The Aerospace Industry Discussion Thread

[Chuckstar]

The F-35 definitely will be significantly better than Gripen for that aspect.

Presuming the US doesn't remotely lock you out of ALIS/ODIN connectivity on a whim, of course. "Technically" not a kill switch, but effectively the same thing.

If I were running F-35 procurement for Canada, the only way I would even consider F-35 deliveries today is a deal like Israel managed. They provide their own independent software/cloud support instead of relying on US servers. Avoiding SB territory here, but the risks of relying on US servers should be super obvious.

It's possible that flirting with Gripen is designed to get the US to offer independence from ALIS/ODIN like Israel.

ODIN is probably more of a problem than ALIS. One could jerry rig a logistics chain, as long as you have access to parts — and parts is an issue with any airframe where you don’t control the supply chain directly. But an F-35 operator is really hamstrung without ODIN.

I have long figured that the U.S. will get pressured into providing an API instead of forcing buyers to rely on ODIN. Trump is certainly accelerating that process. It’s only a matter of time before a few important partners/buyers get together and say “we’re out unless you open the ODIN APIs.”

 

[Deleted member 28951]

I know one of the Israeli pilots said as soon as he had the gear up, he knew where everything was in a 350 mile radius. Probably a bit of hyperbole on his part, but the sensor suite is certainly a game changer for single pilot workloads.

Was that a US-spec or Israeli-spec F-35?
The Israeli version is verily heavily customized. Half the SW and most of the avionics are Israeli, as is the EW equipment, many of the sensors, and the cockpit UI. Also range-extending conformal fuel tanks.
Most importantly, the Israeli F-35s still need US/other suppliers' spare parts obviously, but are not tied to the centralized US "phone home" support network for maintenance, although they get info from it.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

The F-35 definitely will be significantly better than Gripen for that aspect.

Presuming the US doesn't remotely lock you out of ALIS/ODIN connectivity on a whim, of course. "Technically" not a kill switch, but effectively the same thing.

If I were running F-35 procurement for Canada, the only way I would even consider F-35 deliveries today is a deal like Israel managed. They provide their own independent software/cloud support instead of relying on US servers. Avoiding SB territory here, but the risks of relying on US servers should be super obvious.

It's possible that flirting with Gripen is designed to get the US to offer independence from ALIS/ODIN like Israel.

Specifically, Israeli F-35s are not tied to ALIS/ODIN, so they can't be locked out. This was a dealbreaker requirement from the IAF, as were all the customizations of the earlier F-15 and F-16.
Additionally, the internal SW structure is modular unlike US F-35s, so modules for additional functions can be and are added (cough very long-range attacks of Iranian targets cough).

 

[Chuckstar]

Specifically, Israeli F-35s are not tied to ALIS/ODIN, so they can't be locked out. This was a dealbreaker requirement from the IAF, as were all the customizations of the earlier F-15 and F-16.
Additionally, the internal SW structure is modular unlike US F-35s, so modules for additional functions can be and are added (cough very long-range attacks of Iranian targets cough).

The Israeli version is probably not more modular than TR-3, but probably is much more modular than Block 3.

At least based on what I‘ve read, what the Israelis got was an extra API layer rationalized to make it so you didn’t have to have the source code to plug in something like a new weapon or sensor. Such a layer is a headline feature of TR-3, although TR-3 is still not combat ready. At least they got TR-3 to a readiness level to train with the planes. Until last summer I think it was still “ferry only”, outside of the actual test pilots.

And, of course, regardless of modularity, everyone but Israel has to go through Lockheed to make use of that modularity.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

The Israeli version is probably not more modular than TR-3, but probably is much more modular than Block 3.

At least based on what I‘ve read, what the Israelis got was an extra API layer rationalized to make it so you didn’t have to have the source code to plug in something like a new weapon or sensor. Such a layer is a headline feature of TR-3, although TR-3 is still not combat ready. At least they got TR-3 to a readiness level to train with the planes. Until last summer I think it was still “ferry only”, outside of the actual test pilots.

And, of course, regardless of modularity, everyone but Israel has to go through Lockheed to make use of that modularity.

Yup, we don't have full source code, but the modularity is extremely important since the jets are horrendously expensive and used as multirole fighter/bombers (mostly bombers, really, given the lack of any air-air engagements in the ME in recent years). Neither Iran nor Syria have any air force left to speak of, and Lebanon has no fighter aircraft.

 

[Chuckstar]

Yup, we don't have full source code, but the modularity is extremely important since the jets are horrendously expensive and used as multirole fighter/bombers (mostly bombers, really, given the lack of any air-air engagements in the ME in recent years). Neither Iran nor Syria have any air force left to speak of, and Lebanon has no fighter aircraft.

Yeah. And it was important enough for us to get them in your hands that Lockheed built an API layer just for you. Although I would assume a lot of what was needed there overlaps with the modularity they were already planning. That is, as a time saving measure, they dropped modularity as a design goal for the first few blocks, but they always knew they were going to have to get there in order to end up with a plane that could stay relevant over decades.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

Yeah. And it was important enough for us to get them in your hands that Lockheed built an API layer just for you. Although I would assume a lot of what was needed there overlaps with the modularity they were already planning. That is, as a time saving measure, they dropped modularity as a design goal for the first few blocks, but they always knew they were going to have to get there in order to end up with a plane that could stay relevant over decades.

Yup, that makes engineering sense... Which doesn't necessarily mean it makes MIC beancounter systems-must-become-obsolete-ASAP sense.
As an example, when I was in the IAF in the mid-1980s, the mainstay combat aircraft was the F-4. A very thorough analysis was made and it was determined that the F-4 airframes were good for another 20-25 years (assuming intensive use). They needed more efficient engines for better range, and completely new avionics (some of the planes had been in use since 1969), radar and ammunition.
They were upgraded accordingly instead of buying new combat jets, and served in the IAF until 2004, postponing an expenditure of many $100M buying new jets by nearly 20 years.

 

[Chuckstar]

Yup, that makes engineering sense... Which doesn't necessarily mean it makes MIC beancounter systems-must-become-obsolete-ASAP sense.
As an example, when I was in the IAF in the mid-1980s, the mainstay combat aircraft was the F-4. A very thorough analysis was made and it was determined that the F-4 airframes were good for another 20-25 years (assuming intensive use). They needed more efficient engines for better range, and completely new avionics (some of the planes had been in use since 1969), radar and ammunition.
They were upgraded accordingly instead of buying new combat jets, and served in the IAF until 2004, postponing an expenditure of many $100M buying new jets by nearly 20 years.

But keep in mind that Israel didn’t have to imagine facing the Warsaw Pact in the skies above the Fulda Gap, N. Korea over the DMZ or China over the Taiwan Strait — and potentially all three at the same time. F-4s against Syria and Egypt is different than F-4s against the USSR or China.

 

[Flipper35]

Was that a US-spec or Israeli-spec F-35?
The Israeli version is verily heavily customized. Half the SW and most of the avionics are Israeli, as is the EW equipment, many of the sensors, and the cockpit UI. Also range-extending conformal fuel tanks.
Most importantly, the Israeli F-35s still need US/other suppliers' spare parts obviously, but are not tied to the centralized US "phone home" support network for maintenance, although they get info from it.

I don't remember which jet it was, it was a few years ago when I read it in one of defense blogs or news feeds.

 

[Flipper35]

But keep in mind that Israel didn’t have to imagine facing the Warsaw Pact in the skies above the Fulda Gap, N. Korea over the DMZ or China over the Taiwan Strait — and potentially all three at the same time. F-4s against Syria and Egypt is different than F-4s against the USSR or China.

The IAF was also bringing the F-15 in at time as well, meaning the F-4 staying in service didn't necessarily mean it was staying on the front line exclusively.

 

[Chuckstar]

I don't remember which jet it was, it was a few years ago when I read it in one of defense blogs or news feeds.

For the F-35, also, it’s not just the sensor suite that provides its situational awareness. Its networking means it can be attached to the battle network and show the pilot everything ground radars, AWACS radars and other F-35 radars are passing around the network — without having to send out a single radar pulse of its own.

