<...> I'd love to have a couple of the XLs to play around with in plastic.
SINGAPORE, Feb. 15, 2012 – Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] unveiled a new version of the F-16 today at the Singapore Airshow. The F-16V will feature enhancements including an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, an upgraded mission computer and architecture, and improvements to the cockpit – all capabilities identified by the U.S. Air Force and several international customers for future improvements.
With nearly 4,500 F-16s delivered, this is a natural step in the evolution of the world’s most successful 4th generation fighter. The Fighting Falcon program has continually evolved as it began with the F-16 A/B as the lightweight fighter then transitioned to F-16 C/D and Block 60 versions as customers’ requirements changed.
AESA radars offer significant operational capability improvements. Lockheed Martin has developed an innovative solution to affordably retrofit this key technology into existing F-16s. The F-16V configuration is an option for new production jets and elements of the upgrade are available to most earlier-model F-16s. The “V” designation is derived from Viper, the name fighter pilots have called the F-16 from its beginnings.
“We believe this F-16V will satisfy our customers’ emerging requirements and prepare them to better interoperate with the 5th generation fighters, the F-35 and F-22,” said George Standridge, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics’ vice president of business development.
The F-16 is the choice of 26 nations. The F-16 program has been characterized by unprecedented international cooperation among governments, air forces and aerospace industries.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 123,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.
What if during the thawing of relations in the '70s/'80s, the USA provided F-16s ( maybe the J79 version) to the Chinese?PRC or ROC? The F-16/79 was offered to the ROC by the Carter administration. I could see the PRC buying F-16s that could be re-engined with their license-built afterburning Spey engines.
Has anyone tried to model the F-16 with APG-65 radar from the F/A-18:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ca15/general_dynamics_F-16A_big_nose.jpg[/url])
What if during the thawing of relations in the '70s/'80s, the USA provided F-16s ( maybe the J79 version) to the Chinese?PRC or ROC? The F-16/79 was offered to the ROC by the Carter administration. I could see the PRC buying F-16s that could be re-engined with their license-built afterburning Spey engines.
Super F-16 anyone:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/c3b21982.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=45064[/url])
Someone needs to build that!
([url]http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=45065[/url])
([url]http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=45064[/url])
Someone needs to build that!
ok boss ... :)
([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=380.0;attach=3394;image[/url])
A Platypus if I've ever seen one ;)
About Platypus... here is a F-16 XL with a duckbill nose!
([url]http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww37/jmsfbip/new/F16xl-plus-Su34cockpit.png[/url])
Super F-16 anyone:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/c3b21982.jpg[/url])
Going twin, twinjet and twinfin. Two F-414 should be sufficient and would provide better endurance ???
([url]http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww37/jmsfbip/new/FA-16XL-StrikeViper.png[/url])
Okay, take two! ???
([url]http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww37/jmsfbip/new/FA-16XL-StrikeViper-t2.png[/url])
([url]http://dc124.4shared.com/img/cOWp2feC/s7/NASA_AWA1.jpg[/url])
([url]http://dc124.4shared.com/img/cOWp2feC/s7/NASA_AWA1.jpg[/url])
Thursday's confession: I find the F-16 all but impossible to Whiff outside a revised paint scheme. I have no idea why, but that's where it is. ;D
<...> What would look really slick on that would be a butterfly type tail arrangement like the YF-23 had: <...>
Hey Greg, you got a bigger version of that Model 1600 cutaway?
is there a model of the himat available?
is there a model of the himat available?
is there a model of the himat available?
