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.

 

F-16XL vs EF-2000

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
My question for you is why British didn't choose F-16XL? If they did, they would get similar capability fighter ealier 10 years. Even key publishing, no one think about this!



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Please list reasons why XL is better. Thank-u



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
F-16XL isnt even offered by Lockheed Martin for sale, its not an active
program. Last time I think they were trying to sell it was mid 80s when F-16E went up against F-15E to be F-111 replacement. Not that anything can truly replace the Vark.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   
The F-16XL is a rival of F-15E, with totally redisigned wing shape so that got highly dogfight capability which has already been demonstrated by NASA. For example, the F-16XL could do 90 degs angle of attack with loading 12 MK82 bombs, 4 Sparrow missiles and 2 AIM-9M/L on wingtip rail, whereas Su-27 did this better to 120 degs but no payload allowed.

Yes, you may never saw it, but we have some data
the wing square of XL is aproxi to 60 ms, empty weight less than 10tons, so the wing load of it much smaller than EF2k
EF2k is good enough to has higher T/Wr because of its excellent EJ200, twin EJ-200 provide over 18 tons thrust. But F-16XL if it was in service, up to now, it would get F119 or F135 to upgrade, so the T/Wr gap isn't so big as we could envisage.
Also because of single powerplant, F-16XL may has longer combat radius than EF-2000, there is no need me reminds you of that internal fuel F-16XL carried, also more than EF-2000, approach to over 6 tons.

If you want ot resist me, give me list of reason as that above please?!



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
The Eurofighter project is a joint venture between countries where the participating nations keep their avionic design/manufacturing abilities yet share the costs. e.g., to design and build an aeroplane is preferable to buying one off-the-shelf.

I also think that you are underrating the EF Typhoon somewhat.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Emile, the (original) F-16 was rejected by the RAF as not meeting its requirements in 1976, along with the F-15 (same reason) and F-14 (too expensive but otherwise perfect) that is when the Tornado F.3 programme began, to provide an equivalent to the Tomcat that we could afford.

The F-16E (XL) could indeed have provided a replacement for the Jaguar in the ground attack role, but this was only ever a small part of Britain's overall requirement which also included replacing the Tornado F.3's AND maintaining high-end aerospace capabilities within the UK, neither of which the F-16E would have provided.

Also the airframe of the F-16E does not offer the same capabilities that the Typhoon offers and, more importantly, the systems used in the Typhoon, which make it the 'best fighter in the world except for the stealthy one' (
) simply could not have been bolted into that airframe instead, 10 years earlier, as they themselves are brand new, the Eurofighter isn't just an aeroplane, its a complete, integrated, systems package, just like the F-22 is, and if the F-16E HAD been bought then we would still be looking at replacing it with the Typhoon about now anyway.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
if the F-16E HAD been bought then we would still be looking at replacing it with the Typhoon about now anyway.


What? That sounds a bit.. hasty.. hell South Korea is buying more F-16C's this year!



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
OK, you're right, maybe we would be looking at asking very nicely if Lockheed would like to produce an 'F-16G' upgrade just for us, either way, the E would be out of date by now in the form we would have purchased it.

Maybe BAE would not even be capable of designing the Typhoon (although it is the 'Eurofighter' now, it was designed as the BAe P.120). Either way, I believe we are better off the way we are.

Emile, would you have preferred China to buy the F-16 instead of developing its own J-10?

[edit on 16-4-2007 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Summarized what Waynos posted, which give me a impression, that is to insist EF-2000 only for save a ability to develop new jetfighter? Yes, a quite reasonable reason, but which also means that F-16XL is a multi-role jetfighter as better as EF-2000.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Not necessarily. The F-16XL had several issues with wing weapons stations. If you carried external fuel tanks, you could only carry 10 weapons on the wing stations. If you didn't carry the external tanks you could carry 16 500lb class weapons. But you cut down on the range because you lost all that fuel. If you carried the centerline 300 gallon tank, you actually cut down on the range, unless you dropped it when it ran dry.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Plus emile, that is not what I said at all. I already said that replacing the Jaguar (an austere close support aircraft and no more) was only a small part of the total requirement. The F-16XL did not however meet the Interceptor/Air Superiority part of the requirement which was far more important.

Plus that the RAF specified a twin jet, which pretty much ruled out the F-16 immediately anyway. I hope you don't think that the Typhoon only has two engines because we can't make bigger ones


Look at RAF purchases of new combat aircraft since 1960. Every single one is a twin-jet except the Harrier, which was originally intended to have two when it was going to be supersonic when first mooted. The single engine Harrier was only bought because the RAF wanted VTOL and putting the prototype version into service was the only way they were going to get it.

Apart from that you have the Lightning, Javelin, Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Phantom and Typhoon - all twin jets, so the F-16 never stood a chance of a UK order.

PS, oh and the F-35? History repeating itself. The RAF wants its Harriers replacing and there is only one way its going to happen.


