F-35 vs F-16

[mvsgas]

F-16AM MLU isn't it? I guess F-16C Bock 30 and F-16A MLU are the real dogfighters, the Block 40-50 being more heavy? I can imagine the F-35 matches the latter when loaded, but would have difficulties against a clean Block 30 or MLU.

 

I have a bias against any PW powered F-16, but I would not considered them a better dog fighter. Block 30, absolutely, but Block 20 are still powered by the PW-220, not the best engine. I have no concrete prof other than my experience working on them and what pilots told me about the engine, so take what I write with a grain of salt.

 

For example, a while back a pilot undergoing Instructor training ( to become an Instructor Pilot, IP) at Luke AFB, crash after raising his landing gear to early. His F-16 did not accelerate quickly enough after he applied full throttle, he was flying a block 25 ( which is powered by PW-220). He had been flying GE powered F-16 before this happened.

 

Here is the direct link to the PDF accident report summary.

 

Link to the photo

[Basher54321]

Thanks for the link

An ex F-16 pilot did post a while back on .net that he thought the F-16C B30 was a BFM monster - and that the B42 was a pig - though he thought the lighter B15 OCU with PW-220 was good.

[Pilotasso]

I have a bias against any PW powered F-16, but I would not considered them a better dog fighter. Block 30, absolutely, but Block 20 are still powered by the PW-220, not the best engine. I have no concrete prof other than my experience working on them and what pilots told me about the engine, so take what I write with a grain of salt.

 

For example, a while back a pilot undergoing Instructor training ( to become an Instructor Pilot, IP) at Luke AFB, crash after raising his landing gear to early. His F-16 did not accelerate quickly enough after he applied full throttle, he was flying a block 25 ( which is powered by PW-220). He had been flying GE powered F-16 before this happened.

 

Here is the direct link to the PDF accident report summary.

 

Link to the photo

 

I agree, radar and engine wise the F-16MLu are pretty average these days. Their better side is flexibility in implementing new capabilities regarding combat modes and weapons integration and employment, data link functionalities and other stuff not visible in airshows. ;)

[Hummingbird]

According to the F-16C performance manuals the F110-GE-129 powered F-16's are the most agile and powerful.

 

Maneuverability in terms of ITR & STR in "clean" interceptor configuration (with 2x AIM-120's) easily surpasses that of the totally clean F-15C at 0-10 kft (only altitudes I've checked so far), and continues to do so with 2x AIM-9's + 4x AIM-120's + two fuel tank pylons (tanks jettisoned) vs a 4x AIM-9 & -120 armed F-15C.

 

Three more pictures:

[mvsgas]

...and continues to do so with 2x AIM-9's + 4x AIM-120's + two fuel tank pylons (tanks jettisoned) vs a 4x AIM-9 & -120 armed F-15C.

 

We started this conversion before but I do not remember the answer. Now F-16, in the USA, do not have pylons that can carry fuel tanks unless referring to the centerline pylon. All F-16 that I have work on can only carry 370g tanks on the wings and 300g tank in the centerline. Now, the 370 tanks and pylons are a single unit, when jettison both leave the aircraft together.

 

Now, the F-16 have several differences (like many other aircraft) from model to model, different blocks, different years, countries, etc. Some countries can and do carry 600g wing tanks. Others are acquiring the 600g tanks. Are those the tanks you are talking about? I have only seen Greek and Israel F-16 with 600g tanks.

Edited May 16, 2015 by mvsgas

[Hummingbird]

We started this conversion before but I do not remember the answer. Now F-16, in the USA, do not have pylons that can carry fuel tanks unless referring to the centerline pylon. All F-16 that I have work on can only carry 370g tanks on the wings and 300g tank in the centerline. Now, the 370 tanks and pylons are a single unit, when jettison both leave the aircraft together.

 

Now, the F-16 have several differences (like many other aircraft) from model to model, different blocks, different years, countries, etc. Some countries can and do carry 600g wing tanks. Others are acquiring the 600g tanks. Are those the tanks you are talking about? I have only seen Greek and Israel F-16 with 600g tanks.

 

Indeed the pylons come off with the tanks on some versions, however performance figures with the empty pylons on are available and is what I'm refering to. Performance figures for a configuration of 6 missiles and no fuel tank pylons is not available.

[Basher54321]

People who look at the supplement manual wrongly assume the 370 tanks need separate pylons so include them and don't realise they get jettisoned with the tanks.

 

The 600s on the other hand use a type of MAU-12 I believe so the pylons stay AFAIK

 

Hummingbird - what other actual performance manuals (not from other sources) do you have to make that conclusion? (other than the B50/52+)

[Hummingbird]

People who look at the supplement manual wrongly assume the 370 tanks need separate pylons so include them and don't realise they get jettisoned with the tanks.

 

The 600s on the other hand use a type of MAU-12 I believe so the pylons stay AFAIK

 

Hummingbird - what other actual performance manuals (not from other sources) do you have to make that conclusion? (other than the B50/52+)

 

Basher, I'm looking at the drag index figures from which I can conclude that the performance is equal to having two extra empty pylons on, and infact also the centerline pylon IIRC. I simply refer to them as the fuel tank pylons, although in the US these come off with the tanks. I'm not trying to make any claims in regards to the tanks or pylons.

 

The manual I'm looking at is T.O. GR1F16CJ11 B 50/52+.

[Basher54321]

Sorry I meant this quote from above:

 

"According to the F-16C performance manuals the F110-GE-129 powered F-16's are the most agile and powerful."

[Hummingbird]

Sorry I meant this quote from above:

 

"According to the F-16C performance manuals the F110-GE-129 powered F-16's are the most agile and powerful."

 

Well by looking at the performance figures the F110-GE-129 powered versions outperform the rest in everything from acceleration to instantanuous & sustained maneuvering.

[mvsgas]

Here is a link to the manual

https://publicintelligence.net/hellenic-air-force-f-16cd-flight-manuals/

[mvsgas]

MAU-12 is the pylon they are talking about in the manual as fuel pylons. So this only refers to F-16 that can carry 600g tanks. Page A1-7. More specifically Hellenic F-16CJ circa 2003.

[Basher54321]

Have had the manuals for years - thought he was comparing with other F-16 blocks for which the supplement data is harder to come by.

 

Have done a ton of F-16 B50 comparisons with given F-35 data on specific parameters - however overall it becomes mute because the aero / fuel consumption etc goes to pot with pods / 370 tanks and A/G ordnance - and it still lacks the F-35 advertised avionics capability.

 

B60 is the only type that comes close as far as I can tell.

[Pilotasso]

there are several versions that can carry those conformal tanks, block 50 and up. All they require is a compatible structural cell.

[Basher54321]

there are several versions that can carry those conformal tanks, block 50 and up. All they require is a compatible structural cell.

 

 

They are on Advanced B50+/52+ and B60 only

 

This was on a Code 1 article but now dead

The most distinguishing external feature of an Advanced Block 50/52, when installed, is a set of conformal fuel tanks attached to the upper fuselage. All of these latest F-16s have structural, plumbing, and wiring provisions for the conformal tanks.

 

 

The CFTs hold 450 Gals (compared to 740 Gals in wing tanks) - you may get some offset in consumption.

 

It's not just down to conformal tanks - the B60 has a better T/D to counter the extra CFT drag / internal EWS/Sensor fusion AESA etc - but they still carry the Sniper pod.

[Pilotasso]

Yes, they wont sell anything new below those standards these days anyway, unless the client specifically wishes boneyard examples due to limited budgets.

 

Theres also block 61, similar to the 60 in capability but with more common parts (block 60 was heavily customized for UAE).

[Sierra99]

Er... ok. :dontgetit:

 

This is a chine: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/A-12_Nose_View.jpg/1280px-A-12_Nose_View.jpg

 

This is a strake: http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Typhoon/Images/Typhoon_ZJ924_12461.jpg

 

Often (and sometimes inappropriately) interchanged terms.

 

The terms ARE often and incorrectly interchanged...hence my question. The part identified in the F-35 photo as a chine does not look anything like what I understand to be a chine. A Strake, Maybe...Chine...Not as far as I could find. But I couldn't back up that comment with anything more than a photo.

 

Since I was taught to back up statements I make with facts and research and I could not back up any statement with more than a photo... I challenged him back up HIS statements. I may have done it sarcastically because if they ARE calling that surface a chine...I'd love to know how that works because it doesn't look ANYTHING like the chine on an SR-71.

