F-16 Radar Missile development (AIM-7)

Many thanks for that Meteor - I can see what some comments were about if they had to slow down at lower altitudes to those speeds to jettison the tanks in combat.
Can understand why having lots of fuel is generally better - not sure whether F-35 can use its fuel dump if it really had too in that situation.

It is surprising to me they didn't procure many tanks - because even with the increased performance Wing tanks (when empty) on the F-16 there still appear to be manual limits and lower G (especially roll) - so didn't look like you had the carefree handling you really need in that situation without breaking something. I had noticed in Craig Stephensons MiG-23 shootdown (1992?) - he had ditched both wing tanks but held onto the parent mounted cluster bombs - however a photo from an IDF kill in 1982 shows an F-16A taxiing back with the centreline tank still attached.

It is surprising to me they didn't procure many tanks - because even with the increased performance Wing tanks (when empty) on the F-16 there still appear to be manual limits and lower G (especially roll) - so didn't look like you had the carefree handling you really need in that situation without breaking something.

Basher, if you can tell me specifically the limits you are referring to, I might be able to shed some light in how those limits evolved and why they are necessary.

Unlike current fighters (F-15/16/18/22), earlier fighters were expected to jettison their external fuel tanks before entering combat. They tanks were cheap, flimsy, low G, and expendable. I remember whole fields full of crates of expendable F-4 fuel tanks at Incirlik and Kunsan. Thus it was not expected that Century series fighters would enter combat while still carrying their external tanks. The combat (non-training) air-to-air employment envelope was predicated on a no-tanks configuration.

Keeping a huge amount of bulky external tanks on hand while overseas was a logistics nightmare, especially on an aircraft carrier. There are numerous photos of carriers undergoing replenishment while at Yankee Station (Gulf of Tonkin), which show the transfer of crates of external tanks over to the carrier.

Meteor, thats not entirely true. Tank Farms still exist and are maintained in WRM state within the AOR. Some assembled some Broke down in storage crates. I have personally certified 500+ in storage F-15, F-16 wing and centerline tanks at PSAB before its closure in 2003.

interesting structuresguy thanks

John will get back asap.

Basher, are you asking me for something?

I really wonder why they wouldn't have kept the gear mounted AIM-7's ? It would seem to add a BVR capability while freeing up the underwing stations either for more bombs, tanks or even more sparrows?

Plus, they just looked cooler

Structural issue I believe. The gear doors wear too fast with the Aim-7's mounted there

Politics - F-15 supporters did not want F-16 to get BVR capability.
Technical - Inboard pylon (4/6) was moved inboard 9 inches for production airplane resulting in reduced clearance for AIM-7 with 370 tank. Tank was also larger.

Loading it looks like an absolute nightmare. No room for a hoist, for a MJ or even for hand loading with the F-16 single MLG door.

As far as I know, all externally mounted and jettisonable ordnance and tanks have some sort of ejection device to separate the ordnance from the aircraft. (The AIM-7s on the F-4 did not simply fall off of the jet, they were ejected in order to get them away from the aircraft.) Does anyone know if the door mounted AIM-7s on the F-16 have any provision for ejecting the missiles?

(Never mind. Dumb post. Just went back and watched the wind tunnel tests and you can see the gas from the carts when the missile is ejected.)

A couple of articles from Code One with the integration of Sparrow onto the F-16ADF and F-16C in the late 1980s


As per the text the AN/APG-66 was modified for the F-16ADF requirement to guide AIM-120 and AIM-7. To support AIM-7s it needed to have an additional Continuous Wave (CW) module installed.

The AN/APG-68 in the C was different in this regards because one of the major changes was the Dual Mode Transmitter (DMT) that allowed guidance of AIM-7 using a Pulse Doppler waveform without the need for CW. This was built into the radar from the start.

F-16ADF First AIM-7 launch

F-16C first AIM-7 launch

It's interesting to see that Code One used an image with an F-16A firing what appears to be a Python missile in the article titled AIM-7 Fired From F-16C.

It's interesting to see that Code One used an image with an F-16A firing what appears to be a Python missile in the article titled AIM-7 Fired From F-16C.

It is a Matra Magic II fired from a Belgian F-16A back in '90-'91. The aircraft was temporarily devoid of markings since it was a company test.

We often hear that the F-35 is a 9g, Mach 1.6 capable airframe even WITH full internal fuel/weapon load.

But what does this really mean? My gut tells me that in that configuration, it does NOT have the same sprightly acceleration, may not be capable of greater than 50 degree AOA, pedal turns etc.. It's simple physics. A heavier aircraft is going to have a much lower thrust to weight ratio, thus affecting many of those parameters.

Is this correct?

It's not just the F-35 though, this would be true of all airframes. Flankers included. In fact, it's going to be worse there with what, 25,000lbs of internal fuel in some cases? The F-35 cadre probably isn't too worried, given its massive SA, stealth and EW advantages over other jets...

It's interesting to see that Code One used an image with an F-16A firing what appears to be a Python missile in the article titled AIM-7 Fired From F-16C.

They had to correct it with this:

Wrong thread Mixel but basically weight does affect performance.