F-16 A, B, C, MLU

[mvsgas]

Click on image to enlarge

F-16s Positioned for Morning Flight

 

An F-16 Fighting Falcon from the 138th Fighter Wing in Tulsa, Okla., prepares for a morning sortie Oct. 19, 2016. (U.S. Air National Guard photo/Tech. Sgt. Drew A. Egnoske)

[mvsgas]

 

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

Hotpit fueling (refueling with engine running)

Hard to see is the In Flight Refueling (IFR) Door is open during this.

IgSOILSVu-w

 

Here are End Of Runway (E.O.R.) checks prior to flight

e9bCzs0IvzU

 

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

[NRG-Vampire]

Hotpit fueling (refueling with engine running)

Hard to see is the In Flight Refueling (IFR) Door is open during this.

 

does this "hotpit refueling" fill up the external tanks as well ?

and the IFR doors ? why opened ? for ventillation and for reducing internal pressure ?

[frodrigues2016]

F-16

 

I think the F-16 is a great looking aircraft...and it is a fantasting jet for multiple AirForces around the World...not being in DCS is sad....because "almost" everyone knows and recons the F-16 Falcon.

[mvsgas]

does this "hotpit refueling" fill up the external tanks as well ?

and the IFR doors ? why opened ? for ventillation and for reducing internal pressure ?

 

1- Yes, it fills all fuel tanks.

2- IFR door is open to reduce the fuel tanks pressure, ventilation is done continuously while the fuel tanks are pressurize. There is a negative pressure relive valve on the right top of the jet and on every external tank, additionally there is a vent under the left wing.

The negative pressure relieve valve is the dirty spot on this picture

(large photo)

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/againstallodds/images/6/66/F-16_Fighting_Falcon.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131126003303

here you can see fuel coming out of the vent between station 3 and 4

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7IqpFTdEPjo/maxresdefault.jpg

[mvsgas]

click on image to enlarge

 

F-16 Fighting Falcons

 

F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots prepare for takeoff on the flightline at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Nov. 6, 2016. The F-16s were conducting close air support training. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Kenneth W. Norman)

[mvsgas]

Edited November 18, 2016 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

[Basher54321]

I think what your looking to identify this aircraft is the tail. Limited updated block 10 would have the square tip on the horizontal stab.

 

I doubt the reason for the limited update would be the nose tire or landing gear since is the same, the intake is different, that is more likely a reason since it would require major structural changes.

As for the -120 there could be many reason why they do not carry it. (software, radar, structural wiring, cost, etc.) There is more that just software updates, it appears some of those specific F-16 might have gotten cockpit upgrades like MFD/CMFD, JHMCS, etc.

 

Not all F-16A built in that time where 15 OCU, but yes block 15 to 32 have many similarities. But keep in mind that F-16 are in a constant state of change, where you have to look at an aircraft by aircraft basis. Many aircraft are like this now and is something I think we will see in the F-35.

 

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

Edited November 18, 2016 by Basher54321

[Seaeagle]

Yes we discussed this earlier in this thread:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2721977&postcount=262

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2722458&postcount=268

 

AFAIK all active RDAF F-16s are considered Block 20 F-16AM/BM based on their systems' fit, but while most(some 30 units) were block 15 airframes upgraded to what I listed(in post 262) as the current level, a few were upgraded directly from block 10 airframes to a lower spec level and retained for domestic use.

[Basher54321]

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.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Basher54321

[mvsgas]

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.

 

AFAIK, ROCAF F-16 are the only block 20 build to that standard while all other where updated/modified to block 20. This is one of the reasons why ROCAF F-16 block 20 are just now approaching MLU air frame time and had more initial capabilities that other block 20. Some countries updated slowly while completing MLU, both programs having a plethora of modifications and containing many sub programs. Every country choose what updates and what time frame, which adds to the block 20 confusion. Different equipment to reach same operational levels, different time schedules, different goals, etc..

List of ROCAF F-16, you can see all seem to be initially block 20(not block 15). I know the ones they had at Luke AFB while I was there the first time (1997 to 2000) where beautiful with little hours on the frames.

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/airforce/RoCAF/1/

[mvsgas]

Here is another site that shoes some of the updates

http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Lockheed_Martin_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Upgrades

[mvsgas]

AFAIK, this is one of those early block 10 modified to block 20. The cockpit is obviously very different that those early blocks.

DvgaL4WHCws

[Basher54321]

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 ;)

[Seaeagle]

 

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.

 

Well ok point taken, but define "multirole" :) . The term is sometimes used for any fighter with a limited secondary capability of delivering unguided a2g munitions should the need arise, while at other times(mostly) for a "strike-fighter" with sophisticated sensor fit(onboard or podded) supporting a wide array of guided a2g munitions for various mission types.

 

So while I would agree that my "purely air-to-air" in regards to the initial F-16A was somewhat misleading(i.e. not like the F-15A,B,C,D), it was nevertheless its primary mission - I wouldn't call the original MiG-29 or Su-27S multirole either although they both have some level of a2g capability. In my book, actual multirole focus was introduced with the F-16C line and subsequently applied to the F-16A through upgrades.

[Basher54321]

Well ok point taken, but define "multirole" :) . The term is sometimes used for any fighter with a limited secondary capability of delivering unguided a2g munitions should the need arise, while at other times(mostly) for a "strike-fighter" with sophisticated sensor fit(onboard or podded) supporting a wide array of guided a2g munitions for various mission types.

 

So while I would agree that my "purely air-to-air" in regards to the initial F-16A was somewhat misleading(i.e. not like the F-15A,B,C,D), it was nevertheless its primary mission - I wouldn't call the original MiG-29 or Su-27S multirole either although they both have some level of a2g capability. In my book, actual multirole focus was introduced with the F-16C line and subsequently applied to the F-16A through upgrades.

 

 

 

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.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Basher54321

[Seaeagle]

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.

 

Of course I know that the USAF operates the F-16 primarily in the strike role these days, but its new to me that they had this in mind from day one - are you sure about this basher?.

 

AFAIK the idea behind the F-16 was to complement the expensive F-15 with a simple light AA fighter, that due to a lower cost, could be produced in numbers("hi-lo mix") and thus allow some degree of numerical parity with the the number of such fighters being pumped out "behind the iron curtain". I was under the impression that the structural changes introduced with block 15(also an upgrade) was the first indication that this focus started to change towards a strike role, but that this was first embraced fully with block 25(F-16C) and the block 15 OCU upgrade for the F-16A - which in turn seems to have been the basis for the European -MLU upgrade program.

[mvsgas]

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 ;)

 

:D

Got it, but the aircraft did not leave the factory floor as block 15, their first flight was as block 20 ( circa 1996)

[Basher54321]

 

AFAIK the idea behind the F-16 was to complement the expensive F-15 with a simple light AA fighter, that due to a lower cost, could be produced in numbers("hi-lo mix") and thus allow some degree of numerical parity with the the number of such fighters being pumped out "behind the iron curtain".

 

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

Edited November 19, 2016 by Basher54321

[Seaeagle]

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 )

 

I meant "cheap and simple" comparably speaking - i.e. compared to the F-15.

 

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)

 

Ok thanks for the insight :) . I guess my impression of the early days of the F-16 stems from the initial LWF design philosophy - I didn't realise that this was changed to a dual-role concept already before entering production. But you are right that I was looking at it from a European perspective and how we operated it initially - i.e. as a capable yet affordable counter-air platform.

[Basher54321]

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.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Basher54321

[mvsgas]