Jump to content

F-35 vs F-16


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

You're obviously very passionate about the F-35, I see that.

 

 

Fact is though the F-16 has several key advantages, such as:

 

- blended wing body design

- LERX

- smaller size

- better T/W ratio

- better wing loading

 

The F-35 might have a sort of vortice generating extension near the engine nacelles, but to think that it will generate as strong a votice as the extensive LERXs on the F-16 is ludicrous IMHO. Either way it's not enough to make up for the overall better aerodynamics of the F-16 design.

 

Again I will remind you that the F-16 is considered a better dogfighter than the F-15, and the F-15 features both a wide fuselage and a low wing loading, the F-35 does not.

 

Will you cut it with this crap already? IT IS UTTER NONSENSE. It is as devoid of logic as it is of facts.

 

-Blended Wing Design: Is not a magic

 

-LERX: HOLY CRAP, the F-35 has them too.

 

Small size: They are about the same. That is of the reasons these two planes get compared so much.

 

-Better T/W: Really? At what fuel load in terms of time? The F-135 at AF consumes fuel at slightly higher rate as the -229 in the F-15 and some F-16s. Yet the F-35 can carry 18k of fuel, and the F-135 belches out 48,000lbs of thrust. At any comparable fuel weight I'd expect the F-35 to have a huge T/W advantage. Assuming a conservative 43,000lbs of thrust for the 135 we'd get the following T/W's with the F-16 loaded at max 7200lbs and the F-35 loaded at 9000lbs just to be conservative yet again: 1.11 for the F-16 and 1.13 for the F-35(1.29 if we assume a more likely 48k of thrust.) (weights and thrusts rounded to nearest 1000)

 

Better Wing loading: K. But we dont know how much lift the F-35s body produces, or alot of other things. Alot can be said from the fact that the F-35 can hold a 50deg angle of attack and the F-16 cant even come close to that.

 

 

 

Things not on your list that you conveniently ignored:

 

Thust to Drag: No external weapons or fuel tanks on the F-35

 

The specific lift generating characteristics of the wings/bodies/vortex generators on both aircraft. You just keep spouting design concepts like some kind of aviation thesaurus without putting numbers to them. At the simplest level we dont even know what the CLmax is of either wing.

 

Unknown or unmentioned factors: Alot of things affect turn performance. Even if we had the data to do the calculations we would still only get a estimate. Unless the difference were massive we'd need real life testing with the EM diagrams to know for sure. You cant just single out design features like that and reach definitive conclusions.


Edited by USARStarkey

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, now that we talk aerodynamics to death and scream at each other about it, What else could we compared?

Training will sure be interesting. Like the -22 and the -117, reminiscent of aircraft of the 40 and 50, as a pilot your fist flight on the F-35 will be your first solo. Granted, lots of simulator training but still. Would be nerve racking. Specially if it is your first Operational Squadron.

The -16 has obviously two seater versions, I wonder why they are doing away with that?

 

Maintenance on the -16 was easy, manuals where simple, with good structure and easy to understand. The 117 manuals where terrible. Badly written. Now they use computer instead of paper Technical Orders (T.O.) I wonder how those computer handle with greasy/oily hands?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maintenance on the -16 was easy, manuals where simple, with good structure and easy to understand. The 117 manuals where terrible. Badly written. Now they use computer instead of paper Technical Orders (T.O.) I wonder how those computer handle with greasy/oily hands?

 

The manuals are very easy to work with. Easier than the C-17 in my opinion. And the computers handle just fine with greasy/oily hands.

"There is always a small microcosm of people

who need to explain away their suckage"

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, now that we talk aerodynamics to death and scream at each other about it, What else could we compared?

Training will sure be interesting. Like the -22 and the -117, reminiscent of aircraft of the 40 and 50, as a pilot your fist flight on the F-35 will be your first solo. Granted, lots of simulator training but still. Would be nerve racking. Specially if it is your first Operational Squadron.

The -16 has obviously two seater versions, I wonder why they are doing away with that?

 

Maintenance on the -16 was easy, manuals where simple, with good structure and easy to understand. The 117 manuals where terrible. Badly written. Now they use computer instead of paper Technical Orders (T.O.) I wonder how those computer handle with greasy/oily hands?

 

Well you are already a seasoned pilot in multiple airframes before you ever even LOOK at an F-35 so it is not like you or I strapping into that beast... And any peculiarities that are of any importance will be thrashed out thoroughly using the simulators so I am sure the pilots will have no issues transitioning to the new plane at least as far as flying it goes.. the SYSTEMS on the other hand may prove quite the challenge....

