire giving better range due to weight reduction, AESA radar, IR tracking available, basic stealth additions suited to air to air defensive situation. Sorta of a no brainer, which is good since collectively so many in DC have no brains.
Mat,
Your price include dev costs that are allready paid regardless of any other pruchases. Flyaway cost of an F-22A is is 130m.
I woud think we need a hi-low mix. Buy more 22s to replace the F-15 and scrap the F-35.
Buy F-18s upgraded with the fancy ASEA radar from the F-35 for the F-18A/C users as well as AF F-16 squadrons.
This leave us without an A-8 / A-10 replacement but the F-35 is a poor substitute for either.
How about purchasing the best available plane for the job. Why must be always buy American when a plane like the Typhoon is available and is better than anything other than the F-22(must more expensive to operate than Typhoon). This is a perfect plane for continental air defense. It’s a big improvement over the F-15, f-16 and F-18 for that role. Give it an AESA radar and it will be a great plane for many years to come.
Oh yea, we didn’t make it so it can’t be considered.
Jack
The F-22 is already capped at 187 so building more is not an option.
There is also no way that the Typhoon would be purchased over a domestic aircraft, likely due to American manufacturing jobs.
I wonder if the AF or ANG has considered the proposed upgraded F15 “Silent Eagle” that has been enhanced to be stealthier?
The stealth eagle seems pretty good to me too. I like the f-22 too, but 1.75 billion for 7 is too much. That’s 250 million a piece. Maybe if they really could show them for 130, then yes. The f-35 is going to be 130 and late, what are we going to do for now?
As to buying Typhoons, Gripen, Rafales, or whatever…
Northrop/Grumman has shown itself perfectly willing to build European aircraft, under license, in the United States, so don’t write off that possibility!
Not that I think it’s a good idea…
Neither the F-18, nor any of the above aircraft, nor even the “Silent Eagle” (which isn’t exactly cheap!) achieve the goal, IF that goal is to train ANG pilots in the same aircraft as the Air Force is going to be using!
Of course, the Air Force doesn’t seem to be on the same page as the National Guard, but that’s not surprising…
Just use all that bloated Stimulus money for Corporate America and buy sensible jet fighters to protect America. Enough of the BS already…
We have absolutely fallen behind would be adversary’s aircraft. We should take a lesson from the Russians and continue to evolve an existing airframe. We have always adhered to the quality vs quantity, new vs. existing, thought process. With the cost of a new airframe running in the 150 Million/copy range we will quickly be outclassed by our inability to pay for them in any useful quantity. Our reliance on stealth airframes will come at a cost when experience renders them obsolete or less effective. The US strategic outlook should always include slugging it out with China and Russia. Both possess superior aircraft in quantity. I also believe that for strategic and national pride reasons we should never, ever purchase a foreign built or designed airframe. Our industrial manufacturing base is already so compromised, why continue to undermine our national industrial capability.
The money just isn’t going to be there for the #s of F22s and F35s desired. We are going to continue to fly our F-teens for a long time, so the ANG and everyone else might as well just get their arms around that notion. The F15SE and F16E/F are perfectly good compliments to the F22/35s.
I don’t worry about conflict with Russia or China. Russia is never going to project itself beyond it’s border in any real fashion. They should be spending their $ on modernizing their oil industry, not building new SLBMs. Regardless of the outcome of a US/China conflict we both lose, it would cut our throats simultaneously economically.
I do foresee more of what we have been doing the last 20 years. That tempo short of WW3 puts hours on airframes. We will need #s for that, but we won’t necessarily need uber stealth generation 7 robo fighters to accomplish all missions.
If China stops buying US debt there isn’t going to be any money for MREs, let alone F35s. GM actually turns a profit in places like China and India. We trillions into each other’s economies. They aren’t interested in shooting at us and frankly if they want to invade Taiwan I say let them. They would be savaged on the world stage with sanctions and such, not to mention they’d get to enjoy a robust counter insurgency/occupation of their own.
Russia driving up a freeway from their own country into Georgia is about as impressive as us invading Tijuana. I did read about the Akulas, I grew up in the 70s a 80s. A couple attack subs is no reason to panic. Lets see them deploy a BDE to Africa within 2 weeks and sustain combat operations for 30 days, otherwise I stand by my assessment, farce.
Beyond that China is no short term threat and Russia is a big fat joke, the simple fact is there is not enough money doesn’t change.
Given the procurement #s were based on outdated scenarios, aircraft retirement assumptions that are no longer accurate, and munition capabilities that have now been overwhelmingly surpassed, a reduced buy to match real needs and fiscal realities is completely acceptable.
There’s a major problem with your argument, China (along with Russia) are permanent members on the security council, they can very easily block any vote that would remotely damage anything of remote interest to their nations. No way of getting around that.
If we let them take Taiwan, it would be yet another example of how we talk tough, tell nations we support them, then sit back and watch them get slaughtered. That’s not being good allies AT ALL. The message we’d send around the world is “yea we support our allies, but if you attack them you can do whatever you want to their country”. Even IF we got resolutions passed it wouldn’t do much, look at North Korea and Iran, their still causing mayhem.
As with Russia, I don’t think we need to panic or worry yet (if at all), but we need to keep our eye on them as they flex their muscles around the globe again. The biggest threat is ofcourse energy, Russia controls most of the fuel that is sent into Europe. They cut it off last winter, and can easily do it again to wage some kind of war with their neighbors. Russia is probably the bigger threat, compared to China IMO.
Tho perhaps we both are misunderstanding all of this. You are underestimating them, and I’m overestimating them. Only time will tell who’s right.
“Let him who desires peace, prepare for war”. -Vegetius, Roman writer
You can’t go to war with your creditor.
What’s sad about this is the near certainty that the USAF brass will fight like blazes against any cost-effective option, no matter what it is. They are beyond sarcasm, parody or satire. That bunch would let the air out of the tires of fire trucks coming to save their houses if the trucks weren’t made of solid gold.
That’s what happens when you sell your soul to the Stealth God.
When did it become cannon that that the NG pilots have to fly the same A/C as the A/F? Wouldn’t new build/latest Block F-16′s fill the need?
