Really, do you have a source for that? It seems fairly silly not to provide an option to use the data link in the terminal phase.

Actually its silly to use the data link in the terminal phase. The radar that is feeding the datalink with updates are generally not the type that can provide the continuous high resolution and data track rate used for the terminal endgame.

As a design feature, you really should move away from them when it comes to future designs. They add to the radar signature, add drag to the wings and add flexing to the outer wing.

Processor fitted into fighter have nothing to do with the home-pc for several reasons. It does take several years of testing and the related costs to get the certification of something new. Related to that the built-in architecture is always several years late. A second problem is that the software is built to that to get the most performance from that already. So new hardware does mean new software too. In a present fighter you have over a million lines of code already.

Ah, the only sensible post in the lot. The processors, the DSPs, and not the least, the MMICs have more to do with your celphone than in your PC. And I’m not saying this because the celphone also does things like LPI and frequency agility.

In 1991, both ATF contractor teams told USAF that the state of the art for microprocessors and memory would require a technology refresh every 7 years.

Moore’s Law works every 18 months or so.

Where the F-16E might fall short is in instantaneous performance – it is probably less nimble than the F-16A despite having a new FBW control system. As instantaneous performance is more dependent on rate of change of AoA and is essentially measured when the aircraft is in an optimal cruise/lowest drag condition where thrust/drag ratio becomes less important (unless the AoAs are pushed to the limits). Since the F-16E has greater mass – but similar/identical sized control surfaces to the F-16A – the rate of change of AoA will be less than in an F-16A, as it would seem to have a smaller pitching moment – therefore one would think it has lesser instantaneous performance. But an important factor that was ignored by earlier posters is the relative instability of the two jets. The F-16E with a much heavier engine, most likely has a centre of gravity aft of the corresponding postion on the F-16A. This has a significant contribution to instantaneous performance as it will increases the jets pitching moment – aiding in rate of change of AoA. At higher altitudes and supersonic speeds this can become extremely useful as the control surfaces lose authority. But either way if the instantaneous performance of an F-16E is better, equal or worse than the F-16A – its rather irrelavent as instantaneous performance – unlike sustained performance – has become much less important in the world of HMS/HMD and HOB missiles.

The part I marked there is rather strange, actually unbecoming to what is a logical post.

Why? Even FBW has its limits, otherwise the most unstable pieces of aircraft in the world, like the F-117 or the B-2 would be the best handling aircraft in the world. In some ways, an aircraft is similar to a car, you don’t want an excessive tail heavy distribution, which will result in a plane that will handle in a progressively nasty manner as the fuel depletes. When a tail heavy plane tries to move around in a circle, the tail wants to move ahead of the rest of the aircraft. No one really wants an aircraft that is yaw unstable.

If the tail is heavy, guess what, what people do. They put ballast on the front so the weight distribution and center of gravity is preserved. That’s what they do and that’s what makes the plane even heavier. But the F-16E I guess its not necessary to put more ballast, something else like another piece of equipment can do the job. And that is the AESA. The AESA itself is not heavy, but its heat generation and sheer need for power consumption means additional cooling equipment and power transformers to feed it the juice it needs. Power transformers can’t save weight using light weight metals because you can only use ferrite or iron based cores on it. There you go, you got your ballast.

That’s the reason why the Japanese F-2 is also heavy.

However the J-10 is at the moment is limited to the Al-31

J-10s are already testing the WS-10A. They have not followed up on the AL-31FN orders like they did before.

That is a mechanical analysis.

The MiG-21 has no wing LEX, canards do reduce total lift since they reduce the main wing`s lift due to their down wash.

Not correct. Canards actually create vortices, and low pressure phenomena above the wings tend to create lift.

the F-16 has a wing blended body airframe.

The fact that the MiG-21 has no LERX or the F-16 has a wing blended body airframe and has a LERX is totally and absolutely irrelevant to the concept of wing loading.

About the propaganda, the any company pilot or air force will do it, but what Lockheed Martin says is not ilogical, and it is obvious they are saying something that is true

Wrong. Agility isn’t about turn rates. A B-52 has a better turn rate over a MiG-21 at a high altitude. But you don’t call the B-52 more agile.

The concept of agility in aviation often applies to “transient performance” or nimbleness. Certainly having a lot of power improves the sense and feel of being nimble, although your handling in all other power settings suffers from the increased wing loading. Your roll rates for example, would remain the same.

The question is you are refuting Lockheed Martin and GE, both companies say the new F-16E has kept the same level of agility of previous F-16s.

Because they’re advertising for God sakes, and everyone has every right to be skeptical. People tend to treat these issue like religion, like when something is said, its infallible like the Pope. You call these dogma, and people argue on defense and technological issues on the basis of dogma instead of sound technological and scientific analysis.

For the most part, not even LM can beat physics. If you don’t change your wing surface area, then your wing loading has increased substantially. That makes lower speed handling iffy, and not everything is fought or flown on max speeds or on full afterburner. (If you do you will bingo soon.)

In history, there has been many planes that have greatly increased their power and weight while having no change in their wing area. All of them suffered the same basic thing, the plane suffers from lessening agility and handling at lower speeds. An unfortunate side result is also the resulting increase in crashes.

The same analogy goes on cars. Cars that have been hot rodded with bigger engines than their original have a bigger increase in speed, but suffer in handling due to the increased weight, affected weight distribution, and increased weight on the steering wheels. Your braking distances end up being longer as well.

Some people are willing to accept the handling penalties for the big increase in oomph.

For the most part, the lifting area of an F-16 is rather small. A MiG-21 is around 23 meters square. The F-16 is around 28 meters. For example, the Lavi is around 33 meters for the delta wing alone. Canards however is counted as lift but tail planes, which push down, cannot be counted as such. Canards on the Lavi add another 5 meters square. So you got 38 meters against 28 meters. The Lavi is 7000kg empty. That is 7000kg/38 sqr meters vs. 7000kg/28 sqr meters for the F-16A and 9300kg/28 sqr meters for the F-16E.