That’s probably what was happening in your anecdote, considering no fighter jet has a 350-mile range, 360° radar.

There’s nothing known to be special about the Israeli F-35 in that respect. The Israeli’s do operate a comprehensive and advanced aerial defense system on a 24/7 basis, meaning on any operational or training sortie an F-35 in Israel could be receiving about as broad a picture of their airspace as anyone else has the capability to send to their F-35s, and more than most probably regularly provide to their F-35s.

As an example, I’m sure there’s a pretty advanced network they use for training at Luke AFB, since that’s the primary F-35 training facility, but do they have all of it operational every time an F-35 is flying? I don’t know for sure, but I would tend to doubt it. Also, the skies over Phoenix are not rife with complex air traffic, so on any given take-off, even getting a full update might not seem that impressive.

(OK, I started rambling, there. The important aspect is that the big difference between the F-35 and older airframes with regards to situational awareness is it’s ability to receive and integrate data off the network.)

 

[Flipper35]

For the F-35, also, it’s not just the sensor suite that provides its situational awareness. Its networking means it can be attached to the battle network and show the pilot everything ground radars, AWACS radars and other F-35 radars are passing around the network — without having to send out a single radar pulse of its own.

That’s probably what was happening in your anecdote, considering no fighter jet has a 350-mile range, 360° radar.

There’s nothing known to be special about the Israeli F-35 in that respect. The Israeli’s do operate a comprehensive and advanced aerial defense system on a 24/7 basis, meaning on any operational or training sortie an F-35 in Israel could be receiving about as broad a picture of their airspace as anyone else has the capability to send to their F-35s, and more than most probably regularly provide to their F-35s.

As an example, I’m sure there’s a pretty advanced network they use for training at Luke AFB, since that’s the primary F-35 training facility, but do they have all of it operational every time an F-35 is flying? I don’t know for sure, but I would tend to doubt it. Also, the skies over Phoenix are not rife with complex air traffic, so on any given take-off, even getting a full update might not seem that impressive.

(OK, I started rambling, there. The important aspect is that the big difference between the F-35 and older airframes with regards to situational awareness is it’s ability to receive and integrate data off the network.)

I put all the external sensors networked into the system as part of the sensor suite. I apologize in my unclearedness.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

For the F-35, also, it’s not just the sensor suite that provides its situational awareness. Its networking means it can be attached to the battle network and show the pilot everything ground radars, AWACS radars and other F-35 radars are passing around the network — without having to send out a single radar pulse of its own.

That’s probably what was happening in your anecdote, considering no fighter jet has a 350-mile range, 360° radar.

There’s nothing known to be special about the Israeli F-35 in that respect. The Israeli’s do operate a comprehensive and advanced aerial defense system on a 24/7 basis, meaning on any operational or training sortie an F-35 in Israel could be receiving about as broad a picture of their airspace as anyone else has the capability to send to their F-35s, and more than most probably regularly provide to their F-35s.

Seems like any networked, Link 16 equipped plane would have a large portion of this capability. Obviously the effectiveness of the UI for handling the data available is going to vary.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

For the F-35, also, it’s not just the sensor suite that provides its situational awareness. Its networking means it can be attached to the battle network and show the pilot everything ground radars, AWACS radars and other F-35 radars are passing around the network — without having to send out a single radar pulse of its own.

That’s probably what was happening in your anecdote, considering no fighter jet has a 350-mile range, 360° radar.

There’s nothing known to be special about the Israeli F-35 in that respect. The Israeli’s do operate a comprehensive and advanced aerial defense system on a 24/7 basis, meaning on any operational or training sortie an F-35 in Israel could be receiving about as broad a picture of their airspace as anyone else has the capability to send to their F-35s, and more than most probably regularly provide to their F-35s.

As an example, I’m sure there’s a pretty advanced network they use for training at Luke AFB, since that’s the primary F-35 training facility, but do they have all of it operational every time an F-35 is flying? I don’t know for sure, but I would tend to doubt it. Also, the skies over Phoenix are not rife with complex air traffic, so on any given take-off, even getting a full update might not seem that impressive.

