F-16X

[Firefox]

Here is my F-16X. Another photoshop edited pic.

[Nied]

No LOAN nozzel this time? That would seem to fit with the low observable measures you've put into this one.

[Nied]

While we're on the subject of stealthy F-16 variants; has anyone ever seen this pic of an early Block 60 proposal that incorperates the wing from an F-22? Aparently it was abandoned as being too expensive to implement. Mighty cool though.

Edited November 21, 2003 by Nied

[Apollo Leader]

I know Firefox's F-16 is fictional and Nied's F-16 was a proposal that Lockheed had proposed for the international market (I believe it was specifically for a Middle Eastern country), but these kind of RCS reductions are a joke. The 90 degree angle resulting from the single tail and weapons hanging on pylons and at the wingtips would pretty much destroy whatever RCS reduction was achieved.

[Apollo Leader]

General Dynamics ATF proposal failed because they ended up having to go with a single tail in order to get their design to work (resulting in a much larger side RCS)... two tail versions of GD's basic design ran into a whole bunch of aerodynamic problems because they tried to put the tails out in the midsection of the wings.

Edited November 21, 2003 by Apollo Leader

[Nied]

I know Firefox's F-16 is fictional and Nied's F-16 was a proposal that Lockheed had proposed for the international market (I believe it was specifically for a Middle Eastern country), but these kind of RCS reductions are a joke.  The 90 degree angle resulting from the single tail and weapons hanging on pylons and at the wingtips would pretty much destroy whatever RCS reduction was achieved.

Well I think that the RCS redustions are just that: reductions . I don't think that they are actually intended to turn an F-16 into a stealth aircraft, but they would reduce the range at which they could be dected, which is an advantage (the same could be said for the measures taken to reduce the RCS of the SUper Hornet). Just because an aircraft isn't stealthy doesn't mean you can't make it less detectable.

Oh yeah and the Block 60 was first proposed for the United Arab Emerites (though many features from the final version have been incorperated into Hellenic (Greek) Air Force Block 52 Falcons).

Edited November 21, 2003 by Nied

[isamu_dyson]

While we're on the subject of stealthy F-16 variants; has anyone ever seen this pic of an early Block 60 proposal that incorperates the wing from an F-22?  Aparently it was abandoned as being too expensive to implement.  Mighty cool though.

it almost looks like The rafale:

Edited November 21, 2003 by isamu_dyson

[Bad Mother Focker]

An F-16XL DOES exist. I got to see and take pictures of it at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center "Behind the Scenes" Tour. They even let us check out the cockpit. A picture and a description of what NASA did with it is below...

[David Hingtgen]

Re-winging a plane is prohibitively expensive. I'm surprised it was even half-way seriously considered. Cheaper to make a new plane than re-engineer a wing to fit something else. (And it's not like the -22 has all that wonderful a wing). Probably cheaper and more effective to just do F-18-style RCS reduction. (RAM in the intake is a good place to start with that curved big inlet)

Anyways---yup, tails are the #1 problem for stealth. Best solution is no tail at all. Which is why the B-2 is the stealthiest plane, and will be for quite some time. YF-23 is far stealthier than the -22/32/35, due to having only 2 fins, and at a very shallow angle. Big vertical fins=radar reflectors.

Firefox---a key point for "stealth angles" is making them all the same. Don't just put angles whereever. Have like 2 or 3 "angles" for the entire plane, and make every leading/trailing/side edge line up with them. YF-23 is the best example. See how the wings/fuselage/tail all have the same angles? Perfectly parallel. That General Dynamics ATF does it pretty well actually. It'd be stealthy if not for the tail. (and maybe intakes)

[Bad Mother Focker]

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F-1...6XL1/index.html

NASA's single-seat F-16XL (ship #1), tail number 849, is stationed at Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. It arrived at Dryden on March 10, 1989, from General Dynamics in Fort Worth, TX. The aircraft was most recently used in the Cranked-Arrow Wing Aerodynamics Project (CAWAP) to test boundary layer pressures and distribution. The modified airplane featured a delta "cranked-arrow" wing with strips of tubing along the leading edge to the trailing edge to sense static on the wing and obtain pressure distribution data. The right wing received data on pressure distribution and the left wing had three types of instrumentation - preston tubes to measure local skin friction, boundary layer rakes to measure boundary layer profiles (the layer where the air interacts with the surfaces of a moving aircraft), and hot films to determine boundary layer transition locations. The first flight of CAWAP occurred on November 21, 1995, and the test program ended in April 1996.

[David Hingtgen]

My point would make more sense if I didn't forget the pic:

[Bad Mother Focker]

Here's a couple of YF-23's

[drifand]

Gawd, the YF-23 is so beautiful! It should never have lost the fight... [sheds a tear...]

Here's another pic of the 23 which i managed to find online... S L E E K.

[Mr March]

it almost looks like The rafale:

Damn, I love the Rafale. The french sure knew what they were doing when they built that beauty.

