Related 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.

Then why does the F-35 manufacturer’s website still keeps using you-called outdated data in 2009 without any revision like the above information you offered ???

Perhaps you should ask them why their website still uses PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers.

The numbers I posted come from an UNCLASSIFIED 30 Oct 2007 program briefing by Maj “Digger” Davis.

Exactly the oposite.
The Block 50/52+ albeit having better acceleration are out turned at any altitude by any MLU Viper or block 25.

:rolleyes:

Kinetics! That is maintaining & creating/regaining energy (speed), not instantaneous turn performance.

Yes the greater weight of later block F-16s notably degrades their instantaneous turn performance, sustained turn performance not as much AND they able to maintain & regain energy (speed) better…

The Block60 his a flying brick, a ten ton behemoth flying on a 7 ton wings.
At full weight it has the worst weight/wing area relation of any NATO tactical fighter ever, and that includes the F-104G.

If a Block 60 (or ANY block F-16 for that matter) is flying at “full weight” agility isn’t the primary concern…In a typical air-to-air mission the Block 60 isn’t anywhere near “full weight” yet STILL has has 19,000 lbs of military (dry) & 32,500 lbs of afterburning (wet) thrust.

That seems a remarkably low weight estimate for the F-35C. Lockheed Martins website currently says 29300lb (13260kg) for the F-35A, which is lighter.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html

F-35B – 32000lb/14490kg
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35b-stovl-specifications.html

F-35C – 34800lb/15750kg
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35c-cv-specifications.html

Why do people continue to use PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers for the F-35?

PRODUCTION aircraft benefit from a 2+year weight reduction program…

F-35A
40.7%
Empty weight: 26,664 lbs (12,095kg)
Internal fuel: 18,307 lbs (8,304kg)

F-35B
31.1%
Empty weight: 29,695 lbs (13,470kg)
Internal fuel: 13,400 lbs (6,078kg)

F-35C
39.0%
Empty weight: 29,996 lbs (13,606kg)
Internal fuel: 19,145 lbs (8,684kg)

An F-16C with F110 engine gonna fly circles around them.

A EF Typhoon (bigger & heavier than a F-16C block 40/50) will fly circles around said F-16C. A F-22 (even bigger & heavier) will as well.

The minimum size of a fighter today is given by a number of requirements.

One of those requirement being POWER.

Size does have negative effects on performance, as can be seen on both the F-15 and the Suchoi 27.

Quite the opposite. Those are two example of how size does NOT necessarily have such a negative effect on performance. Both have significant advangages over the F-16 AND flown properly can hold their own vs the F-16 in 1-v-1 WVR dogfights

Yes, with more thrust and more wing area, eating away all gains.

No even close to true.

All I try to tell you that the fighter using drop tanks gonna make more use of its thrust and wing area.

No it isn’t. External tanks require MORE thrust & wing area than internal fuel to obtain the same performance.

How does the Suchoi 27 release fuel?

Can’t the Su-27 dump fuel like all US combat aircraft?

Simple logic is not always helpful, especially when multi-variant situations are concerned. That flaws your conclusion. History doesn’t support your points, either. The only ones supporting you are the design team of Suchoi until a few years ago, as they switched to external tanks now, too.

Quite the opposite.

Combat aircraft are concerned about best possible combat performance and other helpful factors (small size), fuel is needed to get there.
Under normal situations, an external fuel tank equipped F-15C will have a higher fuel ratio at combat beginning (after it used basically up all external fuel and dropped the tanks), while the Suchoi 27 have worse and will earlier be forced to disengage (which can be a big issue versus a MR-AAM equipped opponent).

As I have said before, there is FAR too much difference between the F-15 & the Su-27 to make such determinations. You have to compare MUCH more similar aircraft – such as say a F-15 with CFTs vs the same model F-15 without CFTs (note that CFTs are a compromise meant to obtain external fuel but more closely matching the advantages of internal fuel) or a Gripen NG vs the Gripen C or a Mig-29M vs a Mig-29C or a F/A-18E/F vs a F/A-18C/D…

Note that average fighters easily expend their combat fuel in a few minutes.

So geting rid of ‘excess’ fuel isn’t much of a problem then is it.

I think you understood the story wrong, for a big proponent of Suchoi’s design so much adherence to American heroic stories of the F-105 is surprising.

:confused:

15-30% is much more realistic, when the higher number is with empty ET kept.
After some minutes into flight the empty ET is no longer an issue about weight.

More like 30% (+/- a some % depending on specific details) if the tanks are droped as soon as they are empty. More while the tanks are full, less while they are empty – aero drag remains as long as the external tanks are carried but the weight-induced drag is reduced as the fuel in the tanks is burned. AND the longer you keep the external tanks, the GREATER the equivalent % of fuel burned just carrying them (even when empty) is.

Try to stay serious: the “F” doesn’t tell mission. Otherwise F-105, F-111 or F-117 must have been great fighters. Or the F-15E.

I am being serious. The F-35 IS a strike FIGHTER, not a dedicated attack/strike aircraft.

F-105
A fighter-bomber that proved to be a decent fighter when it had to be.

F-111
A fighter-bomber that was in fact intended to be a bomber for the USAF & a fleet defense fighter for the USN.

F-117
It entire designation (both the “F” & the “117”) was a political/national security misdirection.

F-15E
A strike fighter (like the F-35) that is a much better attack/strike aircraft than dedicated fighters (like the F-15A – although it too had a gound attack capability) but STILL every bit a fighter. The F-15E retains the full fighter capabilities of the F-15A-D.

I don’t know why the USAF abandoned the “A”.

It hasn’t abandoned the “A” designation, just the dedicated attack aircraft type.

Note that for a time, the USAF thought it could possibly improve its prospects for more F-22s by calling it the F/A-22…

Wrong. Learn some aviation basics. Don’t be reluctant to learn!

The F-15A couldn’t establish a substantial positive kill ratio over the F-5E.
You forgot that MiG-21 and F-5 were conceived in the 1950s, with the -21 being intended as supersonic point defence interceptor with an engine shortly ahead of the MiG-15s gas guzzler. The F-15, Su-27 and F-22 were designed with combat performance in mind, with technology available 2 to 3 generations ahead. If MiG had an engine available like the AL-31 in 1956, the MiG-21 would outclass every Suchoi 27.
Your comparison is like pitching a 1958 VW Beetle versus a 1995 Golf III, and claiming that heavier cars are more fuel efficient.

I said fighters LIKE the Mig-21 & F-5. The closest thing to that today is the Gripen. You are not seriously saying that the Gripen is the most powerful fighter in the world are you…

Pure flight performance hasn’t been THE determining factor in fighter capability/effectiveness for quite some time…

The F-16C will not make 600nm.

The F-35A will & THAT is its mission goal, not 400nm.

In cruise to the combat. In combat the “internal only” fighter carries more dead weight and volume (try to understand transonic drag!!!).

But is doesn’t NECESSARILY carry THAT much more weight & volume. And weight & drag can be overcome…

For many missions the external tanks have the advantage that aircraft can rapidly transit to best combat weight. If the F-16 is on a CAP mission with 3 big cans (which makes it more sluggish than an A380), it can transit into a nimble dogfighter with the movement of a fingertip.

So can a fighter with greater internal fuel capacity.

Fuel efficiency is no consideration in military operations, as long as combat requirements can be achieved.

Not totally. Just that achieving combat requirements is SO much more important. Which CAN & DOES include fuel efficiency.

It can only tell you, that you use very simple logic, and therefore apparently do not understand the matter entirely. There is much more to the topic, and it is dependent on many aspects (cruise Mach number, altitude profile, engine setting, combat load, mission requirements).

I am using VERY SIMPLE LOGIC in the hope that those that don’t understand MIGHT at least understand the point.

If we talk about about a simple flight from A to B with highest efficiency, yes, a clean design is the best (see A380).

AND THAT IS THE POINT!!!

If we talk a supersonic air combat aircraft, the things are different. Try to understand and do not fall back to layman’s logic!

The only difference is that unlike passenger airliners, combat aircraft are concerned about more than just the best possible fuel efficiency.