rein wrote: What is an "evolving threat index"?
Evolving threat is often calculated and compared to the current capability and what is in the pipeline to counter that threat. If a nation X only has to fend off F-5's, a basic Mig-21 BIS may be more than capable. If the major threat to a nation Y is terrorists on the ground a modified Hawk is more than capable. Similarly if a threat shows up with advanced flankers, super flanker, a couple of 5th generation designs then capability comparison goes into a whole different level.
Aircraft obsolescence is influenced by how old the design is.
Thats not particularly very true. The biggest determinant is the mission requirement and then the level of the threat and the enemy's capability. The AGE of the design influences the mission profile and what "room-to-grow" still exists in that design to counter the evolving threat.
The F-16 has been obsolete for many years, and cannot catch up to fighters like the Gripen NG or Tejas Mark 2.
Has the Mk2 prototype flown? The Gripen may be more advanced for some operators and it very much is. And the NG won't be flying before 2018 at best, the F-16 I and Block 60 are in service and have been for some years. The block 60 declared IOC with an AESA, integrated IRST, Active EW suite and an avionics overhaul almost a decade ago. The Gripen NG won't declare operational capability till 2018 if there is no delay. Export customers probably won't get it before next decade a full 15 years after the Blk 60 F-16 was declared operational. Thats not even a valid comparison. Other operators may not be able to extract the same level of performance from a Gripen NG that actually makes it superior. The USAF and IDF are perfect examples. For them the F-16 is a mud moving work horse. Pile on the weapons profile and a ton of fuel and the advantages of the Gripen NG vis-a-vis its modest super cruise (compared to other modern aircraft) simply fades away. This is one issue and reason why the USN restricted the F-18SH's performance emphasis on transonic performance..With the sort of stuff that is required from it, a high supersonic performance won't be of any use once the payload and fuel is thrown on it.
You can apply as much lipstick as you like to a pig, it remains a pig at the end of the day.
What a brilliant technical analysis as usual. Deserves a standing ovation this time.
OTOH the forces that operate these aircrafts, and you the ones that have to pay for modifications and upgrades choose what goes into the aircraft as it grows in capabilities. Each and every capability that is added has to earn its way in and the thing that determines that is mission requirement. The F-16I and higher block 50 variants (that are being upgraded now) are kitted around the mud moving mission. That is because this is the sort of missions these aircrafts do every day. Things like AESA, PODS, CFT's newer weapons, UAI compatibility have been added to enhance this aspect of the mission. God bless if the operators actually demand mission enhancements that increase the capability of what they actually do as opposed to a completely useless upgrade that leads them no where in terms of better mission effectiveness. Others have added high end EW gear both for A2A and for penetrating air defenses (Falcon edge). Had the main operator decided to upgrade the F-16 significantly in all areas in stead of pursuing a clean sheet design plenty of things could have been added and a lot of them were independently studied. Things such as a new wing (delta), Asymmetrical 3D TVC and an avionics overhaul (Much of which occurred for specific customers such as the UAE).
The second F-16XL, ship no. 2, a two-seater, was delivered to NASA with a developmental engine that needed to be replaced before any flight testing could be done. NASA acquired a General Electric F110-129 engine through GD Ft. Worth, which provided surprisingly good performance. Supercruise was accidentally achieved in military power early on in the program; a speed of Mach 1.1 was achieved at 20,000 feet.
The low RCS and modern engines of current fighters is not something that can be applied to an F-16.
The modern engines on both the LCA MK2 and Gripen NG are US made. There is absolutely no reason to believe that GE cannot re-do the entire F-16 propulsion program to incorporate modern technologies at each and every stage. Pratt can do the same. Similarly, 5th gen engine programs focused on larger more powerful engines. There is absolutely no technical roadblock to create 5th generation engines for 4th generation programs. There is however the little thing on need. The major driver of F-16 development has absolutely no such need.
RCS reduction on 4th generation or 4.5 generation designs is also something that is useful to one and not so useful to another. A notional USAF or IDF Gripen E would never fly clean or with recessed weapons. That pegs the RCS of the E gripen to similar levels of a loaded SUFA or blk 50/52..This is why the F-35 has the fuel and payload requirements that it does and why the USN has shown no interest towards the enclosed weapon pods for the F-18E/F/G fleet that boeing has been marketing to international customers, that may wish to use it as that load put with internal weapons may be useful to them. Similarly the USAF is not interested in silent eagle upgrades to its Beagles other than the APG-82 radar and the IRST21..
Likewise with modern avionics and all the other gizmos that were developed since the introduction of the F-16
And most of those GIZMOS you speak off are already flying on the F-16's including the latest targeting pods, 2 AESA radars (and a third one coming very soon), a capable active Electronic warfare suite, IRST and IR MAWS (In addition to RF and UV based MAWS), latest decoys and what not.
It's been upgraded to its limits already, and metal fatigue means it can't be kept flying with upgrades.
Capability growth is a challenge and will be. This is the only valid point in your argument and something that I have made as well. But the other point that claims that it can't be kept flying with upgrades..Well it is. It got a lot of things some 4.5 generation birds won't get till the end of this decade...
