F-35 vs F-16

[vicx]

 

 

That screen at 1m33s is what the next version of Tacview could look like. We can have Boeing Godseye super touchscreens showing real-time air defense threats in our home pits.

Edited November 1, 2014 by vicx

[Basher54321]

All F-16 block currently in use ( except for block 60) have received structural updates and bracing in some way or another. Block 40 and above have the larger landing gear, but it has not stopped blocks 32 and below to carry TGP and other equipment. I think , IIRC block 32 and below used to have some weight limitations on the ground. I only worked limited time on block 25 and even smaller time on block 30 so not sure.

 

 

That comment was based on something John Williams posted a few years back:

 

The weight gains from upgrades to blocks 15, 25, and 30 finally caught up with the structure in a block 25 static test (could have been 30, not certain). There was a massive structural failure of the left wing at 137% of limit load, with 150% being the requirement. The local area around the failure was beefed up for airplanes already built (concurrency??) and redesigned for future production. Then the Lantirn system was added to Block 40 airplanes, resulting in added weight and a significant forward CG shift, which caused increased loads all over the airplane. So USAF decided a full redesign was justified. The Block 40 (and all following blocks) structure is substantially stronger, more durable, and heavier than all previous blocks.

 

 

 

Photos of Block 30s (87340 / 87263) taken in 2014 show a strut brace around the base of the vertical tail, Bird Slicers and a lightning 2 (?) TGP. Some kind of Block 30+ upgrade - but pass when this was done or what was done. LANTIRN originally had the AAQ-14 and AAQ-13 pods so that might be a factor.

 

Presume these are somewhat different to what you worked on? - although likely a lot heavier.

 

 

 

 

[mvsgas]

Yes, I think I understand what you saying, but I meant that all F-16, all blocks ( except low hour airframes like the block 60 and new aircraft), have different structural updates like the one you pointed out on those block 30. Different block have them in different positions, but they all have it. IIRC, those are added depending on hours on the frame. IIRC, part of the Falcon up and Falcon Star programs

 

Here is a block 25 with them

 

Block 40

etc.

 

Anyway, so comparing the F-35 to F-16. It seems that hopefully the F-35 started with all necessary equipment, so less likely to get heavier with time. Unlike the F-16 which initially was quite limited. So, what will prove to be better I wonder, have as much as possible in case you need it, or keep adding equipment when you realize you need it/ want it?

Edited November 1, 2014 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?uid=42273&f=23&t=983&start=0

[Basher54321]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?uid=42273&f=23&t=983&start=0

 

Nice one

 

This page also shows some locations for the C/D plate strengthening:

 

http://www.usaf-sig.org/index.php/reference/114-research-material/82-f-16-viper-faq-stuff-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-f-16cd

 

 

 

Anyway, so comparing the F-35 to F-16. It seems that hopefully the F-35 started with all necessary equipment, so less likely to get heavier with time. Unlike the F-16 which initially was quite limited. So, what will prove to be better I wonder, have as much as possible in case you need it, or keep adding equipment when you realize you need it/ want it?

 

 

 

In the 1960/70s IR Tracking (IRST) and optical systems (TCS, TISEO) existed operationally along with medium range missiles, and internal ECM jammers and IFF interrogators (Combat Tree), Laser designation Pods (PAVE Spike/Knife)

 

None of these things were integrated into the F-16 because it was designed as an out and out A-A fighter with aerodynamic performance being the priority. Harry Hillaker even says he would have redesigned it if he was doing it with A-G in mind. The AIM-7 was possibly dropped due to politics and of the knowledge of a smaller radar missile (AMRAAM) would be viable in the future.

 

You could also argue some of the above technology was seen as a hindrance at the time - although ECM and Combat Tree were proven already as essential tools. (appreciate some operators do have internal ECM systems).

 

 

The USAF gave the Block 1 bigger wing area and a bigger fuselage - but this was never enough to incorporate the above features without using pods - and today all of the above has been added through pods and weight (even IRST pods seen on B30s at red flag) - so it has suffered structurally and performance wise.

 

 

F-35 includes all of the above sensors and a few new ones (DAS) from the start and also carries the fuel and weapons internally. I prefer this approach if it maintains performance levels throughout its life.

 

The question would be - what else out there today could enhance its capability? has it incorporated everything?

 

Cant predict the future but lasers could be added:

 

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=452e761675d8c05e5599115182696694&tab=core&_cview=0

Edited November 2, 2014 by Basher54321

[mvsgas]

None of these things were integrated into the F-16 because it was designed as an out and out A-A fighter with aerodynamic performance being the priority. Harry Hillaker even says he would have redesigned it if he was doing it with A-G in mind. The AIM-7 was possibly dropped due to politics and of the knowledge of a smaller radar missile (AMRAAM) would be viable in the future.

I agree, IIRC, some ADF versions had the ability to carry AIM-7

Here is a block 25 with them, but it is a testing bird. (click on image to enlarge)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif.

 

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — An F-16 from the 416th Flight Test Squadron tests a replacement pylon designed to carry towed decoys for the Taiwan air force. The Taiwan High Angle of Attack program was rolled into Edwards’ Operational Readiness Exercise, Feb. 27 through March 3, to prove the squadron’s capability to “test surge” in support of real-world Global War on Terror requirements. (Air Force photo by Tom Reynolds)

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article10.html

 

The USAF gave the Block 1 bigger wing area and a bigger fuselage - but this was never enough to incorporate the above features without using pods - and today all of the above has been added through pods and weight (even IRST pods seen on B30s at red flag) - so it has suffered structurally and performance wise.

AFAIK, the USAF added 3k lbs to the block 1 (when compared to the YF-16) mostly to add A-2G capabilities. The wing area was not increased. IRST pods? Are you sure?

 

The question would be - what else out there today could enhance its capability? has it incorporated everything?

- Depending on the Gun pod performance, they could add a internal gun to B and C models.

- If Optical sight does not performed well it could be change

- The air piping system (for control in hover) on the B model could be change.

- Additional cooling systems, IIRC, the F-35B was having cooling issues at the end of the flight since many systems are cooled by fuel, so when low on fuel some systems had a limited run time.

[Basher54321]

I agree, IIRC, some ADF versions had the ability to carry AIM-7

Here is a block 25 with them, but it is a testing bird. (click on image to enlarge)

 

Well according to text the Block 15 had provision (CW) added in the early 80s to the APG-66 - but the ADFs were certainly the first USAF birds to carry them (and Bird slicers) that I know of in the bomber interceptor role. But this doesnt appear to have been until the late 80s - by then the AIM-120 was in test stage and only a few years from IOC.

 

 

AFAIK, the USAF added 3k lbs to the block 1 (when compared to the YF-16) mostly to add A-2G capabilities. The wing area was not increased. IRST pods? Are you sure?

 

YF-16 Wing area = 275 sqft

F-16A Wing Area = 300 sqft

 

Depends on whether you mean the conceptual or actual YF because according to John Williams the F-16A was lighter than the YF-16:

 

Forty years is too long to remember all the numbers, but when the F-16 was in early flight test, I did a weight comparison between the two and was very surprised to find the F-16 empty weight was less than the YF-16. So, the YF-16, designed for 6.5g at 14900 lb was heavier than the F-16, designed for 9g at 22,500 lb. Don't confuse the design weight as the actual weight, two totally different things.

 

Here's why the YF-16 was heavier. First, it had a much larger structural margin. meaning it was designed for 25% overload capability, because no 150% static test was performed. Second, it was not a refined structural design, either design loads or stress analysis. If there was any doubt about load or stress, it was made a little heavier. Third, manufacturing processes were not refined. It was built as cheaply as possible.

 

Remarkable, when you consider the added g and design weight, larger wing, horizontal tail, and ventral fins, and longer fuselage of the F-16, in addition to an 8,000 hour service life.

[/i]

 

I have read the USAF increased wing area mainly down to transforming it into a multi role jet - John Boyd wanted an even larger area increase according to Boyd (Coram)

 

 

Here is an aggressor with an LM AN/AAS-42 IRST pod:

 

http://aviationintel.com/exclusive-usaf-aggressors-fly-with-irst-po/

 

 

- Depending on the Gun pod performance, they could add a internal gun to B and C models.

- If Optical sight does not performed well it could be change

- The air piping system (for control in hover) on the B model could be change.