Further evidence of the RAF's two-engines-only bias is provided by dint of the TSR 2 (designed to RAF requirements), but mainly the excellent Hawker P1121, a mach 2 strike fighter in the same class as the F-4 Phantom, but promising better manouverability. Not only was this potential worldwide export success scrapped by Govt order in 1957 with the prototype almost ready (and ahead of the Phantom in timescale), but most tellingly, it was a private venture design by Hawkers, who knew quite a bit about fighters) and with its *single* DH Gyron jet engine the RAF never showed any interest in it whatsoever.

Hawkers hope had been that once it was seen flying the RAF would come round to it, but the 1957 Defence White Paper made sure that would never happen.

So, F-16?..... RAF?...... Naaaah!






[edit on 17-4-2007 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Emile, the (original) F-16 was rejected by the RAF as not meeting its requirements in 1976, along with the F-15 (same reason)...


I'm curious what where the requirements that the F-16 and F-15 could not meet besides the F-16 having one engine? Why did the British not wait for these fighters instead of buying the F-4, which was going to be outclassed by either of these two aircraft...

[edit on 17-4-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Good questions Westy;




what where the requirements that the F-16 and F-15 could not meet besides the F-16 having one engine?


The F-16 was nowhere near the RAF requirement as it lacked a 2nd engine, a second crewman (before the F-16B existed), the loiter endurance over the North Sea (the primary objective), the BVR kill capability, the weapon load, and the multiple target track-while-scan capability (tracking 20 targets, engaging the 6 most dangerous simultaneously and constantly scanning for more) that the RAF deemed vital. At the time the F-15 also lacked a fully combat capable two seater variant (and the UK wasn't going to be the one who paid for its development so the US could cash in) and its design was seen as less efficient for the long endurance, over water loiter patrol that the RAF air defence mission then largely consisted of, with its design being optimised for dogfighting with its relatively small wing area for its size and weight.

Everything the RAF was looking for at that time, the F-14, of course, had in spades, but, like the F-22 today, we needed to be able to buy more than just one squadron which is why the Tornado F.3 was born as a scaled down, less expensive F-14 clone, easily affordable by increasing the UK order from 220 to 385 and thus reducing the overall unit price of the airframes and freeing up some additional funding towards the cost of its development. Another advantage was that it would be more up to date than the then standard F-14A. There was even talk at the time of the RAF obtaining the Phoenix missile for it!



Why did the British not wait for these fighters instead of buying the F-4, which was going to be outclassed by either of these two aircraft


Its a question of timescale, the F-15 and 16 (and 14) just didn't exist in any form when the F-4 was bought. Also the RAF wasn't actually looking for a fighter, but a replacement for the Hunter in the attack role.

It was our bungling govt again. The F-4 Phantom was ordered to replace the cancelled P1154RN fleet defence fighter,which was itself supposed to replace the subsonic DH Sea Vixen, and P1154RAF close support attack and recce aircraft, replacing the Hunter. Despite them both being designated P1154, they were actually quite different, the simplest descriptions would be that the former was like a VTOL F-4, while the latter was a VTOL Jaguar, not literally of course, just for comparison.



The order was placed in 1965 for service entry in 1968, however delays with development of the heavily modified F-4K (RN air defence - Phantom FG.1) and F-4M (RAF ground attack - Phantom FGR.2) meant service entry was delayed until 1970 (apart from a few trials aircraft a year previously with 707 Sqn FAA).

RAF Phantoms only switched to air defence after 1975 (except 111 Sqn who flew surplus navy FG.1's from Leuchars from 1970 to 1988) due to a change in defence policy which saw the Lightning start to be withdrawn and the Phantoms attack role being taken over by the much more suitable Jaguar. As each RAF Phantom squadron re-equipped with Jaguars their old aircraft were converted for the air defence role (an easy job as an A2A capability was always kept by the FGR.2)) and re-issued to fighter squadrons, when the FAA retired its Phantoms in 1978 they too were re-issued to the RAF. It was at the point where its own Phantoms were switched to air defence that the RAF began thinking about a new generation interceptor and the evaluation of the F-14/15/16 actually took place.

If I've confused you with this please just ask, it is quite a convoluted story.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
No Waynos, but thank you for that detailed explanation, it is interesting to note the future developments of these airplanes which were being considered at one time and passed over for one reason or another...



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not necessarily. The F-16XL had several issues with wing weapons stations. If you carried external fuel tanks, you could only carry 10 weapons on the wing stations. If you didn't carry the external tanks you could carry 16 500lb class weapons. But you cut down on the range because you lost all that fuel. If you carried the centerline 300 gallon tank, you actually cut down on the range, unless you dropped it when it ran dry.


Sorry, the fact isn't as same as you said. I don't see why F-16 blick 52/60 can carry CFT, why F-16XL can not? The F-16XL's internal fuel more than 6000kg! with arrow wing lead it to much much lower drag coefficient, plus single engine, which means only half fuel consumption of F-15, so must give a much looonger range than initial F-16, even advanced F-16 block60. So, there is no need to carry external fuel tank, if you only require the F-16XL perform a same range mission as F-16C/D CFT carried

For Waynos:
I said NASA had alread demonstrated that F-16XL can do high G maneuverability even better than Su-27. Single or twin engine isn't matter for higher maneuverability or air superiority. I don't what's requirment RAF made that direct a Fighter must be twin engine? I think that twin engine fighter for RAF since 1960 only is a tridition not any requirements.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Well for one thing emile, the F-16 CFTs didn't EXIST when the XL was built. If they had CFTs for the F-16 back then, why didn't they install them on ANY versions prior to the Block 52/60 birds? The XL had a 2500nm range, compared to the approximately 2100nm range of the standard F-16, so you didn't get some "much loooooooonger" range with the XL design.

