Current F-16 Versions Are World's Most Advanced Multi-Role Fighters?

[Oryx]

That's why Tomcats swept their wings backwards at high speeds... To reduce lift and ie reduce drag - Same with the Bones.

This is not correct. First, in straight and level flight, the aircraft produces as much lift as is needed to counter its own weight, so this stays constant regardless of the other parameters. If you meant the wing area is decreased due to the sweep, that would mean the lift stays the same but the lift COEFFICIENT increases, which would cause an increase in induced drag, while the smaller wing area would mean a decrease in skin friction and profile drag.

However, those two drag changes are very small compared to the reduction in wave drag you get at transonic and supersonic speeds due to wing sweep regardless of any change in wing area. The reason for sweeping the wing at high speed is therefore so that (a) the swept leading edges reduce the wave drag and (b) the area distribution along the length of the aircraft more closely conform to the area rule, which also decreases wave drag. The reduction in drag in this case is not due to any change in lift.

At low speed (below the transonic regime), the wave drag is insignificant while the other drag components are more important. In this case, a high aspect ratio helps to decrease induced drag, so at those speeds long straight wings are beneficial again and a variable sweep aircraft will fly with its wings in the unswept position. Depending on the wing geometry, there may also be a small increase in wing area in the unswept configuration which will decrease the stall speed of the aircraft.

 

[crobato]

I would believe that's because its got massive thrust to push itself through the atmosphere (also where the 22s are flying is in the rarified atmosphere and therefore less lift at a given velocity when compared to the same velocity at a lower altitude). Lift = inherent drag since the force of lift is acting oposite to the forward velocity vector. That's why Tomcats swept their wings backwards at high speeds... To reduce lift and ie reduce drag - Same with the Bones. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I know a little about fluids and the like. The theory is still good, but there are always exceptions to every rule.

The main benefit of high wing loading at high speeds comes with the ride. The plane don't shake too much or shake into pieces at high speeds so the pilot is much more willing to take the plane to the edge of the speed envelope.

In WWII, fighter planes with high wing loading---usually the German and most American types---are those that are consistently able to outdive planes with low wing loading, making the more maneuverable planes---namely British, Russian and Japanese types---vulnerable to diving attacks.

 

[crobato]

My comments were based on feedback from F-16 pilots.

Still, various people at Occums location may know. After all, they have fixed wing fighter test pilots and flight test engineers on site.

If he/they read this they might deign to answer.

I heard some comments about the Greek pilots not being entirely happy with the new Block 52+ they just got. Even more sluggish than the earlier F-16C/Ds they got? Lost the page for it. Seems like even among the C/Ds, the last versions, which are mainly export ones now, the handling has become progressively worst. Good thing they got HMS and HOBS now to compensate, or at least, obtain those as a later option.

Are not the planes in Fallon, Aggressors using the F-16A airframes? Supposedly these were the embargoed F-16As that were originally destined for Pakistan.

No comfort here for the Su-30 jock though. The likely opponent for an Su-30 given the potential scenarios are still F-16As, PAF F-16A vs. IAF Su-30MKI or ROCAF F-16A Block 20 vs. PLAAF Su-30.

 

[iceman_pk]

i just wanted to know if there is any chance of PAF getting F-16 blk 60 or F-16 NG
does anyone have any info regarding F-16 NG

 

[Tasman]

i just wanted to know if there is any chance of PAF getting F-16 blk 60 or F-16 NG

I suggest that you ask this question in the thread Pakistan Air force News and Discussions in Military Aviation.

The following link indicates that under current plans Block 52 F16s are being ordered by the PAF.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2125.html

does anyone have any info regarding F-16 NG

Try the following link:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1896.html

Cheers

 

[Falstaff]

I heard some comments about the Greek pilots not being entirely happy with the new Block 52+ they just got.

I would now have to say that the Greeks claim not to be happy with anything they receive (another chance to negotiate a bit) had I not read (in one of last year's jdw, please don't make me search) that even the Israelis aren't satisfied with their F-16I which also is Block 52+.