While i dont see the huge A with them using F18′s i also dont see why theyd cancel f35 production i believe it has to just a horrible plane forever it will change be upgraded excetera.
My veiw is this the DOD and friends wanted to do to many things with one airframe (wait this sounds familiar seems to happen with everything now adays) fighter,bomber,vtol,stealth,strike,carrier ability…focus FOCUS PEOPLE.
Stealth is a good idea in some things i think but sence we already KNOW that is is compromised as has been demonstrated. Why do we obsess about it but not EW systems?
Make an outstanding fighter aircraft that uses many of the same parts as a carrier version also have a vstol fighter bomber.
Focus your designs.
What would happen if you tried to make a rifle…then tried to make it able to take out tanks, jets, mortars, add a flamethower……get the picture?
This is part of whats wrong in all our projects..no focus everyone wants a swissarmy knife weapon……now think…how many wars have the swiss fought in the last 100 years?
What exactly is the purpose of the Air National Guard? If it is have aerial force available in the sky above the US – say, to chase down wayward private aircraft and monitor suspicious airliners – then it would seem they need an airplane designed specifically for that purpose: long range, fast enough to chase down a business jet, 2 missiles and a cannon. Not a stealthy Mach 2 dogfighter.
If the purpose of the Air National Guard is to be an integral part of the Air Force, taking on any and every mission that the AF takes on, but also be available at various points in the continental US, then why not just reopen some of the Air Force bases closed in the 1970s and 80s, integrate them into the Air Force, and be done with it?
This isn’t the 1920s when communications across the continent were poor and flying times were long; I see no logical point to an Air National Guard that is just the same as the Air Force.
Cranky
I want to make two points.
1. We don’t need the F/A-18. Instead, we should build more F-16s, which are cheaper. Pilots don’t need to train up for a new aircraft and we already have the logistics in place.
2. Why have an Air National Guard in the first place? The whole organization is a political and economic sop to the state governors. The primary purpose of the National Guard is to respond to STATE emergencies. I cannot conceive of any emergency confined solely to my home state Louisiana that would require deployment of our squadron of A-10s and our squadron of F-15Es. The whole Air National Guard should be in the Air Force Reserves. If their primary mission is to defend U.S. airspace, they don’t need stealthy aircraft, just something simple and effective–the F-16.
I want to make two points.
1. We don’t need the F/A-18. Instead, we should build more F-16s, which are cheaper. Pilots don’t need to train up for a new aircraft and we already have the logistics in place.
2. Why have an Air National Guard in the first place? The whole organization is a political and economic sop to the state governors. The primary purpose of the National Guard is to respond to STATE emergencies. I cannot conceive of any emergency confined solely to my home state Louisiana that would require deployment of our squadron of A-10s and our squadron of F-15Es. The whole Air National Guard should be in the Air Force Reserves. If their primary mission is to defend U.S. airspace, they don’t need stealthy aircraft, just something simple and effective–the F-16.
Why isn’t someone considering the latest Block of F-16′s or F-15′s for that matter (I’m not even talking about Silent Eagle)? If you have the ANG F-16′s like what UAE purchased or F-15 like the latest South Korean version, they would be more than adequate for the air sovereignty mission. Especially if the F-15 or F-16 is equipped with AESA. If you don’t want Lockheed Martin producing all the fighters, surely Boeing can still build F-15s, right?
Second, if you get rid of the ANG, you are still stuck with the air sovereignty mission.
I really don’t see the need for a huge National Guard fleet anymore- lets face it- it was a Strategic reserve using recently retired planes – like the F100′s in the ’70′s and F4′s in the ’80′s.
The nearest Guard base to me is Atlantic City- F16′s fly overhead protecting me from…subs? gamblers? Just a waste of money-
I don’t think I ever mentioned the UN? Sanctions don’t mean the UN automatically. Many economic sanctions could occur in a multilateral fashion outside the UN. I really don’t want to sidetrack into a conversation over why the dynamics between the US and China are not even remotely similar as to what exited between the US and the USSR. China is used as a boogeyman by the military/industrial complex to justify systems, and #s, for a conflict that ain’t gonna happen.
Russia is a joke, period. If they didn’t have nukes they wouldn’t even be relevant. Their military is a disorganized group of clowns barely able to beat down a 3rd string country like Georgia.
A reduced buy on F35s, note I said reduced not eliminated, is doable. We need to take a hard look at what we want to accomplish overseas and what needs to be done at home. It becomes clear that if you separate the missions a reduced buy is easily obtained. Before even going that far, just looking at the #s and the current realities shows the USAF doesn’t need as many F35s as they were saying.
They admit the F35 is a far more capable aircraft and certainly need not replace F16s on a 1 per 1 basis. They also said the numbers were designed as a replacement to A-10s, F117s, and F15Es. All three of those platforms have since either been retired regardless or are going to continue flying far longer than originally planed.
That leaves only the F16s, and that would be about 1300 aircraft. The USAF themselves have said a 1 per 1 would be unnecessary, so we wouldn’t need 1300 F35s.
Being generous under those facts means the 1700+ proposed is probably 700 more than needed giving the USAF the benefit of the doubt. That’s before you even look at mission reqs for all those F16s and decide if you want to go with an advanced block F16 for the homeland missions, and use the F35 for fwd deployed operations.
That’s 700 or 800 less without even discussing the STOVL and CTOL versions and their justifications.
I take the ANG at his word of being interested in capabilities, not platforms. Anyone read about the advanced block 60 being offered to India in their upcoming 12 billion dollar purchase? Supercruise anyone? Sensor fusion with AESA and IRST? Sounds alot like a F35 without the stealth to me.
Good Morning Folks,
I’m with Drake 1 on this. Their are other option not stated. Example more F-16′s a plane that will be in the U.S. inventory for years to come, the F-35′s are not going to pop out all at once.
Me smells Congressman Murtha in all this. I’m still waiting for the Congressman to explain the “Combat Loss” of three F-18′s that the Congressman put an earmark into the budget for $208,000,000.00 to replace and another $96,000.000.00 to replace the “combat Loss” of an EA-6B all in the 06-07 DoD budget. He might also as a courtesy inform the DoD since they can’t find these losses either.
