Basher54321

Lucky you and great shots there so thanks for posting - can only assume they are second Gen MiG-23MLs perhaps?

This statement you have posted was actually false - JohnWill was structural engineer on the F-16 program and he replies to that further down: Purplehaze - there is no loading on the F-16 which is over-g at 4g (symmetric maneuver). The limit with full 370s is 6.5g. Considering that all g limits have a 150% design factor, 7g would not cause any structural failure. Plus the only time you have full 370s is just as you drop off of a tanker. So even if you could pull 9G with the full tanks all you might do is induce fatigue all being well. Don't know about the F-15 etc but the in the F-16 case every part of the airplane is tested to 150% of its highest expected load ever encountered with nothing breaking. It is also durability tested and must withstand two lifetimes of the "design usage" without failing. Note the design usage is not at constant 150% max load obviously.

You were right the first time - the F-16 was originally designed as pure A-A - but it got a slight redesign and went into production officially as multi-role because that's what the USAF wanted. F-16 is not that far behind especially if it can utilise other sensor types in a networked system of systems. This might mean less dedicated Air Superiority pilots and there likely would be a skill degradation if only the F-22 community are left to that role. However is an F-15C guy/gal really even an Air Superiority pilot in today's changing air combat paradigm? - or are they just Air Superiority against lower tier forces? Last time I checked their A-A future consisted of being not much more than missile carriers to supplement the real Air Superiority fighters (5 Gen).

Faster guys - got to get em in before those F-15Cs are retired :lol:

OK let's leave that for now. No - although also better in a contested environment - in terms of capability (only) in a non contested environment the F-35A for example has the large internal bay + 4 heavy wing pylons for AG. A typical USAF F-16C B30 from Bagram has max 2 AG pylons - not just because of the 370 wing tanks but because only 2 pylons (3/7) appear to have been wired for smart munitions (JDAM etc). Of course the F-35A doesn't have drop tanks because that fuel percentage was moved internally which explains the massive fuel load. That might have been the case with separate NVGs but it is all built into the standard flight helmet in an F-35 (projected onto the Visor) so that makes no difference what so ever. Suggest asking an F-35 pilot who has to wear it during BFM etc regardless because that's where his HUD is. DAS has other functions like classifying aircraft which is also displayed in the helmet. EODAS is by NG so check out the advertised capability. :thumbup: Whether the multispectrum DAS display is currently suitable for use in BFM is something else you can ask - or maybe I will.

The never ending CAS debate has been raging forever - there are a few million posts on this thread and other forums that would be worth reading. Guns rounds - interestingly (or not) the F-16 actually has less (~500) than the F-104 (~750) it replaced in some forces, and of course its gun is fixed rate at ~6000 rpm ( firing time of ~5.1 secs). The GAU-22 on the F-35 is a break from the norm on US fighters having half the firing rate (might be variable ) and is closer to some of the Russian birds that carry 150 rnds MiG-29 / Su-27 and the Su-25 carries 250 rnds on given figures but when you look at the available firing time instead of just rounds it doesn't look as bad. F-35A firing time would be around 3.3 secs and the B/C would be 4.1 secs. This of course is still somewhat lower than the A-10 (16.8 secs) and the only tac jet higher than that I know of was the A-7A/B (>40 secs max) One would hope it is far more accurate than the M61 A1 for AG - of course in regards to AG payload / range / loiter and sensors in an uncontested environment the F-16 is so vastly lacking to F-35 there is barely any comparison. A note on the MK1 eyeball - it cannot see in the dark and cannot see through certain cloud and smoke - but it can when looking through EODAS sensors via the Helmet - that also give the pilot a full 360 view even going straight through the airframe. What about zoom? not without binoculars - but even the basic TGP is far better than that.

Spot on Aaron :thumbup:

The LockMart guy did refer to the V as the Block 72 here Block 61 ? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-uaes-f-16-block-60-desert-falcon-fleet-04538/

Apologies for not picking up on that. The SH had reduced RCS as a design goal to improve survivability but the claim it compares to an actual aircraft designed from the ground up with RF / IR and Emission stealth & sensor fusion sounds like Boeing PR - unfortunately no way to disprove their claims. There is nothing new there - The F-117/F-22/35 all use(d) RAM and coating (F-16s were coated with RAM from 1983) but shaping has always been AFAIK >80% of the effect for RF. Those massive conformal pods look like nothing more than desperation at trying to sell an EOL airframe - I wish them the best of luck.

Less about shape?? - first time I have ever seen anyone claim that regarding RCS. The F-35C does not have STOVL (that's the B) :thumbup:

Confusing but pretty sure the MiG-29G had the same RD-33 engines - however the East Germans ran them in the detuned Limited Power Mode a lot of the time to preserve life time. The RD-33s had 3 different modes that could be set by ground crew.

It was cheaper than the F-15 - and initially had less AA radar modes (not that the original APG-63 was stellar) but was a more technologically advanced and far higher risk design than the F-15 due to the FBW system and being longitudinally unstable. (F-22/35 both use this approach today) Hillaker recalled going to Mcdonnell Douglas to give a speech later on - they had also researched doing the same thing - but such was the cost of the F-15 they decided to take the lower risk design approach.

The high low bit is mostly true - but simple light AA fighter is a confused myth. If Hillakers F-16 had gone to production it would have been smaller, lighter would have had AIM-7 (YF-16s had provisions for it) but would have been growth and sales limited (It was never simple either ) They made the F-16A bigger adding more wing pylons and it was actually tested and certified to carry 19 x MK-82s initially and also LGBs despite no self designation till 1991/2. I dont think the 19 x MK-82s was ever used operationally (no need for carpet bombing after Nam) - and it was dropped at some point. The USAF side mostly matches up with the Fighter Mafia side - if you find THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM this is from ex USAF flyer Marshall L. Michel III (also Clashes author) The service began to see the LWF as an F-4 replacement and quietly decided internally that, if the prototype tests showed the winner had adequate performance, it could be enlarged and otherwise modified to become a �swing role� fighter for both ground attack and air-to-air combat. Additionally, and importantly, the Air Force was interested in having an inexpensive, high-performance multi-role fighter for the National Guard and Air Force Reserve forces that were equipped with obsolete, low-capability aircraft. Equipping them with modern fighters would provide a quantum improvement in American TACAIR capabilities. -- The air-to-air F-15 was too expensive and too limited for the NATO allies who needed a fighter-bomber, not a pure air-to-air fighter, so a less expensive, dual-mission LWF would be a perfect solution for these allies. Having NATO fly the same fighters as the U.S. Air Force would also have huge benefits for both sides. Foreign sales would reduce the unit cost of the aircraft, and it would also mean the USAF and its NATO air forces would be using the same aircraft with common spare parts, weapons and other items, thus solving many existing logistical problems.66 The Air Force gradually saw that the LWF could be a win-win situation. If the LWF proved successful, buying it would not only be politically popular, but the service would also be getting a very capable aircraft. The key was that the Air Force had quietly changed the mission of the LWF. It would not be the low-tech, cheap, air-to-air aircraft the Critics envisioned, but a high-tech, if small, multi-role fighter-bomber.67 -- Slay quickly moved to make the F-16 into the multi-role combat aircraft the Air Force wanted. Because the Air Force was paying the bills, Slay and his committee had the enthusiastic help of General Dynamics, who willingly dropped the Critics� concept of a simple, austere lightweight air-to-air fighter. The Configuration Control Committee added roughly two tons of new electronic equipment and other modifications to the F-16, including more pylons for bombs and electronic countermeasures pods, and then increased the F-16�s length so it could carry more fuel and enlarged the wing so it could carry bombs and keep the same performance.25 The F-16�s bombing system was about five times more accurate than the F-4�s in dropping conventional bombs, which, as one wag noted, was �a good thing since it carried one-third the number of bombs.�26 -- Critic James Fallows later noted correctly that these changes �represented nothing less than the rejection of the entire philosophy under which the plane had been designed.�27 The Critics had been outflanked by the Air Force�s ability to make the F-16 a dual-role aircraft, while the F-15 remained the Air Force�s primary air-to-air fighter. General Jones was very pleased, saying, �the F-16 turned out to be a much better aircraft than the air-to-air advocates wanted.�28 There was, as the Critics had claimed, a price to be paid for the changes. The cost of the F-16 improvements required to make it a dualrole fighter were initially underestimated and these additional costs, plus a production �stretch out� in the first ten years, caused the actual costs of the F-16 to rise 29 percent over initial estimates for the ten-year period.29