(OK, I started rambling, there. The important aspect is that the big difference between the F-35 and older airframes with regards to situational awareness is it’s ability to receive and integrate data off the network.)

The IAF is built (and has been since the 1970s) on a completely centralized computer network. Every takeoff, every training op, every combat op, every IAF aircraft in the sky is centrally directed from a single C⁴I system. All aircraft are always visible on that system's displays.
Not a single flight takes off without a computerized command from that system. This is what allowed swarms of hundreds of aircraft to attack Iran, and very tight turnaround times (minutes) for all of them.
That's in addition to inter-aircraft networking, which is also heavily used, and additional intelligence assets like our home-grown military satellites.

That obviously wouldn't work with the far larger distributed mobile commands like the US has, but we don't have aircraft carriers or forward bases, so not an issue.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

The IAF was also bringing the F-15 in at time as well, meaning the F-4 staying in service didn't necessarily mean it was staying on the front line exclusively.

It was, but in small numbers both due to cost and due to production limitations.
The extra 20 years allowed acquiring enough F-15s and F-16s gradually to replace the F-4 fleet.
The curent mainstay is the ditto customized F-16 Sufa, with the usual avionics & additional fuel tanks modifications but also carrying a WiSO in addition to the pilot.
It also uses the same engines as the Israeli F-15s, to drive down cost of maintenance.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

But keep in mind that Israel didn’t have to imagine facing the Warsaw Pact in the skies above the Fulda Gap, N. Korea over the DMZ or China over the Taiwan Strait — and potentially all three at the same time. F-4s against Syria and Egypt is different than F-4s against the USSR or China.

Depends on the quality of the pilots.
No Soviet/Russian pilot has taken down an Israeli Jet, whereas the IAF shot down 5 MiG-21s secretly piloted by Soviet pilots by F-4s in 1970, over Egypt.

 

[continuum]

Seems like any networked, Link 16 equipped plane would have a large portion of this capability. Obviously the effectiveness of the UI for handling the data available is going to vary.

IIRC the data handling UI/fusion is very much the heart of the issue and is something the MIC and the customer have both spent decades futzing with to varying levels of success or lack thereof.

Link 16 is also relatively low bandwidth and very much detectable (it's omnidirectional if memory serves), IFDL (F-22) and MADL (F-35) are both newer and higher bandwidth, less-detectable ones...

... and yes, of course, despite the same company making both the F-22 and F-35, they have different, non-compatible data links!

 

[MilleniX]

That obviously wouldn't work with the far larger distributed mobile commands like the US has, but we don't have aircraft carriers or forward bases, so not an issue.

I'm just waiting for that secret Israeli airbase in Somaliland to appear

 

[Chuckstar]

Depends on the quality of the pilots.
No Soviet/Russian pilot has taken down an Israeli Jet, whereas the IAF shot down 5 MiG-21s secretly piloted by Soviet pilots by F-4s in 1970, over Egypt.

So what? The fact the F-4 could shoot down MiG-21s and MiG-17s in 1970 really doesn’t support that an upgraded F-4 in the 1980s would have been sufficient for the U.S. in trying to defend Western Europe. in fact, it shows the value of staying ahead in fighter capability, since the -21 was essentially obsolete at that point, with the Soviets desperately trying to get the -23 into service.

 

[Chuckstar]

Seems like any networked, Link 16 equipped plane would have a large portion of this capability. Obviously the effectiveness of the UI for handling the data available is going to vary.

No other fighter platform integrates such data into a single tactical picture as seamlessly as the F-35. No other fighter platform has the data bandwidth of F-35’s MADL. Link-16 is limited to about 1 Mbps per endpoint.

 

[Chuckstar]

... and yes, of course, despite the same company making both the F-22 and F-35, they have different, non-compatible data links!

