I would doubt that until I saw the data. If an F-16 was pulling 9G’s at high speeds, an MK-84 would be putting at least 18,000lbs of force on the few fasteners securing its pylon + aerodynamic forces in numerous directions. Unless I saw it on the 1-2 document, I’d never believe it.

You got me wrong, there are g-limits for ordnance, for example as low as 5,5G for some A/G munitions, and 8,5G for 370 gals etc. However there is no g-limit for the airframe with varying payloads. If I understand it correctly, 7,33G limit for Mk-84 is due to weapon itself is not designed to withstand higher G loads, so same limit should apply to any aircraft carrying it.

Well if you want to use the laser seekers on your JDAMs for better accuracy, you need a pod.

Specifiacally, which current JDAM model has laser seeker integrated?

FYI, the speed limit of the f-16, as most of fixed inlet modern fighters isn’t related to the thrust/drag ratio but to the fact that the fixed inlet can’t handle the airflow coming faster than the speed indicated as “the limit” (add to that speed the safety margins and you could pretty consistently reach speeds like 10-15% higher, like M2.2-2.3 for an f-16 before compressor stall)

Correct. Its not the lack of static thrust, but the lack of dynamic thrust that affects top speed. All current turbine based aircraft reach their top speed because their engines lose so much thrust with increased mach number. Like MSphere stated, inlet configuration is the most decicive factor in top speed. Guessing numbers just for the argument, F-16 may only produce 10% of its static thrust at M2.0 and 30k feet, but it may produce up to 30% in M1.8, and 50% at M1.5. So if doesn’t really matter having 50% increase in overall drag coefficient when aircraft will have 3-4 times more thrust, just because its flying at slightly lower mach number.

Another good example: X-1E achieves M2.0+ with only 26 kN thrust, with straight wing and unimpressive aerodynamics. Why? Because rocket engine does not lose its thrust with increasing speed, and 26 kN is more than enough to overcome all the drag aircraft produces.

Finally! Someone with actual numbers in his hands (albeit incomplete);

Has someone been a naughty boy or am I missing something?

…….
Couple external tanks?

you see a big “1” inside a circle right??? Sometimes, reading the remarks at the right side actually helps when it says “Above 20000 feet, empty tank is authorized to 800 knots/1.8M”. Above 660knots/1.5M, OWS information is invalid..

Limitations such as these usually happen to be shown on the flight envelope graph like this (1 cl tank, 4 empty pylons and 4 aim9s):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217749[/ATTACH]
See the “design limit” line?

If I haven’t misread the document, wouldn’t it be ironic if it turns out that the chubby little stealth fighter will be the one chasing down the mighty tiffy/rafale/gripen/su-35 when they had no option but to instantly turn and run when shot at from outside the range where they can counter?

Maybe they’d have to drop their stores (not cheap if you’re carrying a pair of $10-25 million jamming pods) and scarpa. That could get really expensive if a whole flight of fighters had to dump, turn and run INSTANTLY when shot at like someone intimated earlier in the thread.

Again, the big 2 and 3 in circles leads to remarks. Since 20+ years have passed, i bet they installed the so called “improved radome” on the pods, and lifted that restriction? Also you can see you can’t just drop the pod.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217751[/ATTACH]

Also just noticed the G limits imposed by external weapons too, wow it’s quite restricting dangling your gear out in the wind.

You noticed that now? Yes, F-15 imposes G limits in relation to gross weight, and F-16 imposes AOA limits in relation to payload configuration (see CAT-III limiter)

Your mk-84 restrictions are correct, but for CFT equipped F-15Cs. non-CFT F-15Cs have no such restriction for example (IIRC, too lazy to reopen the manual).

Also, in case you havent noticed, I have posted from F-15E manual, and I carefully choose unlimited payloads. (No EFT for example)

Look at the normal F35 flight profile. I would describe it as a high alt with a quick dive.

So there is very little difference. Both will spend most time cruising at optimum altitude. Only one of them will have more missiles and longer range in the specific config.

It is the typical hi-lo-lo-hi mission with optimal cruise (involves slight climb as wingloading decreases with spent fuel), dive, accelerate and conduct a low altitude penetration mission.

Beware, a rather long post coming:D;

Not necessarily. A Harrier can out-accelerate a Tornado but the Tornado has a much higher top speed – Top speed and acceleration are two different things. Acceleration can have it’s advantages of getting to point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ in a specific time frame but it doesn’t always means it translates into a high Mach figure, an aircraft needs that fine balance of airframe design, aerodynamic efficiency, thrust, engine design amongst other elements.

Acceleration and top speed is not always linked, but harrier is not a good example for this. As others have said, Thrust = mass flow * exhaust velocity; Pegasus achieves most of the thrust is achieved by moving large amounts of air via LP compressors. It doesn’t have convergent-divergent nozzles, clearly pointing out it has subsonic exhaust velocity. Tornado’s engines on the other hand, use afterburners and con-di nozzles to accelerate air exhaust gasses to high supersonic speeds, but have far less mass flow. Also, Tornado has variable intake ramps while Harrier is uses a pitot inlet. Not exaclty an apples vs apples comparison.

It may sound illogical, but even in your example, top speed have a relation to acceleration; For example, if both start accelerating at M0,5 Harrier can be faster in the first 30 seconds, but after 60 seconds, Tornado would have much greater airspeed, because it can maintain his “lower” acceleration to much higher speeds, and in practice have greater acceleration on average. (I am guessing the time, but you got the point)

However F-35 and F-16 are not that different in this regard. Both have fixed inlets, both are single engined and both share similar layout. One with greater top speed, will have significantly greater acceleration as speeds close the the slower one’s top speed.

Wonder how long it’ll take till the sceptics call Billie Flynn a liar too…

Not too long. Now, if you are flying any aircraft (or any object in the air) and pulling 9Gs at 400 knots, you will have 25,15 deg/s turn rate. If you are pulling 7Gs at same speed you will have 19,48 deg/s turn rate. In the past, every single USAF pilot praised F-16’s sustained turn rates, because it was (at most) 2,5 deg/s better than F-15. Now the same USAF pilots say nearly 6 deg/s is not even a measurable difference. I would not only call that a lie, but BS.

The acceleration seems to be at 30,000ft 9,000lb fuel and 2x aim-120 left after dropping the 2×2,000lb
so I would have the f-16 with CFT 6-7,000lb fuel at this stage, may need more, litening and any EW pods and 2xaim-120 on pylons ..the aim9 and drop tank pylons can be debated, the drag has to be in the calc

So according to data you have provided, the acceleraton from M0,8 to M1.25 in 55 seconds is the threshold, for an F-35 at 38500 lb gross with no external stores? Excellent, because we know F-35 has barely exceeded acceleration requirements but have not met the goal, which was 40 seconds; so acceleration is slightly better than 55 seconds. We can use this as basis for any clean payloads, with a basic assumption that L/D remains the same. Also, we now know the condition the acceleration is made, so we can have direct comperison with F-16, which I will later in this post.

Andraxxus seems to be the troll, and a very successful one at that (good show sir!). As if there wasn’t enough subterfuge regarding the F-35 we now need to make up garbage about a 40 year old design based only on drag charts? Its one thing to debate the still unknown F-35, but it takes some serious suspension of belief to say that an F-16 can go Mach 1.8 with that kind of load out when the F-15 Manual restricts it’s air to air loaded top speed at 1.8. Bravo troll, Bravo.

I am impressed. I look forward to more wild assertions based on a single aspect to the exclusion of all other factors as “hard proof”. That takes talent, and I’m glad snafu here was able to recognize it, and recognize you for it of course. That is like taking the highest number shown on my speedometer for my 1976 Ford Pinto as the top speed of the vehicle. If you believe a F-16 loaded like that can go mach 1.8, you probably believed my 76 pinto can go 100 MPH. Its so incredibly, horribly, terribly stupid, That I am bookmarking this page, and will make sure to come back to it to have a good laugh in the future, and keep it in mind for each of you whenever you post. Its stupid. as is anyone who believes it for even a second.

In your example what I am doing is looking at official, ford published manual of your car to get its 0-60 times, and top speed, load and tow capacity. What people are trying to is to find some Pinto drivers, and hope they are telling the truth about their 0-60 times or top speeds. Which as you know in real life, very few car drivers do.

If you have “hard proof” that F-16 cannot do ANYTHING I have claimed, please share it. If you don’t, then save your insultive attitude to yourself and STFU. What is terribly, horribly stupid here is your bias towards provided proof, and your inability to read the charts I have posted. I think you are the ONLY troll here, even bullsh*tting about what F-15 manual restricts, without any source:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217727[/ATTACH]
BAL = Basic aircraft limits, for AIM-9s for both carriage and employment. For AIM-7M, carry it all speeds and fire it up to M2.3 or 800 KIAS.
You are half correct about M1.8; in that it is the max speed PW-100 engined F-15A/C can reach with 4xAIM-9 + 4xAIM-7 config and a Centerline tank pylon. I have posted from PW-229 engined F-15E manual. Welcome to 21st centaury, F-15A flight envelope versus F-15E flight envelope for A-A configuration:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217728[/ATTACH]
Can you read to what speed F-15E can reach with CFT and 8 missiles on STD day conditions? Or do I have to do it for you?

Funny thing is, AIM-120 missile has drag index of 4; a Mk-84 bomb has 9. People have no problems believing F-16 will perform just fine with 6 AMRAAMs, but give a bluescreen when we are talking about 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Mk-84.

I wouldn’t so far as to call him a troll. He’s just someone who isn’t fully aware of the limitations of hanging bombs under wings at speeds approaching Mach 2.

Englighten me.

And whilst I don’t know about the F-15 (i’m fairly certain he’s wrong there though) I do know the F-16 will not reach M1.85 with bombs because it’d disintegrate a fair while before that.

Problem is there. You are certain I am wrong without proof, and I am certain because FM data says so. Reposting:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217656[/ATTACH]
How I am wrong exaclty? If I am wrong, the graph is there for you to explain it yourself. However, the engine type, aircraft weight, payload stated in the aircraft configuration, and the lines for STD day are crystal clear to me.

LANTIRN Pods are also for navigation are a part of not only acquiring targets but feeding coordinates to other guided munitions day and night, recent versions (Litening SE) can share data.
From wiki
….

As wiki states, navigation pod is for Low Altitude navigation in adverse weather or night conditions, and targeting pod is for guiding laser and TV guided munitions to its targets (Like I said before).
-JDAMs use GPS, and they are preprogrammed; does not use targeting pod:

-Dumb bombs use the bombsight generated in hud, which has no relation with LANTIRN at all.

-AGM-154 does not need LANTIRN also, I have personally seen them utilised without pods.

I am aware that there are situations where JSOW or JDAM would need to be retargeted by sniper pods or LANTIRN (is lantirn capable of that BTW?), but thats not always a necessity.

What use is an unarmed F-16, flying with 2 370 gal tanks?

Considered reading to what I have replied? (which is a reply to something I’ve wrote previously)
2x Mk-84 and 2x AAMs is the basic weapons loadout I have selected from the beginning. I meant that payload plus 2x 370gals is good for 688nm radius. (See the page from mission planning section I will be posting later)

There’s no mission where an F-16 has an 814nm combat radius, without aerial refueling.

On the contrary, F-16 can reach 810nm total mission radius even with only 2×370 gals (and 2x mk84 + 2x AIM-9s of course), if entry to combat zone is 800 nm after take off (ie only 20 nm flight is at low altitude). (See the mission radius – entry point graph) There is no mission planning example for CFTs and 2×600 gal + 300 gal centerline tank, and I am too lazy to make a planning myself; however that config will yield 14645 lb of fuel, a 25% increase compared to the given example. I don’t think any calculation is necessary to conclude F-16 will do just fine at 814nm with that fuel load.

…..
As for the 623nm figure it is the 590nm number with maneuvering included as per the mission profile. Othes have calculated it to 613nm but when it comes to the F35 i always use the highest estimates so I can’t be blamed for being biased.

And here are the numbers again, that is the simplified radius where maneuvering is assumed to be at 900-1000km/h (same when i compare the Gripen and others).
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x2000lbs bombs – 623 nm (the 590/584 nm figure + maneuvering)
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x900lbs bombs – ~670 nm (the 610 nm figure + ~15 min maneuvering)
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x500lbs bombs – ~673 nm (the 673 nm figure)

Happy with sources so far? Another interesting thing to add is that the Rafale on penetration mission (strike with heavy load) has a maximum radius just over 1’000nm. That is pretty sick…

I am happy, however maneuvering is part of “combat” so I don’t think its fair to add that to given figure. I will do a comparison sometime just waiting for “opposition” reach consensus on operational range, speed an acceleration. I may have some free time in the next few days, (either that, or a very busy week), and I am hoping to generate a very simplified aerodynamic layout of F-35 by selecting an NACA 64Axxxx airfoil based on the assumption threshold maneuverability values are reached, to find out its maneuvering performance.

@jackster; If you look at the mission planning example I am posting, F-16 will have drag index of 72 and 27610 lb GW at the point of combat zone entry (also example clearly shows EFT drop is in fact planned), and just after the stores release, drag index is 51, and weight is 22290 lbs:

F-16 mission planning with 2xAIM-9s, 2xMk-84s, 2x370gals for 688nm hi-lo-lo-hi mission. This is a given example so dont start with numbers are wrong issue.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217722[/ATTACH]

To all, here are long list rather boring calculations, you can just skip to summary. To make everyone happy, I am assuming F-35 can reach same 688nm combat radius on full internal fuel.

Now going to the acceleration data.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217725[/ATTACH]
For 22000lb weight drag index 50, (just after the stores released condition) we can find F-16 accelerates from 0,79 to 1,25 in 40,5 seconds. Amazingly, 40 seconds was the goal F-35 never achieved.

Personally I am not at all suprised about this. Now lets go the a more advanced level; acceleration at the combat zone entry, where both are still armed with mk-84s.

With drag index 75 (interpolating from 50 and 100 graphs) and 28000lb GW; F-16 accelerates from 0,79 to 1,25 in 71,3 seconds.

Finding Acceleration value of F-35:

acceleraton from M0,8 to M1.25 in 55 seconds is the threshold, for an F-35 at 38500 lb gross with no external stores?

Mission demands combat zone entry at 600nm or at 87% of the mission. %50 fuel is already present on 38500 lb config, so I am adding 13% of the already spent 50%, which makes 1170lb. If we also add the 2000lb bombs, weight at combat zone entry becomes 43670 pounds.
We have 13,4% increase in total mass. Also this is the exact amount of increase in drag, because Lift = Weight for level flight, and Lift/Drag stays nearly the same for minimal AOA changes. This means F-35’s acceleration in combat zone entry is 55*1,134^2 = 70,76 seconds.

Acceleration just before EFT release (which I still say has no use, but lets calculate for the sake of argument)

F-16 is at 29495 lb GW and 132 drag index. by interpolating drag index 100 and 150 graphs, same acceleration takes 107,5 seconds.

By that time F-16 is at 496nm, 72% of the total mission range. Adding 2511 fuel just like in the previous example, and 2x 2000lb bombs. Total weight is 45011 lb, our dimensionless multiplier is 1,16911 both for increase in mass, and increase in drag. 55*1,169^2 = 75 seconds.

Summary;
Performance comparison on a A/G mission to 688nm radius, with 2x Mk-84 and 2xAIM-9 as initial payload.
*F-16 also carries 2×370 gallons to reach this mission range, and it is assumed F-35 will be able to conduct this mission on internal fuel alone.

Comparison of acceleration from M0,8 to M1,25:
Before EFT drop; F-16 = 107,5 seconds, F-35 = 75,17 seconds, F-35 being 43% better than F-35.
At combat zone entry; F-16 = 71,3 seconds F-35 = 70,76 seconds, F-35 being 0.7% better than F-35.
After stores release; F-16 = 40,5 seconds F-35 = 55 seconds, F-16 being 35% better than F-35.

Comparison of max achievable top speed;
Before EFT drop; F-16 = M1,45; F-35 = 1,61; F-35 being 11% better than F-16.
At combat zone entry; F-16 = M1,75; F-35 = M1,61; F-16 being 8,7% better than F-35.
After stores release; F-16 = M1,87; F-35 = M1,61; F-16 being 16,1% better than F-35.

Satisfactory everyone?

you need more fuel than internal and a CFT which is getting close to 1/2 a f-35, the centre line tank is a start and 2 x 600 gal
aim9 and CFT = 0 f-16 = 7
drop tanks 2 x 600 – drag 76 + CLT 25 = 101
lantrin = 54
2x aim-120 = 20
2x GBU-10 34 plus pylon 30 =64
246 ……….about 250

with out any weight/drag frame limits, what was the max speed @ 250 drag? page 161 says it’s subsonic..can you see any mistakes?

when we work this out..we can do weight and sustained turn too

No, math is very accurate, but comparison logic is slightly flawed:

An F-16 with only 370 gal tanks have 688 nm combat radius. For that range figure, F-16 carries 9632 lb of fuel (page 487). On the configuration you made, F-16 carries 12605 lb of fuel. For drag index 250, it would make an additional 252 nm flight, adding 126 nm to combat radius (814 nm). F-35’s undisclosed combat radius is 590 nm with full internal fuel load of 18500 lb. For F-35, to reach 814 nm combat radius, it needs fuel tanks; How many? Assuming “miles per pound” stays same -which is not possible due to increased drag and weight-, it will need at least ~7030 lb of fuel, which equals to 1064 gallons.

Now I am asking: For equivalent scenarios, can F-35 with 4x 600 gallon tanks + 2 external AAMs go supersonic? If drag index system stays same, it means F-35 will be at drag index 162 to match F-16’s range at drag index 246. That is what I was trying to say in my previous posts. Yes, if you overload F-16 too much, its top speed will drop even below supersonic we all know that. However, if you want to overload F-16 to compare with F-35, put equivalent fuel and payload in F-35 too. F-35 cannot carry GBU-10 internally for example; add drag to the external payloads it has to carry.

Another thing is the necessity of targeting pods. Why are you guys put LANTIRN on all configurations you are making? F-35’s internal payload is GBU-31/12/38 JDAMs, mk and cbu series dumb bombs, SDB, GBU-12 and AGM-154 (anything I am missing?). Of all these munitions, only GBU-12’s laser guidance requires targeting pod.

Taking one parameter doesn’t tell the story, the manuals can be downloaded from here and studied
http://publicintelligence.net/hellenic-air-force-f-16cd-flight-manuals/

GR1F-16CJ-1-1 is the exact same manual I am currently posting these values from.

The Saudis has replaced the PW F100-229 engines of the F-15Ss with GE F110-129 engine … what they have done with the PW engines, i think some (many?) must be in good condition. Could they fit them in their F-15Cs to bring them to an new and better combat level – I read about an interview with an F-15 testpilot, who quotes that an clean F-15E (without conformal tanks) with the PW F100-229 engine would be an hard match in an dogfight, even for an F-22 Raptor.
Imagine how an F-15C with the new better responding and much lighter FBW, APG-82 or APG-63 III radar, the new ECM system and the PW F100-229A (with 165KN!) could perform – I really wonder why none is thinking about re-engineing the US F-15C Golden Eagles which should serve for much more years with more powerfull and better engines !?

Greets F-15fan

F-15E has slightly larger and different engine compartment to recieve PW-229. I am not sure about F-15C, but F-15A/Bs cannot accept 229.. Also, F-15E is structurally A LOT stronger than F-15C. If you somehow manage to fit a 165kN engine in a C variant, engines are likely to come out of air intakes on Max AB. even basic 129 kN -229 would be a 20% increase in thrust, and can be too much for C’s airframe to handle.

Actually, sustained turn and acceleration performance of -229 engined F-15E is not any different than -220 engined F-15C. F-15C has slightly better Instantenious turn rates, because same wings are carrying lighter aircraft. Also, both variants have same OWS g-limits but F-15E is heavier, so higher fuel loads or missiles will lower F-15E’s available G more drasdically. For dogfighting, I would take F-15C over F-15E any time.