"It’s not urgent, frankly. What we don’t want to get to is a point where it is urgent, and we haven’t done the homework and decided ‘hey, this is really the right place to be.’" — Lt. Gen. David Tabor.
The timeline: a decision likely a year or more away
The Air Force’s senior planner, Lt. Gen. David Tabor, told reporters that any choice about buying new-production F-16s — the latest proposals have been framed as a Block 70/72 variant sometimes called an F-16G — is not immediate. He said the service is “not in a position where that decision has to be made immediately” and does not expect the issue to drive the Fiscal Year 2028 budget development process, which will begin early next year. An unclassified copy of the Air Force’s latest long-term fighter force structure report, submitted to Congress last week, was not public at the time of reporting.
What the Air Force plans for 2035 and where F-16s fit
The service has set a target fleet of 1,509 combat-coded fighters by 2035. According to Lt. Gen. Tabor and reporting in Air & Space Forces Magazine, that force would be roughly 40 percent F-35s, 40 percent F-15s (inclusive of F-15E and F-15EX) and F-16s, and 20 percent F-22s and F-47s. The Air Force also says it plans to acquire at least enough F-47s to replace its 185 F-22s one-for-one, though a final F-47 fleet size remains unclear.
For context: at the start of Fiscal Year 2026 the Air Force had 1,168 combat-coded fighters (not counting 103 A-10 Warthogs). The service’s current fighter mix is about 45 percent F-16s, 30 percent F-35s, 15 percent F-15s, and 10 percent F-22s. The plan calls for the last A-10s to be retired by 2030. Last year’s report had aimed for 1,558 fighters by 2035 and a 1,369 milestone by FY2030; the current documents show different interim tallies, a discrepancy the service has not publicly reconciled.
Audit-ready is a season. It shouldn't be.
Evidence in spreadsheets, controls drifting between audits, frameworks multiplying on flat headcount. Nubivance runs continuous compliance on Rapid7 Cyber GRC - SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, PCI, CMMC.
End the scrambleThe F-16 question: new-build aircraft, upgrades, or a spectrum of capability?
Tabor said the Air Force is considering a “spectrum of capability” to replace aging, older-model F-16s and acknowledged that many legacy Vipers will begin reaching the end of their lifespans in the 2030s. The service has been upgrading existing F-16s — adding AESA radars and electronic warfare suites, for example the AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar — and already redistributes newer F-16s from squadrons transitioning to F-35s to supplant older airframes elsewhere.
Lockheed Martin has been reported to have pitched a new-production Block 70/72 Viper to the Air Force, and the Greenville, South Carolina, production line is actively building Block 70/72 jets for export customers. A Block 72 destined for Morocco made its first flight earlier this month, the company and reporting note.
Production capacity and sustainment realities
Senior planners warn that buying new F-16s would be attractive because the type is mature and in production — “practically a ready-made aircraft,” Tabor said — but that the more important questions are whether industry can produce at the required levels and whether money and supplier bases will hold up. Lockheed Martin’s order books are described in the reporting as “very full” because of allied and partner demand, raising questions about the company’s ability to add a substantial new U.S. Air Force buy on top of existing commitments. The piece also notes similar capacity questions have accompanied Boeing’s ramp-up to meet F-15EX demand.
TWZ’s prior analysis, quoted in the report, argued that a new-build F-16 would bring a fresh airframe with roughly 12,000 flight hours of service life ahead of it — substantially more than many legacy F-16s — and could be more efficient over the long run than increasingly costly sustainment and life-extension programs on aging jets.
Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) as a force-multiplier
The Air Force is already buying crewed-uncrewed teaming platforms: General Atomics’ FQ-42 Vengeance and Anduril’s FQ-44 Fury CCAs have been ordered into production. The service aims for a combined fleet of at least 500 CCAs by 2032 and expects additional types through a second development cycle, Increment 2. Tabor said CCAs are “very much a reality” and that there is “absolutely a world in which the incorporation of CCAs into the force will mitigate the requirement for the number of fighters.”
The Air Force plans for F-22s to act first as aerial “quarterbacks” for CCAs, with F-35s and F-47s to follow. Reporting highlights that pairing CCAs with fourth-generation fighters such as F-16s could enhance the value proposition of buying new Vipers as an affordable way to expand capacity and field a force multiplied by uncrewed systems.
What this means for the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, and Congress
- The Air Force (force planners and acquisition leads): will continue deliberate analysis in the “initial phases” of the next Future Years Defense Program, defer any urgent decision, and factor in CCAs, sustainment costs, and industrial capacity before committing to a new-build F-16 buy.
- Lockheed Martin and suppliers: face a test of production capacity. The company’s Greenville line is active building Block 70/72 jets for export, and the question raised by the service is whether that line can absorb a large new U.S. buy on top of allied orders.
- Congress and budget authorities: retain leverage. The report reminds readers that lawmakers have recently intervened to force procurement changes — for example, authorizing E-7A Wedgetail purchases and saving another service’s sixth-generation program — and could again shape any major fighter procurement decision across multiple budget cycles.
Lt. Gen. Tabor closed the discussion with the central balance of the debate: the Air Force has time to “churn through” options and does not need to rush, but it is “very conscious” that choices made now will intersect with production capacity, CCA maturation, and multi-year budgeting. The decision, by the service’s own timetable, is likely a year or more away.
