Basher54321

mcDD had teams working on it but it was considered too high risk by them at the time considering the cost and scale of it.

Some good points Aileron.

Any flight test data/performance charts would surely be in a Northrop Grumman archive somewhere (FOIA perhaps) - however that would probably only be for the 3 prototypes that were built. In the mid 80s they were working on a fourth enlarged F-20 - but that was never completed.

(Good) Estimated thrust charts (not F-15) for the PW-220 put it just under 20,000lbs at 0KIAS SL rising to a peak of ~32,000 lbs thrust at M1.1. SL. The F-15 would have different curves but probably similar in places. Note all jet engines manufacturer thrust figures are normally 0 KIAS uninstalled on a test bench (not associated with an aircaft) - same applies for any SNECMA (whatever) ratings for the the Mirage I expect.

The F-16A was never short legged or even considered short legged at the time - but the F-20 would have struggled with that small fuel load and the thrust they wanted to put in it. A-G loadout potential was worse (low set wing) and pretty much no potential for growth. You will find a lot of the comparisons from Northrop in the day related to the F-16/J79 which was a downgraded version for export and that was to be the primary F-20 market. Someone on the program stated that climb and acceleration were similar to the F-16A block 10 but turn performance was worse - in fact technically it only had one thing over the Block 10 and that was the cockpit and avionics. Financially it also made far more sense to build more F-16s due to economies of scale.

The bigmouth Block 30 is the best ACM machine by quite a long way over the early blocks if you talk to pilots that flew both - less to do with engine stagnation or having a lower pitch rate - it is simply more agile in certain areas. The PW-200 had quite a few fixes over the PW-100 in the F-15 - but GAO reports from that era do still list it as a concern and the USAF also thought it needed improving because according to a case study the Alternate Fighter Engine was a direct response to P&W lack of diligence in resolving the issues. e.g. Figures in the case study list a Stall rate of 2.5 per 1000 Engine Flight hours - improving to 0.65 with a DEEC as the PW-220 added. I think before Digital Engine Management systems came in you will find these problems with any engines of this era if you dig hard enough.

Now we are talking, that is what I would like - they were 4 x Block 5 and 4 x Block 10 that did Opera.

AFAIK that is a big no and you may actually need Sware/Hware changes to do it - if mvsgas worked on those later Blocks he probably knows. Those blocks were developed under the MSIP (III) and IIRC from those docs going through the 1980s there was never any intention to integrate the AIM-7 whatsoever in the main USAF F-16 development program only AMRAAM. The F-16A ADF seems to have been literally a one off for the USAF (ANG) - a relatively cheap interceptor to replace F-4/F-106 - although why Sparrow and AMRAAM?? - could only take a guess at the AMRAAM delay or AIM-7 might have had a bigger warhead - but not sure currently.

Sadly no as my position never moved from #415 which is partly (e.g. the bit about carrying AIM-7s at IOC ) a "what if" scenario based on looking too far into the history of it - sorry if that was not clear. The Japanese upgraded their F-4Es with an APG-66J - this looks better for your list https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=391 The single radar scope in the F-16A was called a REO (Radar Electro-Optical) - and could display EO video also.

Well yes - but if the USAF had decided they had a requirement from the start (1974) then all there is is conjecture because surely a lot more money and effort would have to have gone into delivering that capability for IOC - Will have to dig some more. :thumbup:

Where does your theory on required radar power come from? seem to remember the APG-66 being tested with a CW module in the 70s if I can find the ref. Was the little APQ-120 in the F-4E comparable to the APG-66 - certainly not on performance or tech but it could support AIM-7 alright. Will need to check the details but the APG-68 is not much more than a modified APG-66 also the modified APG-66 (V) 1 and 3 both supported AIM-7 Not seeing the relevance - ADF carried it on 3/7 in an interceptor role - capability where required and range reduction probably not significant.

