The F-16 is getting some upgrades

[Cali]

Good news,

http://defensetech.org/2012/08/30/pentagon-plans-2018-f-16-upgrades/

[marcos]

Nice. 2018? Why so late?

[wilky510]

I read about this not too long ago, i heard that the 300 'golden' falcons were getting AESA's and that's it. Nice to see other upgrades being thrown in.

 

Thanks for the link Cali!

 

 

Nice. 2018? Why so late?

a backup plan incase they don't buy the intended F-35's? Or if production/progress on the program stays the same (really slow paced at the moment). I'm not really sure why.

[Cali]

Nice. 2018? Why so late?

 

I don't know, maybe budget....it takes a while to make sure that everything is all good with things like this. I remember when they first started talking about upgrading the A-10's. I was in Alaska when I first heard about it around 2000 and I don't think they started upgrading them til around 2005. I don't even think they were the full "C" upgrades, but some part of it.

 

Another thing is that they are always looking at ways to upgrade these aircraft.

[aaron886]

Takes time to build F-35s anyway.

[mvsgas]

Cali,

The F-16 is continuously being upgraded. It had in the past several structural, avionics and other upgrades. It wasn't schedule for retirement AFAIK. Not sure how this are news?

 

As for the time scale, there are hundreds of factors why it is schedule so far in advance. Money, maintenance plan, units who are getting the upgrade, what unit is upgrading first, who is doing the work, etc, etc.

[Echo38]

I hope one of the upgrades is a real stick. ; )

[mvsgas]

:smartass:Yeah, the side stick is so bad no aircraft is using it...oh wait Rafale, F-22, F-35, A320, A380, Sukhoi Super jet 100, etc, etc use it.

:D

[Cali]

I hope one of the upgrades is a real stick. ; )

 

What! really, guess you have never flown one :D trust me it's like and extension of your arm. You don't even realize what you are doing, you just think it, like some jedi mind trick!

[Echo38]

Yeah, the side stick is so bad no aircraft is using it...oh wait Rafale, F-22, F-35, A320, A380, Sukhoi Super jet 100, etc, etc use it.

Not talking about side-stick, I'm talking about the immobile pressure-sensitive thing.

[Eddie]

Plenty of aircraft using force sensing stick as well.

[mvsgas]

Not talking about side-stick, I'm talking about the immobile pressure-sensitive thing.

 

It moves, as much as it needs to for real men :D I mean pilot... No I meant men:megalol:

[Echo38]

It moves, as much as it needs to for real men

Real men fly airplanes! They don't let them fly themselves. [grin]

[mvsgas]

So you don't like Mirage 2000, F-16, 18, 22, 35, C-17 F-117, Space Shuttle, Su-27Mk, SU-35, Mig-35 some version of the Mig-29, Rafale, Typhoon, etc?

:huh:

:smartass:

[nscode]

.. and IBM/Lenovo thinkpad :)

[marcos]

:smartass:Yeah, the side stick is so bad no aircraft is using it...oh wait Rafale, F-22, F-35, A320, A380, Sukhoi Super jet 100, etc, etc use it.

:D

Probably a human factors issue due to complaints of bad backs on long flights. Stretching forward with your right arm for several hours will do that.

 

Real men fly airplanes! They don't let them fly themselves. [grin]

Try fly a Typhoon without fly-by-wire then and come back and tell us how it went.:D

[tflash]

Real men of course do not fly such electro-plastic arcade aircraft, but real machines like the Fairey Swordfish:

 

 

The guy in the back first puts his hand in the waves to feel if they are cold enough for a good torpedo launch, after which the pilot cuts the torpedo lose with a pair of scissors.

[mvsgas]

We have all destroyed Cali's thread... sorry Cali :D

Edited September 3, 2012 by mvsgas

[tflash]

Oops, sorry. On the topic: I wonder how the SABR/RACR F-16 radar upgrades would compare against APG-79.

[mvsgas]

Tflash, don't start to listen to me, you will get bored. Anyway. I wonder what upgrades they actually used?

[tflash]

It is understood that there will be an open competition for the RADAR part in the upgrade, with both Raytheon (RACR) and Northrop-Grumman (SABR) vying for contracts.

 

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/racr/

 

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/sabr/

 

Besides the USAF there will be a huge market for these upgrades in international F-16 fleets.

[Echo38]

So you don't like Mirage 2000, F-16, 18, 22, 35, C-17 F-117, Space Shuttle, Su-27Mk, SU-35, Mig-35 some version of the Mig-29, Rafale, Typhoon, etc?