The F-35 uses a different system because MADL is both much cheaper to implement and much improved over FDL. With the F-22 fleet limited to 186 and pretty much air-to-air only, holding back the F-35’s capability just to match the F-22s didn’t make sense. It made more sense to imagine subsequently upgrading the F-22 to whatever they came up with for the F-35. That was probably the right decision. And then the AF decided to drop that aspect of upgrade for the F-22 in favor of other spending priorities. Whether that’s the right decision is more complicated, and on that one I don’t have a particularly well-informed opinion. The complexity revolves around questions such as how
Important one might think it would be for F-22s and F-35s to be able to communicate without using a relay that can translate between protocols, and how much such relays would cost to develop/procure.

 

[continuum]

It made more sense to imagine subsequently upgrading the F-22 to whatever they came up with for the F-35. That was probably the right decision. And then the AF decided to drop that aspect of upgrade for the F-22 in favor of other spending priorities. Whether that’s the right decision is more complicated, and on that one I don’t have a particularly well-informed opinion.

Makes sense, and yar, me either.

One of the more recent (still not that recent) articles on the topic.

https://www.twz.com/40380/f-22-and-...-each-other-thanks-to-a-u-2-flying-translator

All three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter use MADL, which is also slated to be used on the future B-21 Raider stealth bomber, while IFDL is unique to the Raptor. MADL and IFDL use distinct waveforms that are not directly compatible. So, during this demonstration, the U-2S, carrying what Skunk Works described as an “Open Systems Gateway,” or OSG, and as the “Hydra payload,” acted as the ‘translator’ between the two data links.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

No other fighter platform integrates such data into a single tactical picture as seamlessly as the F-35. No other fighter platform has the data bandwidth of F-35’s MADL. Link-16 is limited to about 1 Mbps per endpoint.

Sure, but you also have to flip that around too - F-35 can only receive that high-bandwidth, low-detectability native MADL signal to build that picture from a limited number of sources. (per Wikipedia, feel free to find a better resource):

Other F-35s
B-2 Spirit
E-7A Wedgetail

...and can send data via MADL to Baseline 9 Aegis systems. Again, if you have a better list, please do share.

For other data sharing, they seem to be using Link 16 like everyone else.

Interestingly, Lockheed has been experimenting with using a testbed U-2S to act as a gateway between MADL and IFDL.

Edit: Looks like I should have refreshed the thread

 

[Flipper35]

It was, but in small numbers both due to cost and due to production limitations.
The extra 20 years allowed acquiring enough F-15s and F-16s gradually to replace the F-4 fleet.
The curent mainstay is the ditto customized F-16 Sufa, with the usual avionics & additional fuel tanks modifications but also carrying a WiSO in addition to the pilot.
It also uses the same engines as the Israeli F-15s, to drive down cost of maintenance.

Yup, hence the staying on the front lines portion.

One disappointment I had back in the day was not developing the Lavi further. The F-16 is an excellent aircraft and probably saved money, but the Lavi had seemingly a lot more potential.

 

[Flipper35]

So what? The fact the F-4 could shoot down MiG-21s and MiG-17s in 1970 really doesn’t support that an upgraded F-4 in the 1980s would have been sufficient for the U.S. in trying to defend Western Europe. in fact, it shows the value of staying ahead in fighter capability, since the -21 was essentially obsolete at that point, with the Soviets desperately trying to get the -23 into service.

The MiG-23 was a step down in dogfighting capability. If all you wanted was a standoff interceptor then you were go to go with the 23.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

So what? The fact the F-4 could shoot down MiG-21s and MiG-17s in 1970 really doesn’t support that an upgraded F-4 in the 1980s would have been sufficient for the U.S. in trying to defend Western Europe. in fact, it shows the value of staying ahead in fighter capability, since the -21 was essentially obsolete at that point, with the Soviets desperately trying to get the -23 into service.

I wasn't trying to disparage more modern planes. F-4s, even the upgraded ones, couldn't have been effective over the Houthis or Iran.
One of my best friends is a former F-16 WiSO and I've heard a lot about its capabilities.
It's just that needs vary, and the newest and most expensive aren't necessarily the most cost-effective for a given mission profile. Ukraine is doing quite nicely with older F-16s as well.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

Yup, hence the staying on the front lines portion.

