Visual comparison and contrast with Raptor, Eagle, Viper

The scale is just not right, particularly in profile. The F-16 is longer than the F-35...?

Perusing the -1, the Viper is 49’6” with the pitot included thereby being 18” shorter in length than the F-35.

Copy that. May have to re-create an overlay using a different Viper drawing... but cannot find any 3-view drawings of the F-35 from LM or the JPO / F35.com website or US services... so perhaps just overlaying the images ala what 'shania' did with the photos is the best we can do.

Have amended / added to F-16 DIMENSION post on previous page. SHIRLEY there are credible F-35 Dimensions out there?
LM FAST FACTS FEB 2019: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _2019_.pdf (1.1Mb)

For what it's worth, the one time I have seen a f-35 at an air show, my thoughts were on how bulky and imposing it seemed, especially compared to a f-16. It is sometimes weird to consider them as being in the same "weight class", i.e small and affordable multirole fighters.

I have always wondered why General Dynamics back then did not make an F-16 the size of a Mitsubishi F-2. Greater range, payload and 2 more heavy payload hard points would have made the f-16 much more capable. This would have allowed the Viper to carry 2 drop tanks, 2 x 2k JDAMS, 2 HARMS to suppress pop up SAM threats organically and 2 AMRAAMs. This loadout will allow the Viper to perform self-escort strike without SEAD support or allow a single Wild Weasel Viper to perform both SEAD/DEAD missions.

It's all about the requirements, and meeting those requirements with the lowest cost solution.

I would suggest the following wording:

I have always wondered why the United States Air Force did not require the Lightweight Fighter Competition winner to be able to carry 2 drop tanks, 2 x 2k Mk84 bombs, and 2 Anti-Radiation Missiles (to suppress pop-up SAM threads), plus two radar guided missiles. An F-16 sized to meet these requirements would have been about the size of the Mitsubishi F-2, with greater range, greater payload, and, with the two additional heavy payload hard points, would have made the F-16 much more capable. This loadout will allow the Viper to perform self-escort strike without SEAD support or allow a single Wild Weasel Viper to perform both SEAD/DEAD missions.

Several notes:
1) The resulting fighter probably would not have been lightweight. As a result, at that time in the early '70s, the program would not have survived as it was billed as "cheaper."

2) Radar-guided missiles at that time were no bueno. The F-16 was not permitted Sparrow's until the mid or late '80s as recounted by Gums and others. The reason was that the F-16 would have been seen as competing with the F-15 Eagle in the air-to-air role. That was a non-starter back then. Also... the AMRAAM did not exist at in the early '70s... and the Sparrow was too large / too heavy to mount on the wing tip rails.

Other than those reasons, sure, why not? Whodda thunkit why a company was trying to win a contract by meeting the requirements and offering the cheapest solution to those requirements?

Basically yes - F-16 was designed as a lightweight relatively low cost Air to Air fighter and size was scaled to performance based on the Engine they were using. So e.g. combat radius was met by using external drop tanks which could then be discarded when performance was required.

The USAF did make the F-16 a bit bigger with a more fuel when it was redesigned as Multirole jet before it went into production.

But I mean really the multirole F-16 was the F-16XL and they didn't have the funding to do that. Likewise MSIP IV (Agile Falcon) was also not funded so not like the options have not been there - somebody felt it was better to persevere with the existing F-16A-D design and that was that.

Very PUNy. Here we go Here we go Here we go: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=28954&p=319707&hilit=D5cGomB#p319707

Hey Spaz, thanks for digging out that old thread...

Following up on Basher's post... here is a Viper / Lightning overlay:

F-35 F-16 overlay.png

ETA: removed great. Wish this forum let you strikethrough text...

It

This is quite remarkable. I say that because sitting on the ground, the F-35A looked so much bigger to me than the F-16 (Westover AIr Force Base, Great New England Airshow 2018). Although they weren't in close proximity, the F-35 appeared far larger. It sat much closer to a pair of F-15C's, and looked decidedly smaller.

But this graphic really surprised me. I suppose it gets back to the "thick" fuselage. In comparison to a clean F-16 on the ground, it looks like a tank, LOL. But kudos to the engineers at LM. Both F-15 and 16 pilots had wonderful things to say about it. The F-35A pilot I spoke with came from F-15's, and was quite enthusiastic about his new mount. "90% of what I do in this jet, I could never have done in an F-15..." was his comment.

True true. F-16s were more than enough for threats back then. But times has changed. Without a change in size and weight will it be possible to use modern materials to allow the F-16 wing to support a heavy weapons outboad pylon? This change can allow Vipers to carry 4 HARMs or 16 SDB or 4 Harpoons with wingtip AMRAAMs and 2 drop tanks.

Don't CFTs have the same effect you are looking for at least partially ? F-16 is on its last development legs, unless it's easy and cheap can't see what you suggest being carried out in terms of extra/heavier pylons especially when IRST/jammers have to be carried externally as it is.

True true. F-16s were more than enough for threats back then. But times has changed. Without a change in size and weight will it be possible to use modern materials to allow the F-16 wing to support a heavy weapons outboad pylon? This change can allow Vipers to carry 4 HARMs or 16 SDB or 4 Harpoons with wingtip AMRAAMs and 2 drop tanks.

First you "complained" about "why didn't GD make the F-16 bigger." That question was answered. Now you wonder about using "modern materials to allow the F-16 wing..." First, what modern materials would you suggest? The F-16 isn't made out of modern materials? But WAIT! Don't answer that! Because second... there is an F-16 forum for that. Why don't you take your F-16 questions, that are wholly unrelated to the F-35, to the F-16 forum(s)? Plenty of people would love to yak with you about the F-16 over there.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ae-445494/
SINGAPORE: RSAF deploys F-15, F-16s in three-ship aerial display
https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/get ... emid=72825 [ROTATED 11 Degrees so axis of aircraft are horizontal]

Beautiful shot!

Those big GE F-110's in the F-15... Has anyone ever commented on how much greater performance F-15SG's have, vs. say our F-15C's? I realize the SG is more of an air to ground pounder. But strip off the CFT's and arm her with AMRAAM's and 9x's... must be a real rocket ship.

Almost 60,000lbs of thrust vs. not quite 50,000 in the C has to bring some advantages??

Beautiful shot!

Those big GE F-110's in the F-15... Has anyone ever commented on how much greater performance F-15SG's have, vs. say our F-15C's? I realize the SG is more of an air to ground pounder. But strip off the CFT's and arm her with AMRAAM's and 9x's... must be a real rocket ship.

Almost 60,000lbs of thrust vs. not quite 50,000 in the C has to bring some advantages??

Supposedly the -229s in some F-15Es regularly hit 30,000lbs+.

Always like F-35 variant info so this is an example with extra FREWfrew for my PDF page size. GIF made from PDF below.

Perhaps this version F-35 THREE AMIGOS variants measurement details more useful/informative? GIF made from PDF.