If the guard really need more aircraft to do it’s mission then bay all means buy them, but if the sudden Guard interest in the F/A-18 is just another effort for a corrupt congressman to line his pockets, forget it. Congressman Murtha has enriched himself enough on public graft and corruption.
Since the primary mission of the Guard now, other then to get activated and deployed, is to chase air liners around the formally friendly skies of America, why not the F-5. All the guard fighter jocks can fly it, it’s what they learned on as the T-37, the F-5 can surly take out a Southwest 737, and when the F-35 come into the guard the F-5′s can either be put in training wings of the AF or sold in export.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
There are proposals to eliminate the Air Guard.
http://www.g2mil.com/AirGuard.htm
Of course this means the regular USAF would have to defend the USA, something our Generals hate.
Yo, Byron!
Excellent Idea with the F-5′s!!
However, I would make one adjustment, the F-20 Tigershark. It was designed as an upgraded F-5 in the mid to late 70′s.
By the way, every now and then I see several F-20′s flying over Albuquerque. So, someone, probably foreign, is flying them.
……..”China is used as a boogeyman by the military/industrial complex”……..
And here we go again i wish no one had ever figured out that phrase.
So sinister so evil conspiracy sounding, baa. Most people who quote the military industrial complex are usually nutters. Like the THEY FAKED THE MOON MISSION!! people or the ive been obducted and probed by aliens for my semen people. God or the 911 nuts.
As for new 516 or f15′s why not? sounds like a good idea gives jobs and planes we need now that have the bugs worked out already.
“……..”China is used as a boogeyman by the military/industrial complex”……..
And here we go again i wish no one had ever figured out that phrase.
So sinister so evil conspiracy sounding, baa. Most people who quote the military industrial complex are usually nutters. Like the THEY FAKED THE MOON MISSION!! people or the ive been obducted and probed by aliens for my semen people. God or the 911 nuts.”
For your enlightenment, the original “nutter” was Dwight D. Eisenhower that ‘figured it out’ and used the phrase in his farewell address. He was warning the nation about the very issues we are confronting right now in regards to budgets and procurement. It is very timely, topical, and probably some of the most important words a President has ever spoken to the American people.
The problem with more F22s is primarily the program has been nixed, the President has said he’d veto the defense bill and the Sec of Defense doesn’t want anymore. It is a fairly large hurdle to overcome.
Satire aside, it really is the gold hammer argument. Too expensive. While we won’t need as many aircraft for the missions, the F22 is still too expensive to buy in those #s. The F15A-D’s sounds like they are in bad shape also and they are talking SLEP to just keep em in the air long enough to get the F35s out the door.
STemplar, The F-22′s price would fall if we bought more of them. We are currently paying for the “development cost” in each F-22 we buy, which jacks the price up. Why we don’t just pay the development cost of programs during development I don’t know. :(
Zach-
Do you not understand it’s part of the game that’s played in acquisitions? Development times and costs for these things are always estimated low to get a firm commitment. >>> $$$$$$$ <<<
The money to develop has been spent. It isn’t spent as we buy, it is just more honest to assess the real cost by including the development. Even at rosy flyaway costs they are 170 million a pop.
Saying that they would be cheaper if we bought more is true, but it is true for whatever we buy. The question becomes do we need that many with those capabilities? Can we afford enough of them to cover the missions? The answer is no to both. For the real missions and scenarios possible we don’t. It is a gold plated hammer.
We need to split the missions between domestic and overseas. The domestic mission can use new buy advanced block F16s, F5s like Byron suggested, or some other non F22/F35 option, the domestic air sovereignty mission does not require the F22/F35s abilities.
F-5 is not a very good solution. Out of production, short ranged, and a little slow.
If you want a project to dust off, why not the F-16XL? Re-engine it with one of the F-22 or -35 powerplants, stick on a variable geometry inlet, and a nice selection of the other garbage we hang on planes these days, all of it fairly well tested. You’d have commonality with current production, it would be fast, long range (lots of gas in the XL), more than likely supercruise, good time to altitude. It would support future designs, and keep some production facilities working. The XL would probably be cheaper than the Silent Eagle to both purchase and operate, and not hard to add some “stealth” onto. But that’s just an idea…
There are a lot of options for the domestic mission. The Block 60 F16s are one. Asking for something beyond that wouldn’t be overly costly. The option being presented in the MMRCA competition in India I think is step above the block 60s even I think. In any case new buys of them would be more than capable of filling the domestic mission role.
STemplar-
Oh I absolutely agree, I’m not above playing what-if either sometimes. Of all the crazy, expensive solutions, buying a few thousand F-35s is right up there. I just like the XL, and it would completely fit the bill for a domestic interceptor. Much better than anything else mentioned, if only they were in production. And the one fitted with the F110 did supercruise, just barely.
STemplar- I read “…wouldn’t be overly costly” as “would be”. Tired eyes, I guess.
more political football crap dealing with our military…just build some more 15′s and 16′s and quit the pork barrel crap.
An advanced F-16 like the one being offered to India is more than enough to the National Guard.
Dwight D. Eisenhower did say that and yes i did know it. I didnt mean HE was a nutter just that its become an excuse for people to hammer at any military spending.
Yes projects are missmanaged in some cases massively (DDX,FCS, well you get the picture alot of current projects). But one thing that bugs me is that people blame the companies…are they to blame yes.
Its like this. You could argue that if there were no hookers there would be no prostitution. And that is true. But as long as a man is willing to pay money there will be. Same with the defense industry or any industry for that matter.
My point is without murtherfalker and his buddies without the loop in the system it would be considerably harder.
And who patrols these men with supreme power? Themselves. Its like having a panel of rapist judging another rapist. Basicaly…….stupid, very stupid.
You and I…ok i havent to the best of my knowledge voted one in…but many others have……blame yourselves..or fix it. Corruption isnt a disease of capitalism. But of weakness, lazyness, cowardness.
Just give ‘um some F-16′s.
That should be good enough.
portland window cleaning
Pour more money into cash for clunkers, we dont need airplanes. This government is a joke.