Ninfinger does one in 1/72 ([url]http://www.ninfinger.org/models/misc/himat.html[/url])
([url]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/095/f/2/pit_viper_by_phthalotype-d3d9hpx.jpg[/url])
A long time ago, my Kung Fu master said to me: Grasshopper, have patience, wait a long time, wait quietly and eBay will provide a 1/72 Monogram F-16XL at a good price. But that does not excuse you from trying to snatch the tube of glue from my hand. The glue I did not get.Well, first of all, you've going to have to adjust the spine, no matter what. The spine is applied to two-seaters only in RL and the Monogram kit is a single-seater. On top of that, the F-16XL is, as Diamondback stated, stretched over the stock F-16 and will need adjustment accordingly there, too. The CFT's are designed to settle over the wing-fuselage join and would need stretching and adjustment to fit the F-16XL. The big nose radar is possible, but there are other, less extreme, options to getting the same radar performance (it depends on the time period you're looking at). Are you looking to move the landing gear from the fuselage to the wing or just modify the landing gear to use 4-wheel boogies on each side?
But I finally snagged a F-16XL and here is what I want to. But I need to defer to the those who are more knowledgeable with the F-16 than I am:Will the Airwaves and CMK pieces fit on the XL? Does anyone have a F-18 nose they are willing to part with?
- CMK F-16C Conformal Fuel Tanks
- Airwaves Israeli F-16N Avionic Spine
- F-18 APG-65 Big Nose Radome
- Move the landing gear out to crank and use 4 wheel boogies to be taken from a 1/144 Tu-95
Comments?
A long time ago, my Kung Fu master said to me: Grasshopper, have patience, wait a long time, wait quietly and eBay will provide a 1/72 Monogram F-16XL at a good price. But that does not excuse you from trying to snatch the tube of glue from my hand. The glue I did not get.Well, first of all, you've going to have to adjust the spine, no matter what. The spine is applied to two-seaters only in RL and the Monogram kit is a single-seater. On top of that, the F-16XL is, as Diamondback stated, stretched over the stock F-16 and will need adjustment accordingly there, too. The CFT's are designed to settle over the wing-fuselage join and would need stretching and adjustment to fit the F-16XL. The big nose radar is possible, but there are other, less extreme, options to getting the same radar performance (it depends on the time period you're looking at). Are you looking to move the landing gear from the fuselage to the wing or just modify the landing gear to use 4-wheel boogies on each side?
But I finally snagged a F-16XL and here is what I want to. But I need to defer to the those who are more knowledgeable with the F-16 than I am:Will the Airwaves and CMK pieces fit on the XL? Does anyone have a F-18 nose they are willing to part with?
- CMK F-16C Conformal Fuel Tanks
- Airwaves Israeli F-16N Avionic Spine
- F-18 APG-65 Big Nose Radome
- Move the landing gear out to crank and use 4 wheel boogies to be taken from a 1/144 Tu-95
Comments?
Has anyone tried modelling a F-16 J-79?I've looked at it. The fairing for the smaller-diameter exhaust nozzle is easy and the nozzle itself is readily available. ISTR that the inlet was reduced in size to match the engine airflow requirements, but I don't know exactly how that was done.
Has anyone tried modelling a F-16 J-79?I've looked at it. The fairing for the smaller-diameter exhaust nozzle is easy and the nozzle itself is readily available. ISTR that the inlet was reduced in size to match the engine airflow requirements, but I don't know exactly how that was done.
What about an operational version of the original F-16A, I.e. one that was equipped for daylight only operations. Maybe even in Israeli service as a replacement for the likes of the Mirage 5?A Winslow Wheller special?
For a non-radar pointy nose F-16 variant:There was a variable ramp inlet designed but, to the best of my knowledge, never built nor flight tested. Such an inlet would allow you to get up to Mach 2.5 or 2.8. Any higher would require material replacement to handle the thermal loads.
IR sidewinders on the wing tips
Underwing fuel
Goodrich DB-110 EO/IR pod on the midline.
Whatever engine/intake combination gives the highest speed.
Yeah, but it worked with the F-16's intake geometry. It's been ages since I saw the drawing, but the most noticeable difference was the lower portion extended farther forward than the upper portion with the boundary layer diverter. It looked somewhat like a fieri inlet.