- Additional cooling systems, IIRC, the F-35B was having cooling issues at the end of the flight since many systems are cooled by fuel, so when low on fuel some systems had a limited run time.

 

 

Some good points there.

I suppose you have to question the internal space - because with the F-35C they have stuck more fuel in it and the B of course has the lift fan - I don't know if there is space left for a gun now.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Basher54321

[mvsgas]

Does any of you guys have any reliable sources regarding specific information on the YF-16 and F-16 block one? I have been looking have not found competed information.

[mvsgas]

Regarding the IRST pod reminded me of this

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article13.html

I am looking in Code one magazine archives, I remember they had an article about this.

 

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_V03N4_SM_1271449318_7898.pdf

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_V07N3_SM_1271449318_2335.pdf

Edited November 3, 2014 by mvsgas

[Basher54321]

Does any of you guys have any reliable sources regarding specific information on the YF-16 and F-16 block one? I have been looking have not found competed information.

 

Actually I am possibly 5 sqft out - A 1972 presentation by Harry Hillaker shows 280 Sqft wing area for the YF.

 

The increased emphasis on air-to-ground capability implied larger payloads. The wing and tail expanded accordingly to carry the extra loads. The wing area grew from 280 to 300 square feet

 

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=23

 

 

 

The production F-16A differed from the YF-16 in having a 13-inch fuselage extension to accommodate more fuel and the Westinghouse APG-66 radar. The nose was deeper and longer to accomodate the radar. The vertical fin was increased slightly in height and incorporated a radar warning receiver in its tip. The ventral fins were redesigned and made larger in area. The nosewheel door was redsigned--It was now a one-piece design which hinged to starboard, whereas the nosewheel door of the YF-16 was in two pieces, the front section hinging to port, the rear section hinging to starboard. The wing area was increased by 20 square feet and an additional underwing hardpoint was fitted.

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16_2.html

 

 

 

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

More important for the F-16�s combat capability, the Configuration Control Committee

ordered it equipped with a small but highly capable pulse Doppler radar, something the

Critics had adamantly opposed.

 

 

(P181 HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM (THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS) Michel III)

 

 

The claim the F-16A was 3,500 lbs heavier - that possibly originates from Mr sour grapes himself - Pierre Sprey:

 

Comparing the Effectiveness of A-A fighters F-86 to F-18 (PSprey) 1982 (Headed F-16)

 

Found near the end - just after a useless T/W and WL comparison.

 

Even a 1984 Standard Characteristics document puts the F-16 B10 at 15,306 lbs empty - so on that basis the YF-16 would weigh in at 11-12,000 lbs and would be some kind of super fighter - but the reality appears to be closer to 15,000 lbs for the YF.

[Roadrunner]

Maybe the F-16XL?

 

funny, 2 days ago i found the this aircraft without even looking for it :D

CLICK ME

[Basher54321]

Regarding the IRST pod reminded me of this

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article13.html

I am looking in Code one magazine archives, I remember they had an article about this.

 

 

Not sure how viable the wing root positioning was - but it would sure help drag/RCS. Only the B60 has a pod on the nose - which could be IRST considering it has an almost integrated TGP on the left cheek.

 

I wonder if taking on Hillakers actual multirole F-16XL would have been better considering the USAF wanted A-G as primary. Under those wings you could have had a relatively drag free loadout of AIM-120s and bombs along with other Pods under the wings - it would have weathered the weight/drag far better even if it had a much lower T/W. (no cutting out of wing roots required :thumbup: )

Edited November 3, 2014 by Basher54321

[aaron886]

Honestly, for an aircraft like the Viper, it's not a problem of weight so much as drag.

[Basher54321]

funny, 2 days ago i found the this aircraft without even looking for it :D

 

CLICK ME[/url]

 

Interesting

 

Surprised to see that the GE engined 2 seater F-16XL-2 is at the base as well - still with a laminar test flow wing!

[Basher54321]

Honestly, for an aircraft like the Viper, it's not a problem of weight so much as drag.

 

Depends what or where you are talking about (e.g Induced drag can increase with added weight).

 

Also if the XL was 8,000 lbs heavier than the F-16A say but handled drag far better - then added weight might be of more concern regarding performance.

[beaupower32]

funny, 2 days ago i found the this aircraft without even looking for it :D

CLICK ME

 

 

It is now sitting at the museum here on base.