Simple - Hillaker designed the F-16 (Light Weight Fighter) as a pure A-A fighter you can find the interview on code 1 - he stated he would have designed it differently if he had known the USAF were going to use it as a multirole fighter with draggy ECM pods and bombs. The F -16 has far exceeded my expectations. However, if I had realized at the time that the airplane would have been used as a multimission, primarily an air-to-surface airplane as it is used now, I would have designed it differently. The USAF specified changes to redesign it as a bigger multirole fighter with a primary A-G role for production (for the USAF A-G was the primary role) - it may have been considered A-A for some countries but those are the facts - the pure A-A fighter was dropped. Incorrect the F-16C was an incremental follow on from the F-16A as part of the Multinational Staged Improvement Program (MSIP) e.g. Stage I was Block 15 - that introduced the revised structure with the cheek points as I mentioned previously. Stage II was the Block 25 gave a new pit, new radar and AGM-65D was added. Block 32/30 was part of stage II that added ARM, AFE and AMRAAM provision Stage III was Block 40/42/50/52 with a ton of other stuff. Stage IV (Agile Falcon) was cancelled They might have retrofitted stuff to existing F-16As under the MLU program which is where you are probably coming from. Ridiculous as it sounds but in 1991 the Block 40s there were barely more capable then the Block 10 squadrons in A-G (Less so in some regards) - they didn't get the AAQ-14 till post GW due to availability and were mostly dropping dumb bombs until later in the conflict when they made more use of the AGM-65D.

The 150 F-16A/B Block 15OCU's for Taiwan are built to MLU standards and are designated Block 20. The Block 20 designation was reserved in the 1980's. It was later assigned to the Taiwanese aircraft and to the MLU program initiated to bring the European F-16s to an enhanced level, comparable with the block 50 F-16s of the USAF. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article3.html Jake Melampys Early Viper Guide states ROC are the only nation to fly Block 20s. Confused much ;)

I think my favorite part of the charts is the 10% of pilots preferring the A-10 close in :) Yes the configuration given in ref [23] for the F-16CM is the USAF wild weasel config with all 3 pods on. So after jettison this would still leave around 3300 lbs in added weight and a Drag Index of 114. The drop in performance due to the weight alone is quite substantial and I guess that is the point he is trying to make. (didn't seem to do as badly as you might expect in this report though!) However he didn't factor in the small tail RDAF Block 10s intercepting airliners and Cessnas in their combat configuration of 2 x AIM-9s and a centreline pylon :thumbup:. In comparison this only adds ~562 lbs in weight and Drag Index of ~7.

Thanks Seaeagle - Considering all the airframes and avionics are all different I suppose "systems fit" might be a better general term. I thought only the B15 OCUs built for Taiwan were officially Block 20s due to their rather late manufacture. They are possibly similar regarding systems I guess. LMs MLU flight manual only refers to it as F-16AB MLU Tape X unlike the USAF birds where the block is specified - anyway not going to lose to much sleep over that one. Only thing I would add to your second post is that the F-16A was multirole from the start - it was multirole because that's exactly what the USAF wanted and why they redesigned it for production as multirole (not as the intended AA fighter). Pretty certain it also had the best bombing system of any USAF tactical jet from the off.