Yeah, but it worked with the F-16's intake geometry. It's been ages since I saw the drawing, but the most noticeable difference was the lower portion extended farther forward than the upper portion with the boundary layer diverter. It looked somewhat like a fieri inlet.
So really just an upside-down regular ramp then -----
Yeah, but it worked with the F-16's intake geometry. It's been ages since I saw the drawing, but the most noticeable difference was the lower portion extended farther forward than the upper portion with the boundary layer diverter. It looked somewhat like a fieri inlet.
So really just an upside-down regular ramp then -----
Some what, the side contours and cut were different. Consider an upside-down squished Vigilante inlet. The upside-down aspect is a function of where they could put the actuators for the variable internal ramp while working with the existing flow path.
It is real:
F-16C # 87-0241 of the Colorado ANG 120FS/140WG at Buckley AFB. This paint job was applied for the "Tiger Meet of the Americas" in August of 2001.
[url]http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=10714[/url] ([url]http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=10714[/url])
I've added an older Tamiya F-16 to the stash to become my F-16XL, but I'm running into an issue; it's a left half/right half fuselage breakdown and I'm trying to figure out how to cut it in order to add the additional plugs/length to match the XL three view I have. Any suggestions?
The fuselage was lengthened with 56 inches (142 cm) to 54 feet 1.86 inches by 'inserting' 2 new fuselage sections at the junctions between the three main fuselage sub-assemblies: one 26 inch (66 cm) section was inserted at the rear split point, and a 30 inch (76 cm) section at the front one. However, the rear 26in section, was not a continuous segment from the bottom to the top. Below the wing, a 26 inch segment was inserted just aft of the main landing gear, above the wing the segment was still 26 inches long, but inserted 26 inches farther aft than the segment below the wing. This made the section look like a backward "Z". The fuselage lengthening enabled the tail section to be canted up 3 degrees, necessary to prevent the engine nozzle from striking the runway during take off and landing.
They couldn't hang a 30mm Gepod under the fuselage because the structure couldn't hold it steady enough. Methinks they might have had better luck with the USMC's 25mm GAU-12, but the USAF using a USMC weapon would be an uphill political sell.Nice thing about WHIFFing a PMC... all that matters is getting an authorization and the check to clear. :D
I remember those, I'm pretty sure that's why I painted my F-16 like I have (sorry, best pic I have of it at the moment)
In Chinese no less ------ hmm ::)
In Chinese no less ------ hmm ::)
Yes they have already produced a copy but those nasty American companies wont sell the metallurgical tech so they don't work, time for some more industrial espionage. :icon_ninja:
And also the Diverterless Supersonic Intake:
([url]http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2010_f16_dsi_02_1267828237_7281.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://aviationintel.com/fast-history-lockheeds-diverterless-supersonic-inlet-testbed-f-16/[/url])
More like the X-32 was taken from it as this modification to the testbed F-16 was done back in the late 1990's.
Well, here's two build ideas...For "Spare no Expense", go with the advanced option offered the UAE that has a wing very similar to the F-22's and the F-16XL's conformal semi-submerged carriage of four AMRAAMs or equivalent plus wing hardpoints (six, in total, if I remember the illustrations correctly).
1. QUICK & DIRTY:
-Add rails on doors like Aircraft #2 in Greg's prior post--maybe LAU-12x-series with BOL dispensers.
-Shove an F110-GE-X or F100-PW-229A/232 up its backside. (-X is a GE demonstrator variant, putting out 36,500# thrust in Zone 5; PW-229A/232 are both 32,500#.) Definitely needs an AVEN/LOAN hybrid.
-Build on an E/F or a Sufa, with both spine and CFT's.
-Diverterless supersonic inlet.
-Wide Angle Raster HUD?
2. SPARE NO EXPENSE:
-As per Q&D, but:
-Start with a Sufa.