 

I'll be honest. I think the F-35 is an overpriced, over-engineered piece of poo. The money wasted on "New and Shiny" would have gone a long way to improving the other aircraft in our inventory including the A-10, F-15C/E and F-16s. Unfortunately the people holding the purse-strings are are beholding to the lobbyists and companies who want "New and Shiny"...So we get "New and Shiny". Even if it means some pretty significant compromises.

 

I could be reading into it too much, but your tone comes across as a bit condescending and rude.

 

People often confuse directness and sarcasm with condescending and rude. Personally I believe people receive the message they are looking for. That being said, I will never be openly rude to someone in a public forum. That's simply not me. We may disagree but I will always respect a persons right to their opinion. I WILL however be sarcastic as hell if the situation warrants it because that's who I am. And since my friends and family accept me as I am, I'm not planning on changing anytime soon.

[Sierra99]

Yes, they wont sell anything new below those standards these days anyway, unless the client specifically wishes boneyard examples due to limited budgets.

 

Theres also block 61, similar to the 60 in capability but with more common parts (block 60 was heavily customized for UAE).

 

Didn't the UAE birds go down a completely separate assembly line?

[mvsgas]

 

I'll be honest. I think the F-35 is an overpriced, over-engineered piece of poo. The money wasted on "New and Shiny" would have gone a long way to improving the other aircraft in our inventory including the A-10, F-15C/E and F-16s. Unfortunately the people holding the purse-strings are are beholding to the lobbyists and companies who want "New and Shiny"...So we get "New and Shiny". Even if it means some pretty significant compromises.

First, lets learn form the past

this is a direct PDF link

F-15 program: Origins and Development 1964-1972. Declassified

 

If we read document like this ( there are more we can all read) We can see we are all making the same arguments that where made for aircraft like the F-15, F-16, etc. on both sides.

The F-35 has the potential to be the next F-111( overprice and not really achieving what it was originally intended to do, but a great aircraft in it's own right) or the next F-16 ( achieving much more that it was initially expected)

 

- We can not keep upgrading old airframes we need new ones and F-15/16 etc. are very old designs, some close to 50 years old. These are not B-52 that fly in straight line and whose airframe structure does not suffers the same stresses.

- Is the F-35 the answer? I do not think we have enough information.

- Is it overprice? I do not think so if you compare it to other programs, look at the cost of the F-15, the 16. I should reword this. It's as as overprice as the F-15 and 16 and others were... I think that is more accurate

- Over engineered? Possibly, but how do we judge that, how can we quantify that?

 

 

Didn't the UAE birds go down a completely separate assembly line?

 

Not AFAIK. The F-16 has always used several assembly line like SABCA. It's one of the many reason why it has been so successfully exported and widely use, all the different option that it has, from manufacturing, to offered equipment etc.

Edited May 17, 2015 by mvsgas

[Basher54321]

Yes, they wont sell anything new below those standards these days anyway, unless the client specifically wishes boneyard examples due to limited budgets.

 

Theres also block 61, similar to the 60 in capability but with more common parts (block 60 was heavily customized for UAE).

 

A lot of the comparisons you see v F-35 use the US blocks - none of which use the CFTs and badly need avionics upgrades.

 

The B61 was mentioned on an FMS document a while back - all I know is that this is likely Avionics upgrades (existing B60s also updgraded) - although whether these will be similar to the F-16V who knows.

 

Any new F-16s outside of this would be to whatever LM terms as F-16V - you dont get a GE-132 with that from what I have seen. ( Taiwan was supposed to be launch customer upgrading its Block 20s)

[aaron886]

The part identified in the F-35 photo as a chine does not look anything like what I understand to be a chine.

Maybe you don't understand it then. Although somewhat interchangeable, chine typically refers to a blended surface. A strake need not be, and is typically an attachment rather than a smoothed extension of its parent. In the case of the F-35, the shape in question is most accurately termed a chine, and you'll find it referenced as such pretty much everywhere you look. (In fact, this thread is the first time I've seen F-35 and "strake" in the same discussion. Warning... Googling "F-35 Chines" will leave you with a lot of results about Chinese F-35s. :megalol:)

 

I could not back up any statement [..] I'd love to know how that works...

Well I'm trying to help, but it doesn't seem like you want to understand the difference, rather that you just want someone to be wrong. :thumbup:

[Exorcet]

It has nothing to do with fuselage lift, which certainly isn't vortex dependant (as you rightfully point out), it's all about the increase in lift gained over the main wings by the addition of large LERXs, esp. on blended wing designs where the vortice is unobstructed along the entire length of the a/c.

