Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

I was reading an article on Taiwan which mentioned that they are debating whether to do a mid-life upgrade on their A/B Vipers or wait until the US sells them some Block 50/52 C/Ds. The article mentions that the upgrades get the A/Bs close to a Block 50/52 C/D? Anyone know what the key differences are between a "souped up" A/B with "equivalent" avionics and weapons and a C/D?

F-16.net Sponsor

http://f-16.net/f-16_users_article19.html

Taiwan is already operating F-16A Block 20s which are pretty much MLU birds. I think the biggest difference between the F-16AM and the F-16C is the engine and radar. F-16Cs all have the APG-68s and later model PW engines as well as options for the GE motors once you get past block 25 birds. There are so many block variants in addition to individual modifications like CUPID and CCIP that is hard to keep track of the differences.

F-16s like the ones from Taiwan or the MLU upgraded older European exemples can well be compared with the later model USAF F-16s. Taiwanese F-16s are somewhat unique in that they are in fact block 30 airframes, but still with the older block 15 tail on them.

A major internal difference is indeed the radar (APG-66 compared to APG-6 Cool

although the first has also been upgraded to some extend with some APG-68 features.

Another difference is the FBW system. In pre-block 40/42 airframes this was a analog system while from block 40/42 it was a digital one. The difference is that the latter system reacts even faster. In normal flying operations you won't notice the difference. It was specifically designed to be connected to the LANTIRN navigation pod to make auto terrain following possible. But since no-one uses that any longer, the advantage of the system is dated.

For the rest these MLU birds are almost as capable as USAF block 40/50 birds (except for radar and engine) with MLU package release (counting MLU 6.1 tape currently) is identical as the USAF CCIP tape.

Greets,

Bjorn wrote:

F-16s like the ones from Taiwan or the MLU upgraded older European exemples can well be compared with the later model USAF F-16s. Taiwanese F-16s are somewhat unique in that they are in fact block 30 airframes, but still with the older block 15 tail on them.

A major internal difference is indeed the radar (APG-66 compared to APG-6 Cool

although the first has also been upgraded to some extend with some APG-68 features.

Another difference is the FBW system. In pre-block 40/42 airframes this was a analog system while from block 40/42 it was a digital one. The difference is that the latter system reacts even faster. In normal flying operations you won't notice the difference. It was specifically designed to be connected to the LANTIRN navigation pod to make auto terrain following possible. But since no-one uses that any longer, the advantage of the system is dated.

For the rest these MLU birds are almost as capable as USAF block 40/50 birds (except for radar and engine) with MLU package release (counting MLU 6.1 tape currently) is identical as the USAF CCIP tape.

Greets,

Didnt know they were originally Block 30 airframes - can see that the Gun port looks F-16C!

Digital FBW is far superior, more reliable data transfer, easier to integrate with newer avionics hardware (no pointless Analog to digital conversion slowing things down), and the use of Fibre Optic cabling means data is not susceptible to RF / EMI interference, and the data rate potential is unmatched.

This may be a little off topic, but has the MLU changed at all since it was first implemented for the EPAF nations? In other words, has the MLU, been, well, updated? I figured there would be a ready market for other radar systems like the APG-80, APG-68 and SABR instead of the older and less capable APG-66. Additionally, I am curious if it's possible to put a new version of the F100 in these birds. I'm just curious as to how much new stuff we can cram in these aircraft.

The MLU itself is constantly updated with different tape releases. On average every 3 years a new tape comes out. Mostly the even numbered tapes are mostly software upgrades while the uneven numbered tapes mostly include the hardware updates. Although the difference is not always maintained 100%.

If you're talking existing hardware, most of the systems haven't been updated. They still fly the APG-66 radar and PW F-100-220E engine. It would be perfectly possible to upgrade these airframes with APG-80 radars as well as PW F100-229 engines. But I presume that most air forces don't seem to be interested to include those compairing the investment and the remaining airframe age. Although most of these airframes are foreseen to fly another 10 to 20 years.

Greets,

discofishing wrote:

I am curious if it's possible to put a new version of the F100 in these birds. I'm just curious as to how much new stuff we can cram in these aircraft.

Yes.

Any Viper that had the F100 can take the newer F100-PW-229EEP.

The F100-PW-100 (Eagle engines) and PW-200 (Pre Block 32 Viper engines) were 'upgraded to' or replaced by PW-220 engines.

PW-220E and PW-220 are identical for this topic of conversation. Most PW-220Es have since been 'merged' into production PW-220A through D, and carry a new letter suffix depending on internal configuration with even newer modules.

The PW-220 was 100% compatible with all previous F100 installations. Airframe connections remained constant between the engines, airflow requirements are still achievable through the Eagle and Viper (Small-mouth) inlets.