As for the rest:


However, on each wing, the "heavy / wet" station was at the same buttline (distance from the center of the Fuselage) as two of the wing weapon stations. This means that you could use either the one " heavy / wet" or two weapon stations but not both at the same time.

Furthermore, if the "heavy / wet" station was used for an external fuel, the tank physically blocked one more wing station This meant that with external fuel tanks, the maximum number of weapons on the wings was 10. Two weapons could also be carried on a centerline adaptor. If no underwing fuel tanks were used, the maximum number of 500 lb class weapons was increased to 16. Although the XL could carry the centerline 300 tank, it was not really an operational loadout since mission range would actually be decreased unless the CL-300 could be dropped when empty.

www.f-16.net...

[edit on 4/17/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Some data are not accurate, think about this: internal fuel of F-16XL is two times of initial F-16 that without CFT was carried. Arrow wing lead to a lower drag coefficient, so the range of F-16XL only more 400nm than F-16 primary version is impossible. Please notice that different flying profile or different external loading will cause very different range.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by emile]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Please also notice that it used a different engine that used more fuel, and it WEIGHED a lot more than the original F-16. It had two or three fuselage plugs added to make it long enough for the cranked arrow wing.


Crew size F-16XL-2 two-seat cockpit
F-16XL-1 single-seat aircraft
Length 54.2 ft (16.52 m)
Wingspan 34.3 ft (10.45 m)
height at vertical tail 17.7 ft (5.39 m).
Max. weight 48,000 lb (17,915.60 kg)
# Engines F-16XL-2 General Electric F110-GE-129 engine (with afterburner) rated at 29,000 lb thrust.
# F-16XL-1 Pratt and Whitney 100-PW-100 engine (with afterburner), rated at 23,830 lb thrust.
Controls Both aircraft featured an analog fly-by-wire electronic flight control system during the laminar flow research. The single-seat aircraft now has a digital flight control system.
Wing construction The delta (cranked arrow) wings on both aircraft are manufactured of advanced graphite composites to provide strength for high wing loads during flight.
Design load Baseline F-16XL: 9 "Gs".
Modified F-16XL: 3 "Gs")
Maximum Speed F-16XL-2, Mach 2 (approx. 1,400 mph) (2,253 k/hr)
F-16XL-1, Mach 1.8 (approx. 1,260 mph)
Range Over 2,500 nautical miles (4,630 k), without in-flight refueling, and unlimited with in-flight refueling

www.globalsecurity.org...


Primary Function Multirole fighter
Builder Lockheed Martin Corp.
Power Plant F-16C/D:
one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200/220/229 or
one General Electric F110-GE-100/129
Thrust F-16C/D, 27,000 pounds(12,150 kilograms)
Length 49 feet, 5 inches (14.8 meters)
Height 16 feet (4.8 meters)
Wingspan 32 feet, 8 inches (9.8 meters)
Speed 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)
Ceiling Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
Fuel
Single-Seat Two-Seat
370 Gal 600 Gal 370 Gal 600 Gal
Internal 7,000 7,000 5,700 5,700
External 5,000 8,000 5,000 8,000
TOTAL * 10,000 13,000 8,700 11,700
Fuel on 3 & 7 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Conformal 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
* less 2,000 lbs for takeoff & landing
# Combat Radius [F-16C] 740 nm (1,370 km)
w/ 2 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks
# 340 nm (630 km)
w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks
# 200 nm (370 km) + 2 hr 10 min patrol
w/ 2 AIM-7 + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks
Range Over 2,100 nm (2,425 mi; 3,900 km)

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   


I don't what's requirment RAF made that direct a Fighter must be twin engine? I think that twin engine fighter for RAF since 1960 only is a tridition not any requirements.


I think the RAF prefers twin engine fighters for the same reason the USN does: long patrols out over the ocean. If one engine fails, the aircraft can still limp back to base on the other.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
Some data are not accurate, think about this: internal fuel of F-16XL is two times of initial F-16 that without CFT was carried. Arrow wing lead to a lower drag coefficient, so the range of F-16XL only more 400nm than F-16 primary version is impossible. Please notice that different flying profile or different external loading will cause very different range.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by emile]


The "straight" F-16 carries about 7,000 gallons internally. The F-16XL carries 12, 390 internally. The design of the F-16XL was to allow it to carry twice as big a payload as the original F-16, but only carry it 40% farther. The actual range of the XL was 2,485 miles, and the actual range of the F-16 Block 1/5/10/15/15OCU/20 (which was around the same time as the XL) is 2,400 miles with full external fuel tanks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join