One disappointment I had back in the day was not developing the Lavi further. The F-16 is an excellent aircraft and probably saved money, but the Lavi had seemingly a lot more potential.

The Lavi was originally supposed to be quite inexpensive, and the cost of the program amortized over many foreign sales.
While the prototypes flew well, the US MIC didn't want the competition, and put its foot down and the US gov't would have embargoed sales of the US-made engines (at the time, our aerospace industry was in no shape to built complete engines). Also, the R&D cost ballooned, so the program was turning too riskly and therefore canceled.

 

[Chuckstar]

Sure, but you also have to flip that around too - F-35 can only receive that high-bandwidth, low-detectability native MADL signal to build that picture from a limited number of sources. (per Wikipedia, feel free to find a better resource):

Other F-35s
B-2 Spirit
E-7A Wedgetail

...and can send data via MADL to Baseline 9 Aegis systems. Again, if you have a better list, please do share.

For other data sharing, they seem to be using Link 16 like everyone else.

Interestingly, Lockheed has been experimenting with using a testbed U-2S to act as a gateway between MADL and IFDL.

Edit: Looks like I should have refreshed the thread

IBCS and Aegis are both MADL compatible.

EDIT: I have no idea what data links Israel would have been using at the time that comment was made.

 

[Chuckstar]

The MiG-23 was a step down in dogfighting capability. If all you wanted was a standoff interceptor then you were go to go with the 23.

The MiG-23 had a look-down/shoot-down radar. The predominant method used in the War of Attrition against MiG-21s was to hide in the ground clutter and ambush from below. It’s not just about who turns faster.

 

[Chuckstar]

I wasn't trying to disparage more modern planes. F-4s, even the upgraded ones, couldn't have been effective over the Houthis or Iran.
One of my best friends is a former F-16 WiSO and I've heard a lot about its capabilities.
It's just that needs vary, and the newest and most expensive aren't necessarily the most cost-effective for a given mission profile. Ukraine is doing quite nicely with older F-16s as well.

I got the sense you were lauding Israel's decision to refit its F-4s while disparaging the U.S. decision to spend larger sums on fourth-generation fighter programs, instead of refitting it’s F-4s. I didn’t think you were disparaging any actual planes. And my point was just that there could be reasons why Israel’s choice was the smarter one for Israel’s tactical/strategic situation while the U.S.’s choice could still be the smarter one for the U.S.‘s tactical/strategic situation.

 

[iPilot05]

And the retiring airframes can get mined for parts for FedEx's fleet.

UPS is notorious for never reselling used equipment. UPS' planes will go to the desert, chopped up and buried never to see the light of day again.

I think FedEx has a lot more to lose from the MDs being grounded forever than UPS. UPS might even be hoping by walking away it puts even more pressure on their main competitor. FedEx will now have to pay a lot more for a potential fix since they'll be carrying almost the entire cost of the project.

Personally I still don't think the plane will fly again. FedEx's air operations are already misaligned since the end of the covid boom and Amazon walking away. They may just be unwilling to face the fact that their network is woefully sclerotic and out of step with modern day logistics.

 

[Klockwerk]

UPS is notorious for never reselling used equipment. UPS' planes will go to the desert, chopped up and buried never to see the light of day again.

I think FedEx has a lot more to lose from the MDs being grounded forever than UPS. UPS might even be hoping by walking away it puts even more pressure on their main competitor. FedEx will now have to pay a lot more for a potential fix since they'll be carrying almost the entire cost of the project.

Personally I still don't think the plane will fly again. FedEx's air operations are already misaligned since the end of the covid boom and Amazon walking away. They may just be unwilling to face the fact that their network is woefully sclerotic and out of step with modern day logistics.