I don't really see many modern aircraft that will really disrupt the vortex. As far as the upper surface goes, the F-35 is essentially identical to the F-16.

 

On the lower surface, you also get airfoil like tapering to the base of the horizontal stabilizers. Specifically, it looks like a supercritical airfoil.

 

Also we're not just talking a single vortex here, the F-16 enjoys the benefits of several vortices generated at certain flight attitudes:

The F-35 seems to be making multiple vortices as well. There are probably ones forming from the tip of the nose, though they might not reach low enough pressure to be easily visible. Number of vortices doesn't seem like it would be an important value though, unless they maybe covered different areas of the plane. Smaller ones could just be sucked up into the larger ones.

 

In regards to fuselage lift the F-16 enjoys an advantage over the F-35 here quite simply due to its more aerodynamically optimized shape, mostly in the form of an airfoil (no worries about radar deflection in the design here), which results in a higher L/D ratio. Crucially on the F-16 the air starts by impacting a sharp leading edge ensuring a smooth transition over & under a carefully curved surface for the rest of the airframe. By comparison on the F-35, with the exception of the nose (& wings but we're talking fuselage area only here), the airstream is first met by two large air intakes, the result of which is a given.

The F-16 may look more like an airfoil from certain angles, but that doesn't mean it's going to perform like one. Sure the LERX is thin, but it's still carrying that big intake, that can't be ignored. The F-35's inlets shouldn't pose any problem for lift. Both the top and bottom lips of the inlet most likely serve as lifting surfaces. There really isn't any downside that I can see to the boxy fuselage besides separation off the bottom edge, and that's something the wings mitigate anyway. Think about airfoil design, bigger, thicker airfoils tend to lift better. It's not all about being razor thin. Airfoil comparisons are pretty obscure anyway when a large portion of air is passing through the object in question. If the F-35s' inlets were sealed off, it would act more like a thick airfoil. But of course, they aren't sealed off. The amount of air that needs to whip around the edges of the intake is reduced drastically, and with that so is the pressure gradient.

 

In short at certain AoAs the F-35 might (and I put high emphasis on the word "might" here) enjoy more lift overall from its fuselage due solely to its larger surface area, but it will gain this a lot less efficiently.

If it's like a wing, the F-35's area should benefit absolute lift at basically every AoA. Drag will be dependent on pressure recovery, and in high AoA flight with vortex generating aircraft, the total pressure loss in the vortex is probably going to play a significant role.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately the people holding the purse-strings are are beholding to the lobbyists and companies who want "New and Shiny"...So we get "New and Shiny". Even if it means some pretty significant compromises.

Well honestly, the stealth coatings aren't all that shiny.

[Sierra99]

Maybe you don't understand it then.

 

No, I understand exactly what a chine is, I wasn't aware the term also referred to blended surfaces but thanks global security.org I see this is also the case.

 

Well I'm trying to help, but it doesn't seem like you want to understand the difference, rather that you just want someone to be wrong. :thumbup:

 

Ahhhh you misunderstand...I am fully aware of the difference between a chine and a strake. I didn't think he knew the difference. ts not about being right or wrong. It's about backing up statements with facts.

[Hummingbird]

The F-16 may look more like an airfoil from certain angles, but that doesn't mean it's going to perform like one. Sure the LERX is thin, but it's still carrying that big intake, that can't be ignored.

 

The important difference here though is that the F-16's intake is situated below the lifting body/fuselage, same as on the Su27 & F-14, and there's a spacing with a horizontal wedge between the intake and the fuselage for the first meter or so as well.

 

Thus the F-16 gains the benefit of the air impacting a sharp leading edge across the span of the aircraft's front profile, where'as on the F-35 there's two larges areas of the front profile where the air instead first comes into contact with a large air intake. The effect of this will be the same as that of placing an air intake on the leading edge of an airfoil/wing, which will results in a decrease in CLmax and increase in drag - thus decreasing the in L/D ratio. Said thing was demonstrated on aircraft such as the the F4U Corsair & Hawker Fury, where the parts of the wing featuring the leading edge radiator intakes suffered a marked decrease in CLmax and an increase in drag.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Hummingbird

[mvsgas]

Another F-35 technology tested on the F-16 first

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f16_gallery_slideshow.html?gallery_id=84&gallery_style=1