-Modify to an XL config, including stretching spine and CFT's.
-BOL dispensers on all AMRAAM rails including wingtips--or maybe the dual-rail-plus-ECM-pod setup that IIRC Greg posted in another thread I can't find ATM.
-Cram the most powerful engine that'll fit up its arse.
The FSD F-16 that was flown with canards was used for years as an R&D testbed. It's final role was as a testbed for a variety of JSF technologies including the diverterless inlet.More like the X-32 was taken from it as this modification to the testbed F-16 was done back in the late 1990's.
Now that's interesting Evan, didn't know that ---
Was it developed with the new XF-X in mind then ?
More like the X-32 was taken from it as this modification to the testbed F-16 was done back in the late 1990's.
Now that's interesting Evan, didn't know that ---
Was it developed with the new XF-X in mind then ?
[url]http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/artwork/album221/Block%2070.jpg?m=1371937053[/url] ([url]http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/artwork/album221/Block%2070.jpg?m=1371937053[/url])
(and, yes, Greg, there was at least one 1/48 kit of a YF-16CCV produced - Taiwanese manufacturer, IIRC).
Never saw the F-16/J79, though; if I run across one, I'd definitely want it.
Interesting that the /79 has ROC markings.
Hard to put a false canopy on a 16. Might be cool looking.ISTR that at least one operator does so; don't remember who, though.
At least one of the F-16XLs did have it for a while:
([url]http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersAP07.files/general_dynamics_F-16XL_5.jpg[/url])
Looks like they did something similar at the rear of the aircraft, too. ???
Nice! Invite sent?
This is a real USN F-16N, saw it at the Palm Springs Air Museum last Thursday while on holiday. I thought the camo was a bit odd ---
([url]http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa263/kitnut617/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma%20Vacation%202016%203_zps2umwrmqy.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma%20Vacation%202016%203_zps2umwrmqy.jpg.html[/url])
Ex- navy bird, so I'm guessing dissimilar air combat training Aggressor? ???
Robert: Are those your lily white winter Canadian calf's? If yes, keep up the good work. ;D
Indeed - the F-16Ns were specifically designed for the Navy to be used as agressor aircraft in a dissimilar combat environment. The airframes featured a strenghtened structure and although derivatives of the C/D-models they had the older APG-66 radar installed.
Robert,
Indeed - the F-16Ns were specifically designed for the Navy to be used as agressor aircraft in a dissimilar combat environment. The airframes featured a strenghtened structure and although derivatives of the C/D-models they had the older APG-66 radar installed.
I thought I read somewhere that what got called the F-16N's were aircraft that were 'dumb-downed' F-16's to be sold to another country which got sanctions placed against it before the aircraft were delivered. Then GD were left with a bunch of aircraft, the solution was to make them Navy aggressors and have the USN buy them. Just didn't think the camo was real or not.
Robert,
Indeed - the F-16Ns were specifically designed for the Navy to be used as agressor aircraft in a dissimilar combat environment. The airframes featured a strenghtened structure and although derivatives of the C/D-models they had the older APG-66 radar installed.
I thought I read somewhere that what got called the F-16N's were aircraft that were 'dumb-downed' F-16's to be sold to another country which got sanctions placed against it before the aircraft were delivered. Then GD were left with a bunch of aircraft, the solution was to make them Navy aggressors and have the USN buy them. Just didn't think the camo was real or not.
I believe you are referring to the F-16/79 FX Export Fighter Program ([url]http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article12.html[/url]) which was a GE J-79 turbojet engine powered version for export to countries not eligible to receive the standard F-16 powered by the PW F-100 engines.
Robert,
Indeed - the F-16Ns were specifically designed for the Navy to be used as agressor aircraft in a dissimilar combat environment. The airframes featured a strenghtened structure and although derivatives of the C/D-models they had the older APG-66 radar installed.