Nice post. I will go to this blog everyday.
I want to tell everybody that i ordered Tiffany Ring and Tiffany Bracelets in a Tiffany store:http://www.joytiffany.com. I like them as i like this blog.All of my friends like the Tiffany & CO.
I think it is a mistake to have the ANG be strictly Air Force driven. It should be a joint affair between Navy-USMC and AF. As for training, I would rather my taxes pay for this then Cap&Trade, Nationalized Health Care, CARS, Bailouts…
The Air National Guard states they need the Synthetic Aperture Radar to detect low flying cruise missiles. The F-18E/F have that type radar and is why it is under consideration. The F-22A and F-35 series will also have this type of radar.
The problem is training and logistics for the F-18E/F is NOT in the US Air Force system. Thee will be an initial setup cost associated with the F-18E/F option that has not been addressed here. The Air National Guard may have to be supplemented with UAV’s as SecDef Gates has stated to the active Air Force Units. There are no other alternatives until the F-35 is available.
I personally would be happy with waiting for the JSF if they can start rolling them out NOW. It shouldn’t take this many years to test an aircraft. The amount of time this is taking adds huge cost to the aircraft as well as the costs of maintaining the planes that it’s suppose to replace. If they can start giving aircraft to those that are waiting for them next year at the latest then I say wait. Otherwise I would tell them we are going to buy something else and for every one we buy expect it will be that many less JSFs that we get. Maybe that will put a fire under them a little.
The F-20 was a good idea that never happened. I wonder though realistically even if it was chosen it isn’t like the production line exists.
There are certain less tangible benefits from buying gen 4.5 and 5 fighters, one of which is maintaining the image of being dedicated to the most advanced aircraft possible. That doesn’t mean though we can’t be cost effective.
Gen 4.5, or even 4.75, the way this F-16 IN reads, may not be Day 1 aircraft, but they certainly could be used once the SEADs is completed.
It’s a balancing act between financial prudence and technological innovation.
What’s wrong with the new F-15. Didn’t they just start producting one called the Stealth Eagle that has internal weapons bays, resigned intakes, etc and RAM on it?
With a new Radar this aircraft is basicly a Gen 4.9 aircraft for about 1/8th the money of a new F-22. What’s wrong with them exactly?
There’s is nothing ‘wrong’ with the F15SE’s although they are not real cheap. They are about 100 million a pop. We are not going to fill the domestic F16 role with them, but some would be fine. I just don’t see the need for stealth flying over US airspace. Some new F-15E’s would be fine to replace those about the fall apart.
Byron Skinner-
You’re mixing up the Cessna T-37 and Northrop T-38, totally different aircraft. T-38 and F-5 family (including the -20) grew out of the N-156 design; probably fair to say the airframe was just a little too far ahead of the propulsion tech to be truly great aircraft, until the F-20. By then F-16 was in production and cleared for foreign sales (and IIRC, heavily subsidized), so there was no need for the excellent F-20.
Updated A-37 sound like a good idea. WTF who in the airforce brass thought a agood way to justify more jets was so that they could defend against terrorist in 747′s or cessnas….thats stupid.
Shouldnt the airnational guards priority be defense against hostile aircraft from other enemy nations and groups?
Its like buying the cops M1A1′s for swat duty.
Hell and im not a guy that says we need to cut back the military and i say that.
Either use small jets like the A-37 Or something along those lines….Hell referb some old A-10s for all i care. But F35 or F22 to shoot down fat cows is stupid.
While I am sure that a lot of the aircraft that are being suggested that are not currently in the inventory are fine airframes, I think it’s a bad idea.
We have to assume that the ANG will be used for more than the homeland security mission in the future, and those airwings need to be forward deployable. If we put anything into the mix that does not mix well with aircraft already forward deployeed we are spending money for a very single minded mission.
I think new f-16s and f-15s would be a great idea. I don’t have as much problem with Hornets or Super Hornets that some do given that we already that a system for supply, repair, training, etc on the airframe, but I don’t see why we don’t just use the still running f-16, f-15 lines.
I’d have to agree with going with new F15/16s. We don’t need the Day 1 capability of the F22/35s, but to be able to conduct follow on and supporting roles could be necessary. We could find ourselves in some kind of no fly zone scenario again, or if they field the NCADE then there clearly would be more reason to field the less expensive teen series.
A Saab Gripen seems like a better buy for the money. But, since this is more about congressional politics and hand outs to Boeing, it will not happen. The Gripen is cheap, and easy to fix and fly. The Hornet For the AG seems like a pork project.
One of the concerns is airframe age and the fighter gap. Kind of a time critical matter. Some sort of foreign buy brings with it insurmountable political obstacles. However, beyond that in regards to savings, buying an aircraft our pilots haven’t flown, mechanics haven’t repaired, ordnance crews haven’t worked with, trainers don’t know anything about, and no in place parts/logistics really isn’t going to be any kind of savings.
Dont see why we would buy a euro plane when we have plenty of our own just as good or better for around the same…and are domesticaly produced and wouldnt require a completly new logistics train.
I know this isn’t going to be the most popular comment, but I’m going to say it anyway… How about killing the F-35 and moving both the AF AND the ANG to the F-18 Super Hornet? With the $250B that we save, many of the technology advances of the F-35 360 Degree radar and weapons systems could be developed to be incorporated into the F-18 platform…..and just Who EXACTLY are we flying stealth, VSTOL missions against anyway?
As for training, maintenance and supportability, the Navy, Marines, Air Force and ANG all flew the F-4 Phantom II for over two decades. The same program could save us tax payers hundreds of billions over the next couple of decades by consolidating airframe and power plant maintenance facilities that the USN & USMC already have in existence.
The F-15 is a 40 year old fighter that has served with distinction and the F-16 isn’t too terribly far behind it in the length of it’s teeth.
If we are truly going to start trimming our defense budget, cutting costs and transforming our Armed Forces to a force that is in step with the realities of the Post Cold-War, then this is a good place to start exploring it….
Sorry to all you Zoomies out there, no offense intended or inferred.