Article was in here https://issuu.com/fly-mag.dk/docs/flymag_2016_03 Download from http://flymag.dk/magazine/ Features 2 Block 10 photos - both still have the small H stabs. E-191 http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/191/ (Used in BAP?) E-189 http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/189/ Block 15: In November 1981, the Block 15 introduced MSIP Stage I changes to the F-16A/B starting with subblock 15Y and continuing through subblock 15AZ. More than a year earlier, in February 1980, these modifications were already effective on the F-16C/D production. The changes expanded the F-16s growth potential by allowing improved capabilities in the air-to-ground and BVR missions. One major modification was the addition of two hardpoints to (and structural strengthening of) the chin of the inlet, designated hardpoints 5L and 5R. To offset the shift in center of gravity caused by the weight of these two additional hardpoints (and eventual stores attached to them), the extended horizontal stabilator (the so-called "big tail", 30% increase in area), was fitted. The new tail also provided better stability and more authority for out-of-control situations. It changed lift-off rotation speeds and allowed stable flight at higher angles of attack. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article3.html

The information was supposed to be direct from 730 Squadron and is very recent - will find the source later the Mag was online somewhere. The reason for not upgrading the Block 10 airframes was given as due to the weight the nose wheel can handle - they are structurally different to the block 15 which was the first to get the cheek station provisions. Not certain why AIM-120 cant go on - thinking major hardware and rewiring changes are required. (The RAF are in a similar position with Tranche 1 Typhoons as I understand) The Block 20 designation is confusing - did wonder if they were referring to a software block not an airframe block. The Block 10 MLU were clearly not rebuilt (or probably cant be rebuilt) to the Block 15 structure. (although most got bigger horizontal stabs at some point) To confuse things further all the F-16As built in the late 1980s and early 1990s (some are now designated Block 20s) were Block 15 OCU which were basically heavier C airframes despite the missing base tail antenna (closest I would think is Block 32) - so would be different in structure again to Block 1-10 and 40 on.

That photo is one of the 30 or so Block 15s - they are supposedly at MLU Tape 6.5 and they are the ones used for international operations - but apparently there are 7 old Block 10s stuck at Tape 4.3 used for QRA only that cannot carry AIM-120 & TGPs. Block 20 is often used for an MLU but the airframes were originally manufactured as Block 1, 5 10, 15 and 15 OCU across the EPAF nations. The RDAF had 44 F-16AM/BM MLU (Block 10 & 15) in service as of June 2016 according to scandinavian mag FlyMag

The only valid concern is cost really and more likely running cost rather than unit cost which represents amazing value for the F-35 due to economies of scale. I imagine back in 1980 people saying the F-16A couldn't do M2 at 60,000ft or carry 750 rounds of 20mm like the F-104G but I would have taken the F-16 any day. The Danish haven't been too keen to upgrade their F-16s have they - and they only recently upgraded the ancient PW-200s for the higher thrust 220s and it would appear they use the (7?) old Block 10s for QRA that can only be upgraded to an older MLU tape and cannot actually carry TGPs or AIM-120. So when you say clean they are literally in the same config as Israeli Block 5/10 jets were in 1982! I am surprised they are considering the F-35 and the RDAF should consider themselves lucky considering it is night and day in capability over any current 4th or 4.5Gen.

Okay that has literally nothing in it on how anything was done - must be thinking of the others he did initially. Anyway some of the methods are explained in posts here. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=27580 - for anthing else just PM him and Im sure he will explain the whys and he would have had to recalculate a lot of it for the specific flight profiles, loadouts and weights etc - and obviously the F-35 model is estimnated no matter how complex it is. Sorry I deleted most of Bushmannis post to just leave a few lines but I actually meant I agreed with most of his post hence the Boyd ref.

Mostly agree - listen to this guy - Boyd was back at the drawing board by the mid 70s :thumbup:

GarryA should have really posted a link to the actual PDF - it is F-35 related and the methology used is in the report IIRC ( not reading it now). Strike Fighters A-A The figures shouldn't be wrong (not that I have gone over it with a fine toothed comb) - because it is all manual data apart from the F-35 which is only based on known information. And the guy who did it is an aerospace engineer - and it is done from that perspective - less exciting I know. I don't know who took the figures out and stuck them together like that but they were totally missing the point of the paper which took months to do - it was an attempt to do something far more comprehensive than the normal amateur forum debates.

2006!! :lol: You could at least highlight the end bit instead to put it more into context.