F-16.net

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 965 Status: Offline

geogen wrote:

I'd have to concur that the cranked-arrow mod alone would not likely make the F-16 super-agile, fair enough.

You might want to take a look at those graphs above. Wink

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

I've read several times that the XL was in fact more manoeuvrable than the original F-16.

I guess they could also enlarge the nose to house an APG-79, like they did in the 70s to fit the APG-65:

http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/old/f16161.jpg

The extra weight in the nose would compensate for the extra weight of the TV nozzle at the rear.

The nozzle would add about 250lbs: http://www.acesaero.com/dreammachine.pdf ( see page 4 at the bottom).

And the F-110 thrust could be increased to 36000lbs.
http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f110/index.html

With long range AMRAAMs that would be a deadly machine!!!

Veteran Joined: Mar 11, 2008 Posts: 351 Status: Offline

Viperalltheway,

Cool, just got done building one to spec, now. Will be shipped by 2012. Smile

Perhaps the that enlarged nose could fit an EOTS in there too??

But indeed, with drop tanks + CFT, and long range AMRAAM, an XL+ would be a serious Interceptor configuration given the Rate of Climb and imposing un-frefuelled range.

But for economy sake, maybe just a SABR type array would suffice and perhaps to offset the nozzle, the CCV and sniper pod could balance it out? Anyway, it could make a potent F-35-escorting EW platform too , integrating stock F-18 Growler gear(?), especially with CFT-boosted endurance. Add an anti-missile laser self-defense sys in the spine perhaps?

IMHO, and I respect the flak I catch, but such a concept could have been co-financed and marketed especially for Air forces such as Canada, Norway and RAAF (e.g.) to better time their respective replacement cycles.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

Honestly I don't think anyone would be interested in this aircraft if the F-35 is available..

Using TV would have enabled to get away with the tail:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article23.html

Look at what they say.. "It would have twice the range of the F/A-18E/F at two thirds of the cost."

A larger radar would have enabled the use of a ramjet AMRAAM and the aircraft would probably have been sufficiently lethal in a/a to replace the F-15Cs, given the fact that they cannot be replaced on a 1 to 1 basis by the F-22s. That's why I like that idea. It enables to replace hundreds more aircraft. And the APG-79 apparently is not very expensive.

With a reduced RCS, larger radar, EOTS, and new engine, it would have been roughly equivalent to a typhoon but would have cost significantly less, especially if one includes R&D costs.

It could even have been developped with the UAE instead of the block 60. It would have been a nice complement to the F-22 and would been available 8-10 years before the JSF.

It's too late now I guess. Sad

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

ohohoh..

http://movie.geocities.jp/tom_kasa55/E. ... lless.html

Veteran Joined: Mar 11, 2008 Posts: 351 Status: Offline

Hey, you're preaching to the choir when talking about 'tailless' Very Happy

I've even posted some crude promotional paintshop sketchings of tailless F-15 and F-16 mods here (and elswhere)! lol.

Unfortunately the politics and military industrial complex were too much behind 700+ F-22s and 2,400+ JSF to even consider serious Viper configurations/developments in the future equation.

And I do trust you were comparing such a hypothesized future Super Viper, to a block III Typhoon at the least?!? Maybe a block IV??? Wink

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

Look at this little video on the X-36.. the design sounds very promising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5FaMBS4_AY

Also:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-36.htm

Concerning the large nose idea, in fact it's what the russians did on the mig-29 and su-27 series. The idea is not farfetched.

For sure 30 years ago there was no real advantage to have an APG-65 over an APG-66 since the F-16 was not intended to carry MRAAMs. After that the APG-68 was sufficient for the AMRAAM.

But nowadays it would certainly be a good thing to have a radar with a larger aperture. In particular to shoot an FMRAAM-like missile at max range.

RCS would not necessarily be increased, depends on the how the radome is designed. The F-22 and F-35 have extremely low RCS, yet they have larger radomes than the F-16.

I see the advantages of the F-35, but what I really don't like about it is that it will be available too late. UCAVs will render it obsolete relatively soon I think. Does it really make sense to buy F-35s until 2034 and keep them in service for 30 years after that?

Veteran Joined: Mar 11, 2008 Posts: 351 Status: Offline

Viperalltheway wrote:

Does it really make sense to buy F-35s until 2034 and keep them in service for 30 years after that?

That's the $300 billion dollar question right there. Although it really couldn't/shouldn't be answered today, imo. Perhaps by around 2020 the answer will be better assessed and production rates/schedules restructured if decided?? But it would probably depend on how much future development funding was allocated to it for upgrades and how well it was armed/modernized, etc. (besides the obvious politics/economics of the day).

As far as your argument about the F-35 kicking into FRP too late to fully exploit maximal sales, etc, one of the criticisms is that the 'program' stressed too much to put into production (as an analogy) a block 30 equivalent Viper right off in 1978, instead of the initial simplified block 1/5/10 progressions and going from there incrementally. Hence, substantial R&D budget overruns and schedule delays.