The VF-0D reminds me of a plane similar to the Rafale. I loves it

Edited November 21, 2003 by Mr March

[GreatMoose]

I saw that F-16 re-wing at the paris airshow several years ago when I went during "vendor week". Airshows are SOOOO much better when they're not open to the public.

[Nied]

Re-winging a plane is prohibitively expensive. I'm surprised it was even half-way seriously considered. Cheaper to make a new plane than re-engineer a wing to fit something else. (And it's not like the -22 has all that wonderful a wing). Probably cheaper and more effective to just do F-18-style RCS reduction. (RAM in the intake is a good place to start with that curved big inlet)

Well I've heard rumors that the F-16 has a pretty low RCS as it is (aparently that's why F-16s were one of the first fighters to get the gold tinted canopies, as a measure to further reduce RCS). I could see LM making a serious effort to put a better performing stealthier wing on the aircraft and try to capitalise on it even more.

[muswp1]

An F-16XL DOES exist. I got to see and take pictures of it at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center "Behind the Scenes" Tour. They even let us check out the cockpit. A picture and a description of what NASA did with it is below...

I thought that's what the block 60 reminded me of. That plane never should have lost to the F-15E Strike Eagle.

[Bad Mother Focker]

An F-16XL DOES exist. I got to see and take pictures of it at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center "Behind the Scenes" Tour. They even let us check out the cockpit. A picture and a description of what NASA did with it is below...

I thought that's what the block 60 reminded me of. That plane never should have lost to the F-15E Strike Eagle.

The person who took us to see the F-16XL said "off the record" that the F-16XL was proven superior to the F-15. However, because of "politics", the F-16XL "lost" to the F-15E!

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, the -16XL was better to the -15E. A bit better, not a lot. However, it'd take a lot before it was ready. The F-16XL was only an F-16 as much as the Super Hornet is a YF-17. The F-15E was a D with modified FAST packs. It'd be ready way way sooner, way way cheaper. Now, the -22 vs -23, that's a different story.

An F-16XL is not simply a new wing, it's a new, longer fuselage too. The new wing hides the fact that the fuselage is new. The only F-16 parts it has are the nose and v.stab. (And the engine would be seriously hurting for performance--Block 30C/30D/40 F-16's were lacking for power with a full load, only newer block 50's have equivalent power to a 25/30A/30B). F-15E's were lacking in power until recently with the F100-229E engine. Early F-16XL's I bet would have had little power reserve. (of course, had we gone ahead with more Super Tomcats, with the same engine, there'd be plenty of development and money to improve the F110 even faster)

Also, the whole "F-15E's are still just as good at fighting as an F-15C" sounds really, really good to people. (Even though it'll likely never happen that an F-15E will engage in a fight with a MiG, etc). Cant say that for an XL.

(I am not anti-XL or anything, I love F-16's (and -15)'s) Just pointing out some stuff, and spouting off my opinions.

[Darth Cirrocu]

Also, the whole "F-15E's are still just as good at fighting as an F-15C" sounds really, really good to people.  (Even though it'll likely never happen that an F-15E will engage in a fight with a MiG, etc).  Cant say that for an XL.

Well, Strike Eagle pilots practice defensive and offensive counter-air just as much as they do interdiction, SEAD, and the like.

One of the reasons F-15E units serve as "on-call" fighter squadrons for short-notice deployment is that mission planners get two for the price of one. Need air superiority? Call the Strike Eagles. Need a capable strike fighter? Call the Strike Eagles.

Navy is going with the Super Hornet for much the same reason, I suppose.

Although with the current acquisitions of the F/A-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon seems to be going in the other direction again. Guess there is something to be said for specialization.

[Nied]

The person who took us to see the F-16XL said "off the record" that the F-16XL was proven superior to the F-15. However, because of "politics", the F-16XL "lost" to the F-15E!

The F-16XL actaully had limited super cruise capability, it also carried it's weapons very close to the fuselage without pylons, which combined with the F-16's already somewhat stealhty features made it tough to detect. The Air Force saw all this as a threat to the ATF program. They figured (probably rightly) that an F-16XL, with upgraded avionics and twin engines, would be cheap enough, and close enough to the ATF requirement that congress would cancel the ATF, and give them warmed over F-16s instead. There is some truth to this as the General Dynamics ATF proposal does share quite a few features with the F-16XL.

[Apollo Leader]

Though the F-16XL (or E/F if it had gone into production) would have been neat to have seen gone into service, this is just like the competition between the F/A-18E and the Super Tomcat... the larger, air superiority fighter already has the capacity, range, and power to be turned into a long range strike aircraft. In the case of the F-16 and F/A-18, they are light weight, short range fighters not meant to do the work of an aircraft like the F-111. Also, the F-15E has the extra security of having two engines instead of just one. I'm curious how the XL was "better" then the F-15E.