PW designed the F100-PW-229 (now offered in EEP trim) to be a 'drop-in' replacement for the previous model F100s. Connections/mountings are the same. Airflow requirements to the engine's max thrust can be still be achieved through the Small-mouth Viper inlets. This would allow any previous F100 user to install the PW-229 as an 'upgrade' to the -100/-200/-220. That is if you have the $5M+ per engine to purchase them. The PW-229 could be put into a Big-mouth GE Viper if a customer wanted, but many connections in the engine bay would need to be modified. The inlet though could stay.

Note; While the PW-220 could be made from the -100 or -200 by installing a 'kit' at the base level, the PW-229 is almost a whole new engine and is not a 'kit-able upgrade'

So far I know the US ANG has purchased 'new' PW-229 engines for their Block 42s (Replacing the 'stock' -220s they were delivered with) After talking with them, the aircraft did need a 'kit' to modify minor details within the airframe. Most were heat related (the -229's bleed-air is hotter than the -220's) The kits were delivered by LM and installed at the respective bases. I'm surprised the USAF has never followed suit, all of their Block 42s are 'non-combat' coded. (IE training only)

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Are there any nations that have gone with the APG-68 as part of their MLU? Perhaps the APG-66V3 is such a substantial upgrade it has parity with the 68? If I had F-16As and wanted to upgrade them with the MLU, I'd definitely want a newer engine as well as an AESA radar. Color moving map display and Scorpion HMD would be high on the list too.

The proposed upgrade for Taiwan's 146 F16-A/B, which is budgeted at [Link pending approval] billion, will include:
AESA radar (SABR or RACR)
JHMCS with AIM-9x
Terma ALQ-213 electronic warfare management systems

Have Glass II

Taiwan decided to NOT upgrade engine to PW-229, as the upgrade budget will be significantly higher with [Link pending approval]

still not a cheap upgrade at around 24 million per [Link pending approval]

discofishing wrote:

Are there any nations that have gone with the APG-68 as part of their MLU? Perhaps the APG-66V3 is such a substantial upgrade it has parity with the 68? If I had F-16As and wanted to upgrade them with the MLU, I'd definitely want a newer engine as well as an AESA radar. Color moving map display and Scorpion HMD would be high on the list too.

Well, this DSCA notification of a MLU package for the Pakistani Vipers, said:

Quote:

The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of 60 F-16A/B Mid-Life Update (MLU) modification and Falcon Star Structural Service Life Enhancement kits consisting of:

• APG-68(V)9 with Synthetic Aperture Radar or APG-66(V)2 radar;

[...]

• 10 APG-68(V)9 spare radar sets.

But this was back in 2006. Pakistan rejected the installation of APG-68 radar due to budget cuts. Since then (IIRC) none other F-16 user had considered the -68 for its Vipers

Regards.

I think that there are differences wrt the airframe structures as well. The MLUs should still be somewhat lighter than the block 50/52 and lack provisions for CFTs as well. Also wonder whether it's really possible to retrofit the AN/APG-80 to the F-16A-D or whether it would require upgrades to the electrical systems, interfaces and possibly a reinforcement of the nose structure. After all NG is offering the SABR for the older Vipers and not the APG-80!?

ktworld wrote:

Taiwan decided to NOT upgrade engine to PW-229, as the upgrade budget will be significantly higher with it....

still not a cheap upgrade at around 24 million per plane...

'Cause adding a new PW-229EEP would put the price about $29/plane.

Cool

TEG

Actually it's not possible to retrofit the AN/APG-80 to the F16A-D. Significant changes to the electrical and other systems were made to accommodate the requirements of the new AESA radar. I believe that the SABR should be a "scaled down" version of AN/APG-80 so that it can "drop-in" to the A-D's

Quote:

Actually it's not possible to retrofit the AN/APG-80 to the F16A-D. Significant changes to the electrical and other systems were made to accommodate the requirements of the new AESA radar. I believe that the SABR should be a "scaled down" version of AN/APG-80 so that it can "drop-in" to the A-D's

It'll be interesting to see which system Taiwan picks. I wonder if they're waiting for the USAF to make a decision.

discofishing wrote:

It'll be interesting to see which system Taiwan picks. I wonder if they're waiting for the USAF to make a decision.

This actually is getting a bit [Link pending approval] Besides Taiwan, at least USAF, Korea, and Singapore are also actively looking at retro-fit AESA options. Taiwanese are starting to feel that they are getting a bad deal, as they will likely be the first to implement, which means they will likely absorb all the initial development costs and risks, and yet have no control or ownership when other countries "share" the results.

Whereas when the UAE paid up the development costs fo F16E/F, they were able to obtain "intellectual property", which means when any other countries, including USAF, wanted to use F16E/F technology, they had to pay the UAE for [Link pending approval]

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

A/B with upgrades vs C/D?