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.

 

High-Flying Troubles - United States Air Force safety record (F-16)

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
the F-5 or the F-16 anything to do with replacing the F-104.


Agreed the F-104 was not considered a predecessor aircraft because, while it had excellent climb and acceleration, its wings were too small, leaving it deficient in range and maneuverability.

IT was also argued that during the 16s development by the Fighter Mafia that air combat beyond the 3 mile range was fantasy in any case. Some members of the Mafia even suggested that the ideal small fighter would have no radar at all, although this was a minority view.

It was in 1971 that Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard started the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program to explore the concept that would end up with the 16 awarded the winner.

The Northrop submission was a twin-engine design(YF-17), in effect using Air Force money to develop a replacement for its F-5 export fighter. So why did they see the need to develop a replacement? To me the simple answer is that the F-5 didn't cut it in the market to be sellable.

On another note Boeing Model 908-909 was also a competitor for the project but was ruled out at the last min due to foreign demand for a twin engine in fear of problems that they had with the F-104 and its high loss rate. Since one of the goals of the program was to validate emerging technologies, Secretary of the Air Force Robert Seamans chose to select the General Dynamics and Northrop entries. So you can blame the Air Force for creating the danger as they decided to push the envelope and when this happens its almost like Newton's law that it will in a sense push back. The failure to pick up on those issues and make changes is a mix though of both parties (USAF & Northrop).




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 




got a challenge

find me more about:

Vought V-1100

and

Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer

also from the LWF competition.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


As in you don't know or your testing me?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The off topic posts must end now. Anyone wishing to file a complaint about any staff actions is more than welcome to use the Complain/Suggestion feature to bring complaints to full staff attention. Further derailing the thread is not acceptable, and this is the last warning that will be given.

Please resume the thread High-Flying Troubles - United States Air Force safety record (F-16). There is absolutely no reason for personal attacks here.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Gentlemen,

Historically there are some links between the F-104 and the F-16, however, they have nothing at all to do with the USAF.

In the first instance the information already presented is correct in that the YF-16 and YF-17 flew off in a competition for the 'low' role in a low/high mixed fighter force. (the argument begun by the Fighter Mafia). Bear in mind that at that stage the F-16 (and F-17) was intended to be a cheap lightweight Air Superiority fighter. This, of course had nothing at all to do with the F-104 in US service.

However, shortly after the YF-16 won that competition, there was a requirement to replace F-104s within the NATO countries. This, as many will recall, was referred to at the time as 'The Sale of the Century' as it was assumed that all the countries that had been operating F-104Gs would all buy the same aircraft and that it would become the de facto NATO fighter. (Lockheed offered the CL-1200 Lancer in competition.) This, in fact did occur and other NATO countries (who had never operated the F-104) joined the band wagon. This is the F-104 connection.

In addition, due to the requirements of the NATO countries for a multi-role capability, the F-16 became heavier and gained its A2G capabilities (something that was not a feature of the US competition) and became a very different bird than had originally been intended. (Just as the F/A-18 is a much different bird to the YF-17). Therefore, it could be said that it was the NATO requirements that turned the F-16 into a multi-role aircraft, and thus the key factor in the ultimate sales success of the aircraft.

Some may remember the first F-16s bought for the US ANG. They were referred to as F-16(ADF) - F-16As without the multi-role capabilities.

It was at this stage that other countries (with, shall we say, a lesser alignment with US/NATO) such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Taiwan, among others decided that they too wanted the F-16. It was these countries that the US Administration offered the downgraded F-16s and F-20s, intending to keep the full capability F-16 firmly on one side of the 'fence'.

That all such countries dismissed the offered alternatives is history and eventually most, but not all, of them got the F-16. (perhaps, in hindsight, their dismissal of the alternatives could well have been linked to something quite different - the offered alternatives were based on US requirements - Air Superiority - rather than NATO requirements - Multi Role, as I don't recall F-20 for instance having much in the way of A2G capability - however, that's just an off-the-cuff thought without researching the multi-role capabilities of the offered alternatives).

I hope that clears up a few historical points.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 24/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

However, shortly after the YF-16 won that competition, there was a requirement to replace F-104s within the NATO countries. This, as many will recall, was referred to at the time as 'The Sale of the Century' as it was assumed that all the countries that had been operating F-104Gs would all buy the same aircraft and that it would become the de facto NATO fighter. (Lockheed offered the CL-1200 Lancer in competition.) This, in fact did occur and other NATO countries (who had never operated the F-104) joined the band wagon. This is the F-104 connection.

[edit on 24/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]


All makes sense to me as this is sorta what me and Harlequin U2U each other about after the mods jumped on the thread (they scare me
). Anyways so the F-104 link is that of the plane that was replaced in a larger # of NATO countries. What years exactly did the sale of the century take place? Canada replaced its CF-104s in 1987 with the F-18 which was extremely new at the time and they helped the USN along with testing the aircraft and so on.