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you are already a seasoned pilot in multiple airframes before you ever even LOOK at an F-35 so it is not like you or I strapping into that beast... And any peculiarities that are of any importance will be thrashed out thoroughly using the simulators so I am sure the pilots will have no issues transitioning to the new plane at least as far as flying it goes.. the SYSTEMS on the other hand may prove quite the challenge....

 

Well not now but eventually new pilots will start with the F-35 as their fist airframe after graduation from initial training.

All new Air Force F-35 pilots have previous experience flying F-15 Eagles, F-16s or A-10 Warthogs. A new pilot without previous fighter experience probably will not go through F-35 training until 2017 or 2018

Lt. Col. Eric Smith, 33rd Fighter Wing operational support squadron commander

(Word doc direct link)


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The manuals are very easy to work with. Easier than the C-17 in my opinion. And the computers handle just fine with greasy/oily hands.

I bet the T.O.D.O. life is a lot easier with computers, posting changes was a pain in the past. Not to mention keeping guys from destroying paper T.O. We had guys that manged to destroy our computer T.O. on the F-117. Guys would drop them from the to of the jet, or use scribes or screws as styluses. Ran over them with AGE, etc.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is though the F-16 has several key advantages, such as:

 

- blended wing body design

- LERX

- smaller size

- better T/W ratio

- better wing loading

 

Out of curiosity, where are you getting the TWR and WL numbers from? Just taking max load?

 

Size doesn't matter much when it comes to agility. You can offset that with control surfaces and thrust. The F-35 is on the smallish side as well, but it's bit denser than the F-16.

 

On the blended body and LERX, I can't help but feel you're overstating things. The difference between the F-16 and F-35 in this area really comes down to side mounted intakes. The F-35's inlets are going to draw air in, so the incoming air doesn't see a big block in the way, it sees something like an airfoil bent in on itself. The inlets are going to provide lift and the width they add to the fuselage is extra lifting surface over the F-16. The F-16 has a bit of an advantage in that its larger, flat LERX's are better surfaces than the corners of the F-35's inlets, but the F-16 has a big rounded single inlet jutting out from underneath. It's basically lowering air pressure where you would get the maximum air pressure under the fuselage. The F-35 (and F-15 for that matter) don't have this impedance.

 

The F-35 might have a sort of vortice generating extension near the engine nacelles, but to think that it will generate as strong a votice as the extensive LERXs on the F-16 is ludicrous IMHO. Either way it's not enough to make up for the overall better aerodynamics of the F-16 design.

I suppose we discussed this in the F-15/Su-27 thread, but I don't think you can just point to a bigger vortex and claim superiority. The LERX exist to support the wing (and lifting fuselage where present). Generating a vortex is a penalty that you strongly want to avoid, it just happens that having just enough of a vortex to prevent separation outweighs the cost of generating the vortex.

 

The F/A-18E has the king of all LERX, and while that makes it hard to beat in instantaneous maneuvers, it falls behind in sustained ones. The big LERX's are just too draggy. The F-35 with its smaller LERX's probably provide the same performance as the F-16 at corner speeds for less drag.

 

Again I will remind you that the F-16 is considered a better dogfighter than the F-15, and the F-15 features both a wide fuselage and a low wing loading, the F-35 does not.

The F-35 certainly has a wide fuselage over the F-16, and we already know wing loading is not definitive.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the F-35 as a direct replacement or competition of the F-16 at all. The F-35 is an increment to the next level of airpower, not just an evolution.

 

That being said: anyone looking to build an effective affordable airforce with a high performance jet for basic interceptors and dogfighters with little upgrade necessary to carry smart weapons has no other choice but to get the F-16, and whats ironic is that this plane is still more practical cost/performance wise at those roles than the F-35.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the F-35 as a direct replacement or competition of the F-16 at all. The F-35 is an increment to the next level of airpower, not just an evolution.

 

That being said: anyone looking to build an effective affordable airforce with a high performance jet for basic interceptors and dogfighters with little upgrade necessary to carry smart weapons has no other choice but to get the F-16, and whats ironic is that this plane is still more practical cost/performance wise at those roles than the F-35.

 

 

 

Dunno the F-35A just seems to me like a 2015 F-16 with a primary A-G role - which is how the USAF sees the F-16 generally anyway. It was also very advanced and dependent on high tech in the 70s.