I thought I read somewhere that what got called the F-16N's were aircraft that were 'dumb-downed' F-16's to be sold to another country which got sanctions placed against it before the aircraft were delivered. Then GD were left with a bunch of aircraft, the solution was to make them Navy aggressors and have the USN buy them. Just didn't think the camo was real or not.
I believe you are referring to the F-16/79 FX Export Fighter Program ([url]http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article12.html[/url]) which was a GE J-79 turbojet engine powered version for export to countries not eligible to receive the standard F-16 powered by the PW F-100 engines.
Production totalled 26 airframes of which 22 are singel-seat F-16N's and 4 are double-seat TF-16N's. The aircraft were in service between 1988 and 1998. At that time hair cracks were discovered in several bulckheads. The Navy didn't have the resources to replace them, so the aircraft were placed into storage at AMARC, ultimately being replaced by embargoed ex-Pakistani F-16s in 2003.
Did the embargoed ex-Pakistani ones also get converted and designated F-16N?
Did the embargoed ex-Pakistani ones also get converted and designated F-16N?
Some nice work there - what scale?
Croatia Set to Buy Aging Israeli Fighter Jets In $500 Million Deal
(Source: Times of Israel; posted March 28, 2018, 1:
ZAGREB, Croatia --- Croatia is set to buy a squadron of F-16 fighter jets from Israel to modernize its military, after the country’s top defense body backed the deal.
Zagreb launched a tender offer last year to acquire military jets to replace its outdated Russian-made MiG-21s.
Apart from Israel, the countries invited to submit bids included Greece, South Korea, Sweden and the United States.
“The defense council… has accepted that Israel made the best offer and gave a recommendation to the government to decide on acquiring” the Israeli planes, the defense council said in statement late Tuesday.
The deal to buy 12 already used F-16 jets, worth $500 million according to media reports, has yet to be confirmed by the government, but the approval is believed to be just a formality.
“It is a historic decision… a project guaranteeing Croatia’s security and sovereignty,” Defense Minister Damir Krsticevic told the state-run HR radio Wednesday.
The minister has said he expected the first jets to arrive in 2020, and the remaining ones by 2022.
Top Croatian officials have voiced concern over the condition of the country’s MiG-21s. Media reports said that only four of the 12 were fully operational.
Croatia joined NATO in 2009 and the European Union four years later.
-ends-
Israel fighter jet sale to Croatia fails after US objections
By Darko Bandic | AP
January 10 at 2:47 PM
ZAGREB, Croatia — Israel has failed to overcome U.S. objections to its plan to sell 12 used fighter jets to Croatia and the $500 million deal will likely be canceled, Croatia’s defense minister said Thursday.
Israel reached a tentative deal with Croatia in March for the sale of the upgraded F-16 Barak fighters, pending U.S. approval that would allow the American-made technology to be purchased by a third party.
Croatian Defense Minister Damir Krsticevic said after meeting with Israeli defense officials in Zagreb on Thursday that “despite accepted obligations,” Israel failed to obtain the needed consent and his ministry “will propose to the government to make appropriate decisions.”
The deal ran into trouble after Washington said that Israel needed to strip off the upgrades that were added after Israel took delivery of the aircraft from the United States some 30 years ago.
The sophisticated electronics and radar systems were crucial in Croatia’s decision to buy the F-16s from Israel instead of from the U.S. or Greece, which also bid for the contract.
Relations between the Trump administration and Israel have been very close, particularly on defense issues. But the sale of the jets to Croatia appears to be an exception. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met earlier this month but didn’t agree on a way to end the impasse.
The director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, Udi Adam, traveled to Croatia on Thursday in an apparent attempt to save the deal.
He said Croatia will not suffer financial consequences because of the failed deal, which was to be its largest single military purchase since it split from the Yugoslav federation in a bloody war in the 1990s.
He said at a joint media conference with the Croatian defense minister that “sadly, the conditions were not right (for finalizing the deal) because of the circumstances that were beyond our control.”
