It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Supercruising F-16XL Offered to India

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

Thats what Im thinking. If they want the F-16XL, then they move into a territory that makes the F-15E a contender which I mentioned earlier, which IS not part of the requirement.

The F-16Block 60 with AESA would do well with the IAF IMHO. The question is how would it stack up to say the Grippen? As ide from armchair fighter specs, Im betting that there would be more offsets with the F-16 than with the grippen whould would tip it in the F-16's favor.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by FredT
The F-16Block 60 with AESA would do well with the IAF IMHO. The question is how would it stack up to say the Grippen?

The problem is that Gripen is very close statwise to the Tejas aircraft. The F-16 is just large enough to fit between the light Tejas and gargantuan Su-30 MKI, so I wouldn't say a comparison is necessary in this case. If it comes between the F-16 and the Gripen, the IAF will simply choose the F-16 as it doesn't conflict with the role of its indigenous projects.

Which is disappointing because Gripen is a really nice aircraft

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:10 AM
Not completely relevant, but puts the Russian argument in a different perspective ...

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:46 AM
reply to post by Darkpr0

I know Im beating this one to death, but I think more than that will be the offsets. I just don't see many with the Grippen (Which is one of my favorite a/c) but the F-16 is more likely to be produced in India

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:09 AM
reply to post by model_guy

The subs are fine - india say so themselves - its the missiles they have issue with

so nothing wrong with `russian equipment` per se

would you say US equipment is faulty based upon the failures of JASSM?

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:04 PM
I dont think the Indians will go US or Russia but more likely Europe. They already have European fighters from the French and investing in American planes gives them the heebie jeebies. The Russians will take forever and they dont another Mig-21 kind of situation with endless "upgrades" and the like. Plus overall quality, European companies are better.

Europe is also politically pretty neutral with respect to the Russians.

The whole F-16XL seems like a bogus dog and pony show. The Indians wont be impressed unless they are throwing in those new engines, which is unlikely and the latest AESA. Its unlikely they would be interested in a dumbed down version when they could get something as good from the Israelis.

Either way they better shake hands fast and get over with it or else they will loose any sense of air dominance that they have presently in that area. Compared to the PLAAF, the Indian air force is like a charter service.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:18 PM

An early scale model of the proposed F-16U BLock 60, depicted over desert terrain. The actual Block 60 turned out to be a traditional F-16 design.
The Block 60 designation was originally reserved back in 1989. It was to be the F/A-16 which sported a 30 mm cannon and strengthened wing structure for anti-tank weapons such as 7.62 mm min pods. This aircraft was briefly in consideration to replace the A-10 warthog. The "original" Block 60 did not go into production, and its designation basically ends the series of adding another block.

Seems that the F-16XL has evolved somewhat to the proposed F-16U BLock 60.
Or a newer wing has been developed between the F-16XL and F-16U

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:44 PM
The guys at Lockheed Martin are just dressing up the pig to get a few extra $$. It wont work. The Indian military wont ever take a weapon system that their enemies have, even if they get the "next" version. It does nothing for them.

I recently read that the Indians are negotiating regarding getting on the P-8A Poseidon project, while they were actually offered the P-3C (which Pakistan already has! ) Now while the F-16 might be a fancy new package the customer will disregard this on other extraneous factors.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by IAF101

Mig 35 was always number 1 choice in my opinion.
i would be surprised that it didnt win.

The above photo show an F-16 with a raptor style of wings really.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by Jezza
Hey Jezza, was that an original concept model for the UAE competition or just a generic "Block 60" idea?

As for whether India will go for an aircraft operated by Pakistan, It depends. If the design is significantly different and it's performance envelope significantly expanded over the traditional F-16 planform, why not? It is unlikely to have the same engine or sensor/radar suite and India can always specify items that are not operated by the PAF. If the original XL performance is anything to go by then you are talking about a marked difference between a block 50 series and an XL based IN proposal. I certainly wouldn't discount the F-16IN at this point, for all the reasons allready mentioned in regard to diversity of technology input to the IAF, and the luke warm response to the Super Bug from even close first tier allies.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by thebozeian]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:42 AM
reply to post by thebozeian

yeah i believe its the original version offered.
i think it started when they were pushing the FA-16 concept with
a 30mm cannon installed

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:48 AM

the official proposal for the F16-IN , and no its definately NOT and XL frame

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:08 AM
Weapons purchases from the US = $$$, some features disabled, political pressure to "conform" and no guarantee of spare parts if the US is no longer your best buddy.

Weapons purchases from Russia = not so many $$$, full tech transfer and training, and as long as you don't go and attack mother Russia they don't give a rats arse what your politics are.