 

 

Interesting quote from Harry Hillaker:

 

This points up a fallacy that has existed for thirty years, and I’m concerned that it may still exist. Our designs assume clean airplanes. Bombs and all the other crap are added on as an afterthought. These add-ons not only increase drag but they also ruin the handling qualities. They should be considered from the beginning.

 

 

Just interesting that back then they couldn't do the F-35 concept - the F-16 is designed to ditch the drop tanks and fight/egress on internal fuel to get the required performance.

 

 

Some might argue the Gripen is also an alternative in the lower cost segment to the F-16V.

 

 

A clean F-16 head on is quite small - the width of the F-35 at the intakes looks about equal to the F-15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the F-35 as a direct replacement or competition of the F-16 at all. The F-35 is an increment to the next level of airpower, not just an evolution.

 

That being said: anyone looking to build an effective affordable airforce with a high performance jet for basic interceptors and dogfighters with little upgrade necessary to carry smart weapons has no other choice but to get the F-16, and whats ironic is that this plane is still more practical cost/performance wise at those roles than the F-35.

 

I don't see it as a direct replacement nether, but they will do similar roles. I just have a hard time ignoring threads about the F-16. :)

There are other aircraft I think could be as cheap and as capable as the F-16. The problems are maintainability, cost, modifications available, etc. F-16 has become so malleable, every nation has a different version, even if they have a similar blocks.

The thing with the F-35, that it promises a lot of capabilities out of the box, hope in the end it delivers and is not another F-111, which was a great aircraft, but not the jack of all traits they wanted it to be.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, where are you getting the TWR and WL numbers from? Just taking max load?

 

Size doesn't matter much when it comes to agility. You can offset that with control surfaces and thrust. The F-35 is on the smallish side as well, but it's bit denser than the F-16.

 

On the blended body and LERX, I can't help but feel you're overstating things. The difference between the F-16 and F-35 in this area really comes down to side mounted intakes. The F-35's inlets are going to draw air in, so the incoming air doesn't see a big block in the way, it sees something like an airfoil bent in on itself. The inlets are going to provide lift and the width they add to the fuselage is extra lifting surface over the F-16. The F-16 has a bit of an advantage in that its larger, flat LERX's are better surfaces than the corners of the F-35's inlets, but the F-16 has a big rounded single inlet jutting out from underneath. It's basically lowering air pressure where you would get the maximum air pressure under the fuselage. The F-35 (and F-15 for that matter) don't have this impedance.

 

 

I suppose we discussed this in the F-15/Su-27 thread, but I don't think you can just point to a bigger vortex and claim superiority. The LERX exist to support the wing (and lifting fuselage where present). Generating a vortex is a penalty that you strongly want to avoid, it just happens that having just enough of a vortex to prevent separation outweighs the cost of generating the vortex.

 

The F/A-18E has the king of all LERX, and while that makes it hard to beat in instantaneous maneuvers, it falls behind in sustained ones. The big LERX's are just too draggy. The F-35 with its smaller LERX's probably provide the same performance as the F-16 at corner speeds for less drag.

 

 

The F-35 certainly has a wide fuselage over the F-16, and we already know wing loading is not definitive.

 

Exorcet, first of all thank you for keeping your head cool and responding in a respectful manner, you're the type of poster the forum is lucky to have.

 

Secondly, I highlight the importance of size as it relates to the drag caused by the aircraft's wetted area - hence size will always matter.

 

As for LERX and the F-18, I have to point out that the reason the F-18 doesn't do any better in sustained maneuvers isn't because of drag via its LERXs, but rather a much lower T/W ratio than the aircraft you're comparing it with.

 

On the contrary the F-18 would've been much worse off in both instantanuous and sustained maneuvers without its LERXs, as they provide a very high increase in the lift generated by the wings in return for a comparatively miniscule amount of drag, greatly increasing the L/D ratio that the aircraft can achieve.

 

Finally no, wing loading is not by any means definitive, however it is a part of the puzzle and a rather important one if we suspect that the lift pr. area (Cl) over the wings of both aircraft is roughly the same - eventhough I believe that the F-16 does infact also produce more lift pr. area thanks to its highly effective LERXs, whilst the blended wing design should minimize the drag in comparison to the box fuselage design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exorcet, first of all thank you for keeping your head cool and responding in a respectful manner, you're the type of poster the forum is lucky to have.

Thanks, I feel the same.

 

Secondly, I highlight the importance of size as it relates to the drag caused by the aircraft's wetted area - hence size will always matter.