 

Pretty much. I mean, I'd jump at the chance to fly a real F/A-18, but I'd really rather be in a pilot's airplane like a P-38 or a P-47, which you actually have to fly and not just program around the sky. The amount of flying skill involved in a modern "automatic" aircraft is vastly less than that required for older aircraft, even though the computer systems may be more complicated to deal with. So, relative to a "real airplane," such as a P-51 or an Me-109, yeah, I don't really care that much for modern aircraft. This is doubly true of the F-16 with its full authority fly-by-wire, which pretty much demotes the pilot to the role of "Lord High Suggestion-Maker and G-Withstander." But, to each his own.

 

However, the immobile pressure-sensitive stick was indeed a rather bad idea--recall that pilots were tail-striking on takeoff due to it, until they added a tiny bit of play. The only reason even that works is because of the F-16's FA FBW and its ability to pretty much fly itself. The pilot only makes commands, which the FBW may or may not follow, depending on its mood (or, more accurately, depending on conditions). It almost has a mind of its own. For this reason, the crappy almost-immobile stick does work, but only because the airplane's computers are doing most of the work in regards to control inputs. The pilot isn't really flying the airplane, not the way you fly an old-fashioned one, where you have full control.

 

So my initial joke about the F-16 getting a stick upgrade was a little jab at the philosophy of programming the pilot out of the cockpit. F-80 -> A-10 -> F/A-18 -> F-16 -> UAV. Each one gets progressively farther from the stick & rudder flying, and look where it ends up. Which doesn't mean that there may come a day where all aircraft are unmanned--that may or may not happen. My point is that the F-16's about as close to a UAV as one can get and still have an on-board human in command. So, although it's fast and powerful, it isn't nearly as cool as a "real airplane," where the pilot actually flies the airplane (meaning that he makes all of the elevator, rudder, and aileron inputs). But, again, to each his own. I'm just explaining my position; I don't expect you to agree.

 

Edit: just found, in another thread here, a link to an article with an interesting tidbit where a real military pilot says much of what I'm trying to say:

 

But one retired RAF pilot says that adopting too much technology worries him. "The biggest computer in my day, in the 1970s and 1980s, was the human brain. Now the human brain is in the business of managing all the data the plane is feeding to it," says Andrew Brookes, a former wing commander.

"You're not flying - the computer does the flying. You just sit in an armchair, so to speak, and manage the battle space, manage all the inputs that are coming around from miles away, and a lot of it is fused under the screen in the helmet in front of your eyes."

Not that we have much choice about adapting a more effective tech ... if it is really a more effective tech. Either both sides use it, or only one side will use it. But it is critical to be aware of the downsides, at least. Edited September 3, 2012 by Echo38

[mvsgas]

Pretty much. ...

 

You should try BMS. It is a fair representation of the flight model ( more than fair in my opinion and experience) I believe, that you give the flight control computer more credit than it is due. Is the F-16 easier to fly than a F-100, Mirage III, F-4? For sure, absolutely. But FBW has many limitations and pilots still manage to surpass those. Anyway.

I wonder if the USAF will get conformal and 600g tank for it s F-16 now. Maybe even internal jammers also.

[aaron886]

18

 

Not a force-sensing stick. (Or a side-stick for that matter.) Pilots will tell you the Hornet flies quite naturally and performs many tasks in a superior manner to an aircraft with a force-sensing side stick. (Namely, relative-precision tasks like formation flying, carrier landings, etc.)

 

Feedback is a relative term, but it's hard to argue that a stick like the F-16's transmits more feedback than the Hornet's which combines varying control pressures AND physical travel. My 2c on that little topic. :D I have to agree with Echo38.

[mvsgas]

Not a force-sensing stick. (Or a side-stick for that matter.) Pilots will tell you the Hornet flies quite naturally and performs many tasks in a superior manner to an aircraft with a force-sensing side stick. (Namely, relative-precision tasks like formation flying, carrier landings, etc.)

 

Feedback is a relative term, but it's hard to argue that a stick like the F-16's transmits more feedback than the Hornet's which combines varying control pressures AND physical travel. My 2c on that little topic. :D I have to agree with Echo38.

 

I'm well aware of this, but at this point the conversation switched to aircraft that fly with computers. You notice on the list I also have C-17, F-117 etc. Nether a side stick nor force sensitive ( the way you guys see it)