That is all correct of course - my point was, that if the USAF wanted AIM-7 on Block 1 from the start there appears to be no reason it could not have been. There are several sources that list the Block 32s for Egypt as the first production F-16s with actual AIM-7 capability - if someone from Egypt ever confirms that will let you know.

mvsgas - I have quite lot of videos of the 1977 AIM-7 test flight and firing - have attached a photo of one carrying them AIM-7s on the wing stations. Firstly do not confuse the YF-16s with the F-16A Block 1 - the Block 1 got a redesign which made it larger to account for wonderful A-G role it was going to be performing. As Harry Hillaker mentioned - the YF-16 was a quicky demonstrator only - the centerline AIM-7 stations (according to John Williams) were only there for testing - you couldn't do that on the block 1 because they moved the pylons inboard so there was no clearance. Also John Williams has stated several times the official reason General Dynamics did not put AIM-7s on the Block 1 was because there was no requirement from the customer (USAF). The APG-66 simply didn't have the CW module but there was no technical reason it couldn't have been added at the time according to Pat Acadoo. Mike Loh was on the USAF redesign team in the late 70s But he was in a quandary. Air Force four-star generals had ordered him not to put a Sparrow missile on the F-16 because they didn’t want it competing directly with the F-15. But they didn’t say anything about inventing a new missile. “I pursued a lightweight radar missile very quietly, as an advanced development project, with no strings to the F-16 or any other fighter,” Loh says. “I worked quietly with missile contractors and the Air Force Development Test Center at Eglin to put together radar missile designs that could fit on Sidewinder stations. This initiative later turned into AMRAAM, the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.” https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/ You will note the Reason the Block 25 had provisions for AMRAAM in 1985 was because the missile was supposed to be ready then!

Interesting article but also appears to be misleading regarding the F-16A. The Air Force didn't want a Lightweight no frills A-A fighter at all as the article states - they wanted a multirole fighter with emphasis on A-G to replace the F-4 Phantom - which was why the LWF was killed and the F-16A was increased in size. It could have carried AIM-7s from IOC in 1980 without any redesign - the only reason it didn't was pure politics.

With over 6 times as many built the F-16 makes a great drone, not just on numbers, low RCS and operating cost but relative airframe condition over its lifetime which we can almost guarantee had far less significant over G events than others - of course sadly it could not pull off manoeuvres like the attached but we can't have everything now.

The question was only asked because you had already called his account into question as per your first post as you well know. Sprey was never called retarded and I don't appreciate you taking something out of context and twisting it around to suit your little argument - you know damn well that what I was calling retarded was the notion that the F-104 was more maneuverable than the F-35A! Never seen it in 15 years - you are the only one and the reason in your case was your attitude and ability to talk to everyone like they were ****. If you cannot understand that then I cannot help you and perhaps forums are something you need to avoid entirely if you cannot conduct your self in a befitting manner.

garryA there is also a time to drop it - that time is now - that is going way OT.

The fact that he turned up ages ago and was arguing over something completely unrelated is all the proof we need to see he is just a curious kid who is passionate about learning Aviation. On the other hand you have neofighter having ago at everyone for bringing up valid concerns about Sprey but in his very first post in the thread (#9) shoots himself in the foot by calling Chip Berkes credibility into question - someone he apparently used to know! He did apologize to GarryA (eventually) so that is it as far as I am concerned.

He tries to explain (to no avail) in the text that he doesn't just take someone word for it always tries to weigh up things - he simply never received good enough answers to oppose what other credible sources had given him. Going public with the PM could have been more tactful - agree there.

Garrya posts at several aviation sites including key pubs and has always been one of the very few to actually ask questions and try to learn something over the years. The evidence is in writing (including this thread) - you just have to look - everyone should challenge something if it goes against what they know to be true - and those persons ( especially fighter pilots) usually provide good enough answers to the questions gary throws at them. How anyone can fault gary for that is beyond belief. Yes he has been on here in the past - but has learnt more and upped his aviation knowledge since then - wish there were more with that enthusiasm I really do.

Yawn :music_whistling:

You are full of it - I didn't even comment in the other thread - any credibility damage in this thread you have done yourself by being shown up by an actual Marine and attacking GaryA for daring to present evidence that contradict your arguments - that you dismissed as his opinions. And you still don't get it do you - it was said at the beginning we know he is no idiot - it is the misinformation that the public / media takes from him saying things like that (for years) that is the problem. Add to that the multiple accounts of people that worked with him means his credibility is zero - it is irrelevant whether we work in the industry or not - that is his public domain image - end of.

condescending = having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority. I can only apologize but quite frankly I have had it up to here with this guy - do we see this from other pros like kirk66.

It was a genuine question - don't cry about it jeez. Got any more You Tube troll/flame videos to show us? - if I was modding here you would have been gone a long time ago! even if you are genuine. You have totally embarrassed yourself with your arrogant assumptions, non arguments and behavior.

Info on a Russian website I saw suggested the government had announced there would be 12 prototypes in service by 2020 for whatever that's worth - think they still need to get some new engines don't they? Would have thought J-20 & J-31 stealth fighters were bigger threats - considering China's growing financial power!