Sure interesting what has become of a lightwight, low tec fighter... One thing's for sure, the Falcon already is a legend- 30 years old and still desirable.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I would say the F/A-18E/F rightfully holds the title of "Most Advanced Multi-Role Fighter" by a wide margin. This would be followed by the most recent versions of the F-15E series, specifically the Singapore variants. 3rd on the list would have to be the F-16 Blk60 with its advanced ECM, weapons options and of course AESA. Following those three platforms would be the USAF/USN F/A-18Cs, F-15Es, and F-16 Blk 52. This ranking is based on a holistic system level view.

I think the Su-30, M2000-5 and Mig-29 SMT come next in that order as multi-role fighters. Again, look at things from the systems level as modern platforms do not fight in isolation or on equal terms with their opponents.


DA

 

[Falstaff]

I would say the F/A-18E/F rightfully holds the title of "Most Advanced Multi-Role Fighter" by a wide margin. This would be followed by the most recent versions of the F-15E series, specifically the Singapore variants. 3rd on the list would have to be the F-16 Blk60 with its advanced ECM, weapons options and of course AESA. Following those three platforms would be the USAF/USN F/A-18Cs, F-15Es, and F-16 Blk 52. This ranking is based on a holistic system level view.

DA

Why is that? What about the latest generation European fighters?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Why is that? What about the latest generation European fighters?

It's because the previously mentioned platforms operate with a much wider variety of weapons, have superior sensors with the implied situational awareness advantages and operate within systems that provide comprehensive sustained logistical/combat support.

The latest generation of European fighters are good in terms of flight performance and recent technological innovations. But they lack the weapons integration versatility of the previously mentioned platforms in terms of their multi-role capabilities and they are certainly behind in terms of sensor performance.

Also, they(ECD) don't operate with the same level of force multipliers in their parent services. It's really hard to rate these platforms without considering they types of support they have available. You will never encounter a warplane in isolation.

None of this means the ECD platforms won't eventually COMPLETELY satisfy their specific user requirements. But if we are doing an open comparison without regard to specific users options and requirements, then they fall short.

DA

 

[Waylander]

I am no expert in aviation themes so I have some questions

Link 16 and the NATO AWACS are not a force multiplier? And how do they differ from the mentioned US force multiplier?

As it comes to weapons integration.
Right now they are integrating or have already integrated:
- Sidewinder
- AMRAAM
- IRIS-T
- ASRAAM
- Meteor
- Taurus
- Storm Shadow
- ALARM
- Brimstone
- HARM
- JDAM
- Paveway II/III/IV
- HOPE/HOSBO
- maybe JSOW

In my eyes this is not a low number.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I am no expert in aviation themes so I have some questions

Link 16 and the NATO AWACS are not a force multiplier? And how do they differ from the mentioned US force multiplier?

As it comes to weapons integration.
Right now they are integrating or have already integrated:
- Sidewinder
- AMRAAM
- IRIS-T
- ASRAAM
- Meteor
- Taurus
- Storm Shadow
- ALARM
- Brimstone
- HARM
- JDAM
- Paveway II/III/IV
- HOPE/HOSBO
- maybe JSOW

In my eyes this is not a low number.

2 things.

1. I never said Link-16 and NATO AWACS aren't force multipliers. If I did and you can provide a quote, I'll correct myself. I doubt you can do that. Also, Link-16 is increasingly becoming obsolete. Platforms like the F/A-18E and next generation F-15's and of course the F-22 and F-35 are being set up for the Wideband Network Waveform which is superior to the legacy Link-16 system in bandwith and isn't limited to push architecture.


2. If we go down that list of weapons and subtract the systems that "will be" or "might be" integrated, some as late as 2012 or later. And compare it to the weapons that are actually integrated on the platforms I mentioned(F-Teens/Mig-29/SU-27). For an incomplete F-Teens weapons list...

