WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
F-16 Fighter Jet Aircraft
Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest
- Thread starter Galaxy
- Start date
F-16 Fighter Jet Aircraft
Sell Tejas to the Israeli's...
Israel's newest F-16I Sufa fighter jets
F-16I Soufa Multirole Fighter, Israel
The F-16I Soufa (Storm) is a modified variant of the F-16D block 50 and 52 fighter and ground attack aircraft, with the avionics and weapons systems capability modified to meet the requirements of the Israeli Air Force. Israel ordered 50 F-16I aircraft in 2001 and signed the agreement for an optional additional 52 aircraft in September 2001. The Israeli Air Force has selected the F16I in a two-seat configuration only.
The production programme, Peace Marble V, is the fifth acquisition of F-16s. It increased the number of Israeli Air Force F-16 aircraft to 362, giving the IAF the largest fleet of F-16 fighters apart from the USA.
The F16I Soufa made its maiden flight in December 2003. The first two aircraft were delivered to the IAF at the Ramon Air Base, in February 2004. Deliveries were completed at a rate of about two a month over four years, with final delivery in 2009. The 102nd aircraft was delivered in 2009.
There is a significant level of airframe co-production and avionics component production in Israel for the Soufa and for other variants of the F-16. IAI and Cyclone Aviation Products Ltd in Carmiel manufacture the ventral fins, rudders, horizontal stabilisers and engine access doors. The aircraft are assembled at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility in Fort Worth, Texas.
In September 2009, the IAF temporarily grounded the F-16I from training operations after a jet experienced engine failure.
F-16I Sousa fighter design
The F-16I is fitted with a pair of removable conformal fuel tanks provided by IAI. The conformal fuel tanks (CFT), holding 450gal of extra fuel, are mounted on both sides of the upper fuselage. The very low drag configuration CFTs have a very small effect on the aircraft's agility, handling quality and flight limits. The use of the conformal tanks increases the aircraft's mission range and combat endurance.
The fitting of conformal tanks makes the two wing inner store stations normally used for external tanks (stations 6 and 4, each rated at 4,500lb capacity) available for weapon carriage, doubling the aircraft's air-to-ground weapons capacity.
The F16I is fitted with a dorsal avionics compartment. The first version produced with the dorsal compartment was the Israeli two-seat block 30 F-16D aircraft, produced in the late 1980s. The large dorsal compartment extends from the rear of the cockpit to the fin and houses additional avionics systems, chaff and flare dispensers and the aircraft's in-flight refuelling receptacle.
Cockpit
The front cockpit is for the pilot and the rear cockpit is configured for the weapons systems operator or, with the change of a single switch, for a pilot instructor.
"The F-16I Soufa fighter aircraft are assembled at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility in
Fort Worth, Texas."
The Elbit Dash IV display and sight helmet system enables the pilot to aim the weapon by looking the target. Dash IV shortens the lock-on procedure time for engagements. The helmet measures the pilot's line of sight to the target so the sensors, avionics and weapons are slaved to the target. Dash IV improves situation awareness by helping the pilots to visually detect targets at high angles off the nose of the aircraft, providing critical information in any direction the pilot looks.
The Soufa is fitted with a wide angle head up display from Elop and high definition (120ppi) 4in x 4in colour multi-function displays supplied by Astronautics CA of Petah Tikva, Israel.
Other new features include a colour moving map display, digital video recording equipment, cockpit lighting and external strip lighting compatible with night vision goggles and a high capacity data transfer set.
F-16I Soufa fighter avionics
The Soufa has an advanced avionics suite including general avionics computer, colour display processors and interfaces all produced by Elbit Systems.
The communications systems include a Rafael UHF/VHF radio and an HF radio, Elta satellite communications and an IAI integrated tactical video data link.
The navigation system includes a combined ring laser gyro inertial navigation system and global positioning system (RLGINS/GPS) and a digital terrain system. Rafael developed the algorithms for the digital terrain system.
In June 2008, Elbit systems supplied the F-16I simulator system that is compatible with the aircraft avionics and cockpit.
Weapon systems
Elbit supplied the aircraft's central mission computer, the signal processing unit for the displays and the stores management systems. RADA Electronics Industries in Netanya, Israel, and Smiths Aerospace, USA, have developed the aircraft's data acquisition system with an advanced digital data server and data recording system. Israel Military Industries supplies most of the weapons pylons and racks and the external fuel tanks.
The mission data and video is downloaded to a ground debriefing station provided by RADA. The system has potential for three-dimensional, multi-aircraft mission creation.
"The navigation system includes a combined ring laser gyro inertial navigation system and global positioning system."
The Rafael Litening II targeting and navigation pod is equipped with a third generation forward looking infrared (FLIR), charge-coupled device (CCD) television, laser spot tracker and rangefinder and infrared marker. The system enables the pilot to detect, identify, acquire and track ground targets for the delivery of conventional and precision guided weapons, such as laser guided or GPS guided bombs.
The aircraft is also equipped with the Lockheed Martin LANTIRN navigation pod which provides night navigation and all-weather automatic terrain following.
Air-to-air missiles
The air-to-air missiles are the short range Python 4 and Python 5 and the short range to beyond visual range radar-guided Derby, both supplied by Rafael.
The all-weather Derby has an active radar seeker, look down / shoot down capability, lock on before or after launch, and programmable electronic counter countermeasures (ECCM). The lock on before launch mode is deployed for tight dogfights.
The F16I is equipped with the Rafael Python 5 air-to-air missile. The Python 5 is capable of lock on after launch and uses imaging infrared guidance. The new seeker uses a dual wavelength focal plane array and is equipped with robust infrared counter countermeasures capability.
Air-to-ground systems
The air-to-surface weapons are carried on the two pairs of inboard underwing stations and include anti-ship missiles, anti-radiation missiles, laser guided bombs, GPS guided bombs and Israeli Military Industries (IMI) runway attack munitions. The F-16 aircraft has been used in carriage trials of IMI's STAR-1 anti-radiation weapon which is in the development phase.
F-16I Soufa fighter countermeasures
The electronic warfare suite, being supplied by Elisra, includes radar warning receivers, missile approach warners and jamming systems, including the Elisra SPS 3000 self-protection jammer which is installed in the large spine. The chaff and flare dispenser is supplied by Rokar.