A fair point, though this can be offset by thrust. Neither plane is big in overall box dimensions, but the F-35's fuselage is clearly larger.

 

As for LERX and the F-18, I have to point out that the reason the F-18 doesn't do any better in sustained maneuvers isn't because of drag via its LERXs, but rather a much lower T/W ratio than the aircraft you're comparing it with.

 

Yes, the F-18 suffers for being a navy plane, but it not only has LERX's but a wing with AR ~4, which is high for modern fighters. The wing also isn't very sharply swept.

 

As for the TWR (Wiki - empty)

 

18 - 1.37

 

16 - 1.51 (110% F-18)

 

15 - 1.70 (112% F-16)

 

The gap between the 16 and 18 is similar to the one between the 15 and 16. If bigger is always better for LERX's in sustain maneuverability, then I'd at least expect to see the 18 on par with the 16.

 

On the contrary the F-18 would've been much worse off in both instantanuous and sustained maneuvers without its LERXs

I can agree with this. I am not sure if the LERX's at their current size are best for sustained maneuvers.

 

as they provide a very high increase in the lift generated by the wings in return for a comparatively miniscule amount of drag, greatly increasing the L/D ratio that the aircraft can achieve.

I think this is true when the wings would be approaching AoA limits without assistance. At lower AoA, it's less clear. The LERX are not as efficient as the wings and since they're generating vortex lift, that will impede pressure recovery further back on the fuselage. As the AoA increases and the fuselage surface faces more and more along the direction of the travel, the low pressure on the upper surface goes more and more toward producing drag. The same happens on the wing, but the flow is more laminar and less lossy.

 

Finally no, wing loading is not by any means definitive, however it is a part of the puzzle and a rather important one if we suspect that the lift pr. area (Cl) over the wings of both aircraft is roughly the same - eventhough I believe that the F-16 does infact also produce more lift pr. area thanks to its highly effective LERXs, whilst the blended wing design should minimize the drag in comparison to the box fuselage design.

In the case of F-16 vs F-35, I'm not sure which will have a more efficient wing. The F-35's wing has a good shape with low sweep, but the AR is actually lower than it looks (at least in my opinion). The airfoil of course will also play a role though.

 

In the case of F-16 vs F-18, I'd say the F-18 is probably more efficient, but it doesn't seem to be enough to make it the better turning machine, also keeping in mind its other drawbacks.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all extremely non-technical, guys. The F-16 is a more efficient turning machine than the Hornet as a result of its relaxed static stability. The Hornet sacrifices some of that sustained performance for great low-speed performance. Aircraft design is trade-offs.

 

I don't want to fall down the rabbit hole with you guys, especially not if we're going to make up stuff about "lossy" flow. (No offense. :D) Suffice to say, I look at the F-35 and see some very interesting design choices. I don't think we can easily predict its performance by comparing thrust to weight ratios and wing loading. Aircraft design has changed significantly, and a close look at the design and shape of the wing and the blended intake chines reveals some of their complexity. Things have changed, and many of the F-35's vocal naysayers like Pierre Sprey and the dunces at Airpower Australia have an outdated mode of thinking. Sprey himself predicted the F-15 would out-turn the F-22, with a similar analysis based heavily on thrust to weight ratio and wing loading. Boy was he wrong.

 

As a pilot, I look at this thing not without a bit of suspended awe. Perhaps based mostly in the mystery of the unknown, but I think there is more to this thing than meets the eye, and we've seen very little.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we can't say anything definitive, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss. I'm not trying to sell to F-35's nor trying to trigger a mass sale of F-16's at low prices (though I would like that). I'm just enjoying the forum.

 

On lossy flow, I didn't make that up. The vortex core sees a drop in total pressure due to viscosity which means that pressure recovery in that flow downstream is limited.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=VZWX3NNpmFcC&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=total+pressure+in+vortex+core&source=bl&ots=l7a_TTfElf&sig=S1gocI4XR5mGSR2sGVYfvlEGTL8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PyhUVOauJ4uzyQTZ4oDQBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=total%20pressure%20in%20vortex%20core&f=false

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was interesting.

I assume they do most of this in computers now. It would be cool to see the same test on a F-35 model

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the TWR (Wiki - empty)

 

18 - 1.37

 

16 - 1.51 (110% F-18)

 

15 - 1.70 (112% F-16)

 

The gap between the 16 and 18 is similar to the one between the 15 and 16. If bigger is always better for LERX's in sustain maneuverability, then I'd at least expect to see the 18 on par with the 16.

 

 

 

Using test bench thrust and empty weights you can also have:

 

FA-18E = 1.37

FA-18C = 1.57 (GE-402)

 

F-16C B30 = 1.61

F-16D B42 = 1.18

 

So probably not best to assume too much on that. The thrust is important in a sustained turn - however pushing the CG further back in the F-16 & F-35 significantly reduces the drag!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depends on the F-16 block your talking about. If its block 60/61 the gripen has nothing to trade blows with.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be interesting to do an F-16 vs Gripen NG comparison. Here's the official brochure, spec on page 3.

 

Empty: 8,000kg (17,600lb)

Fuel: 3,400kg (7,500lb)

Thrust: 98kN (22,000lbf)

 

 

What type of comparison? just on simple max T/W at empty?

 

F-16C B30 = 1.61

Gripen E/NG = 1.25

F-35A = 1.37 (Lock Mart)

 

;)

 

 

More seriously - much like the F-16C the Gripen E (NG) has put on weight but counteracts this slightly by having comparable test bench T/W and a better T/D in level flight over Gripen C.

For anybody procuring either the choice is between Gripen E and F-16V - more down to avionics as opposed to raw performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-16V?

Did anyone finally order one? Have they made any actual versions? LM website describes the V version for the ROCAF, seems it would be just a hardware mod for existing blocks ( in this case A/B models block 20)

Also

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/taipei-economic-and-cultural-representative-office-united-states-retrofit-f-16ab

 

We notice that they keep adding equipment to aircraft, making them heavier. ( this has been true for many aircraft). From YF-16 to block 60, empty weight has increase by how much? 5k lbs?

We see the same on the Jas-39. I wonder if the F-35 weight will increase in a decade or the weight will go down?


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No results in book found for lossy." ;)

Well, I suppose that's true.

 

So probably not best to assume too much on that. The thrust is important in a sustained turn - however pushing the CG further back in the F-16 & F-35 significantly reduces the drag!.

Yes, looking at one stat is not going to give you a very accurate picture, but I think the claim was that the F-16 outperforms the 15 in large part due to the LERX over the F-15. The F-18 has a similar size advantage along with what looks like a more efficient subsonic wing.

 

I wonder if the F-35 weight will increase in a decade or the weight will go down?

I don't think the weight gain will be as significant as the F-16's given that that plane started out as an empty shell meant to carry AIM-9's. The F-35 probably won't be able to last in a fighter role though, unless fighter performance remains about where it is now for some reason.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-16V?

Did anyone finally order one? Have they made any actual versions? LM website describes the V version for the ROCAF, seems it would be just a hardware mod for existing blocks ( in this case A/B models block 20)

 

We notice that they keep adding equipment to aircraft, making them heavier. ( this has been true for many aircraft). From YF-16 to block 60, empty weight has increase by how much? 5k lbs?

We see the same on the Jas-39. I wonder if the F-35 weight will increase in a decade or the weight will go down?

 

Taiwan was supposed to be launch customer for the F-16V - so yes upgraded Block 20s. If you want a new build F-16V though - have only seen words to effect of it having E capability without the GE-132.

 

Given empty weight has increased at least 7,500 lbs to current day versions. (E is given at 22,000 lbs)

 

Weight increase is not only down to extra avionics - but structural enhancements / braces. The structure and undercarriage was changed at B40/42 to allow it to carry and with stand carriage of more ordnance in an A-G role it wasn't designed for. If they consider SLEPing some to 12,000 hours than structural weight could increase even more.

 

Use of new composites could improve the structural weight - and computer hardware should get smaller and lighter requiring less cooling in future with still gains in processing power. To assume the F-35 will get heavier is not totally certain unless it requires extra hardware - or structural changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-35 probably won't be able to last in a fighter role though, unless fighter performance remains about where it is now for some reason.

What do you mean?

 

Weight increase is not only down to extra avionics - but structural enhancements / braces. The structure and undercarriage was changed at B40/42 to allow it to carry and with stand carriage of more ordnance in an A-G role it wasn't designed for. If they consider SLEPing some to 12,000 hours than structural weight could increase even more..

All F-16 block currently in use ( except for block 60) have received structural updates and bracing in some way or another. Block 40 and above have the larger landing gear, but it has not stopped blocks 32 and below to carry TGP and other equipment. I think , IIRC block 32 and below used to have some weight limitations on the ground. I only worked limited time on block 25 and even smaller time on block 30 so not sure.


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...