xbarton@sheoak.bcae (Ross Barton.) (06/06/90)
From: xbarton@sheoak.bcae (Ross Barton.)
Re : F-16E, F-16F, "Cranked Arrow F-16's",
Wild Weasel F-16, F-15E Strike Eagle.
In article <15188@cbnews.ATT.COM>
gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
writes:
>They were origionally designated XL for some reason related to their
>redesign ["extra long"? perhaps]. This was back when it was primarily
>a research project. After the USAF decided that it might actually want
>some, they were redesignated F-16F [not E, i believe that the once-proposed
>Wild Weasel variant got that one]. I have seen photos of one of them, i think
>the two-seater, with 'F-16F' on its tail. I don't know if it's still painted
>that way.
>While quite a plane, it's not as capable as the Strike Eagle [F-15E] and was
>never purchased beyond the first two prototypes.
The whole designation system for the USAF, and indeed most aircraft that
are produced in the United States, is all the same (though with a few
exceptions!). The system designates the single seat versions first,
with the two seat versions (ie combat capable trainers that are
essentially the same as the single seaters) second. So for the F-16 the
designations are as follows, with the two seaters alongside their single
seater conterparts :-
F-16A F-16B (Two seater version of F-16A)
F-16C F-16D (Two seater version of F-16C)
The Cranked Arrow F-16 is the same in this regard. ie.
F-16E F-16F (Two seater version of F-16E, or
Cranked Arrow F-16)
Please note that the F-15E (which is discussed below also) is an
exception to the above rule of thumb. This is because there is no, and
never has been, a single seat Strike Eagle. It was intended from the
beginning to be a two seat strike aircraft. This is perhaps why General
Dynamics produced the F-16F anyway, demonstrating a two seater to appeal
to the "extra pair of eyes" syndrome that struct the USAF a few years
ago.
I have seen many photographs of both the single and two seat versions,
in a variety of colour schemes, with F-16E on the single seater and
F-16F on the two seater. Most of these come from Aircraft Mag's such as
Take Off, WARPLANE and WINGS. I think I've seen some pic's in Defence
Update International too. Anyway, I hope this clears up any problems
with designations. If anyone knows for sure that I am wrong, I would
appreciate an Email message with any corrections.
To the best of my knowledge, one each of the E and F versions was
produced. Does anyone know what they are doing with them now???
It is my understanding that the Wild Weasel F-16 never received an
official designation. However I could be wrong about this as we don't
get the same range of magazines, books and other reference gear as you
guy's on the North American Continent (on the other side of "The Pond").
This I find quite frustrating!!! Military aviation research is very
rewarding, if you've got the gear to do it.
I would have liked to see a Wild Weasel F-16, due to its payload,
agility and size. It would be a fearsome Wild Weasel platform, if they
could solve the problem of fitting all the electronics into it. Does
anyone know of how the Israeli's might have or plan to use their F-16's
in this regard?
I would also like to say that I think the USAF made a bad choice by
taking the F-15E over the F-16E. Sure, its got two guy's in it instead
of one, so it's more likely to survive in a mud moving environment. But
did anyone consider that the A-10 is a single seater? Also there are
more F-16's in the air than F-15's (true at the time of proposals too!).
I seem to recall from somewhere (this is a vague memory!) that General
Dynamics were offering an upgrade from standard F-16 format to the much
more capable "Cranked Arrow" format, with a much reduced unit cost as a
result. Since the "Cranked Arrow" F-16E easily out-performs standard
F-16's, in all major flight characteristics (ie. lower drag coefficient,
higher payload capability's, conformal and semi-conformal weapons
carrying, better acceleration, higher top speed, better sustained rates
of turn) wouldn't this have made for a better defensive and strike
capability overall. This seems to be a logical choice, especially over
buying entirely new aircraft, fewer of which have to perform the same
job. Is the difference in performance between F-15E and F-16E great
enough to justify the purchase of the F-15E. In other words can the
current number of F-15E's do as good a job as the F-16E's that could
have been bought for the same price? My opinion is no!
Standard disclaimer applies. My opinions are entirely my own.sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (06/06/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <16212@cbnews.ATT.COM>, xbarton@sheoak.bcae (Ross Barton.) writes: > It was intended from the >beginning to be a two seat strike aircraft. This is perhaps why General >Dynamics produced the F-16F anyway, demonstrating a two seater to appeal >to the "extra pair of eyes" syndrome that struct the USAF a few years >ago. > >I would also like to say that I think the USAF made a bad choice by >taking the F-15E over the F-16E. Sure, its got two guy's in it instead >of one, so it's more likely to survive in a mud moving environment. But >did anyone consider that the A-10 is a single seater? Go get last weeks "Aviation Week," please, and read the review on the F-15E. The avionics on the F-15 are light-years more advanced than the A-10; you need a dedicated WSO to put the iron on the target given all the options available with the FLIR and the SAR, especially when the pilot has his hands full at 600mph in the weeds. The workload is too heavy for one man to handle. The A-10 is a slow, "dumb" tough plane which is designed to kill tanks. It is not designed to go deep in the hinderlands of the enemy and put a string of 2,000lbs on a heavily defended command post. The F-15 was designed to have a HUGE radar from the ground up; it has lots of room in the nose for it. The F-16 doesn't have much room t'all up front for a big antenna, so I understand.
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (06/06/90)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Ross Barton (xbarton@sheoak.bcae) asks, at the end of an excellent
discussion about the model numbers for the F-16XL, aka F-16E and F-16F:
To the best of my knowledge, one each of the E and F versions was
produced. Does anyone know what they are doing with them now???
They're here, at Dryden. We're using them as testbed aircraft for
aerodynamic research. One of them is about to begin the flight phase
of a program studying trans- and supersonic laminar flow, using a wing
glove.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASApage@uicadb.csl.uiuc.edu (Ward Page) (06/06/90)
From: page@uicadb.csl.uiuc.edu (Ward Page) In article <16212@cbnews.ATT.COM> xbarton@sheoak.bcae (Ross Barton.) writes: > > >The Cranked Arrow F-16 is the same in this regard. ie. > > F-16E F-16F (Two seater version of F-16E, or > Cranked Arrow F-16) > >I have seen many photographs of both the single and two seat versions, >in a variety of colour schemes, with F-16E on the single seater and >F-16F on the two seater. The F-16E desgnation was painted on the single seat XL as a marketing ploy. After GD lost the flyoff against the F-15E the Air Force told GD to remove the disignation from the plane and to no longer refer to the XL as the F-16E. Even if the AF had decide to purchase the XL there would not have been an F-16E designation. The F-16F project was for a single seat aircraft to fly low-level interdiction in bad weather conditions. The XL was a great plan but had some problems. The plane was designed ot carry AMRAAMs recessed into the wing roots. It was unclear whether or not the mussiles could be launched safely this way. Also, the balance was way off. The engine was so far back that the forward missile dummies were fill with lead to balance the plane. Ward Page Visual Perception Lab University of Illinois (formerl of General Dynamics Flight Simulation Lab)