As for the F-16XL variant being an ATF substitute, considering all the reflective surfaces from its weapons and pylons, it would only have a slightly lower RCS from the front. From any other angle, like GD's ATF entry, it would stand up like a sore thumb. The F-16 and XL probably have a slightly lower RCS then their contemporaries, but only when completely clean. Psuedo stealth does not cut it.

Edited November 24, 2003 by Apollo Leader

[Nied]

The XL had almost half again the range of a normal F-16, was capable of supercruise (very limited but still capable), and carried its weapons in a unique way that made for very low drag and lower RCS.

You are correct in thinking that the F-16 wouldn't be a stealth aircraft which is precisely why the Air force killed it. It would have been close to the ATF requirement but it wouldn't be the ATF (stealthy but not stealth, supercruise but just barely, and an ancient airframe streched to it's limits). In essence it would be more like the Typhoon or the Rafale than the F-22.

[David Hingtgen]

Apollo Leader (I'll watch the tape soon, I swear):

F-16XL's main advantage over F-15 was range. It's a big sleek wing, with a TON of fuel inside. Huge lift/drag ratio, large quantities of fuel, and only one engine. And the enlarged fuselage was for one thing--more fuel. F-15's carry a big chunk of their fuel outside. And even the E often has 3 big huge drag-making externals, even with CFT's. And as Nied said, sleek enough to supercruise under the right conditions. (Though most any F-15/16 will supercruise if totally clean and light---Thunderbirds configuration, etc)

[Apollo Leader]

I've been checking a number of online sources and the range (depending on who you go by) of the F-15E, with CTF and the three extra tanks, ranges from 2,400 to 3,400. The F-16XL is stated as up to 2,800, though I can't find any details on if that is in clean condition or itseld carrying any tanks or weapons. But still, that is some impressive numbers for what started as a light weight fighter, but the numbers that count are the range, amount of fuel for said range, and the weapons load that either the F-15E or F-16XL would carry into combat. Of course there were the issues of commonality of these two aircraft with their predecessors and which one is the better cost savings, too. What would have happened to the XL's performance and RCS if it were carrying LANTRIN pods?

(David, let me know what you think of Rocket Challenge )

[Macross_Fanboy]

Hey, do any of you have pictures of the X-17, the competitor plane that lost to the F-18 Hornet??? I think Northrop Grumman made the X-17.

[Macross_Fanboy]

Oh yeah. The XL isn't as good as the Strike Eagle. The wings didn't have as many hardpoints. Plus, the F-15E is the fast USAF jet besides the Raptor. And the F-15E is a lot faster than the Tomcat. Would have made a good plane for the Navy.

[Apollo Leader]

Hey, do any of you have pictures of the X-17, the competitor plane that lost to the F-18 Hornet??? I think Northrop Grumman made the X-17.

The F/A-18 is Northrop and McDonnell Douglas' navalized version of Northrop's YF-17 Cobra which lost to the F-16 when competing to be the lightweight fighter compliment for the F-15.

[91WhiskeyM6]

A single engine attack fighter like the F-16XL isn't as appealing compared to a 2 engined aircraft like the Tornado and the F-15E "Beagle". With 2 engines, the chance of you surviving an attack from this Tunguska is greater:

[rdenham]

The F-15E is not that much faster than an F-14D; and the F-15's undercarriage would not be good for carrier traps even if it were re-enforced.

Edited November 25, 2003 by rdenham

[Nied]

I've been checking a number of online sources and the range (depending on who you go by) of the F-15E, with CTF and the three extra tanks, ranges from 2,400 to 3,400.  The F-16XL is stated as up to 2,800, though I can't find any details on if that is in clean condition or itseld carrying any tanks or weapons.  But still, that is some impressive numbers for what started as a light weight fighter, but the numbers that count are the range, amount of fuel for said range, and the weapons load that either the F-15E or F-16XL would carry into combat.  Of course there were the issues of commonality of these two aircraft with their predecessors and which one is the better cost savings, too.  What would have happened to the XL's performance and RCS if it were carrying LANTRIN pods?

(David, let me know what you think of Rocket Challenge )

ACtualy the F-16XL had a hell of a lot of load carrying capability. It had 16 hardpoints for bombs mounted almost semi recessed 2 more wing hardpoints, the standard wingtip missile rails, four semi-recessed hardpoints for Sparrows or AMRAAMs, the standard centerline hardpoint (which was wired for weapons), and two hardpoints under the intakes for LANTIRN pods. The only caveat is that if wing tanks were carried only 14 of those 16 hardpoints could be used. Note too that with so many hardpoints semi recessed or held extremely close to the body, the F-16XL could carry quite a warload with very little drag.

edited to correct for my bad memory of the number of hardpoints the XL has

Edited November 26, 2003 by Nied

[Nied]

Just for comparison a standard mission load for an F-15E is 12 bombs mounted on the CFTs, a pair of AMRAAMs on the Sidewinder rails, a pair of Sidewinders on the other two, and a pair of drop tanks below that (plus maybe a centerline tank). A similar loadout for an F-16E would have two more bombs, two more AMRAAMs and the same number of drop tanks.