Author Topic: F-16 never happens  (Read 8261 times)

Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #45 on: September 01, 2016, 02:23:44 AM »
That Norwegian ones looks very natural.

Cheers,

Logan


Thank you!

Thinking a little bit more about the Antarctic Eagles theme, I suddenly realized I could've made a Canadian Eagle as well...but you know, nah!

A Canadian Viggen sounds better:


Regards.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #46 on: September 01, 2016, 03:07:24 AM »
Love the Norwegian F-15 and the Canadian Viggen
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Crbad

  • I'd buy that for a dollar!
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #47 on: September 01, 2016, 10:57:18 AM »
Would it be possible to put a J-79 in an F-20? They tried putting one in an F-16. What if the USAF put money to develop the Lockheed CL-1200? Perhaps there would be more interest from countries that already had the Starfighter. Would Mig-21s sell better in Asia and the middle East? Maybe Mig-29s later? What kind of price tags do the French and Swedes carry? Sorry, for all the questions but this is an interesting topic.
Craig's Bureau of Aeronautics Design: Shoddy engineering and marginal skill for the undiscerning modelling enthusiast.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #48 on: September 01, 2016, 11:00:26 AM »
Would it be possible to put a J-79 in an F-20? They tried putting one in an F-16. What if the USAF put money to develop the Lockheed CL-1200? Perhaps there would be more interest from countries that already had the Starfighter. Would Mig-21s sell better in Asia and the middle East? Maybe Mig-29s later? What kind of price tags do the French and Swedes carry? Sorry, for all the questions but this is an interesting topic.
Nope, F-20 airframe is too small for a J79 (J79 is 6" greater in diameter than the F404); J79 in the F-16 fits a smaller engine in place of the F100; not a larger one.  An export F-16 for countries not cleared for the F100 could have used an afterburning TF41.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #49 on: September 01, 2016, 01:26:27 PM »
Would it be possible to put a J-79 in an F-20? They tried putting one in an F-16. What if the USAF put money to develop the Lockheed CL-1200? Perhaps there would be more interest from countries that already had the Starfighter. Would Mig-21s sell better in Asia and the middle East? Maybe Mig-29s later? What kind of price tags do the French and Swedes carry? Sorry, for all the questions but this is an interesting topic.

It's hard to put an actual 'shelf price' on any aircraft because the deals are more complicated than that, involving politics, offsets, subsidies, support contracts etc, etc..

Mirage F.1 was generally affordable. Mirage 2000 was, I think, somewhat more expensive than the F-16, although that might be down to production numbers, and several operators complained about expensive spares backup too.

With Sweden, politics and production scheduling have been bigger problems than price. Several export deals fell through because SAAB was maxed out building aircraft for the Swedish Air Force and the latter wouldn't give up early production slots (the way the French government has frequently made the French Air Force do) to get an export customer an acceptable delivery date. Sweden's ethical export policy has also been very restrictive (at least on conspicuous big-ticket items) so there's no way they'd let themselves sell to many of the customers the French, British and Americans have.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline perttime

  • The man has produced a Finnish Napier Heston Fighter...need we say more?
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #50 on: September 01, 2016, 03:56:31 PM »
Antarctic Eagles ;)

Finland:

I cannot see the Finnish one?

The Finnish fighter acquisition in early '90s was between Mirage 2000, F-16, Gripen and F/A-18 Hornet. MiG-29 was considered but dropped early.

Now, the next round is being prepared, and requests for information have been sent about at least F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet, F-16 and ... F-15. Looks like Boeing and LM will NOT be responding about F-15 and F-16.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2016, 03:18:52 AM »
Would it be possible to put a J-79 in an F-20? They tried putting one in an F-16. What if the USAF put money to develop the Lockheed CL-1200? Perhaps there would be more interest from countries that already had the Starfighter. Would Mig-21s sell better in Asia and the middle East? Maybe Mig-29s later? What kind of price tags do the French and Swedes carry? Sorry, for all the questions but this is an interesting topic.
Nope, F-20 airframe is too small for a J79 (J79 is 6" greater in diameter than the F404);

IIRC I drew up a speculative J79 powered F-20 years ago - it was UGLY!!!
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline taiidantomcat

  • Plastic Origamist...and not too shabby with the painting either!
  • Global Moderator
  • Stylishly late...because he was reading comics
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2016, 02:29:19 AM »
I found the original passage I mentioned from the OP


Quote
Probably the Critics most lasting impact was the F-16. The Criticsí idea of a
lightweight fighter blended nicely with Lairdís and Packardís desire to test their ideas of
aircraft acquisition through prototyping, as well as for the Air Forceís need for force
structure based on the expectation of a long period of limited defense budgets.

 Once the Air Force accepted the F-16 and changed it into a fighter-bomber, it gradually became the
most important military aircraft in the world. Today more than 4300 have been produced, and it is still in production.

One can argue that the Light Weight Fighter/F-16 was not the right choice for the Air
Force. The F-15 offered considerably more potential as a fighter-bomber. A normal F-15
could carry eighteen 500-pound bombs to the F-16ís four, as well as having much more
room for internal growth for improved weapons systems. The FAST Packs, which added
6000 pounds of fuel, gave it a range of 3500 miles, more than twice the range of the F-16.
Had the Air Force opted to buy more F-15s for use as fighter-bombers, it would have had
an aircraft with much greater range and load carrying capability than the F-16 and would
have avoided the delays involved in the AMRAAM and LANTIRN programs caused by
having to make the systems small enough to fit on the F-16. An F-15 fighter-bomber
could also have used the Pave Tack all-weather targeting device immediately, rather than
waiting for LANTIRN. However, the F-15 versus F-16 arguments only apply to the USAF.


Arguably, themain impact of the F-16 was in its acquisition not only by Americaís allies but also by
the Air Forceís National Guard and Reserve forces. While the Israelis provided the
combat experience, the F-16s gave the NATO allies, the National Guard, and the
Reserves a modern, credible fighter, and one that was completely compatible with firstline
USAF equipment. The result was that throughout the 1980s western air forces were
far more capable than those of the Warsaw Pact.

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

PDF^

The whole thing is free to DL BTW
"They know you can do anything, So the question is, what don't you do?"

-David Fincher

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2016, 08:54:28 AM »
Ok, my take in this scenario, is as follows:

The USAF's LWF/ACF program is first and foremost an 'American designed and built'. The American-centric Military Industrial/Congressional Complex wouldn't allow anything but an American design - so the suggested Dassault Mirage F1, SEPECAT Jaguar derivatives are out! (I know, it's What If!)
I would assume that if, as so correctly denoted, that the GE YF101 engine would still potentially be developed further, as the Northrop P-530, from which the eventual P-600/YF-17 would be developed, was in fact a private development and marketing Northrop program; so the acclaimed F404 might still eventually be derived (Although saying this, the driving force behind the F404, was the USN's adoption and further development of the YF-17 Cobra into the larger and heavier F-18 and A-18 [and eventual F/A-18A/B] Hornet.)
Although saying this I think the P-530 Cobra was far less carrier adaptive than the YF-17!
There's also the prospective scenario that Northrop builds the single-engine F100 powered P-610 variant of the YF-17!!

I know and appreciate that the Vought 'Super V-1000' would have been a good and affordable choice for a air force lightweight air superiority fighter. But I think the fact that the Super V-1000 was just the same fundamentally based on a 1950's design, I'm thinking the USAF (and NATO air force's) wouldn't appreciate this lineage - regardless of its F-8 Crusader combat proven capability.
Also ironically even though the USAF favoured the V-1000 over the proposed lightweight F-4E Phantom II and F-5E Tiger II, as it's preference choice for the 'International Fighter Aircraft (IFA) competition (which was won by the Northrop F-5E Tiger II), even with the USAF favoured F100 engine fitted, I don't know if the USAF would have allowed another Navy lineage fighter within its service!
There is also the question of the Super V-1000's offensive weapons capability 're NATO requirements! Unfortunately I don't have enough information/knowledge about the Super V-1000 wing pylon capability - and hence weapons carrying capability - it's true multi-role capability being preeminent in its NATO want and selection.
I also think the USAF would frown at the Super V-1000's two single 20mm cannons, as opposed to its favoured 20mm M61 multi-barrel cannon (Although the USAF and LTV did remedy this exact issue with the USAF's A-7D!)
Then there's the inherent Crusader issue of minimalist size/volume for avionics/sensors/systems. I think it's clearly known and appreciated that the Crusader design had reached its growth potential. Would the likes of the APG-66 multi-media radar system been able to be fitted to the Super V-1000?
On a positive side, I love the thought of the Super V-1000 meeting the original American Congressional decree that the USN VFAX/NACF adopt the selected winning design of the USAF's LWF/ACF. I would like to envisage a USN Super V-1000 equipped with the F401 turbofan (yes the F-14B Tomcat gets its F401's!!). But once again, I don't know if the Super V-1000 could/would meet the 'attack' requirements of the USN's 'VFAX' specifications! Maybe the USN would opt for a A-7F (with F401) and Super V-1000 mix to meet VFAX?

Then again, I really really like the notion of a of the Vought/LTV V-1100!!
Although denoted as yet a further evolution of the F-8 Crusader, the V-1100, clearly went beyond the Super V-1000 attempted refinements, into what appears to be an almost a completely new tailored air-superiority design. I'm thinking with its Vought lineage, it could have been adapted for carrier operations to meet USN's VFAX/NACF specifications!

P.S. As a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the NATO air force's adopting the Saab Viggen either!!

M.A.D
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 04:07:01 PM by M.A.D »

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2016, 12:17:11 AM »
I don't think anyone's suggesting the USAF would take the Mirage F1 or Jaguar, it's more that they'd do better in the export market without the F-16 to compete with, getting custom from some of the countries who bought the latter in real life. The USAF would probably just buy more F-15s, possibly followed up with USAF-spec Tornados (since that was a real world proposal).

Given that the APG-66 was shoe-horned into both the Skyhawk and the Hawk 200, I doubt whether there'd be a problem fitting it in the Crusader.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2016, 01:38:02 PM »
I don't think anyone's suggesting the USAF would take the Mirage F1 or Jaguar, it's more that they'd do better in the export market without the F-16 to compete with, getting custom from some of the countries who bought the latter in real life. The USAF would probably just buy more F-15s, possibly followed up with USAF-spec Tornados (since that was a real world proposal).

Given that the APG-66 was shoe-horned into both the Skyhawk and the Hawk 200, I doubt whether there'd be a problem fitting it in the Crusader.

Cool, thanks Weaver  ;)
Seeing ironically that the USAF would predominantly employ the F-16 as a bomb-truck, the USAF-spec Tornado would be an interesting piece of kit for USAF! (Wasn't the real-world USAF Tornado geared towards Wild Weasel role?)!

M.A.D

Offline nils

  • 1/144 addict
  • Za Rodina!!!
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2016, 04:42:27 PM »
in the case of Belgium, i think they would have gone for the Tornado, Viggen, Mirage F1 or F/A-18 instead, they were concidering joining the MRCA project with the Netherlands and Canada, before they found out how much they would have to pay for it.

as for the USAF and other countries, the F-20 Tigershark might have never been cancelled.
on the bench:
-various models

on the drawing board:
-various 1/72 TinTin aircraft
-1/72 Eurocopter Tiger (Belgian Army)
-various other 1/72 and 1/144 aircraft

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #57 on: September 18, 2016, 03:08:57 AM »
Speaking of USAF Tornadoes:



All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #58 on: September 19, 2016, 09:16:13 AM »
Ok, my take in this scenario, is as follows:

The USAF's LWF/ACF program is first and foremost an 'American designed and built'. The American-centric Military Industrial/Congressional Complex wouldn't allow anything but an American design - so the suggested Dassault Mirage F1, SEPECAT Jaguar derivatives are out! (I know, it's What If!)
I would assume that if, as so correctly denoted, that the GE YF101 engine would still potentially be developed further, as the Northrop P-530, from which the eventual P-600/YF-17 would be developed, was in fact a private development and marketing Northrop program; so the acclaimed F404 might still eventually be derived (Although saying this, the driving force behind the F404, was the USN's adoption and further development of the YF-17 Cobra into the larger and heavier F-18 and A-18 [and eventual F/A-18A/B] Hornet.)
Although saying this I think the P-530 Cobra was far less carrier adaptive than the YF-17!
There's also the prospective scenario that Northrop builds the single-engine F100 powered P-610 variant of the YF-17!!

I know and appreciate that the Vought 'Super V-1000' would have been a good and affordable choice for a air force lightweight air superiority fighter. But I think the fact that the Super V-1000 was just the same fundamentally based on a 1950's design, I'm thinking the USAF (and NATO air force's) wouldn't appreciate this lineage - regardless of its F-8 Crusader combat proven capability.
Also ironically even though the USAF favoured the V-1000 over the proposed lightweight F-4E Phantom II and F-5E Tiger II, as it's preference choice for the 'International Fighter Aircraft (IFA) competition (which was won by the Northrop F-5E Tiger II), even with the USAF favoured F100 engine fitted, I don't know if the USAF would have allowed another Navy lineage fighter within its service!
There is also the question of the Super V-1000's offensive weapons capability 're NATO requirements! Unfortunately I don't have enough information/knowledge about the Super V-1000 wing pylon capability - and hence weapons carrying capability - it's true multi-role capability being preeminent in its NATO want and selection.
I also think the USAF would frown at the Super V-1000's two single 20mm cannons, as opposed to its favoured 20mm M61 multi-barrel cannon (Although the USAF and LTV did remedy this exact issue with the USAF's A-7D!)
Then there's the inherent Crusader issue of minimalist size/volume for avionics/sensors/systems. I think it's clearly known and appreciated that the Crusader design had reached its growth potential. Would the likes of the APG-66 multi-media radar system been able to be fitted to the Super V-1000?
On a positive side, I love the thought of the Super V-1000 meeting the original American Congressional decree that the USN VFAX/NACF adopt the selected winning design of the USAF's LWF/ACF. I would like to envisage a USN Super V-1000 equipped with the F401 turbofan (yes the F-14B Tomcat gets its F401's!!). But once again, I don't know if the Super V-1000 could/would meet the 'attack' requirements of the USN's 'VFAX' specifications! Maybe the USN would opt for a A-7F (with F401) and Super V-1000 mix to meet VFAX?

Then again, I really really like the notion of a of the Vought/LTV V-1100!!
Although denoted as yet a further evolution of the F-8 Crusader, the V-1100, clearly went beyond the Super V-1000 attempted refinements, into what appears to be an almost a completely new tailored air-superiority design. I'm thinking with its Vought lineage, it could have been adapted for carrier operations to meet USN's VFAX/NACF specifications!

P.S. As a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the NATO air force's adopting the Saab Viggen either!!

M.A.D

Ok, a little more research confirms the naval derivative of the V-1100 was the V-523, which in itself was a more refined derivative too meet USN's VFAX requirements......
So I'm more confident in throwing my weight behind the Vought V-1100/V-523 design to meet both the USAF LWF/ACF and USN's VFAX competitions ;)

Would greatly appreciate profiles of the V-1100 in F-16 user colours and marking :P

M.A.D
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 10:24:18 AM by M.A.D »

Offline taiidantomcat

  • Plastic Origamist...and not too shabby with the painting either!
  • Global Moderator
  • Stylishly late...because he was reading comics
Re: F-16 never happens
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2016, 08:27:28 AM »
Is this a subject that would make a good group build idea?
"They know you can do anything, So the question is, what don't you do?"

-David Fincher