What would happen if you shove a F-35 engine into a F-16?

Feel free to discuss anything here - as long as it is F-16 related.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

h-bomb

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 02:24

Actually The F119 should fit in theory, it is 1/2 an in narrower... But it would hang out the back like the F16/J79.

To be serious, we need more economical aircraft. Something along the lines of the JAS39E/F Grippen smaller cheaper to operate. Could be used for Air Defense, lead in fighter and dissimilar combat.
Offline

awsome

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 02:56

I wonder what the range of a F135 powered F-16 would be?
Offline

huggy

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 457
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 07:39

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 04:01

kamenriderblade wrote:How do you think the new version of the F-16 would perform?

I'll go out on a limb and say that changing from a 28,000 # thrust engine, to one that has 43,000# will give it more performance.

:wtf:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9848
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 04:10

Yeah but... Would not TWO of 'em engines be excellent - dood. :D
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 05:44

You'd also add more weight with the second engine along with doubling it's basic fuel consumption.

And it wouldn't look like an F-16 anymore, you might as well try to shove the F-35 engines into a F-18 while you're at it.

=D
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 05:46

kamenriderblade wrote:You'd also add more weight with the second engine along with doubling it's basic fuel consumption.

And it wouldn't look like an F-16 anymore, you might as well try to shove the F-35 engines into a F-18 while you're at it.
Ah, so it's a "look" that you're after. :roll:
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 07:12

What makes a aircraft what it is, the fundamental look / design.

Would a F-14 still be a F-14 if you turned it into a single engine aircraft? I doubt it would, it would be some other plane.
Online

popcorn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2894
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 09:53

kamenriderblade wrote:You'd also add more weight with the second engine along with doubling it's basic fuel consumption.

And it wouldn't look like an F-16 anymore, you might as well try to shove the F-35 engines into a F-18 while you're at it.



=D


Sure, over at F-18.net.. :roll:
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1757
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 16:38

h-bomb wrote:Actually The F119 should fit in theory, it is 1/2 an in narrower... But it would hang out the back like the F16/J79.

To be serious, we need more economical aircraft. Something along the lines of the JAS39E/F Grippen smaller cheaper to operate. Could be used for Air Defense, lead in fighter and dissimilar combat.


Yeah, not so much. :roll:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1844
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 18:56

h-bomb wrote:Actually The F119 should fit in theory, it is 1/2 an in narrower... But it would hang out the back like the F16/J79.

To be serious, we need more economical aircraft. Something along the lines of the JAS39E/F Grippen smaller cheaper to operate. Could be used for Air Defense, lead in fighter and dissimilar combat.

The F119 is a supercruise optimized engine. The F-16 type inlet is not optimized for high-subsonic or supercruise high speed airflow into the engine, and so the half the benefit of the F119 is lost, compared to say a F100-PW-232 or F110-GE-132 engine with a modest thrust increase. The -232 is basically the enhanced fan of the F119, combined with other F119 tech, into a F100 footprint. They could probably come up with a diamond shaped intake for the F-16 that would allow improved transonic/supersonic performance, but major flight testing would be needed.

All this comes down to political will and cost The UAE Block 60 came about because they wanted something to balance the F-16I in the region. The Block 60 isn't a cheap jet, and neither is the Mitsubishi F-2. The Block 70 is justified because of Taiwan's geopolitical situation.

I agree with your second point, about the need for a light fighter, but the JAS39E/F isn't viable from an economics point of view. The F/A-50 with F414 engine is closer from a cost/baseline standpoint. The companies involved have to pull their collective heads out of their sixes, and make a real 5th gen aircraft for $30-40m maximum. Then thank Dr Augustine for his advice, and prove him wrong.
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1493
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 19:26

neurotech wrote:
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:As far as costs, I'm saying only upgrade the engine, the base frame, and whatever else they were going to put on the F-16V model.

Make it a F-35 lite effectively, many of the same features minus the whole stealth aspect.

Where is TEG for discussions like this? I hope he's okay.

Cost is the issue. The problem is it becomes a fine line between a F100-PW-3xx and a F135 engine. They can sometimes save costs by upgrading the fan stage, bearings, and hot section, but basically keep the same core.

On the GE side, I've heard they can get some more thrust out of a F110 engine if they really wanted to, using new fan blisks and a upgraded hot stage, for under $1bn but the problem is that the engine wouldn't be directly suitable for a 5th gen or 6th gen aircraft, only for F-16 upgrades.

A factory built F-16V 70 is about $70m according to estimates, a FRP F-35 is about $100m, so there are limits to what they can do in that cost range as far as upgrades to the F-16 design.


So why is a single, lighter, smaller, less capable F-16 25% more expensive than a twin, much more capable F-18?

Umm.. how do you figure that?



Using the FY2013 F/A-18E/F REC flyaway cost of $54M, which seems to be a standard practice in this forum, at least when looking at F-35 costs. Not sure what your F-16V cost number represents though :)
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1844
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 19:54

maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:
maus92 wrote:So why is a single, lighter, smaller, less capable F-16 25% more expensive than a twin, much more capable F-18?

Umm.. how do you figure that?

Using the FY2013 F/A-18E/F REC flyaway cost of $54M, which seems to be a standard practice in this forum, at least when looking at F-35 costs. Not sure what your F-16V cost number represents though :)

Fair enough.

MMRCA F-16IN $50m in 2011, the F-16V Unit Flyaway Cost of $70m is an educated guess. The fly-away cost for the F-16I is hard to find, but figures like $70m (FY2006) but that sounds more like the WSUC. For the F-16E/F was $80m (FY2002) but that is the PUC or Maybe WSUC.

Edit: It is still possible for the F-16V to have a lower UFC, matching the F-16IN but that would depend on a major order (50+ jets) being received, and maybe leaving out proper IRST/EOTS/Sensor fusion, or higher-end mission computers. I suspect that the F-16V will get a capability upgrade beyond the F-16IN, to help make a sale against the competition.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9848
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post07 Dec 2012, 20:21

Should not this thread be on the F-16 forum?
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

Lieven

F-16.net Webmaster

F-16.net Webmaster

  • Posts: 3296
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 15:44

Unread post09 Dec 2012, 22:41

spazsinbad wrote:Should not this thread be on the F-16 forum?

You're right. I moved the thread.
Offline

fiskerwad

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2004, 19:43
  • Location: 76101

Unread post10 Dec 2012, 07:57

I think it would look like this: <a href="http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20261.html">Making the X-32 fly-worthy</a>

fisk
Mipple?
Previous

Return to General F-16 forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest