Slovakia's interested for F-16V

[Patriot]

"Block 70/72"

Either 70 or 72. So which one is it?

[basher54321]

Not seen anything conclusive on that yet.

[boilermaker]

No word on whether it will be the GE -135 engines or the older -120s equipping the F16-V

[Boman]

GE-135 is for the F-35A, so for sure not that engine. It will likely be PW100-220E as this is what most European users use.

[marsavian]

Surely for a new build it will either be a GE -129 or a PW -229.

[basher54321]

Yes PW-229 or GE-129 advertised for new builds - the only GE-132 seen was part of Indias Block 70 / F-21 proposal.

[marsavian]

Official unclassified report on why Slovakia chose F-16 Block 70 over Gripen C.

[optimist]

Surely for a new build it will either be a GE -129 or a PW -229.

I thought they are rebuilds on an earlier block?

What happened to 'supercruise' and top speed? Was it just another PR story?
"F-16 aircraft reaches his full network access improved Mach number (a small amount of 1.2/2.0
at high altitude) than aircraft JAS-39 (in a small amount of 1.0/1.4 at high altitude)."

[h-bomb]

GE-135 is for the F-35A, so for sure not that engine. It will likely be PW100-220E as this is what most European users use.

I would love to see you source for an F110-GE-135 powered F-35 please?

[basher54321]

I thought they are rebuilds on an earlier block?

No - some are being upgraded and some will be brand new - e.g. Slovakias would be new builds and Bahrain requested around 19 brand new as well as requesting their existing Block 40s were upgraded (also replacing the engine with GE-129s)

[basher54321]

Official unclassified report on why Slovakia chose F-16 Block 70 over Gripen C.

I may have found the original at https://rokovania.gov.sk/RPO/Material/1702/1

Proposal for the acquisition of new tactical fighter aircraft Part I - unclassified


Translate the page and the document is called Custom Material with the file vlastnymat.docx which is five down under Document Type.

[energo]

Official unclassified report on why Slovakia chose F-16 Block 70 over Gripen C.

A few tidbits in here.

No training with FLIR, BVR, A/G, Link16, AAR or (important) English courses, was part of the Swedish offer, in contrast to the F-16:

As part of training, pilots will be trained in all kinds of air operations, including refueling.
Quality training flying personnel in the US several times higher than training in Sweden.
The successful and
efficient conduct of air operations is in fact necessary to drive to the platform (aircraft) and quality of
weapons and training of flying personnel. Crucial preferred are the entry requirements for training that
allow all pilots selected to attend the training. If a candidate does not reach the required level of current
knowledge of the English language (ECL 85), he provided a basic English course (GET) within 25
weeks.

Gripen and F-16 operating costs were estimated to be similar in a 10 year span:

Total financial expenses in accordance with the submitted draft contract after conversion to
ensure the 10-year operation of aircraft F-16 Block 70/72 is about the same as the total cost of providing
10 years of operation of aircraft JAS-39C/D.

Gripen C was limited in practical swing role missions:

Airspace would be protected to a limited extent, since it is
not possible to simultaneously operate one aircraft against air and ground targets, or would need to
use more aircraft simultaneously. Due to the limited capacity of equipment and fuel (and the related
lower-range tactical and less perseverance in the air) would not be possible to maintain air superiority
over a longer period.

But I'm puzzled with the statement of max speed of Mach 1.4 at altitude ((not a typo as it's written twice):

The maximum number Mach:
F-16 aircraft reaches his full network access improved Mach number (a small amount of 1.2/2.0
at high altitude) than aircraft JAS-39 (in a small amount of 1.0/1.4 at high altitude). This parameter,
along with acceleration and hill-starting ability is a crucial factor in countering air targets. Larger values
of Mach numbers provide shortening capture intruder airspace SR, quickly taking a space countering
means of air attack and rapid response in support of ground troops. For countries with less land area
(such as SR) is the early detection of intruder airspace key.

Curiously, the same reference in relation to the South African evaluations:

The aircraft’s maximum speed is Mach 1.4:

https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/print ... 2000-01-21

Now, I read somewhere long ago that the Gripen C had a Mach 1.4 limit with two bags (which might or might not be true), but this doesn't compute well with above statements.

[playloud]

But I'm puzzled with the statement of max speed of Mach 1.4 at altitude ((not a typo as it's written twice):

The maximum number Mach:
F-16 aircraft reaches his full network access improved Mach number (a small amount of 1.2/2.0
at high altitude) than aircraft JAS-39 (in a small amount of 1.0/1.4 at high altitude). This parameter,
along with acceleration and hill-starting ability is a crucial factor in countering air targets. Larger values
of Mach numbers provide shortening capture intruder airspace SR, quickly taking a space countering
means of air attack and rapid response in support of ground troops. For countries with less land area
(such as SR) is the early detection of intruder airspace key.

Curiously, the same reference in relation to the South African evaluations:

The aircraft’s maximum speed is Mach 1.4:

https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/print ... 2000-01-21

Now, I read somewhere long ago that the Gripen C had a Mach 1.4 limit with two bags (which might or might not be true), but this doesn't compute well with above statements.

That does seem odd. If they were using its max speed with 2 bags, why would they list the Viper at Mach 2.0? They would have to give it the same restriction.

Given that it has been said the Gripen can hit Mach 1 with 4 missiles and a centerline tank in dry thrust, Mach 1.4 with no tank in afterburner doesn't seem right.

[basher54321]

Probably need the full report if that is correct - the actual details of the CAP profile they were using would be useful (assuming that is where it is coming from).

A jet needs a considerable amount to time and fuel to get to top speed - so for example it might not be able to fly to top speed in that profile due to fuel remaining.

[ricnunes]

A jet needs a considerable amount to time and fuel to get to top speed - so for example it might not be able to fly to top speed in that profile due to fuel remaining.

Makes perfect sense to me.