# AIM-9 Sidewinder
# AIM-7 Sparrow
# AIM-120 AMRAAMs
# AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles
# AGM-84D Harpoon anti-ship missiles
# AGM-84H SLAM-ER land attack missiles
# JDAM Family
# AGM-154 JSOW (450 kg)
# AGM-65E Maverick
# Walleye ER/DL and Walleye-1
# Paveway Series
# CBU-72 and CBU-59
# Mk.84, Mk.82LD, Mk.82HD, Mk.63, Mk.62, Mk.65, Mk.20 and Mk.83 (450 kg) bombs
# LAU 58 rocket launcher
# SDB
#JASSM
#Nuclear Weapons


You will notice a huge difference. With regard to METEOR and JDAM. METEOR is not operational nor will it be operational until post 2010. Of course we can say its coming, but then we could say the F/A-18E will carry podded DEWs* next decade which it will. To avoid going beyond the scope of the debate, its best to stay with whats actually available now. But I'll throw you a bone. It's not too difficult technically speaking for the ECD to be modified to carry most weapons. It's more of a cost/bureaucratic issue in the case of Typhoon and Grippen. It's nationalism for the Rafale.

Also, with regard to JDAM. Not only are these aircraft not able to carry the full range of JDAMs. They are vulnerable to Selective Availability of the GPS system. This applies to all the GPS weapons like SCALP, Storm Shadow, Taurus, and Enhanced Paveway. Again this takes a systems level view which is how you have to compare these platforms if you want any resemblance to reality.

Also, some of the ECD cannot yet self designate or carry pods to support LGBs! That at least doubles the number of aircraft required today to use these aircraft with laser guided weapons. This will not be rectified until 2008. It's really hard to make an argument for a modern multi-role fighter that doesn't have all weather precision attack capabilities. I think Gripen can though and thats awesome...

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/...1-C3C903C20B97/0/adv_weapons_adaptability.jpg




I hope I've articulated myself in a way that reads objectively and that you can understand. If you have any remaining questions feel free to ask and I'll try my best to clear things up.



Cheers
DA

 

[swerve]

...They are vulnerable to Selective Availability of the GPS system. This applies to all the GPS weapons like SCALP, Storm Shadow, Taurus, and Enhanced Paveway. Again this takes a systems level view which is how you have to compare these platforms if you want any resemblance to reality....

Cheers
DA

I thought all non-US operators were vulnerable to selective availability of GPS, even if using US-built weapons, unless they're using weapons manufactured for the US forces.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I thought all non-US operators were vulnerable to selective availability of GPS, even if using US-built weapons, unless they're using weapons manufactured for the US forces.

That's what I meant. Exported platforms are usually limited in some ways. Sometimes significantly and selectively in the temporal sense.


DA

 

[Tasman]

Also, they(ECD) don't operate with the same level of force multipliers in their parent services. It's really hard to rate these platforms without considering they types of support they have available. You will never encounter a warplane in isolation.

None of this means the ECD platforms won't eventually COMPLETELY satisfy their specific user requirements. But if we are doing an open comparison without regard to specific users options and requirements, then they fall short.

DA

I am probably going to sound really dumb but what does ECD stand for?

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

I am probably going to sound really dumb but what does ECD stand for?

Cheers

It's not dumb. I didn't even know what it meant until I started participating in online forums! It means Euro-Canard-Delta or basically Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. It describes the forward mounted canards and delta-wing configuration.


DA

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[DarthAmerica]

2 things.

1. I never said Link-16 and NATO AWACS aren't force multipliers. If I did and you can provide a quote, I'll correct myself. I doubt you can do that. Also, Link-16 is increasingly becoming obsolete. Platforms like the F/A-18E and next generation F-15's and of course the F-22 and F-35 are being set up for the Wideband Network Waveform which is superior to the legacy Link-16 system in bandwith and isn't limited to push architecture.


2. If we go down that list of weapons and subtract the systems that "will be" or "might be" integrated, some as late as 2012 or later. And compare it to the weapons that are actually integrated on the platforms I mentioned(F-Teens/Mig-29/SU-27). For an incomplete F-Teens weapons list...

