From an excellent Washington Post piece on the durability of F-16, Loren Thompson says:
The piece is worth reading, and I certainly don’t discount the argument that F-16 might, in the long-run, offer more bang for the buck than F-35. Stephen Trimble notes concern from America’s allies about the limitations of F-35, and the only advocate of F-35 that the Post quotes, other than Thompson, is Bruce Lemkin, deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs, who spends most of his time trying to sell F-35. Still, Thompson’s close relationship with Lockheed aside, I think he’s right to say that “In the future, [F-16] won’t be survivable in Serbia much less China.” We did lose an F-117 in Serbia, and the GWOT hasn’t seen the Air Force challenged by any kind of sophisticated air defense systems, so it’s hard to know just how much progress our aspiring peer competitors have made since the bombing campaign against Serbia. But, if the Israeli raid into Syria is any indication, maybe F-16 has a long life still ahead of it. And Lockheed’s struggle to get F-35 flying again isn’t inspiring confidence in cost projections that have already started into a death spiral. The good news for Lockheed: The USAF fleet of F-15s is still grounded, making it ever more likely that the Pentagon will gain Congressional support for a new order of F-22s.