Israel is trying to get rid of its aging F-16s that will be replaced which more modern F-35 fighters.
Last week, Croatian Defense Minister Krsticevic said Israel provided “pre-guarantees” during the bidding process that U.S. officials would green-light the sale. The problems in carrying out the deal have brought calls for Krsticevic’s resignation.
NATO member Croatia faces a mini arms race with Russian ally Serbia, which recently received six used Russian MiG-29 fighter jets.
Nose intake, radarless simple F-16
([url]https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Simple_F16.jpeg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Simple_F16.jpeg.html[/url])
Nose intake, radarless simple F-16That is cool. I just wonder if there's enough space to get the intake duct past the pilot.
I think F-16 started in an era when you needed to have something that lets you see BVR.
Nobody bought it without radar.
I think F-16 started in an era when you needed to have something that lets you see BVR.
If you look into the history of the F-16 and especially the lightweight Advanced Day Fighter (ADF) and Light Weight Fighter (LWF) programs that led to it, you will see that they were looking for something focussed originally on daytime dogfighting, with only minimal avionics being provided. For instance, the YF-16 was closer to this when you compare to later production variants:
I wouldn't say the noise level was comparable. Where I live I get to hear F-16s, F/A-18s, and F-35s and the F-35's engine is definitely the loudest by far; though the comparability might be in burner, all trigger car alarms when taking off with afterburners going.
I wouldn't say the noise level was comparable. Where I live I get to hear F-16s, F/A-18s, and F-35s and the F-35's engine is definitely the loudest by far; though the comparability might be in burner, all trigger car alarms when taking off with afterburners going.
The F-35 at least doubles the racket of the F-16. American Air bases done some measerments..
The Nellis EIS, reported the F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db, and the F16 at 89 db (a 14 db difference).
The Burlington Vermont EIS, reports that the F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off, while the F-16 produces 94 db (a 21 db difference).
[url]http://www.citizensforalivableboise.org/news/-5-f-35-noise-studies-show-the-f-35-is-much-louder-than-the-f-16-and-a-10[/url] ([url]http://www.citizensforalivableboise.org/news/-5-f-35-noise-studies-show-the-f-35-is-much-louder-than-the-f-16-and-a-10[/url])
(https://siivet.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/F-35-Lightning-HX-hanke-HX-Challenge-202002-3.jpg)
:-* :-* :-*
4th Gen looks like a twin-engined, twin-tailed Viper with canards - cool! 8)
Well the engine is 1 1/2 times more powerful, why would it be quieter ?
Well the engine is 1 1/2 times more powerful, why would it be quieter ?
About 20 jears of development past the F-100, and they can't make the bloody thing (F-135) a bit less noisy???
Well the engine is 1 1/2 times more powerful, why would it be quieter ?
About 20 jears of development past the F-100, and they can't make the bloody thing (F-135) a bit less noisy???
F100-PW-200 | F135-PW-100 | |||
Length: 191 inches (490 cm) Diameter: 46.5 inches (118 cm) Dry weight: 3,234 pounds (1,467 kg) Max thrust: 23,930 lbf (106.4 kN | Length: 220 in (559 cm) Diameter: 46 in (117 cm) Dry weight: 3,750 lb (1,701 kg) Max Thrust: 43,000 lbf (191 kN) | <--- ~14% increase <--- ~1% decrease <--- ~16% increase <--- ~79.5% increase!!! |
You can absolutely make jet engines quieter today than 20 years ago.Well the engine is 1 1/2 times more powerful, why would it be quieter ?
About 20 jears of development past the F-100, and they can't make the bloody thing (F-135) a bit less noisy???
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/9b9/Screen_191121_203038.png)
F-16XL-1 and F-16XL-2 with the conformal fuel tanks and the hump on the spine.
I've been restoring my old Airfix F-16 into a AF-16. <...>
F-16XL-1 and F-16XL-2 with the conformal fuel tanks and the hump on the spine.