F-16I radar
The aircraft has the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-68(V)9 multi-mode radar, which has five times the processing speed and ten times the memory capacity of the previous APG-68 radars on the F-16. Elta is involved in the co-production of the radar.
The modes of operation include high resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) ground mapping and terrain following. The radar provides autonomous, all-weather, stand-off precision weapon delivery. Air-to-air modes include range while search, air combat mode, multiple target track while scan, cluster resolution, single target tracking and target illumination pulse Doppler tracking. The radar increases the air-to-air detection range by 30% compared to earlier generation systems.
Engines
The Soufa is powered by the Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-229 increased performance engine (IPE). This new, more powerful engine allows the aircraft a maximum take-off weight of 23,582kg. The aircraft is also fitted with heavyweight landing gear.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-16i/
Blackwater
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 21,156
- Likes
- 12,211
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2015
- Messages
- 7,494
- Likes
- 17,197
IMHO Any new jet which IAF going to induct should have a life cycle of 30 - 40 years.
F 16 will obsolete in a decade, it can't be upgrade beyond certain point because its a 70s design.
For example - better future Radars and Avionics need higher power outputs which F 16 can't house in its nose cone.
So Rafale, Gripen or Mig 35 is a better choice.
F 16 will obsolete in a decade, it can't be upgrade beyond certain point because its a 70s design.
For example - better future Radars and Avionics need higher power outputs which F 16 can't house in its nose cone.
So Rafale, Gripen or Mig 35 is a better choice.
Although there is a great deal of justifiable pride in developing a supersonic fighter, something only a handful of countries have attempted, it may not make good sense to dismiss Gripen out of hand. Tejas is by no means out of the woods
LCA development started 33 years ago, and has yet to produce a production standard aircraft. SP-1, 2 & 3 are not up to production standard SP-1 hadn't even been delivered to the Indian Air Force more than 10 months after the delivery documentations was turned over and SP-1, 2 & 3 won't be to true production spec. It appears that LCA has become acceptable to Indian air force because they have reportedly waived those requirements it doesn't meet. This isn't unique. In the US, for example, this was the case on the F-111, Hornet and F-35.l.
As far as MK 1+ (also widely known as MK1A)is concerned, if successful, will be the first version that will have a meaningful combat capability. It looks like it consists primarily of a new Israeli AESA radar co-produced in India, a significant improvement which will finally give BVR capability, a new jammer, some other avionics improvements and air refueling capability. It will be the first model to have true combat capability and Ministry of Defense is pushing the air force to order 100 of them. Because the Tejas is so far behind schedule and the need is so great (the interim aircraft developed because of those delays are now themselves wearing out), it is doubtful that there is time to develop and test significant weight reduction or aerodynamic improvements in the MK1A. Because of the expertise needed to integrate these new systems, talks are underway with a foreign partner to help develop the MK1A. Ironically, that partner is Saab.
The MKII reportedly has been moved to low priority. It would require so much change and take so long to develop that the air force can't wait and looks like it will just go with the MK1A. Even then, whether it could march a Gripen E is problematical. This is a rough situation for the Navy. The naval LCA is even heavier than the presently overweight land version, because of all the extra equipment needed. Only two of the eight ordered have been received, and none of the eight will be to production standard. The current version with a 20 knot Wind Over Deck can depart on internal fuel only, only carry short range missiles and would have very limited flight time. This would get better with a MKII version, but that would be dependent on the air force developing its MKII, since the naval order alone would be too small to economically justify its development.
With the Gripen, on the other hand, Sweden is offering full cooperation and technology transfer on a very advanced aircraft, a new version of an aircraft with a proven track record. India could gain expertise in design, integration and production, with a production line located in-country and could customize the aircraft to meet its unique needs. Saab would gain a bigger production base and further credibility) As long as India didn't make unreasonable demands (such as requiring that Saab warranty Gripens produced in India that it has no control over), this could be one of those so-called "win-wins"
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
F2 is very similar to the death born Agile Falcon.Meet the Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 Fighter Jet
Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 getting ready to take off from a Taiwanese Air Force Base
The Japan Air Self-Defense Force maintains a capable multi-role performer in the F-16-derived Mitsubishi F-2. The F-2 was to be Japan's wholly indigenous multi-role fighter designed to replace the aging fleet of Mitsubishi F-1s for air defense, ground attack and maritime strike roles. Design work started in 1980's under the FS-X designation, but the US moved in with enough political and economic pressure to force Japan into abandoning it in favor of continued support for American-originated military equipment.
The JASDF focused on procurement of the Lockheed F-16C Block 40 "Fighting Falcon" multi-role platform. The aircraft was modified to suit Japanese military requirements with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries being the lead company and Lockheed remaining the primary US contributor with a 60/40 production sharing arrangement between Japan and the United States. General Electric, Kawasaki, Honeywell, Raytheon, NEC, Hazeltine, and Kokusai Electric are among the primary component sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin supplies the aft fuselage, leading-edge slats, stores management system, a large portion of wing boxes.
DEVELOPMENT
In October 1987, Japan selected the F-16 as the basis of design to replace the outdated Mitsubishi F-1. The F-2 program was controversial, because the unit cost of development costs are included, proved to be 4 times greater than an F-16 Block 50/52 , and in which not the expenses include research and development.
The initial flight of the F-2 was the 7th October of 1995 and JASDF ordered a total of 141 aircraft, which was quickly reduced to 130 fighters due to budgetary constraints, it was planned to be inducted before 1999; but structural problems led to the service entrance only in 2000. In 2004 a further cut reduced the project to 98 units, including prototypes. The total result of the program was essentially a plane the size and weight of an F-15 with only one engine. General Electric provided the turbofan engines.
Eighteen F-2 based on the Air Base Matsushima ( Miyagi Prefecture ) were swept away by the tsunami of March 11, 2011 .
Design
Despite its obvious appearance to the America fighter, the Mitsubishi F-2 incorporates enough new features and local technology to consider it a highly modified Japanese variant of the F-16. The F-2, at its core, is a single-seat, single-engine mount powered by the successful General Electric GE F100-series turbofan with afterburner feature. The fuselage, though mimicking the American F-16C in general contour and shape, has evolved to become some 25% larger than the original with more advanced composites introduced to its construction. The fuselage has been lengthened and a three-piece framed cockpit selected over the large -area glass version on the F-16. The tail unit has been given an increase in surface area while the intake is of a larger dimension.
Japanese engineers have developed a local fly-by-wire control software solution. The front radome houses a Mitsubishi-brand Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar while the cockpit retains Head-Up Display (HUD), color Multi-Function Displays (MFDs) and Hands-on-Throttle-and-Stick (HOTAS) control arrangement. A drogue parachute assists in providing short airfield landings.
Differences between F-2 and F-16:
- 25% more wing area.
- Use of composite materials to reduce the overall weight and electromagnetic radar signature.
- A longer nose and wide to accommodate a radar such as "phased-array".
- Train largest landing.
- Larger horizontal stabilizer.
- Making bigger air.
- Board computers, systems and other elements of attack avionics developed by NEC and Kokusai Electric
- Stealth potential capacities to combat stealth missions
- Dome 3-room cabin.
- Sleeps four ASW, ASM-1 and ASM-2, four MEAs, additional fuel tanks missiles
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
Nice !http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f16_article.html?item_id=181
F-16 modified with diverterless supersonic inlet, or DSI, developed for the Joint Strike Fighter program. At high aircraft speeds through supersonic, the bump in the inlet works with the forward-swept inlet cowl to redirect unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlet, essentially doing the job of heavier, more complex, and more costly diverters used by current fighters. The flight test program consisted of twelve flights flown in nine days in December 1996.
First time I see this kind of picture.
Bahamut
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,740
- Likes
- 2,259
If F 16 has any chance then it from deal similarly to F 2 with DSI.Meet the Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 Fighter Jet
Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 getting ready to take off from a Taiwanese Air Force Base
The Japan Air Self-Defense Force maintains a capable multi-role performer in the F-16-derived Mitsubishi F-2. The F-2 was to be Japan's wholly indigenous multi-role fighter designed to replace the aging fleet of Mitsubishi F-1s for air defense, ground attack and maritime strike roles. Design work started in 1980's under the FS-X designation, but the US moved in with enough political and economic pressure to force Japan into abandoning it in favor of continued support for American-originated military equipment.
The JASDF focused on procurement of the Lockheed F-16C Block 40 "Fighting Falcon" multi-role platform. The aircraft was modified to suit Japanese military requirements with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries being the lead company and Lockheed remaining the primary US contributor with a 60/40 production sharing arrangement between Japan and the United States. General Electric, Kawasaki, Honeywell, Raytheon, NEC, Hazeltine, and Kokusai Electric are among the primary component sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin supplies the aft fuselage, leading-edge slats, stores management system, a large portion of wing boxes.
DEVELOPMENT
In October 1987, Japan selected the F-16 as the basis of design to replace the outdated Mitsubishi F-1. The F-2 program was controversial, because the unit cost of development costs are included, proved to be 4 times greater than an F-16 Block 50/52 , and in which not the expenses include research and development.
The initial flight of the F-2 was the 7th October of 1995 and JASDF ordered a total of 141 aircraft, which was quickly reduced to 130 fighters due to budgetary constraints, it was planned to be inducted before 1999; but structural problems led to the service entrance only in 2000. In 2004 a further cut reduced the project to 98 units, including prototypes. The total result of the program was essentially a plane the size and weight of an F-15 with only one engine. General Electric provided the turbofan engines.
Eighteen F-2 based on the Air Base Matsushima ( Miyagi Prefecture ) were swept away by the tsunami of March 11, 2011 .
Design
Despite its obvious appearance to the America fighter, the Mitsubishi F-2 incorporates enough new features and local technology to consider it a highly modified Japanese variant of the F-16. The F-2, at its core, is a single-seat, single-engine mount powered by the successful General Electric GE F100-series turbofan with afterburner feature. The fuselage, though mimicking the American F-16C in general contour and shape, has evolved to become some 25% larger than the original with more advanced composites introduced to its construction. The fuselage has been lengthened and a three-piece framed cockpit selected over the large -area glass version on the F-16. The tail unit has been given an increase in surface area while the intake is of a larger dimension.
Japanese engineers have developed a local fly-by-wire control software solution. The front radome houses a Mitsubishi-brand Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar while the cockpit retains Head-Up Display (HUD), color Multi-Function Displays (MFDs) and Hands-on-Throttle-and-Stick (HOTAS) control arrangement. A drogue parachute assists in providing short airfield landings.
Differences between F-2 and F-16:
- 25% more wing area.
- Use of composite materials to reduce the overall weight and electromagnetic radar signature.
- A longer nose and wide to accommodate a radar such as "phased-array".
- Train largest landing.
- Larger horizontal stabilizer.
- Making bigger air.
- Board computers, systems and other elements of attack avionics developed by NEC and Kokusai Electric
- Stealth potential capacities to combat stealth missions
- Dome 3-room cabin.
- Sleeps four ASW, ASM-1 and ASM-2, four MEAs, additional fuel tanks missiles
WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
In exclusive deal, India to get ‘Most Advanced’ F-16 fighter jets by 2019-20
Lockheed Martin is currently scouting for land to set up its manufacturing unit. According to sources, it is looking to set up the plant in a State that will have a runway near a port.
US defence major Lockheed Martin has firmed up its plans to produce the latest version of its iconic F-16 fighter jets only in India under the ‘Make in India’ program. The multi-billion dollar deal was “finalised” during the recent visit of Lockheed Martin’s Chairman, President and CEO Marillyn Hewson here last week, a top official, involved in the talks, told BusinessLine.
‘Exclusively’ in India
Under the deal, the company will be manufacturing the latest version of the jets – F-16 Block 70/72 – that will be produced “exclusively” in India.
This will be the “most advanced” version and will not be built anywhere else in the world. Lockheed Martin also plans to export them from the India plant at a later stage, the official said. The F-16 project is a government-to-government deal that will be conducted through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.
However, it seems Lockheed Martin has no plans to take the 100 per cent foreign direct investment route for the program. It is likely to co-produce the F-16s in collaboration with the TATA Advanced Systems Ltd., which has been its partner for other defence and aerospace programs such as the C-130 cargo plane.
The Maryland-based firm is currently scouting for land to set up its manufacturing unit. According to sources, it is looking to set up the plant in a State that will have a runway near a port.
India had long been demanding that the F-16s it buys will have to be more advanced than what is sold to neighbouring Pakistan.
However, with the recent push on India-US defence ties, talks on setting up the F-16 plant in India have steadily progressed. The deal was “almost finalised” when Prime Minister Narendra Modi had visited Washington last month.
During this visit, Modi finalised the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) with the US, which is one of the three crucial foundational agreements that strengthened India-US defence ties.
India is also negotiating the remaining two foundational pacts with US.
As a result, the F-16 program of Lockheed Martin received a major thrust due to this strengthening of ties. Indian Air Force is in desperate need of modern fighter aircraft as it grapples with an ageing fleet.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/07/in-exclusive-deal-india-to-get-most.html
Lockheed Martin is currently scouting for land to set up its manufacturing unit. According to sources, it is looking to set up the plant in a State that will have a runway near a port.
US defence major Lockheed Martin has firmed up its plans to produce the latest version of its iconic F-16 fighter jets only in India under the ‘Make in India’ program. The multi-billion dollar deal was “finalised” during the recent visit of Lockheed Martin’s Chairman, President and CEO Marillyn Hewson here last week, a top official, involved in the talks, told BusinessLine.
‘Exclusively’ in India
Under the deal, the company will be manufacturing the latest version of the jets – F-16 Block 70/72 – that will be produced “exclusively” in India.
This will be the “most advanced” version and will not be built anywhere else in the world. Lockheed Martin also plans to export them from the India plant at a later stage, the official said. The F-16 project is a government-to-government deal that will be conducted through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.
However, it seems Lockheed Martin has no plans to take the 100 per cent foreign direct investment route for the program. It is likely to co-produce the F-16s in collaboration with the TATA Advanced Systems Ltd., which has been its partner for other defence and aerospace programs such as the C-130 cargo plane.
The Maryland-based firm is currently scouting for land to set up its manufacturing unit. According to sources, it is looking to set up the plant in a State that will have a runway near a port.
India had long been demanding that the F-16s it buys will have to be more advanced than what is sold to neighbouring Pakistan.
However, with the recent push on India-US defence ties, talks on setting up the F-16 plant in India have steadily progressed. The deal was “almost finalised” when Prime Minister Narendra Modi had visited Washington last month.
During this visit, Modi finalised the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) with the US, which is one of the three crucial foundational agreements that strengthened India-US defence ties.
India is also negotiating the remaining two foundational pacts with US.
As a result, the F-16 program of Lockheed Martin received a major thrust due to this strengthening of ties. Indian Air Force is in desperate need of modern fighter aircraft as it grapples with an ageing fleet.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/07/in-exclusive-deal-india-to-get-most.html
WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
F-16 Block 70 Fighter Jet
WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
F-16 Block 70 Fighter Jet
WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
F-16 Block 70 Fighter Jet
WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
F-16's 'Most Advance' To Be Made In India by 2019-20 In An Exclusive Deal
Zebra
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,060
- Likes
- 2,303
Last edited:
WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
F-16 Block 70 Fighter Jet
WolfPack86
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Messages
- 10,571
- Likes
- 16,993
F-16 Block 70 Fighter Jet
Bahamut
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,740
- Likes
- 2,259
F-16 AFTI
Advanced Fighter Technology Integration
F-16 Versions main menu
History
In order to evaluate unconventional control of an aircraft in flight, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory of the Air Force Systems Command sponsored an Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) program. On Dec 26, 1978, General Dynamics was awarded a contract to convert the sixth FSD F-16A (#75-0750) into an AFTI aircraft. It capitalized on the experience gained with the F-16 CCV (Control Configured Vehicle) (#72-1567). The aircraft was handed over to the company in March 1980.
F-16 AFTI in flight. You can clearly see the CCV canards below the air inlet. (NASA photo)
The AFTI F-16 was fitted with twin canard surfaces mounted below the air intake. Those canards had been taken from the CCV/F-16 CCV. The aircraft was also fitted with a bulged spine which housed additional electronics. It had a full-authority triplex Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) and an Automated Maneuvering Attack System (AMAS), providing six independent degrees of freedom. It had been designed to be fault tolerant, so that no single failure should affect correct operation. In the event of a second fault developing, the system was able to revert to a standby condition which would permit safe flight to continue. To guard against unforeseen failure modes which might bring the entire digital flight control system down, the system incorporates a simple analog backup flight-control system.
Voice-Controlled Interactive Device
An unusual piece of cockpit equipment is the Voice-Controlled Interactive Device (VCID); made by Lear-Siegler. This voice control system (with a dictionary of 32 to 256 words) is used to control the AFTI's avionics suite. In the early stages of VCID testing only simple, one-word commands were used such as 'menu', 'data', the points of the compass, numbers, and the phonetic alphabet. Only non-critical functions such as navigation are controlled by the VCID. In a later stage tests were conducted to investigate the feasibility of complex multi-word command recognition.
The problem lies not with the hard- or software, but with the fact that the system is only trained for one voice, and performance quickly deteriorates with the quality of the speech. Few pilots are able to keep talking when pulling 5+ G's (as shown by studies undertaken by GD in a centrifuge; although one person supposedly kept grunting commands even at 9G), and the noise-level in an F-16 cockpit during high-G manoeuvre easily reaches 120dB. Overall, study results were quite promising as the system managed to respond accurately to a staggering 90% of the commands spoken.
Helmet-Mounted Target Designation Sight
Another technique tested in the AFTI F-16 was a helmet-mounted target designation sight. In stead of using a traditional throttle-mounted cursor control to designate the target, the AFTI pilot only needs to look at it, and align the target with the 0.5in (12.7mm) cross hairs incorporated in his visor. By depressing the designate button, target lock is achieved and minor adjustments can be made by using the cursor controller. Also, the FLIRand radar are automatically slaved to head movement.
The relative position of the pilot's head in the cockpit is determined by using a magnetic field, generated by a transmitter mounted on the canopy directly behind the pilot's head, and a 0.113kg receiver on the helmet. Furthermore, the system is capable of telling the pilot were to look to find his target. This is achieved by use of four LEDs (up, down, left, right) which (when lit) tell the pilot which direction to turn his head.
The AFTI program
Phase I
The AFTI took to the air for the first time at Fort Worth on July 10th, 1982 , General Dynamics pilot Alex V. Wolfe being at the controls. Following manufacturers trials carried out at Carswell AFB, Texas, the AFTI/F-16 was moved to Edwards AFB (California) for a two-year program of 275 flight tests. Phase I testing was primarily devoted to evaluate the DFCS and involved the demonstration of direct translational maneuvering capability. This testing was completed on July 30th, 1983.
Phase II
The 1984 Phase II testing started with a dummy, then an operational FLIR mounted in the wing root. Standard F-16C avionics were fitted, and the Automated Maneuvering Attack System was installed. During Phase II testing, which lasted until 1987, the AMAS enabled the AFTI/F-16 to translate in all three axes at a constant angle of attack and to be pointed up to six degrees off the flight vector.
The digital flight control system gave the pilot a new freedom in maneuvering, making it possible to assume unorthodox flight attitudes, using nose pointing, direct force translation, and other unconventional means of maneuvering. The aircraft was also used to test and evaluate a variety of single-place cockpit layouts and systems. Pilots evaluated heads-up and head-down displays, voice interaction command systems, synthesized speech voice warnings, and touch-sensitive display screens. This aircraft also tried out products from the Air Force Microcomputer Applications of Graphics and Interactive Communications (MAGIC) project, which studies pictorial formats for situation displays in all three axes.
In September of 1987, the F-16/AFTI team received the Air Force Association's 1987 Theodore von Karman Award for the most outstanding achievement in science and engineering.
Advanced research programs
Close Air Support studies
Head-on view of the AFTI F-16, revealing the wingroot mounted FLIR. (NASA photo)
During the following years, the AFTI/F-16 became associated with Close Air Support (CAS) studies, some of them conducted by NASA. These studies were in support of the proposed A-16 or other future close air support/battlefield air interdiction aircraft. The AFTI/F-16 was upgraded with an F-16C block 25 wing and with block 40 F-16C features such as APG-68 radar and a LANTIRN interface. It went through a five-phase CAS evaluation program over 1988-1991, testing such low-level battlefield interdiction techniques as automatic target handoff-systems (in which target data was transferred from ground stations or from other aircraft to the AFTI/F-16), the Pave Penny laser-designator pod, off-axis weapons launch techniques, and various digital systems.
GPWS and GCAS programs
As the U.S. Air Force wanted to reduce the "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" (CFIT), which persists as a major cause of military tactical aircraft crashes, they started to develop an advanced ground collision system. Significant progress had been made with the introduction of the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) in the 1970's as it dramatically reduced CFIT accident rates.
The final line of defense is a Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS) that determines the pilot is not aware -even with warnings- of his current situation, so it automatically executes a recovery. A technology development and demonstration study using the AFTI F-16 test-bed over the last decade verified that a terrain-avoidance system was feasible.
The AFTI aircraft during A-GCAS tests (NASA photo)
The AFTI Advanced or Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS) relies on a digital terrain data base and accurate navigation inputs. It also goes a step beyond warning the pilot; it actually executes an aggressive fly-up recovery through the F-16 autopilot. The correlation between aircraft position and the digital terrain data base depends on radar altimeter time history, although Global Positioning Systems or inertial navigation inputs could also be used. A GCAS algorithm combines digital terrain system data with the aircraft's current flight parameters, then predicts a recovery profile and executes an escape maneuver through the autopilot. The escape manoeuvre is a roll-to-wings-level 5g fly up. For AFTI testing, the GCAS only activates when minimum terrain clearance is projected to be 50-150 ft. However, the minimum terrain clearance can be any distance desired. It was arbitrarily chosen to be a minimum of 150ft normally and 50ft for strafe as a reasonable buffer.
In 1995 the AFTI F-16 has conducted more than 1,000 auto recovery tests. In November 1996 the AFTI F-16 tests established Auto-GCAS warning criteria by defining appropriate activation altitudes. Researchers are sensitive to triggering he system too high and having it become a nuisance that impedes normal pilot operation. About 20 flights have been executed.
In January 1997, a two-year program aimed at "migrating the AFTI software into production hardware" has begun. Follow-on Auto-GCAS testing have been done on a production Block 25 F-16D in 1998.
Advanced Fighter Technology Integration
F-16 Versions main menu
History
In order to evaluate unconventional control of an aircraft in flight, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory of the Air Force Systems Command sponsored an Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) program. On Dec 26, 1978, General Dynamics was awarded a contract to convert the sixth FSD F-16A (#75-0750) into an AFTI aircraft. It capitalized on the experience gained with the F-16 CCV (Control Configured Vehicle) (#72-1567). The aircraft was handed over to the company in March 1980.
F-16 AFTI in flight. You can clearly see the CCV canards below the air inlet. (NASA photo)
The AFTI F-16 was fitted with twin canard surfaces mounted below the air intake. Those canards had been taken from the CCV/F-16 CCV. The aircraft was also fitted with a bulged spine which housed additional electronics. It had a full-authority triplex Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) and an Automated Maneuvering Attack System (AMAS), providing six independent degrees of freedom. It had been designed to be fault tolerant, so that no single failure should affect correct operation. In the event of a second fault developing, the system was able to revert to a standby condition which would permit safe flight to continue. To guard against unforeseen failure modes which might bring the entire digital flight control system down, the system incorporates a simple analog backup flight-control system.
Voice-Controlled Interactive Device
An unusual piece of cockpit equipment is the Voice-Controlled Interactive Device (VCID); made by Lear-Siegler. This voice control system (with a dictionary of 32 to 256 words) is used to control the AFTI's avionics suite. In the early stages of VCID testing only simple, one-word commands were used such as 'menu', 'data', the points of the compass, numbers, and the phonetic alphabet. Only non-critical functions such as navigation are controlled by the VCID. In a later stage tests were conducted to investigate the feasibility of complex multi-word command recognition.
The problem lies not with the hard- or software, but with the fact that the system is only trained for one voice, and performance quickly deteriorates with the quality of the speech. Few pilots are able to keep talking when pulling 5+ G's (as shown by studies undertaken by GD in a centrifuge; although one person supposedly kept grunting commands even at 9G), and the noise-level in an F-16 cockpit during high-G manoeuvre easily reaches 120dB. Overall, study results were quite promising as the system managed to respond accurately to a staggering 90% of the commands spoken.
Helmet-Mounted Target Designation Sight
Another technique tested in the AFTI F-16 was a helmet-mounted target designation sight. In stead of using a traditional throttle-mounted cursor control to designate the target, the AFTI pilot only needs to look at it, and align the target with the 0.5in (12.7mm) cross hairs incorporated in his visor. By depressing the designate button, target lock is achieved and minor adjustments can be made by using the cursor controller. Also, the FLIRand radar are automatically slaved to head movement.
The relative position of the pilot's head in the cockpit is determined by using a magnetic field, generated by a transmitter mounted on the canopy directly behind the pilot's head, and a 0.113kg receiver on the helmet. Furthermore, the system is capable of telling the pilot were to look to find his target. This is achieved by use of four LEDs (up, down, left, right) which (when lit) tell the pilot which direction to turn his head.
The AFTI program
Phase I
The AFTI took to the air for the first time at Fort Worth on July 10th, 1982 , General Dynamics pilot Alex V. Wolfe being at the controls. Following manufacturers trials carried out at Carswell AFB, Texas, the AFTI/F-16 was moved to Edwards AFB (California) for a two-year program of 275 flight tests. Phase I testing was primarily devoted to evaluate the DFCS and involved the demonstration of direct translational maneuvering capability. This testing was completed on July 30th, 1983.
Phase II
The 1984 Phase II testing started with a dummy, then an operational FLIR mounted in the wing root. Standard F-16C avionics were fitted, and the Automated Maneuvering Attack System was installed. During Phase II testing, which lasted until 1987, the AMAS enabled the AFTI/F-16 to translate in all three axes at a constant angle of attack and to be pointed up to six degrees off the flight vector.
The digital flight control system gave the pilot a new freedom in maneuvering, making it possible to assume unorthodox flight attitudes, using nose pointing, direct force translation, and other unconventional means of maneuvering. The aircraft was also used to test and evaluate a variety of single-place cockpit layouts and systems. Pilots evaluated heads-up and head-down displays, voice interaction command systems, synthesized speech voice warnings, and touch-sensitive display screens. This aircraft also tried out products from the Air Force Microcomputer Applications of Graphics and Interactive Communications (MAGIC) project, which studies pictorial formats for situation displays in all three axes.
In September of 1987, the F-16/AFTI team received the Air Force Association's 1987 Theodore von Karman Award for the most outstanding achievement in science and engineering.
Advanced research programs
Close Air Support studies
Head-on view of the AFTI F-16, revealing the wingroot mounted FLIR. (NASA photo)
During the following years, the AFTI/F-16 became associated with Close Air Support (CAS) studies, some of them conducted by NASA. These studies were in support of the proposed A-16 or other future close air support/battlefield air interdiction aircraft. The AFTI/F-16 was upgraded with an F-16C block 25 wing and with block 40 F-16C features such as APG-68 radar and a LANTIRN interface. It went through a five-phase CAS evaluation program over 1988-1991, testing such low-level battlefield interdiction techniques as automatic target handoff-systems (in which target data was transferred from ground stations or from other aircraft to the AFTI/F-16), the Pave Penny laser-designator pod, off-axis weapons launch techniques, and various digital systems.
GPWS and GCAS programs
As the U.S. Air Force wanted to reduce the "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" (CFIT), which persists as a major cause of military tactical aircraft crashes, they started to develop an advanced ground collision system. Significant progress had been made with the introduction of the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) in the 1970's as it dramatically reduced CFIT accident rates.
The final line of defense is a Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS) that determines the pilot is not aware -even with warnings- of his current situation, so it automatically executes a recovery. A technology development and demonstration study using the AFTI F-16 test-bed over the last decade verified that a terrain-avoidance system was feasible.
The AFTI aircraft during A-GCAS tests (NASA photo)
The AFTI Advanced or Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS) relies on a digital terrain data base and accurate navigation inputs. It also goes a step beyond warning the pilot; it actually executes an aggressive fly-up recovery through the F-16 autopilot. The correlation between aircraft position and the digital terrain data base depends on radar altimeter time history, although Global Positioning Systems or inertial navigation inputs could also be used. A GCAS algorithm combines digital terrain system data with the aircraft's current flight parameters, then predicts a recovery profile and executes an escape maneuver through the autopilot. The escape manoeuvre is a roll-to-wings-level 5g fly up. For AFTI testing, the GCAS only activates when minimum terrain clearance is projected to be 50-150 ft. However, the minimum terrain clearance can be any distance desired. It was arbitrarily chosen to be a minimum of 150ft normally and 50ft for strafe as a reasonable buffer.
In 1995 the AFTI F-16 has conducted more than 1,000 auto recovery tests. In November 1996 the AFTI F-16 tests established Auto-GCAS warning criteria by defining appropriate activation altitudes. Researchers are sensitive to triggering he system too high and having it become a nuisance that impedes normal pilot operation. About 20 flights have been executed.
In January 1997, a two-year program aimed at "migrating the AFTI software into production hardware" has begun. Follow-on Auto-GCAS testing have been done on a production Block 25 F-16D in 1998.
Bahamut
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,740
- Likes
- 2,259
F-16E/F
block 60
F-16 Versions main menu
History
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.
A scale model of an early design phase in the block 60 development. It never matured this way. (Bill Sweetman photo)
The "new" Block 60 F-16 represents an evolutionary step ahead of the current block 50 aircraft. At first, the Block 60 was developed featuring a delta wing design. Through the development phase, LMTAS altered its strategy and decided to just start from the basic F-16 structure without altering too much on its design.
Structure & Avionics
The Block 60 features an enormous amount of new capabilities. For one thing, the Fighting Falcon Block 60's range is extended with addition of fuselage mounted conformal fuel tanks and wing tanks, similar to the F-16ES and Block 50/52 Plus.