In the end, we might now be starting off with a block 10 equivalent 1978 Viper out the door (vs optimal blk30 desires), just to expedite things? (Sorry if I totally butchered that analogy in over-exaggerations or if it made completely no sense).

Nonetheless, still crossing fingers for the program's best possible success out of respect.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

I don't doubt that the aircraft will be good. But it's not because many countries want it that the USAF needs it!

The main advantage of the F-35 is stealth, and it would be used in a stealthy configuration during the initial phase of a war. And guess what?? During that phase most targets are fixed! So.. UCAVs could do basically the same job.. fly from point A to point B drop the bomb on the fixed targets and return. Doesn't even require a datalink.

The F-22s could go after targets that need man in the loop, provided they have the adequate sensors and weapons.

And progressively UCAVs will become more and more autonomous.

I'm not sure it's the best way to spend those 300 billion.

Newbie Joined: Dec 09, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

Viperalltheway wrote:

I see the advantages of the F-35, but what I really don't like about it is that it will be available too late. UCAVs will render it obsolete relatively soon I think.

I'm not so sure. The Pentagon UAV roadmap towards 2030 mentions no plans for a capable AA - much less multirole - fighter UCAV. Priorities might change of course, but a post 2030 timeframe looks reasonable to compliment and replace older F-22 and F-35 airframes.

Regards,
Bjørnar
Norway

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 942 Status: Offline

The problem with UCAVs is that the decision making has to be either autonomous or remote. This doesn't fit well with air combat or with target of opportunity missions. UCAVs for the foreseeable future will be platforms which will take off, hit pre-determined targets or target areas wit some limited pre-strike or post strike feed back, then return to base. Fighter sweeps, CAPs, more ambiguous mission types will require a manned platform.

Also, there are no UCAVs with the F-35 or the F-22's performance on the road map right now. The designs in service in 2020~30s will be sub-sonic, stealthy platforms with the ability to deliver one or two bombs on pre-defined ground targets with no A2A ability -- designs ala X-47C

Veteran Joined: Mar 11, 2008 Posts: 351 Status: Offline

ViperAll, I tend to agree with most of your viewpoints in that last message and I've been a strong X-45 type concept proponent myself, ever since I heard about it in 2002.

Energo: true, early UCAVs won't have same performance and a2a capabilities as modern multi-role fighters. I don't think ViperAll was making such an implication? He might have been just saying that the popularly quoted $300 billion budget could be better spent by supplementing F-35s with UCAV systems as they become viable for strike role. Hence, does USAF alone really need 1,750+ pre-purchased F-35s for air-dominance role by 2035 when more superior tech could become available by then? Not to mention, some of the F-35s strike deterrence could be more affordably supplemented with such UCAV systems?

Either way, if the US does not press full speed ahead in UCAV R&D, she will be playing major 2nd and 3rd fiddle to Euro, Russian and Asian developers of the tech. And then I'm pretty sure many of us will be here in 2020, whining on F16.net about US buying UCAV platforms from abroad. Very Happy

Significant R&D efforts and investments with intention to deploy should be made, imo.

And Dwight, perhaps one could conceive that by 2020-2023, a UCAV could actually be flying CAP and rather economically, albeit with some expected remote interaction? And 8+ 'small-munitions', e.g., SDB variants would be an equally standard load-out?

Elite Joined: Jun 29, 2005 Posts: 781 Status: Offline

geogen wrote:

And Dwight, perhaps one could conceive that by 2020-2023, a UCAV could actually be flying CAP and rather economically, albeit with some expected remote interaction? And 8+ 'small-munitions', e.g., SDB variants would be an equally standard load-out?

Teranis flys in 2010; a stealth automatic smart UCAV demonstrator designed to replace Tornado. Looks very interesting; shame it will fly at Woomera and not in the UK first Crying or Very sad

Although the Mantis that was announced this week at Farnborough looks like an interesting UVAC; ground runs start later this year.

sferrin wrote:

speaking of low speed high AOA ability. . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwGkHXx8PfI

Shocked

Now THIS is high AOA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4 (0:49 - 1:04)

He might be climbing there just a tad, but still... (A neat cobra follows @ 1:05.)

navav2002 wrote:

I was wondering if you guys had seen this..It's pretty old so maybe all of you have?? I thought I'd post it anyhow as it's a pretty neat "perspective"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za3KfMFKLk

Random and haphazard vs. deliberate and controlled. Wink

(Am I the only one who thinks those Russian demos would look WAY better WITHOUT that damn smoke?)

JCSVT wrote:

Supposedly the F-22 ended up stunning everyone who saw it at both RIAT and Farnborough.

One, because of how damn loud the thing is and two, no one was expecting a stealth fighter that big to perform just as well as the Russian fighters.

Methinks people need to gain a bit of perspective regarding the Raptor's perceived "corpulence":

energo wrote:

checksixx wrote:

There is a reason for it...that isn't it. You all should be able to figure it out though...

Feel free to elaborate.

Regards,
Bjørnar

My guess is because of the stealth, the F-15 was there so the flight could be seen on radar... am I right Checksixx? They supposedly had to put foil tape / strips on the F-117 when it flew to different airshows so it could be seen on radar.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 at Farnborough!