Good to hear! I was checking fit of the spine from one of my 1:48 Italeri F-16 kits and it looks like it should be an easy adaptation. Have to dig out the conformal fuel tanks I have stashed away to see how those will work. I think the XL is a bit longer than the standard F-16 so there may be a need to lengthen the conformal tanks to make the things fit.F-16XL-1 and F-16XL-2 with the conformal fuel tanks and the hump on the spine.It’s on my list. I have the Monogram XL kit and the Hasegawa Sufa kit to combine.
TXAFNG "Ace in the Hole"Hasegawa did a boxing with those markings as well as there being aftermarket decals available. Sadly, the 111th now flies drones.
(https://media.defense.gov/2007/Nov/23/2000427719/-1/-1/0/071123-F-9876D-111.JPG)
from
https://taskandpurpose.com/mandatory-fun/air-force-birthday-f-16-paint-job
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e57/cover.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/6db/Screen_191008_021003.jpg)
As far as I can remember, the XL is longer than a regular F-16 so you will have to lenghten the spine and CFT. But once finished, it looks really good:Beautiful work!
(https://www.themodelingdutchman.com/On_Display/OD_F-16E/OD_F-16E_01_full.jpg)
More pics here: https://www.themodelingdutchman.com/on_display_jets_f-16E.html (https://www.themodelingdutchman.com/on_display_jets_f-16E.html)
I remember of another build base on the 2-seat variant and with spine+CFT but I can't find it back :icon_crap:
As far as I can remember, the XL is longer than a regular F-16 ....
Taking this idea further, what if in 1976, the Canadian government instead of acquiring Canadair Ltd. from General Dynamics, manages a deal whereby they will invest in Canadair so long as General Dynamics agrees to establish an F-16 production line in Canada, possibly as a follow on to the CF-5 production. At this stage the F-16 was only just getting started so that General Dynamics might welcome the funding/early export win. The RCAF would then have a new fighter some 5 yrs or so earlier. There could also be potential export sales.
One Carl pointed me towards:Oh....
...
If so, what about snagging some of the early F-16As now in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB? Not as capable as the ROCAF Vipers but wouldn't have any trouble catching up with an H-6! And if pilots are in short supply, start up the AVG again ;)
Can't say I don't like the idea. How would the operating cost be compared to the F-16V?
Were it me, I'd regard the F-16As as direct replacements for your F-5Es. Think of the 'As as glorified LIFTs being used to fill in (and train) on intercept missions. I said 'slick' because you basically need to catch up to the H-6s and wave your AIM-9s at them.
I don't know if it'd make sense, but this makes me once again start thinking of an F-16 version of the F-5AT ([url]https://tacticalairsupport.com/airplanes/northrop-f-5/[/url]) aggressor upgrade ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1696.msg181385#msg181385[/url]).
I was kind of arguing for an F-16A downgrade. Take on 'refreshed' F-16As from Davis-Monthan and make their primary role advanced FLIT. However, the same radar and AAMs that make them useful FLIT would also make these stripped-down F-16As good fill-ins for intercept ... not as ideal, modernized fighters, just way better than bizjets ;)
How much life is there left in those F-16A airframes?If so, what about snagging some of the early F-16As now in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB? Not as capable as the ROCAF Vipers but wouldn't have any trouble catching up with an H-6! And if pilots are in short supply, start up the AVG again ;)
Can't say I don't like the idea. How would the operating cost be compared to the F-16V?
How much life is there left in those F-16A airframes?
Were they retired because something better was available, or because the airframes were too tired for economical refurbishment?
Taiwan might be better placed to ask for AV-8Bs and/or try to get F-35Bs given most active military air bases (and even suitable sized stretches of road) have presumably been pre-targetted by Chinese missiles (non-nuclear but ballistic and otherwise) and thus would presumably expect to be taken out within the first minutes of any potential conflict. Even hardened hangers and the like are no use if your runways are useless. Personally, if I were planning Taiwan's defences, I would be after the following......
