The F-16 Fighter Could Still be Flying in 2050

PO3 Donald Murphy but, wouldn't it make more fiscal sense to simply order upgrades to the existing frame that the same workers could be employed for, rather than spend a decade on a frame that is just now getting off the ground at some version of operation capable? It's money-pits like this frame that cause the services to be wanting for money like they are.

SSgt (Join to see) - Nope. R&D is pointless from a material point of view, but essential to get mom and pop to continue going in to debt sending Chip and Brie to college. Those money pits are the bread and butter of the industry Eisenhower warned us against. And when you allow shareholding and layoffs and other corporate wonders, your main goal is not static but movement. If we continued building F-16's that would be stagnant. But if we're building F-16's **PLUS** working on the new SUX-2000 then that shows "movement" and shareholders love that. And when most of the nation's industry is shareholder driven, its only important to have "orders." Not necessarily "completed" or "working" orders. Hell, there's defense "projects" that have been going on since the beginning of balance sheets that no one will kill because they generate shareholder interest.

PO3 Donald Murphy - and to think, everyone laughed at Ike when he warned about the military-industrial complex. I think the thing that sticks in my craw the most about this bird (the F-35) is that they cut production of the F-22 to fund it. The F-22 showed it could perform almost immediately. They are STILL finding issues w/ the F-35 because the lobbyists wanted to make the damn thing a flying Swiss-Army Knife. What the hell were they thinking that it could replace the A-10? With that power factory, there's now way it can come in low & slow to flush out the dug-ins. Nor would it be able to take the punishment an A-10 can w/ all that tech on board.

SSgt (Join to see) - Look at the F-14 Tomcat as well. Fully loaded with 4X2000lb LGB's and other weps, it was **STILL** capable of Mach 2.4 and it was (and still is) the only Navy bird that could recover back on board a carrier with un-expended ordnance. Yet...they killed it.

A-10 has been on death row for decades. Once the Berlin Wall came down its been on borrowed time. Yet, time and time again (including Desert Storm) it has delivered the goods and also brought its pilots home in one piece. But, it is from the 70's so something has to "replace" it, lest the USAF lose budgetary status.

F-35 was okay until they put "stealth" somewhere in its name. Kind of like Americans with an Apple lower case "i" in front of everything (iPhone, iPod, etc). Once that happened, stocks soared and it became the fattest cash cow the world has seen. OV-22 Osprey was another one. It had just been released when I was active duty and sailors were pushing the pieces of shit overboard because they were death traps. Yet who were you going to tell? Senator Bubba - who's on the Osprey's board? Or Senator Cleetis who's state makes the plane?

Ike wouldn't be turning in his grave, but he'd be having a good laugh...

LTJG (Join to see) have a buddy who was in the Corps, then joined the Air Reserves as a maintainer for A-10s.
He's now at OTC with a goal of getting into the 16, 22, or A10.

SSgt (Join to see) - that's awesome! I have a friend who is flying A-10s for the guard right now that was the same as me, Marine METOC. I'm going up for that "needs of the Air Force" officer board in April. Hopefully they still need pilots by then haha

LTJG (Join to see) - i will try same if i can get back in, tho i will have to go for RPA since I'm too old for flight school.

LTJG (Join to see) - The last I heard, pilot school was getting ready to be mandated for drone operators. This way, high up flight officers can have a place to go and they can keep some accountability with the drone force. So you should be safe!

Yup. Still a top gun in a lot of air forces, including Israel.