# AIM-9 Sidewinder
# AIM-7 Sparrow
# AIM-120 AMRAAMs
# AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles
# AGM-84D Harpoon anti-ship missiles
# AGM-84H SLAM-ER land attack missiles
# JDAM Family
# AGM-154 JSOW (450 kg)
# AGM-65E Maverick
# Walleye ER/DL and Walleye-1
# Paveway Series
# CBU-72 and CBU-59
# Mk.84, Mk.82LD, Mk.82HD, Mk.63, Mk.62, Mk.65, Mk.20 and Mk.83 (450 kg) bombs
# LAU 58 rocket launcher
# SDB
#JASSM
#Nuclear Weapons


You will notice a huge difference. With regard to METEOR and JDAM. METEOR is not operational nor will it be operational until post 2010. Of course we can say its coming, but then we could say the F/A-18E will carry podded DEWs* next decade which it will. To avoid going beyond the scope of the debate, its best to stay with whats actually available now. But I'll throw you a bone. It's not too difficult technically speaking for the ECD to be modified to carry most weapons. It's more of a cost/bureaucratic issue in the case of Typhoon and Grippen. It's nationalism for the Rafale.

Also, with regard to JDAM. Not only are these aircraft not able to carry the full range of JDAMs. They are vulnerable to Selective Availability of the GPS system. This applies to all the GPS weapons like SCALP, Storm Shadow, Taurus, and Enhanced Paveway. Again this takes a systems level view which is how you have to compare these platforms if you want any resemblance to reality.

Also, some of the ECD cannot yet self designate or carry pods to support LGBs! That at least doubles the number of aircraft required today to use these aircraft with laser guided weapons. This will not be rectified until 2008. It's really hard to make an argument for a modern multi-role fighter that doesn't have all weather precision attack capabilities. I think Gripen can though and thats awesome...

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/...1-C3C903C20B97/0/adv_weapons_adaptability.jpg




I hope I've articulated myself in a way that reads objectively and that you can understand. If you have any remaining questions feel free to ask and I'll try my best to clear things up.



Cheers
DA

I forgot to mention Link-16 reliance on airborne relay and its (LOS) limitation.


DA

 

[crobato]

I would now have to say that the Greeks claim not to be happy with anything they receive (another chance to negotiate a bit) had I not read (in one of last year's jdw, please don't make me search) that even the Israelis aren't satisfied with their F-16I which also is Block 52+.

Sure interesting what has become of a lightwight, low tec fighter... One thing's for sure, the Falcon already is a legend- 30 years old and still desirable.

I think they complain is basically for something they bought 16 years after and with much controversy from their press and parliament, the actual product actually has lower thrust than the F-16s they bought 16 years before. And perhaps gained a few pounds in the middle too. The Israeli complaint is different. They on the other hand, were dissatisfied with their radar, and of course, originally, they wanted to put their own EL 2032 radars on the plane, but LM and the US didn't want them to do it. The area of focus is towards the radar's SAR capabilities, which is of course, useful if you want to put a bomb into someone's bedroom, but then i think the US may have deliberately curtailed this particular capability to prevent use/abuse thereof.

Sure what is interesting what has become of a lightweight low tech fighter. It has become a high tech heavy weight fighter, and that's not particular good when it comes to the way the plane handles. There is a problem when a successful plane (usually the legends) exceeds its zenith, and like legendary boxers, they start packing in a few pounds on the belly and think they can go box with younger boxers.

For me, personally, the zenith of the F-16 is the F-16 Block 20/MLU. Has the agility and responsiveness, but is backed up reasonably good avionics, BVR support, a robust datalink and IFF.

 

[swerve]

That's what I meant. Exported platforms are usually limited in some ways. Sometimes significantly and selectively in the temporal sense.


DA

Which means that we have to distinguish between US-built aircraft in US service, aircraft operating alongside US forces, & exported US-built aircraft operating independently. The last will not have access to US networked sensors, & any GPS-guided weapons they use, whether US-built or not, will be subject to selective availability of GPS.

The last point is, of course, why India is investing in Glonass.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Which means that we have to distinguish between US-built aircraft in US service, aircraft operating alongside US forces, & exported US-built aircraft operating independently. The last will not have access to US networked sensors, & any GPS-guided weapons they use, whether US-built or not, will be subject to selective availability of GPS.

The last point is, of course, why India is investing in Glonass.

Yes, there are differences as indicated above. They aren't limited to GPS either. However, outside of extreme circumstances like Suez Crisis or Israeli Operations that compromise US National Security interest. It's not often going to be a factor since these are typically allies with similar interest.

DA