From what I've read in the NTSB report here Boeing discovered the issue in 2011 and issued a non-binding letter around the issue, and also stated operators could install a new bearing already in stock that would resolve the issue. There's no need to pay for a potential fix, just need to install the new bearing.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

I got the sense you were lauding Israel's decision to refit its F-4s while disparaging the U.S. decision to spend larger sums on fourth-generation fighter programs, instead of refitting it’s F-4s. I didn’t think you were disparaging any actual planes. And my point was just that there could be reasons why Israel’s choice was the smarter one for Israel’s tactical/strategic situation while the U.S.’s choice could still be the smarter one for the U.S.‘s tactical/strategic situation.

Fair.
However, the US Air National Guard operates about 25 squadrons of fighters. Some are occasionally used abroad, but from what I read most never leave the US and have a pure home defense role.
Many of those don't need to be latest and greatest.
(if anyone wants to continue the discussion, the Perpetual Defense Thread is probably a better place.)

 

[iPilot05]

From what I've read in the NTSB report here Boeing discovered the issue in 2011 and issued a non-binding letter around the issue, and also stated operators could install a new bearing already in stock that would resolve the issue. There's no need to pay for a potential fix, just need to install the new bearing.

Yeah that's true but if it was that simple the planes would be back in the air already. My relatively uneducated guess is in the subsequent 15 years of metal fatigue has worsened the situation greatly. The issue might now be where to stop replacing components as the cracks lead up into the wings and beyond. What might have been acceptable wear in an existing part usually doesn't cut it for new, so where do they draw the line?

The other issue now is spreading the cost of the repair amongst a dwindling number of airframes. UPS had the biggest portion of the fleet by far. By backing out of a potential solution they are essentially dumping the entire cost of the repair onto FedEx (not like Western Global has more than couch cushion change to pay for it). Cynically I almost wonder if this was a competitive jab. While UPS is going to hurt without the MDs, it's going to hurt FedEx substantially worse being forced to keep them flying (assuming UPS knows FDX simply can't live without them).

 

[Chuckstar]

Fair.
However, the US Air National Guard operates about 25 squadrons of fighters. Some are occasionally used abroad, but from what I read most never leave the US and have a pure home defense role.
Many of those don't need to be latest and greatest.
(if anyone wants to continue the discussion, the Perpetual Defense Thread is probably a better place.)

And the F-4 served in National Guard units until the 1990s, without getting a re-engine or re-radar, since as you point out it's not a front-line role. The last NG units transitioned off their F-4s only eight years before the last IAF units transitioned off theirs.

 

[Flipper35]

The MiG-23 had a look-down/shoot-down radar. The predominant method used in the War of Attrition against MiG-21s was to hide in the ground clutter and ambush from below. It’s not just about who turns faster.

That may be the only advantage it had over the Fishbed. To me a dogfight is when you get in visual range within several miles, otherwise it is an intercept when it is BVR. Just my opinion on definitions though.

 

[Flipper35]

And the F-4 served in National Guard units until the 1990s, without getting a re-engine or re-radar, since as you point out it's not a front-line role. The last NG units transitioned off their F-4s only eight years before the last IAF units transitioned off theirs.

The Wild Weasels were the last of the F4 for anything resembling front lines through the Gulf War of '91, if we are not exclusively talking air to air.

 

[Chuckstar]

That may be the only advantage it had over the Fishbed. To me a dogfight is when you get in visual range within several miles, otherwise it is an intercept when it is BVR. Just my opinion on definitions though.

What matters in war is who can shoot down who, and in what relative proportions, not whether it had been a dogfight.

 

[Flipper35]

What matters in war is who can shoot down who, and in what relative proportions, not whether it had been a dogfight.

Agreed, but my comment was the Flogger is a step down in dogfighting compared to the Fishbed. Nothing more.

 

[Megalodon]

The issue with the F-4 is that it was developed before energy-maneuverability theory was established so it ended up in a lot of engagements it was poorly suited for even though it was quite fast. That's why it's long gone while platforms that aren't that much newer, like the F-15 and F-16, have demonstrated impressive longevity.

Speculation, but with technological progress leading to a considerable increase in missile range, particularly with ramjet missiles like the Meteor, something like it might be more useful today. Though of course, there's also a much greater emphasis on stealth, where it wouldn't have much to contribute.