Which one would you choose?

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 07:48 AM
The Indian Air Force has wanted to get their mitts on some form of US jet fighter for years. It's not that the Euro's and Russians aren't as equal if not better performing, they want access to US manufacturing technology. Both India and China are trying to modernize their defense manufacturing technologies which are currently stuck back in the 60's right now. Much of the US's defense budget is for future procurement and research. Right now the despite the complaints about overpriced weapons programs, the US military-industrial complex is producing more defense material with less folks than any time it has since WWII. India cannot afford to modernize its defense manufacturing capability without a massive infusion of new technology which it hopes to partner up with the largest and arguably the most advanced defense company in the world, Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed-Martin is looking to recruit(read as steal) some of the brightest young engineering talent in the world.

You guys are nitpicking over details and not seeing the big picture.

posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 02:06 AM
The F-16XL did not lose the competition out of any deficiencies in its performance. Its range and load was pretty good. USAF just thought that for an interdiction strike fighter, two engines, and more importantly two crew, is more important.

Yes, the XL was flying in 82.

But guess what design was flying in 86

Typhoon is a great plane, no doubt. But a GE powered XL variant with a block 60 weapons suite or later, would be something rather interesting.

Not sure the logic that if Lockmart is allowed to market an F-16 variant to India, that is does not reflect good on Boeing. This is not the government selling these, it is these companies, with permission of the government. No reason that Boeing and Lockheed cant both try for that contract.

And I would agree, India very much wants to improve its manufacturing process. The LCA has been quite a learning experience, and nightmare in someways for them

posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 04:31 PM
But firepilot, the EAP is not the Typhoon, it is a completely different airframe that was built out of bits of Tornado as a quick and cheap way to prove the concept so that our partners could see we knew what we were talking about

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 12:24 AM
Well I know that. But the basic design was the same though, and there were people talking about the F-16XL being an 1982 design, and well the basic same design from the Eurofighter dates to pretty close to then too.

A new F-16 with the XL wing design, but with modern systems, would be about as similar to the F-16XL from the early 80s, as the Typhoon would be to the EAP.

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 12:24 AM
Well I know that. But the basic design was the same though, and there were people talking about the F-16XL being an 1982 design, and well the basic same design from the Eurofighter dates to pretty close to then too.

A new F-16 with the XL wing design, but with modern systems, would be about as similar to the F-16XL from the early 80s, as the Typhoon would be to the EAP.

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 03:42 AM
I heard you the first time

Actually, it isn't the same basic design. I know this is all conjectural now since the real F-16IN has been revealed, but a re-winged F-16 is still an F-16. It uses the same components for much of the airframe and structure as well as most of the systems, otherwise it would be a new plane.

Typhoon compare to EAP is a new plane, there is not one part of EAP that made it onto Typhoon, it has zero commonality. An outward similarity is as far as it goes, but that was the entire point of EAP in the first place.

As I said, EAP was built quickly and cheaply in order to convince the then potential partner nation govt's that BAe DID know what it was doing when it talked of building a mach 2 delta canard fighter that could be as good as anything in the world, this was a very important point to prove as there had been no new British fighter built since the BAC Lightning flew in 1958!

Hanging AAM's off the Tornado doesn't really count as it was a long range bomber interceptor, never a proper fighter that could mix it with the best as the Lightning had done, and yet here were BAe saying they could still do it. Not only that but they were talking about FBW, RSS, Carbonfibre structures and all the other things the Americans were already very good at. EAP was much more about BAe proving themselves than it was about proving the design.

Naturally they were met with disbelief and this was partly behind France's earlier insistence on programme leadership which led to them quitting and building Rafale. There was also the massive pressure to take the easy option and buy the Northrop F-18L, despite the RAF saying it didn't want it as it didn't meet our requirements.

That the EAP was built so quickly and cheaply and REALLY WORKED was a brilliant achievement and I often wonder what might have happened if the investment had gone into turning this into an operational RAF fighter as its original test pilot had called for (being in service a decade earlier is one likliehood).

Nevertheless, having proven the technical capabilityof the industry, the decision was taken to design the Typhoon which (as the BAe p.120) was a completely new design from scratch which very rapidly evolved into the Eurofighter with Germany, Italy and later Spain joining the programme.

The Typhoon is as different an aeroplane from the EAP as it is from the Rafale, F-16XL, or any other fighter.

edit, sorry for going so far off topic. I'm not even arguing that a revamped F-16 along the lines of the XL or the UAE model pictured higher up the thread cannot be a very capable alternative, I'm sure it can.

I just cannot leave a misconception unaddressed

[edit on 27-2-2008 by waynos]

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in