So I guess for a little fun here is the replacement breakdown of the F-104 :
Canada - F-18A
Germany - RF-4E Phantom, Panavia Tornado IDS
Pakistan - 34 F-16A, 12 F-16B
Spain - F-4 Phantoms
Turkey - F-16
Norway - F-16AM/BM
Netherlands - F-16AM
Jordan - Northrop F-5, Mirage F1
Japan - F-15J, F-2
Italy - Tornado IDS
Greece - F-16C/D Block 30
Denmark - F-16 MLU
Republic of China (Taiwan) - F-16A/B, F-CK-1 IDFs, (later on Mirage-2000)
Belgium - F-16AM

If I'm wrong on any of these just let me know. I find it interesting that Canada is the only air force to have gone with the F-18 upon F-104 and F-101 retirement. hmm something to look into.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
US requirements - Air Superiority - rather than NATO requirements - Multi Role, as I don't recall F-20 for instance having much in the way of A2G capability - however, that's just an off-the-cuff thought without researching the multi-role capabilities of the offered alternatives).

[edit on 24/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]


Well the F-20 was A2G capable if that is the question. Or is the question how capable was it in comparison to the F-16 and other options? The only thing that stands out to me is that the hardpoints on the F-20 as a low wing aircraft where able to hold less in size then the F-16s mid mounted wings.

F-20
5 hardpoints with a capacity of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg),

F-16
seven to nine external hardpoints and two wingtip rails
I can't find at this point a clear cut weight for the 16A capacity



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
so we have a photo or 2 of the lancer - but not alot on the Vought V-1100?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Canada_EH,

The 'Sale of the Century' was mid-late 70s (first flight off the SABCA assembly line was December 1978 and from the Fokker line May 79) and since each country committed and ordered individually (rather than a group buy) the contract dates are spread over a couple of years.

Germany went with the Phantom (initially without Sparrow) as the F-4F instead of the F-16.

You would probably have more information than I regarding the Canadian decision, however, I don't think it suited Canada to replace the F-104 at that time, particularly as you had not experienced the same loss problems that had been experienced in Europe. I also seem to recall that Canada had decided that any future fighter would have to be a twin engined design - ultimately F/A-18.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember that when you got F-5, your first choice had been F-4 Phantom, but that the US (at that time) was unwilling to export it to you, something that caused a great deal of agro when they subsequently sold it to Japan.

I have a 1982 reference to the F-16A load - 12,000lb or 15,200lb with reduced fuel load on 9 stations (including the wingtip rails).

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 25/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
...each country committed and ordered individually (rather than a group buy) the contract dates are spread over a couple of years.


Thats sorta what I found when I went through the different countries I listed above. Some got their 104s when NATO countries phased them out. RCAF at that time sent out theirs to Denmark, Norway and Turkey (the majority to Turkey).


I don't think it suited Canada to replace the F-104 at that time, particularly as you had not experienced the same loss problems that had been experienced in Europe. I also seem to recall that Canada had decided that any future fighter would have to be a twin engined design - ultimately F/A-18.

When Canada got rid of it 104s they had triple the amount of hrs compared to most NATO 104s. We work our planes hard! The twin engine requirement is for much the same reason as the Aussies with a need for long range and also a large chance for long flights over oceans and Arctic which calls for the requirement. Makes me wonder as to what has changed and why it seems the CF is entertaining the idea of the 35


I have a 1982 reference to the F-16A load - 12,000lb or 15,200lb with reduced fuel load on 9 stations (including the wingtip rails).


So the extra 4,000lbs at least that the 16 carried at the time plus the more space for the larger heavier munitions compared to the F-20 is probably the problem of its A2G capability.

Also I'll have to do some research about the F-5 and Japan etc since that was before my time but it gives me an excuse to go pick up a book I've been eyeing lol.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I would imagine that the F-35 situation is one of 'not a lot else being available', but with the single / twin situation in mind, then Australian and Canada may well be among the first to bail out.

I found a set of specs for the YF-16 from 1974 (after both YF-16s had flown, but prior to the fly off with YF-17). It gives an indication of just how much it grew between then and 1982.

1974...

Normal Take-Off Weight (Air Superiority Role) - 17,500lb
Normal Take-Off Weight (Close Support Role) - 27,000lb
Accompanying 3-view drawings indicate only two hardpoints under each wing (plus wingtip rails)

1982....

Max Take-Off (wing-tip AAMs) - 23,357lb
Max Take-Off (Interdiction) - 35,400lb or (F-16A-25 and subsequent) 37,500lb.
Accompanying drawings indicate three hardpoints under each wing plus CL station and wingtip rails.

This was before the addition of sensor pod points on the intake sides.

Even with the basic airframe weight growth, you can see that there was an increase in the A2G load capacity.