[aaron886]

handled drag far better

 

We're talking about external stores carriage here. I'm not sure what you mean by a "drag-free loadout," but it doesn't exist.

[Basher54321]

We're talking about external stores carriage here. I'm not sure what you mean by a "drag-free loadout," but it doesn't exist.

 

More of an off the cuff comment - if you read it again - "relatively drag free loadout"

 

The XL drag index was vastly reduced.

 

Regarding level subsonic acceleration you will find that the weight of the external stores is a much bigger factor than drag.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Basher54321

[mvsgas]

Basher54321

Thanks.

 

 

Funny how many technologies or systems used on the F-35 where tested on the F-16. engine intakes/inlet, integrated FLIR or even the Helmet mounted displays, etc.

[mvsgas]

funny, 2 days ago i found the this aircraft without even looking for it :D

CLICK ME

 

I found this NASA paper on XL testing

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88781main_H-2554.pdf

[aaron886]

The XL drag index was vastly reduced.

 

Increasing size won't just reduce drag like magic. Everything in aircraft design is a trade-off. The cranked delta reduced supersonic drag and increased stores carriage capacity. No doubt there were penalties incurred elsewhere, including overall weight and I would imagine subsonic drag. (Particularly in the low-speed maneuvering range.)

 

Interesting find... the penalties of weight and stores drag index on level acceleration times for the Hornet are similar. Slightly worse penalty for high drag configurations than for high weight.

[Basher54321]

Increasing size won't just reduce drag like magic. Everything in aircraft design is a trade-off. The cranked delta reduced supersonic drag and increased stores carriage capacity. No doubt there were penalties incurred elsewhere, including overall weight and I would imagine subsonic drag. (Particularly in the low-speed maneuvering range.)

 

 

What I mean by that is the lower drag that comes from conformal carriage of weapons in normal flight.

 

 

1982 - 1985 test data apparently showed:

 

6 * Mk-82s on LODE-14 ejectors has 66% less drag over 6 on 2 x TERs

 

4 * recessed AIM-120s has 70% less drag over 4 on Pylons.

 

 

The flight tests were done with

 

F-16XL-1 (single seat)

Engine: F100-PW-200

Empty Weight: 23,000 lbs (Estimate on given weights)

 

 

F-16A (Block not given)

Engine: F100-PW-200

Empty Weight: 15,000 to 17,000 lbs

 

 

Interestingly both given a loadout of 6 * Mk-82s and 2 x drop tanks at 30,000ft - the F-16A still had a much better sustained turn. This was down to a combination of bigger Cranked wing (more draggy) and lower T/W of the XL mostly.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Basher54321

[Basher54321]

Funny how many technologies or systems used on the F-35 where tested on the F-16. engine intakes/inlet, integrated FLIR or even the Helmet mounted displays, etc.

 

Would have thought Lock Mart had a few kicking around doing nothing :)

 

Cant forget CatBird

 

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=50

[mvsgas]

I thought Catbird was more to test F-35 equipment without having to fly the F-35 ( or get the equipment to mature while they build the F-35) while on the F-16 they where very early steps on some of those systems. Regardless, yes they both helped the F-35 program along.

[florist]

The F-35 may or may not have the advantage aerodynamically over the F-16 and other 4th generation aircraft but is the incremental difference in performance justifying the cost of the program?

 

That's where it all comes down to. Yes Pierre Sprey may not have the credibility, he and other claim him to have but is it really needed, when it's all about common sense. He does make some compelling points beyond the intrinsic quality of the plane itself.

 

During wars, the name of the game is reliability, endurance and skill. Just by looking at the sheer amount of electronics in that airplane and reported issues (are they real? i do not know), I am not sure it makes it a reliable tool to fight with. You just have to look at today's car...

Even if it's technically solvable, it is at such cost that you basically have to gut other parts of your military to keep it relevant.

 

In that sense, less is more. You will find this in every field of expertise and war is all about expertise.

 

for example, one field that comes to mind is in music, audiophile have a box for every thing. The stand alone disc player, the pre amp, the amp, the speakers. Yes it's true that you can have it all in one box but how good is it comparatively? In war, to quote top gun, " there are no points for second place"