It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why not make a Super F-16?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
We seem to be having some slight problems with the F-22 and the F-35. So I was thinking of foreign aircraft that are operational and I was thinking why not match it with a new super F-16. Have a pair of engines, canards on the front, and thrust vector capability. As well as larger airframe for more fuel like the F-16s that we sold to Israel. Its cheap, easy to produce, and many nations who have used the F-16 would be glad to have such fighter even if the F-35 and F-22 are too expensive or restrictions on military technology fiasco with the U.S. govt. and the British govt. It be similar to the Eurofighter, Griphen, Rafale, F-10, etc.




posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Actually several variants have been tried most noteworthy was the Cranked Arrow or F-16 XL that was intended to fill the role eventualy won by the F-15E

Also the most current incarnation of the aircraft the Block 60 has many of the atributes you are looking for.


In regards to having a larger airframe, then you have the F-15 in essence. While it may be close to the Grippen, it is nowhere near the Eurofighter in terms of capacity even with the upgrades you have suggestion IMHO

[edit on 2/4/07 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
As Fred pointed out the F-16 XL was looked at but not chosen by the military, and in my opinion developing anything more than the Block 60 would be pointless and counter productive. The F-16 as an airframe has pretty much reached the limits of how much it can be upgraded not to mention the aging airframes. Would I like to see the US upgrade a good portion of their F-16's to the Block 60 variant, of course, ideally but really it's unnecessary. The F-35 is coming online and the current Block 50/52 are more than adequate for their role. The F-16 will never be able to fulfill or match the capabilities of the Raptor and I'd rather take an upgraded Golden Eagle any day. I don't know what problems with the F-35 you are referring to unless they aren't built in adequate numbers?

Anyway, such an F-16 as you describe it would be very costly and would almost certainly have to be newly produced. Can you imagine the time, design costs and production costs? You're looking at it entering service when the F-35 does, the US wont buy it as we will start to retire our Falcons by then. And why would any prospective buyer chose this version of the F-16 over our export F-35? Look at the F-16 Block 60 export market.

Basically I think what you're proposing is unnecessary and impractical.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
We seem to be having some slight problems with the F-22 and the F-35. So I was thinking of foreign aircraft that are operational and I was thinking why not match it with a new super F-16. Have a pair of engines, canards on the front, and thrust vector capability. As well as larger airframe for more fuel like the F-16s that we sold to Israel. Its cheap, easy to produce, and many nations who have used the F-16 would be glad to have such fighter even if the F-35 and F-22 are too expensive or restrictions on military technology fiasco with the U.S. govt. and the British govt. It be similar to the Eurofighter, Griphen, Rafale, F-10, etc.


If you do all that to an existing aircraft, you pretty much have an entirely new one anyway..that's easier said than done by the way, right!? good idea, but really not possible, it's actually going to be faster, easier, and cheaper with a new aircraft than doing that radical of a retro-engineered non-stealth aircract IMO.

Peace, Mondo



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
The F-16 has never been designed for refitted Canards. Remamber, change normal layout to canard layout would be equal to design a new one. THE FOCUS OF LIFT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
We seem to be having some slight problems with the F-22 and the F-35. So I was thinking of foreign aircraft that are operational and I was thinking why not match it with a new super F-16. Have a pair of engines, canards on the front, and thrust vector capability.


Sounds like the eurofighter to me ???



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
We seem to be having some slight problems with the F-22 and the F-35. So I was thinking of foreign aircraft that are operational and I was thinking why not match it with a new super F-16. Have a pair of engines, canards on the front, and thrust vector capability. As well as larger airframe for more fuel like the F-16s that we sold to Israel.


While the concept sounds intresting, I can't see the US Air Force spending a lot of money on the R&D with the F-35 already in testing. It's kind of the same mentality as asking the Air Force to buy Another F-15. The F-22 is already coming, so why invest more in it's predecessor.

Tim



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza


Sounds like the eurofighter to me ???


Soooo? You want us to buy the European version?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Yeah its true that theres no point in upgrading something that would be almost equivalent to making a new aircraft and we are having F-22s and F-35s going in production, but it seems that we are having fewer and fewer orders for the aircraft. Long time ago it was like 1,000 F-22s to now ordering less than 200, I believe. Example like that. Any changes in the ordering of the F-35? Have they decrease the number of aircraft they want to buy?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
We seem to be having some slight problems with the F-22 and the F-35. So I was thinking of foreign aircraft that are operational and I was thinking why not match it with a new super F-16. Have a pair of engines, canards on the front, and thrust vector capability. As well as larger airframe for more fuel like the F-16s that we sold to Israel. Its cheap, easy to produce, and many nations who have used the F-16 would be glad to have such fighter even if the F-35 and F-22 are too expensive or restrictions on military technology fiasco with the U.S. govt. and the British govt. It be similar to the Eurofighter, Griphen, Rafale, F-10, etc.

I think it might have something to do with the fact that there are surface to air missiles which are cheap and pleantiful that easily shoot down aircraft such as the f-16.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Did you guys know that F-16 has go M 2.2?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Long time ago it was like 1,000 F-22s to now ordering less than 200, I believe. Example like that. Any changes in the ordering of the F-35? Have they decrease the number of aircraft they want to buy?


I believe the original total during the mid 80's was 750 F-22 Raptor's. Your right the production total has gone down and we need more but some "super" F-16 is not going to make up for the lack of Raptors. As I said earlier I'd rather upgrade current Eagles (which we're doing). Anyway, the total for the F-35 is not yet set in stone but the USAF has not announced any "major" cuts. Last I heard they might cut 70 aircraft off the proposed ~1,770.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
Did you guys know that F-16 has go M 2.2?


Absoulute Mach numbers are at best taken with a grain of salt. It usualy is dash speed and its measured at altitude in a total clean configuration (ie. no external stores etc.)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join