It appears to me that the USAF has never seriously considered the F-16 as a multi-role aircraft (until recently, at least) but rather as purely an Air Superiority platform. They certainly did consider it for the CAS / 'fast FAC' role when the A-10 (in a European scenario) was considered to be too vulnerable to shoulder launched SAMs (just about the time of Gulf War 1 - where the European scenario changed and A-10 rather redeemed itself in Kuwait). Certainly at that time the A-10 program was slated to be terminated prematurely (based on the slightly faster Su-25's vulnerability to US supplied SAMs in Afghanistan).

Rather a matter of the USAF having separate platforms to perform roles that smaller air forces would expect of a single type.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 25/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


What is it you want to know about them, or do you just require pictures?
The V-1100 resembled the F-8 Crusader with the nose of the Hawker P1121 grafted on (broadly speaking), The Lancer was based on the F-104 with a new, bigger, shoulder wing and low tail and w2as evolved from the earlier X-27 after funding for thqat project was cut. There was also a navy LWF competition with some interesting designs, one of which, the Vought 1600, was just a navalized F-16 anyway.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
sorry , wasn`t more descriptive really was i - really just about teh vought - anything , info , a picture etc - found about the lancer



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
OK. Here you go;

Vought V-1100, January 1972.

swept wing, chin intake, small extendable canards mounted on the LERX's

single cannon in port intake lip and twin sidewinders carried on fuselage side pylons (as with F-8).

Powered by single 23,600lb thrust PW F100, est max speed mach 1.2 at sea level and mach 2 at 34,000 - 60,000ft.

Gross T/O weight 19,000lb

assuming go ahead on 1st may 1972 first flight was projected for Feb 1974.




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I’d like this thread to be closed please.

I have started the thread, and I request it to be closed.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Those grapes must be pretty sour...

On topic (because I'm fairly sure that this thread will stay open), I'm currently going through the USAF F-16 losses, but it will take me a while. Hopefully by the end of it we will have a good break down of the reason for losses, and a benchmark from which to compare other aircraft.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I once again respectfully request this topic to be closed.

If members chose to re-open a thread regarding F-16 losses, please do so at your will.

Do to certain events which took place in this thread I have filed a complaint, unfortunately after the occurrence this thread no longer has anything to do with the original topic, and since I will be pursuing this issue further, it is only prudent to lock this topic at this time.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Yes iskander you are the OP but seeing as its a public forum and the post isn't actually your property you can't force it to be closed. You have respectfully requested that it be closed but it up to mods to decide wether or not the they will close it.

The reason for the looking into the F-16s background and the LWF program is to understand its roots and then from there move into examining the fighter and its issue with its history and roots in mind.

So you may see it as off topic but the posts are relevant to understanding the F-16 development and where these losses you want to talk about originate from. I'm sorry if you feel like you have been bashed but myself waynos harliquin all want to talk about the subject and WW as well. If you can't partake in the talk since you don't like or method of questioning I apologize again. If you wish you can reply to why you no longer think this discussion is valid or just send me a small U2U. Again please try and understand.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 



Yes iskander you are the OP but seeing as its a public forum and the post isn't actually your property you can't force it to be closed.


This is not an issue of property, just basic courtesy. I’m not forcing anything; I’m respectfully making a request, as you your self pointed out;


You have respectfully requested that it be closed but it up to mods to decide wether or not the they will close it.


I have filed a grievance, I’m perusing it, and since I no longer consider the nature of this topic to be in good faith, and in order to avoid all kinds of negativity, I’m asking my request to be respected, and a new thread started, since the issue of my complaint regarding my thread is still ongoing.

edit:spl


[edit on 26-1-2008 by iskander]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Hang on there iskander, that can't be right?

I understand that you were unhappy with the way the discussion was moving and specifically because of this I and other members have made a definite effort to get the thread back on track.

I have asked you specific questions related to claims you made in the thread and yet rather than address these questions you want the thread closed?

You may see the LWF posts as being off topic but, as Canada EH has pointed out, a knowledge of the background that led to the F-16 coming into being is essential. after all, why were certain designs rejected? why were decisions taken that led to the F-16 being selected and do these decisions stand up to scrutiny? Northrop themselves proposed a single F100 powerd design, the P630, and I have looked into why they did not pursue it, I have found that they spent so much time developing an efficient intake interface for the twin engined P600 they felt unhappy with the interface for the P630 and so decided to pursue the twin engined proposal due to a lack of time. This is something I did not know before but at least it does not appear that Northrop were concerned with twin engine safety, which is the answer I was expecting to find, so you see it is relevant. This part of the discussion is only just beginning, maybe it should have been tackled sooner.

It does look a bit odd that now that relevant questions are being posed you decide you want the thread closed. I ask again, do you have any information on why you consider the F-5 superior?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join