Agreed. If/when it comes to war-fighting, dispersed Harriers would be a great fit. I know that the Marines are dragging out AV-8B retirement until 2030 (at least, incrementally). But maybe the Biden Admin is motivated enough to nudge the Corps into giving up some Harrier IIs early?
On the F-35Bs, that word 'try' worries me. Taipei might as well get the parade started (ditto for mobile ABMs and SAMs) but, how long before it actually bears fruit?
As for finding "a way to work together with China", I'd suggest that means complying with whatever whim is currently being presented as 'Xi Jinping Thought' :P
How much life is there left in those F-16A airframes?
Were they retired because something better was available, or because the airframes were too tired for economical refurbishment?
Good questions. Even Taiwan's older Block 20 F-16As are more advanced than those stored earlier-Block F-16As. And, yes, additional, fully combat-capable F-16Vs would be much more desirable. Taipei has the money to go that route. The critical question is whether Xi will grant them the time to get through FMS approval process, new-airframe construction time, etc.
Here, we've been talking about a quickly-available air-intercept deterrent. I'm arguing that even early-model F-16A - appropriately stripped down to only that specialist role - can perform the interception role better than any kitted-up business jet (old or new). And those F-16As would be available to Taiwan much quicker than any new-build fighters.
Currently, the US seems motivated to push back against Beijing. That could translate into quick FMS approval for minimally tarted-up 'As. (Considering their anti-CPC rhetoric, Republicans in Congress would have a hard time saying 'no' to this request.) Taiwan gets interceptors quickly and, I'm betting, with more hours remaining on their airframes than the ROCAF's existing F-5E fleet.
When the time comes, leave the hard fighting to the Block 20s and 'Vs. Meanwhile plough even more hours onto those older Davis-Monthan airframes - as both LIFT and pure interceptors. Both roles serve to reduce Block 20 and F-16V flight-time (and, you could argue, 'cold war' intercepts are a natural extension of LIFT anyway). Alternatively, Taipei can gamble that they've got plenty of time to order up something shiny-new and ideal ...
... would not ex ANG F-16ADF's be a good fit in the short term, and at a reasonable cost?
Just a thought but if the PRC built Spey engined -16s I am assuming the small intake would be big enough? Asking as the Spey engined F-4s needed bigger intakes.
Just a thought but if the PRC built Spey engined -16s I am assuming the small intake would be big enough? Asking as the Spey engined F-4s needed bigger intakes.
Perhaps. The F-16/79 in fact had to adopt an even smaller intake than the stock F100-powered models. The Spey-powered Phantom has 20%-larger intakes than the stock Phantoms.
The Spey Mk.202 seems heavier but both more-powerful and having a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the J79. It also doesn't run as hot as the J79 although I have no idea how that compares to the F100. Maybe the engine heat shield can be dispensed with?
A PLA F-16 would be in competition against the Shenyang J-11 (the old one, that can be thought of as a Sino Mirage F1) and the 601 Institute's J-13 (which, incidentally, looks like a F-16 from certain angles)...... a Spey-powered F-16 would likely end up assigned to Xian for production alongside the Spey engine.
Swedish Falcon...
Real world marketing attempts:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/scan0004-2_edited-1.jpg)
Though, when in use they would block the now-standard setup of LANTIRN/Sniper pods and/or HARM Targeting System pod on the intake "cheek" stations.
I built this one (Otaki 1/48) in 1978 while in Air Cadets.
The Japanese movie Patlabor 2 features a Stealth F-16 called the Night Falcon...
Heartily agree. I may well fit that to my kit of that aircraft.The Japanese movie Patlabor 2 features a Stealth F-16 called the Night Falcon...
Nice! On the stealth side, though, this Night Falcon would really benefit from a Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI).