ante_climaxI have read the link. In fact, I have had the article on my hard drive for over 4 years. It specifically mentions the F-16I weight, but so what? The same principle applies, & this statement is as true of both “The F-16 is now crying out for more wing area”. The difference in weight between the F-16I & F-16E is small compared to the difference between either of them & any other version.
It never says the difference is small, It is not, F 16 I is basically block 52++ while the F 16 E is block 60.
And what’s this nonsense about the MRCA being stationed at border airfields in the short-range air-defence role? I’m sure the IAF has more sense than that, especially if it buys the strike-optimised F-16IN.
I never said it will be stationed there always. I said in a scenario like this. If you cannot comprehend what I am saying it is not my problem. I said If it is a mission from a boarder airfield. I guess you do not understand the use of ‘If’.
Dammit, man! Stop clutching at straws! You’re sounding like pfcem.
I am not going to take it as an insult.
BTW – what’s the general opinion of the Lockheed proposal for AAR for the F-16IN, i.e. a conformal tank with integral probe? Is this an acknowledgement that conformal tanks will need to be carried as standard?
Yes i suppose if the IFR probe comes out of the right CFT that means it will be carried as standard.
The bottom line is that that article fails to mention the flight charecteristics, agility etc of a Block 60 compared to earlier block f 16s. If you can give me something that says it dramatically reduces such performance and that the latest block F 16s cannot be considerd as able dogfighters. Then I would admit my mistake and apologise for arguing my point.
Like I said the impetus is on you to prove that it is a poor dogfighter.
ante_climaxThey should by a few AC 130s and Apaches tbf 😎
ante_climaxAir show demos are not a good measure of performance. How much fuel was that aircraft carrying? Enough for the show, landing, & a small reserve. It would never be so light in combat.
The ‘Block 60 is a brick’ lobbyists are yet to show me anything in which a pilot or expert says it has poor handling.
If you have read what Sintra posted then you would know in the link he posted it only mentions the added weight of the F 16 I which is not the block 60.
The claim that it would never be so light in combat depends on the type of mission, range to travel etc. If its an a2a mission from a boarder airfield it may not be filled with full fuel, i think it would do pretty well with 6 AAMS.
ante_climaxHe was talking about block 60. That is as agile as the Block 52 if you watch the video. So its all BS if you ask me.
Btw that’s one of the best F 16 demos ever. Awesome ty.
ante_climaxI won’t believe the aussie airpower review of te SH saying Flankers would eat it alive. The APG 79 makes such a big diff.
ante_climaxI agree with the supplies part. But Russians would have one even if there was no second front.
ante_climaxMuch better review than they have given the Rafale hmm. So its either more F 16s or EF for Greece ?
ante_climaxAnte_climax
I´m aware that you really like the “Block60/70 Indian Viper”, and if the offense his the expression “flying brick”, than i will retreat it.
I will substitute by something like “stacked against the competition in the international market it´s not a particulary good flyer”.Does it matter? Probably not! At least in the competition that you are particulary “aware/close”, the IAF MRCA.
Albeit being touted has a substitute for the Mig-21 in the Indian Air Force, it seems that the operational requirements aim squarely for the role that his fulfiled by the M2000/Jaguar/Mig27. And that was precisely the kind of mission that the Block60 was designed to do (bomb something deep inside Iran while having the ability to deter/destroy every aerial oposition that the IRIAF throws at him). The Block 60 or the IDF/AF Soufas are what we could call the f/A-16.About the “expert opinion”, i wasn´t been a “wise guy” when i spoke of Roy Braybrook, Spey, Riccioni, etc, i simply assumed that they would be something of “well known names” in an aircraft forum!
My bad, sorry for that.
It´s bloody dificult to sumarize two and a half decades of “paper sources” (i have a huge library, that includes by example, almost every Air international that was produced since june 1987, and i would advise the book “fighter fundamentals” that was distributed by Key Publishing), contacts with defense journos, with pilots, with industry commercials, techs, etc. And no, i am not a defense industry analist, professional, whatever. I am just an information collector. And i dont have a Nationalistic “Burguer” point of view, the only aerial “thing” that we have in Portugal (besides of OGMA) it´s the cork industry (when it goes “pop” on a wine bottle)Returning to Spey, Riccioni, et all. They are what his called the “light weight fighter Mafia” and they are the “intelectual fathers/mothers/the all family” of the Viper, just Google and you will find their thoughts on the latest versions of the plane (and forget everything they said about the Raptor).
About Roy Braybrook, 30 years of designing and selling “death and destruction” in the form of the Harrier, Hawk, Jaguar, then twenty more years has a defense journo. Go to “Armada International”, year 2004, Issue 2/2004, “The Complete Guide to Air Defence”, page 2. (http://www.armada.ch/archive/2004.cfm)There are also severall interviews with pilots from severall air forces that confirms the performance “descending curve” that the latest Block´s had. You can find them in the likes of Air Forces Monthly, Flight Global, etc, severall of them have already been mentioned.
Adding to what i´ve mentioned before, you can alway´s look at the operational SQN´s profiles and missions of the “Desert Falcon” and “Soufa”. In the two cases they are strike fighters first with a secondary ATA mission (albeit a robust one). In the case of the IDF/AF the “air defence job” his an Eagle thing, in the UAE it´s a Dash-9 area of “expertise”.
Finishing, if there´s one person who thinks that the Viper his one of those planes that belongs to legend, the likes of the spitfire, the Mustang, the Sabre, the Concord, etc, that´s me. It was an aircraft that marked an era, it was the best of the best in aeronautical technology for a very LOOONG time, in it´s latest blocks it still his a dam good plane, a highly capable one and a very fine contribution to any Order of Battle, and i am one of those that thinks that the USAF could very well have a few more hundreds of them…
But you cant add four tons of empty weight, and every sort of collection of draggy extrusions and pretend that the flight envelope it´s the same of the YF-16, it´s not.
And if i looked like a “wise guy” before, sorry…
Cheers
Thank you for the articles.
It states what you said about the wing loading but it never mentions a thing about how it affects performance.
Also to be noted is that the UAE block 60 is different from the F 16 I of Israel which uses a lower thrust engine as well. Israeli version is not block 60, but an advanced variant of block 52+ tailor build for their needs.
The article neither evaluates the performance of these fighters compared to their earlier counterparts, so your arguement about it being less maneuvarable is not supported.
Also to be noted is that I never argued the point of it weighting more. And i was discussing about block 60s and only UAE have them.
Ty 😀
ante_climaxErr not that clearrrr on that book/
ante_climaxRelated to this discussion Code One Magazine (Lockheed Martin) has an article on the evolution of the F-16 curently online.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2008/articles/jul_08/f16-evolution/index.html
Not really anything new for those familiar with the F-16 evolution but those who are not may find it interesting.
I have quoted it many times. They won’t accept it you will be called a LM fanboy.
ante_climaxI believe that IAF mkis as well as French Rafales might have DACT’d with blk 60s.
IAF said nothing other than that the Emiraties were very professional.
Dunno, must be v. similar. the 35 can carry about 6500kg warload. 5500kg internal fuel. The blk 60 weighs 10tons empty and 21 tons mtow. So payload plus fuel options have to be within this range (11 tons). My guess is about 3.5 tons internal fuel and about 7 tons ordinance.
🙂
Non necessarily. The superhornet, rafale etc are supposed to be excellent in this regard too. as far as the fulcrum is concerned, they seem to have made distinct improvements over the earlier versions. Also remember IAF familiarity , upgrading ability and existing logistics for the birds should help in a BIG way. Plus two engines mean greater safety and normally better TWR.
Not sure about the fulcrum in this regard. Rafale also has excellent maintenance cost so do the Gripen if they are to be believed. The Fulcrums may be improved, but traditionally Russian aircraft are rather maitenance intesnive. Not worth taking the risk in that regard. Also having an entire fleet of Russian AC is hardly ideal.
So far no complaints have been heard about the MKIs either and from red flag, its clear that the IAF flankers have top notch uptimes.
The USAF dude said otherwise. not that I believe him. But may be the truth is between the two ?
Less operating costs because of single engines – yes. more flight hours – no proof (the MKI is an indication to the contrary), better training – no proof, considering the iaf will be training the crew irrespective of the aircraft (russki, US or euro), better readiness – no proof and debatable (again the mki is an indication to the contrary).
All I am saying here is this. Single engine means less cost to operate. Which can result in more training hypothetically, more fight hrs ie. The saved funds can be used for other stuff. Remember how long the IAF had to wait for their new Radars.
ante_climaxA Block 60 in ANY COMBAT (with the exception of point defense ATA)configuration will have a massive problem in “maintaining & creating/regaining energy (speed)”, against the odd MLU…
It´s not just the bloody weight, it has a massive induced drag by every antena/CFT/sensor that protrudes from the airframe, and before someone starts “you can remove the CFT´s and the external tanks…”, fine, then you bomb the end of your own runway, because that´s an aircraft with a dreadfull internal fuel fraction coupled with a very powerfull (and thirsty) engine and one of the worst (if not the worst) thrust/drag relation of every fourth generation designs…
You dont need to go to the MTOW, you just need to go any combat configuration and you are in “Phantom Country”.Even the Block 50/52 can suffer the same “fate”. The variation between a USAF, a Hellenique Air Force and a IDF/AF F-16 50/52 can be has much as 60% of the entire airframe (that´s a strong selling point of the Viper).
I would be the first to say that one of those new Greek Vipers will be dam fast, but that surely doesnt apply to an Israeli “Soufa”.
How about some graphic illustration or expert opinion validating your point :confused:
See the Video typhoon 1 posted in the last page. And tell me that they are flying bricks.
ante_climaxIt is you that claim the block 60 to be an excellent dogfighter even though it was designed with wings and control surfaces for a much lighter aircraft. It is therefore you that have to give a reasonable explanation for how that should be possible.
No according to LM, the plane retains its agility and ability to dogfight. That is the official statement from the maker. If you want to disprove it then you have to state the facts on the contrary.
ante_climaxThe thing is that while the F-16 has got less maneuverable by the version and especially the block 60, the competition has improved.
To say that the Block 60 would be an excellent dogfighter in todays environment goes against all practical experience and knowledge of established aerodynamics.
That the block 60 has not been able to sell to any other country than UAE, while older block 50/52 has sold after it was introduced, can give a hint about its capability vs cost.
It depends on the Foe. I thing it should hold its on against the Migs, Mirages and J 10s of this world but may have trouble against the Rafale and EF in a dogfight. JHMCS will negate a bit of that advantage though.
The block 52 sells more because its cheaper and suits the operational requirements of most of the air forces. A small order of Block 60 will not make sense especially if you are already operating Block 52+.
The F 16-IN will be a block 60 equivalent with a few minor changes, so lets see how it fares against the new Euro Birds in MRCA. I think cost:performance will be a big criteria in that competition.
To say that the Block 60 would be an excellent dogfighter in todays environment goes against all practical experience and knowledge of established aerodynamics.
Unless you can prove otherwise with relevant facts regarding the F 16E, then it will remain just a claim.
ante_climaxVery Very Impressive MM11 🙂
Sign In