While I recognize the importance of reducing costs, keep in mind that the role of the Air National Guard is far more than just domestic reconnaissance. All ANG fighter units regularly support worldwide contingencies on an ongoing rotational basis. It would be unrealistic for the units to maintain different airframes for each role. The added cost of multiple maintenance facilities, equipment and personnel would negate any savings obtained by acquiring a few less expensive airframes. Keeping ANG aircraft current and compatible with the USAF allows for seamless integration at forward locations, while giving aircrew and maintainers performing the domestic mission experience with the same equipment they are tasked to operate in theater.
The Guard needs an advanced platform cause being ASA doesn’t mean they only chase stray airliners. the aircraft needs to be up to the tasking of intercepting a wide range of air born threats. now i know what most say “what threat” Russia? china? who knows what might come our way. but when it does happen we want to be safe not sorry! hell nobody saw 9/11 coming, that was a never can happen scenario!
the reason AF is dragging their feet is cause they don’t want the Air Guard to fly fighters! the AF wants the fighters, and guard to fly heavies, tankers, and work in intelligence centers and air operation centers. so paying for new fighters of any kind for the AG is not what AF wants!!! They just haven
Ok! for those of you who really want to know the real deal here it is. I’ve been in the business for 28 years and seen it all. I could have told you this was going to happen 17 years ago when the production of F-16′s stopped. This nation must have a multi roll cheap aircraft that can be mass producted. The F-16 is the perfect jet for all our air forces. Over the years the structural and engine issues were 97% worked out and the avionics were at a point of perfection. The aircraft has done all and more than it was expected. The past showed the Air Force would recieve the new aircraft and ANG units would follow with the aging fleet. But the production stopped and 17 years later the fallout is here. This nation is wasting it’s resources on these overly priced airframes such as the F-22 and F-35. They are too advanced and unproven to be effective and will be years before they are reliable. I know because on two different deployments againt these aircaft after the third day we flew by ourselves. They are so high profile and sacrid they can’t fly a code II maintenance problem. They are desigined for an ememy that does not excist. The only threats the US has are the ones we create. We sell better jets than we buy. The big probelm with the F-16 is there is no more money for development in it. I don’t mean to stop development of newer and more advanced aircraft but we have to stick with what is proven. Now for all of you F-15 eagle fans Sorry the aircraft is too costly and requires more maintenance than is allowed. They need to bury that monster soon. While i’m on my soap box you people that think the ANG does not need to fly fighters. Think again. The ANG has more experience per person than any force in the nation. Talk about a bargan an air guard technician is a 10th of the price and has the years to back it. We do more with less and in this day and age it should not even be a question. We are america’s cheapest and best buy for defense. You Air Force personnel don’t believe it then you do all the AEF rotations from now on. We will set home and take care of the United States and do the job we are designed to do. So big brother quit leaning on the underpaid and overworked ANG.. Beleive it or not that is the truth.
A single engine fighter is just stupid. Regardless of reliability, flying over the pond or in a combat zone demands redundancy. The F-16 was never a smart choice. It has luckily done well, but it is limited. The F-15 is a tired design. The F-35 is a joke, especially the VTOL version. Use the F-18 super hornet, complete the difference training which should be minimal, and dump the F-35 waste project. By all means, no foreign fighters.
I have read some interesting ideals on how and what we should do. Every year Congress either cuts funds for equipment or training. Those of us who have served know this is not the way to run an operation. Each administration has their view point on what we need and were we should spend our funds.
The current administration wants to cut the budget, do away with cetain platforms all in the name of cost.
They cut R&D and we end up with aircraft which should of been taken offline years ago. We are flying aircraft which were designed and built before most of our service personnel were born.
How can you build new F15/16 when the production stopped years ago. Just the cost alone to retool the factores is not economical. Although, the administration could get people back to work!
We have been fighting on two fronts for how long? How long to you think this equipment will last. An F14/15/16/18 is not a 747. These aircraft require much more time and maintenences. My hats off to all you airmen and women to fly these aircraft amd repair them. Hoora!
There are a host of issues involved but to clarify some points. The F15/16s are still being manufactured, just not for the US. The production lines are still there. In fact the latest F16IN being offered in the competition in India is pretty darn close to a F35 minus the stealth but allegedly with super cruise, so very close capability wise overall.
The latest version of all teens are pretty similar. Logistically and operationally speaking, F15/16 new builds would integrate the quickest and cheapest. In reality, the domestic role could be satisfied just fine with new build F16s.
In regards to overseas deployments, while not a day 1 aircraft, once the drones, F22/F35s/B2s, have dealt with SEADs, they most certainly can fly in a supporting role.
The F22/F35s are suited to day 1, penetration of defended enemy air space, which raises the question. Why of all the ‘China is the boogeyman’ crowd, has no one been clamoring for the F22s to be based in Japan and South Korea? At least there, they hold Chinese targets at risk. They certainly don’t home based in VA, NM, and AK.
There is still a need for F22s and F35s, but advanced block F16s would be able to fulfill the domestic role more than adequately. Given the aircraft retirement changes and munitions capabilities that have been added since the concept of the F22/35, a reduced need is the result.
We should opt for the new version of the F-16 that has been designed for export. We have to remember our ANG fighter squadrons do regularly deploy overseas. They must be able to keep up with the foreign threat as well as maintain domestic duties.
In view of the fact that our politicians have scrapped the F22 Raptor thus putting the U.S. behind the 8 ball, the only thing left is to see what’s in our “Bone Yard” such as the A-10 Thunderbolt aka Warthog. All pilot comments I’ve seen name this as the best flying machine with the best armament and firepower of most modern aircraft. Next we would need to look at which of our aircraft, already on hand or designed are our easiest to put into production and can accomplish the job at hand. Next, we will need to identify the needs of whatever aircraft is selected and what the actual objective is.
Should the ANG be in the Fighter biz at all? Hmmmmm…………. In 2009, the need for every state to even have a ANG unit is limited at best. Here in PA the 111thFW is losing it’s A-10′s. The base at NAS Willow Grove is not even a NAS anymore. Now it’s just a pork/base closure fight. I can see how places like AK, HI, FL, CA, NJ, VA, etc. might need a Fighter unit. The others seem like a cold war holdover in search of a mission 7 a place for airline pilots to get jet time on the weekends.
Actually, purchasing new legacy fighters such as the F-15C, F-16C Block 50/52, F-15E, or even the F-4G AWW would be very useful considering reopening the production lines for these aircraft could help replace some of the ageing models in current front line service in the USAF as well in the air guard, not to mention other countries airforces such as Saudi Arabia,and Israel.
Don’t forget the ANG became necessary when the Air Force and other military was reduced in the 1990s. The National Guard and Reserve components were tasked to be called to active duty in wartime. They needed the same equipment as the regular Air Force (Army) units. Very simple: Order 1000 F16s, 500 F18s, 500 F15s, update the avionics and plan to continue to update for the next 40 years. If the B52s can be used in the 2040 time frame, why not the fighters. Plan to win using numbers.
Al Paris Retired AF
I wonder if killing off the Northrop F-20 Tigersharks was such a good idea? I think these might be a good choice for ANG units needing to replace aging or missing fighters in their units, maybe. Is it time we fired up the F-20 production lines? It’s something to consider….
It still surprizes me that the powers in charge do not know that the Guard carries over 50% of the Air Force committment having been both a member of the Air Force and retiring from being a full time Air Guardman I was there when all the aircraft we got where hand-me-downs and almost out of time as was most of our equipment new F18`s or bail back from the Navy/Marines the guard will still fly more and maintain a outstanding safety record. F18`s good choice. Go Guard
I’M A VERY PROUD MOM OF A SON IN THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD. IT VEXES ME THAT THE MILITARY PLANES USED TO FLY OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROUND THE WORLD ARE NOT NEW ENOUGH TO BE SAFE AND COST MANY HOURS OF REPAIR WHICH WASTES OUR MILITARY’S TIME.
WE SOLD THE 4 RAPTORS TO CHINA. WHAT IS OUR GOVT. THINKING… WHY ARE THEY SO ANXIOUS TO ARM CHINA AGAINST US??? THEY GAVE THEM OUR BRASS METAL TOO.
LET US, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, INSIST OUR GOVT. GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE MILITARY AND BUILD F-15S, ETC AND INCLUDE RAPTORS IN THAT. SCRAP OLD UNSAFE PLANES. YOU ARE OUR ONLY DEFENSE AGAINST AGGRESSION. RIGHT NOW THE BIG INTL. POWERS THAT BE WANT OUR COUNTRY HELPLESS SO WE BECOME SUBJECT TO PART OF A ONE WORLD GOVT, LOSE OUR SOVERIGNTY. THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING,… INCLUDING BREAKING US MONETARILY, REMOVE OUR FREEDOMS, MAKE US AFRAID TO DISSENT, DROP A BOMB CRIPPLING US, INVADING US. THE MILIITARY, ALL BRANCHES ARE EXCEPTIONALLY NEEDED TODAY. WE MUST BE UP TO DATE IN WARFARE AND EQUIPMENT.
I IMPLORE SOLDIERS OF EVERY RANK TO SPEAK UP TO THE PENTAGON TO BE THE USA WITH THE LATEST AND BEST EQUIPMENT. WE AALREADY HAVE THE BEST SOLDIERS IN THE WORLD.
THINK ON THIS… DURING WWII OUR COUNTRY MADE AND SUPPLIED THE WORLD WHICH WERE ALLIES, ALL OF THE ARMAMENTS AND EQUIPMENT TO WIN THAT WAR (BRITIAN DID HAVE SOME PLANES).
JEANNE
JE
I’M A VERY PROUD MOM OF A SON IN THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD. IT VEXES ME THAT THE MILITARY PLANES USED TO FLY OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROUND THE WORLD ARE NOT NEW ENOUGH TO BE SAFE AND COST MANY HOURS OF REPAIR WHICH WASTES OUR MILITARY’S TIME.
WE SOLD THE 4 RAPTORS TO CHINA. WHAT IS OUR GOVT. THINKING… WHY ARE THEY SO ANXIOUS TO ARM CHINA AGAINST US??? THEY GAVE THEM OUR BRASS METAL TOO.
LET US, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, INSIST OUR GOVT. GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE MILITARY AND BUILD F-15S, ETC AND INCLUDE RAPTORS IN THAT. SCRAP OLD UNSAFE PLANES. YOU ARE OUR ONLY DEFENSE AGAINST AGGRESSION. RIGHT NOW THE BIG INTL. POWERS THAT BE WANT OUR COUNTRY HELPLESS SO WE BECOME SUBJECT TO PART OF A ONE WORLD GOVT, LOSE OUR SOVERIGNTY. THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING,… INCLUDING BREAKING US MONETARILY, REMOVE OUR FREEDOMS, MAKE US AFRAID TO DISSENT, DROP A BOMB CRIPPLING US, INVADING US. THE MILIITARY, ALL BRANCHES ARE EXCEPTIONALLY NEEDED TODAY. WE MUST BE UP TO DATE IN WARFARE AND EQUIPMENT.
I IMPLORE SOLDIERS OF EVERY RANK TO SPEAK UP TO THE PENTAGON TO BE THE USA WITH THE LATEST AND BEST EQUIPMENT. WE AALREADY HAVE THE BEST SOLDIERS IN THE WORLD.
THINK ON THIS… DURING WWII OUR COUNTRY MADE AND SUPPLIED THE WORLD WHICH WERE ALLIES, ALL OF THE ARMAMENTS AND EQUIPMENT TO WIN THAT WAR (BRITIAN DID HAVE SOME PLANES).
JEANNE
JE
As a member of the ANG affected by the most recent BRAC action, I stand appalled at the Air Forces’ total inability to formulate a realistic procurement plan. It is idiotic to think the F 22 is what we needed for a future force. Good recruiting tool but not needed in any current doctrine. Buy some proven legacy fighters, F 15, 16 for pennies compared to the F 35. What a bunch of morons…
The F-20 would come to mind, but it was designed as a low-tech aircraft that the US would supply to its allies and not care if the Russians got a hold of it. If we did choose it as a new guard airframe, how could we preserve its original performence? It was designed in 1975 and therefore needs extensive avionics upgrades, not to mention a replacement for its tinker-toy radar and weapons capabilities! The F-18 has its advantages, such as its near smokeless engines, and its wide array of air-to-ground ordanance, not to mention the F404 engines high reliability compared to the F-16s F100. The F-16, however, has more advantages in combat. For example, the F-16 has over a 1-to-1 thrust to weight ratio, compared to the F-18s 0.9-to-1. Also, the F-16 can carry another 5000lbs of additional payload while retaining a much lower wing loading than the F-18 or F-20. The F-20, while cheap, would have to be upgraded and redesigned so much it would be too costly to be feasable for the AirNG. In this situation, new F-16s would be a better replacement guard aircraft, given that they would be produced to the Block 50/52 standard.
The more I think about it the more I like it. Lets bring enough of F-4s,F-105s etc. out of the bone yard and all the units operating in Iraq and Afghanistan us them. It’s not like they have to worry about air supremacy. Same thing for some of the support A/C like C-130s and HH-1 helicopters.
Problem is all those F-105s and F-4s would be so antiquated in todays technological terms, they could only carry “dumb” or unguided bombs. This would cause great collateral damage considering the enemy is probably in some residential neighborhood full of civilians, plus our rangers are probably only 20 yards away and considering “dumb” never go where aimed, could kill friendlies as well. If they upgraded the aircraft (which would be nice considering im a F-105 fan!) it could cost as much as buying another aircraft.
ALSO FOR THE RECORD,THE F-22 ALSO HAS A VERY DEADLY GROUND ATTACK ABILITY, WHILE RETAINING TWO AIM-9X AAMs IT CAN CARRY TWO JDAMS OR IT CAN CARRY TWO SDB BOMBS AND TWO JDAMS.
It’s simple the Air Force needs to get off it’s bureaucratic beutox and keep buying the F-22 and give the ANG the remaining newer F-15s and be done with it. You guys who say we don’t need it must not have been around 35 years ago when the F-15 and 16′s were introduced. Both capable and the F-15 especially is a great plane. However the F-20 that a couple of you mentioned was designed at he same time. It should have been picked over the 16 but politics fixed that. Now those of you who think the F-35 is good I agree but the 22 is much better. Since when did we the US go into idle mode when it comes to being able to defined our shores. If any of you are paying attention, the F-22 will have competition in less than ten years. Those who wonder why we can’t modify the 15′s and 16′s. Fighters live a completely different life than B-52′s. They don’t last as long out of pure stress on the airframe. The Air Force should not buy the F-35 and should stay with the 22. Watch as see. Mig is only a couple of years away from a 5th gen fighter.
There is no argument. The F-22 was cut for political reasons and it’s as big a mistake as shutting down bases is in this country. The politicians should not have this much say in the inventory of the military. It’s like the Iraq war. Morons running things. We have newer F-15′s, They can last a few more years. It’s funny, they say we don’t have a fighter to fill the gap and then they say we don’t need the Raptor. It’s typical political double talk.
My 2 cents.
in the interests of lower costs AND an improved air fleet and air defense, why not just spread fewer different models but newer planes between the active and air guard? give everyone air time in the newest systems.
oh… produce more of them.
it’s a wonder with the jerkwads in Washington that we have as good a military as we have.
I work for the Air Force and I can tell all of you that MOST of our fighters are WORN OUT! None of you would ever drive your cars if they were in the same condition, you would have traded them in a long time ago, yet we have this fantasy that our fighter aircraft will last forever. This is crazy! And because we have stuck our heads up our rears while the Russians and Chinese are pouring money into their fighter fleets, we are going to be in for a major shock when we have to go up against them, and YES WE WILL have to some day. We have all of this money to spend on people who don’t want to work and all of these idiotic social programs, but we don’t have squat to spend on our military. This is totally sickening!
Also remember the F-35 is still in testing and evaluation. It won’t be ready to deploy for 5 or 6 years. By that time we could have a good fleet of F-22′s and be ready for any occurrence.
The Navy and Marines are getting the first batch of each of the two different models. The Air Force model isn’t even off the drawing boards yet.
Reminds me of the last time they said there is no reason for an advanced fighter. Before the 15 16 and 17(now 18) were ready. And yes while it is still in production the F-18 is a 1970′s design.
By the way, The 105 and F-4? Most foreign military’s are phasing the F-4 out and the 105 was a purpose build fighter that was fast and in a dog fight could hold it’s own against a Mig 21 but would be spam in the can against the Migs in the air today. I wouldn’t send my pilots up in a 105 or an F-4. They would be sitting ducks.
Actually,the F-15Cs at Langley AFB are in alot better condition then most of the fleet.And the airforce didnt kill the F-22 because of costs, in fact the AF didnt kill the program at all, congress and the president decided on that,the AF was fighting very hard to keep production open.And the F-16 was better performing than the F-20, which wasnt designed for the USAF! The F-20 was designed as a low-tech aircraft meant to be sold to small NATO countries along the Euro-asia border to prevent more advanced aircraft (like the F-16) from getting into the soviets hands incase the country was overrun.
here is a novel idea, someone call lockheed and have them restart production on a new advanced version of the F-16, build it with composite materials and a thrust vectoring engine to give it super cruise and stealth qualities, then it might cost half as much as the F-22.
In my opinion, the best idea is to take all the combat a/c in the ANG and incorporate them into the AF Reserves and transfer Reserves transport and rotary units to ANG units where they can be used by the states if needed. (Is there ever a case of a governor activating fighters or bombers for a state emergency?)
It just sems to me that it would make more sense for states to have transport and helicopter units they can use for in state emergencies and the combat units would be better managed as part of the AF Reserve.
Delete the F-22, F-35 programs and go with the F-18 Super Hornet. Then use the left over savings to upgrade every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman
Hey Dan guess you forgot or didn’t know but Captain Speicher whose remains were just foud was shot down in an F18 hornet.
I am a member of an Air Guard Unit in Houston and the DOD has the biggest waste ever . We had Blk 25 F-16C models and over the years they went through many mods to keep up with todays fighters then to be taken away and sent to AMARC . We passed every inspection given to us and we protected the Gulf Coast since the mid 50′s . Then to have it all taken away from us! We would have loved to have had F-18 Hornets and we would stayed competitive with any other AF fighter unit ! I would put up any ANG fighter up against any other unit in the AF . The ANG fighters are kept in better shape than the AF fighters . GIVE US BACK OUR FIGHTERS ! WE’LL TAKE F-18′s !!
Actually, a F-18 was shot down by a MiG-25 Foxbat in the 1991 Gulf War.And belive it or not R16147, the F-16 is a better multirole fighter than the F-18. Since the F/A-18 is a carrier fighter, it has payload and fuel restrictions, and a structure only able to support about 6.5 G’s max. The F-16 can carry another 5000 pounds of ordanance and can still turn tighter, accelerate faster, and still be able to turn circles around the MiG-29.
So what’s your point JC (#rd comment down) “Hey Dan guess you forgot or didn’t know but Captain Speicher whose remains were just found was shot down in an F18 hornet.”
Nobody in the D.O.D. know in detail how his plane was destroyed.
The National Guard Bureau should immediately begin the compatability of the F/A-18 near- and far-field noise bioenvironmental effects (to include range and MOA operations) way in advance of even the mildest consoderation of that weapon system for utilization by Air National Guard F-16 units. Way to many of these units are already heavily restricted operationally by noise abatement regulations from their surrounding communities. The JSF has already been studied thus so and relavent impact to surroounding communities is already known. I suspect the F/A-18 would come nowhere near capable of meeting even modest noise abatement requirements…this is a non-starter and ill-concieved.
u know all this talk about f16s and hornets and what ever is a bunch of malarky just give every one an a10 whort hog and you cant be shot down. as a ground pounder there is no sweeter than an a10 over your back trust me i know.
ground pounder is kind of right, i mean the A-10 isnt very fast, but when you think about it, you have about 900lbs. of titanium surrounding the pilot,and it can already carry two AIM-9Ls while having a full bombload, but the thing takes half a mile to turn around! Therefore never be able to be used as a effective multirole fighter.
If you want a plane for domestic air patrol, and delivery of precision munitions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you can spend less than 1/2 the cost of an F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet – or buy 2x as many planes for the money.
Korea’s KAI and Lockheed have developed the T-50 Golden Eagle family of supersonic trainers. They cost $20-25 million, instead of $50-60 million. They use the same F404 engine in current F/A-18 A-D Hornets, and solve 3 problems at once: recapitalizing the US advanced trainer fleet, having enough aircraft for domestic patrol, and foreign deployments.
All T-50s are advanced training aircraft, which is good because the USA’s T-38 Talon (F-5) fleet is getting very old.
A T/A-50 version fits the Lead-In Fighter Trainer role currently held by the T-38s. It also includes a 20mm cannon and the ability to carry Sidewinder missiles, basic bombs, rockets, and AGM-65 Maverick missiles. That’s enough for basic domestic patrol and emergency use. If fitted with surveillance and targeting pods like the LITENING and Sniper ATP, currently used to give USAF aircraft advanced laser designation and surveillance capabilities, it could add laser-guided weapons too, and become deployable.
The F/A-50 modification, currently in development, adds better radar, capabilities for GPS-guided weapons like JDAM, and longer range AMRAAM air-air missiles. If buying derivatives of IAI Elta’s EL/M-2032 radar (which equips Israeli F-16s, and will equip the F/A-50) is unpalatable, Raytheon’s RACR and Northrop’s SABR AESA radars could easily be scaled to fit.
So, my proposals says take the money used for ensuring ANG end-strength by buying Super Hornets or whatever, and split it in 2:
Buying TA-50s would begin recapitalizing the extremely old T-38 Talon (F-5) training fleet, and provide a secondary domestic air patrol option if that ever became necessary.
Buying F/A-50s alongside would create fleet commonality savings. These fighters would be fully suitable for domestic patrol duties, offer low operating costs, and offer operationally identical performance to current F-16s and F-18s in theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since cost is about 50% per plane, the USA gets the same number available for foreign deployments, begins modernizing its advanced trainer fleet, and has 2x as many aircraft on call for emergency national airspace patrol.
The F-20 was an EXCELLENT lightweight fighter, that lost to the F-16, not on performance, but POLITICS. COngressman Jim Wright was the Speaker of the House, and General Dynamics’ F-16 plant was in his district in Fort Worth.
The proposal was for F-20′s for the guard/reserve, and F-16′s for the AF. It was critical to get SOME U.S. purchase to make sales happen overseas, but it pretty much died on the vine. And you could have bought 5 F-20′s for the cost of 3 F-16′s!
and the other guy is right. We wouldn’t buy a car with as many miles and retro-fixes on it. And as of Monday night, or 5 minutes ago, the F-16 production line was still working at Carswell/JRB-Fort Worth, and will for the next 5 years, alongside the F-35 line!
Actually, it was more of a mix, more on performence than politics, anyway, it was specifically built by a defense department contract for US allies only. The F-16 has better payload capability, but the F-20 is a much better lightweight inexpensive fighter.
Bailey Paradis,
The F-20 was built by Northrup without a government contract. They paid for all the development and construction of all the prototypes. It was never accepted by the AF or any other arm of military. Northrup was allowed to build it because they believed they could build a better fighter than the F-16. The thought of selling them to foreign governments was the reason the Pentagon used to give them permission. Northrup requested that if the AF didn’t want it they would like to sell it overseas. And until the head to head contest they were going to allow it. But when the two were identical in performance the pentagon nixed foreign sales and like with the B-49, Northrup took it in the shorts again.
Im sorry it was a poor choice of words, I meant to say a Government “request” for a private venture to build a new low tech standard fighter for smaller countries in the NATO-OTAN alliance during the early eighties. And yes only three prototypes built, first being flown at Edwards AFB
on Aug.30, 1982.
Sorry for any misconceptions.
ed hardy clothing.
ed hardy jeans
ed hardy underwear