Secondly, the Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-28 IFTS (Internal FLIR and Targeting System) replaces the pods in earlier aircraft. With state-of-the art components and packaging technology, the Internal FLIR Targeting System (IFTS) incorporates an advanced multi-functional FLIR/laser system into the F-16 nose to improve lethality and survivability with lower weight and drag and a laser targeting pod mounted underneath the fuselage. The elimination of bulky pods also enhances stealthiness.
Thirdly, there is an integrated electronic warfare suite with the Northrop Grumman 'Falcon Edge' internal electronic countermeasures system, the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-80 "Agile Beam Radar" with AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array), an electronic warfare management system, fiber-optic avionics data bus and up to eight chaff/flare dispensers, as well as advanced friend or foe. The aircraft's advanced avionics suite has room available for future improvements. The Block 60's modular mission computer has a processing throughput of 12.5 million instructions per second and provides sensor and weapons integration.
The first picture of a UAE block 60 F-16 taken at the unofficial roll-out. (LMTAS photo)
The ALQ-165 electronic countermeasures system, also known as the Airborne Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ), is a sophisticated, high-power jamming system developed to fulfill both U.S. Navy and Air Force requirements - although the USAF abandonned the program a while ago. Missile warning systems on the Block 60 provide advanced warning of approaching missiles so the pilot can activate countermeasures in time. The Block 60 F-16 can accommodate both active and passive missile warning systems currently under development.
Any F-16 pilot can perform mission tasks with his head up and his eyes looking out of the cockpit and with his hands on the flight controls. The Block 60 adds to this excellent pilot-aircraft interface by incorporating three advanced 5-inch by 7-inch color displays. The aircraft has wiring and space allocated for a helmet-mounted cuing system that can be added to improve pilot situation awareness.
The Block 60 F-16 retains the full armament capability of the Block 50's and adds several new capabilities. The Block 60's basic design and weapon interfaces are compatible with projected future weapons including new air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM). The aircraft will also support all-weather standoff weapons, such as the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), and AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM).
The Block 60 F-16 has been developed with planned growth improvements and technology advances in virtually all major areas, including engines, avionics, and weapons.
Production
So far, the Block 60 has only be sold to the United Arab Emirates. The total order stands for 80 aircraft compromising 55 single-seat E-models and 25 double-seat F-models. Deliveries will start in 2004 and run through 2007.
Specifications
Engine: One General Electric F110-GE-132 turbofan, rated at 19,000 lb.s.t. dry and 32,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning.
Performance: Maximum short-endurance speed: Mach 2.02 (1333 mph) at 40,000 feet. Maximum sustained speed Mach 1.89 (1247 mph) at 40,000 feet.
Dimensions: wingspan 31 feet 0 inches, length 49 feet 4 inches, height 16 feet 8 1/2 inches, wing area 300 square feet.
Weights: around 22,000 pounds empty, 29,000 pounds normal loaded (air-to-air mission), 46,000 pounds maximum takeoff.
Bahamut
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,740
- Likes
- 2,259
F-16 XL
Cranked-Arrow Wing
F-16 Versions main menu
History
In February of 1980, General Dynamics made a proposal for a Fighting Falcon version with a radically-modified wing shape, which was originally proposed for use on supersonic airliners. The project was known as SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuvering Program) and later as F-16XL. The delta wing was to be of a cranked-arrow shape, with a total surface of 633 sq. ft. (more than double the area of the standard F-16 wing).
The research objectives included exploring innovative wing planform and camber shapes to provide efficient supersonic cruise performance while providing fighter-like transonic and supersonic turn agility. The design was intended to offer low drag at high subsonic or supersonic speeds without compromising low-speed maneuverability.
Structure & Avionics
Unique F-16/79 and F-16XL (Ship no. 1) formation. (LMTAS photo)
The program was initially funded by the manufacturer, and involved conversion of two FSD F-16A's. In late 1980, the USAF and General Dynamics agreed on a cooperative test program, with the Air Force providing the third and fifth FSD F-16s (A-3 (#75-0747) and A-5 (#75-0749)) for modification into F-16XL prototypes.
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.
The XL has no ventral fins for the same reason, but evidently did not need them, since the XL stability characteristics are in general superior to that of the F-16.
The engine inlet was only affected by the rear lower fuselage 26in extension, since the 30in forward fuselage extension was applied to the upper fuselage only. As a result, the F-16XL engine inlet is 26in longer than on a standard F-16A.
The wing planform was altered in a cranked-arrow delta wing (120% larger than the original F-16 wing), with extensive use of carbon composite materials (in the upper and lower layers of the skin) to save weight. Weight savings in the wings alone amounted to 600lbs. or 272kg. The wing is of multi-spar design with the leading edge sweep angle ranging from 50º to 70º, and is 2,800lbs (1,179 kg.) heavier than the original. The increase in internal volume (both by lengthening the fuselage and expanding the wing) allowed for a 82% increase in internal fuel capacity, while the increased wing area allowed the incorporation of up to 27 stores stations. Despite the apparent lengthening of the fuselage involved with the program, the new XL designation does NOT stand for "extra large".
Through wing planform improvements and camber optimizations, the final configuration offered a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio over the F-16 supersonically, and 11% improvement subsonic. The handling of the F-16XL was reportedly quite different from that of the standard F-16, offering a much smoother ride at high speeds and low altitudes. The configuration had matured into a very competent fighter with a large wing that allowed low-drag integration of large numbers of external weapons.
Formation take-off of the two F-16XL ships. (Erwin Boone Collection)
The first of two F-16XL's (#75-0749) to be modified, A-5 (5th Full-Scale Development F-16A) had a single seat and was powered by an F100-PW-200 turbofan. It flew for the first time on July 3rd, 1982, with James McKinney at the controls. The second F-16XL (#75-0747), was originally powered by a 29,000 lb.s.t. General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan. It was converted from the 3rd FSD aircraft (A-3), which was severely damaged in a landing accident (nose tire failure) during the Edwards Open House in August of 1980. The aircraft took-off and blew it's nose tire in the event. The decision was taken to land with gears up. As soon as the nose gear touched down, it dug into the lake bed and snapped off. This caused the trailing edge of the radome , the leading edge of the forward equipment bay and the intale to carry the load. The intake scooped up tons of dry lake. In the process it was ground off on a line even with the forward bulkhead, (where the radar antenna hangs and the main gear tires). The radome was trashed and the equipment bay was ripped up. When this airframe arrived at Fort Worth for use in the XL program, it was accordingly missing the entire front end, and a new 2-seat front section was constructed for this aircraft. XL no. 2 flew for the first time on October 29th, 1982, piloted by Alex Wolf and Jim McKinney.
USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter Program
In March of 1981, the USAF announced that it would be developing a new advanced tactical fighter. General Dynamics entered the F-16XL in the competition, the McDonnell Douglas company submitting an adaptation of the two-seat F-15B Eagle. Because of its increased internal fuel capacity and payload, the F-16XL could carry twice the payload of the F-16 and 40% further. The increased payload was carried on 27 hardpoints, which were arranged as follows:
F-16XL carrying a full complement of weapons: 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders on the wingtip stations, two underwing 370 gal fuel tanks, 10 Mk.82 (500lbs) General Purpose bombs on underwing stations, 2 Mk.82s on the centerline, and 4 semi-recessed AIM-120 Amraams. Note the aircraft is carrying the maximum amount of underwing stores with fuel-tanks fitted. (Erwin Boone Collection)
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.
In February of 1984, the Air Force announced that it had selected the McDonnell Douglas design in preference to the proposed production versions of F-16XL. The McDonnell Douglas proposal was later to enter production as the F-15E Strike Eagle. Had the F-16XL won the competition, production aircraft would have been designated F-16E (single-seat) and F-16F (two-seat). John G. Williams, lead engineer on the XL: "The XL is a marvelous airplane, but was a victim of the USAF wanting to continue to produce the F-15, which is understandable. Sometimes you win these political games, sometimes not. In most ways, the XL was superior to the F-15 as a ground attack airplane, but the F-15 was good enough."
Following the loss of the contract to MDD, General Dynamics returned both F-16XL's to Fort Worth during the summer of 1985 and placed them in storage. They had made 437 and 361 flights respectively, and although supersonic cruise without afterburner had been an original goal of the F-16XL program, the aircraft did never quite achieve this feat.
Modifications & Upgrades / NASA
In late 1988, the two prototypes were taken out of storage and turned over to NASA, where they received the serials #849 (A-5, ex #75-0749) and#848 (A-3, ex #75-0747). They were used in a program designed to evaluate aerodynamics concepts to improve wing airflow during sustained supersonic flight.
Superb photograph of F-16XL ship no. 1 in black/white color scheme, with afterburner lit. (NASA photo)
The first F-16XL, ship no. 1 was reflown on March 9, 1989 and delivered to the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards AFB. This aircraft was modified for laminar-flow studies, with an experimental titanium section on its left wing (called a glove), with millions of tiny laser-cut holes (typical 2,500 holes/sq inch and 5 sq feet of holes).
Designed and built by Rockwell International's North American Aircraft Division (El Segundo, CA), its purpose was to siphon off (through active suction) a layer of turbulent surface air. This turbulent air layer, usually found on the wing's surface, affects flying performance by causing increased drag and fuel consumption. By removing the turbulent air layer, the laminar flow layer touches the wing's surface and far less drag is produced. Research by NASA to improve laminar flow dates back to 1926 when NASA's predecessor organization, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), photographed airflow turbulence in a wind tunnel at its Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA. Smoke was ejected into the air stream and photographed as it showed visual signs of turbulence on the upper wing surfaces.
NASA two-shipper: SR-71A no. 844 and F-16XL Ship no. 1 #849, which was involved in sonic boom research. (NASA photo)
Early research such as this led to the eventual elimination of protruding rivet heads and other construction and design features that could create turbulence on high speed aircraft.
The first flight with the new wing took place on May 3rd, 1990, pilot Steve Ishmael at the controls. In January 1995 it performed a series of high-speed flights with NASA's SR-71. The aircraft were used to study the characteristics of sonic booms as part of the agency's high-speed civil transport program. Speed during these flights ranged from Mach 1.25 to Mach 1.8. During the flights, engineers recorded how sonic booms are affected by atmospheric conditions.
Later, ship no. 1 was transferred to NASA Langley, VA, where it was part of a flight test program for improving takeoff performance and reducing engine noise, and it was painted in an attractive high-viz black/yellow color scheme (with white front fuselage). The #849 went back to Edwards AFB by 1995, where it takes part in a sonic boom research project with an SR-71A.
F-16XL Ship no. 2 involved in supersonic laminar flow testing - note the active suction glove on the port wing. (NASA photo)
The second F-16XL, ship no. 2, a two-seater, was delivered to NASA with a developmental engine that needed to be replaced before any flight testing could be done. NASA acquired a General Electric F110-129 engine through GD Ft. Worth, which provided surprisingly good performance. Supercruise was accidentally achieved in military power early on in the program; a speed of Mach 1.1 was achieved at 20,000 feet. A passive glove (foam and fiberglass fairing) was installed on the right wing in order to examine the aerodynamic fluid mechanics along the leading edge of a supersonic surface, noise environment, and pressure distribution. On the left wing, a new active glove was installed (double the size of ship no. 1's glove) consisting of a foam and fiberglass fairing around a test section of a high-tech composite with a porous titanium skin.
The glove has a maximum thickness of 2.5 inch, and covers 75% of the wing's surface and 60% of its leading edge. It was designed by a NASA-contractor team which included the Langley Research Center, Dryden, Rockwell International, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas. The wing's S-Shaped blend was extended straight forward on the left side to match more closely the proposed wing for the high speed civil transport. The active section, the middle 66% of the glove, has at least 2,500 laser-drilled holes and is at least 10 sq feet large. The holes lead into 20 cavities beneath the wing's surface, which are used to control the suction at the wing's surface. The glove is chemically bonded to the skin itself with common epoxy resins. After the paint is removed from the aircraft, a couple of fiberglass layers are applied onto the skin of composite material, serving as protection for the skin when the glove is taken off again. Ship no. 2 is currently used as a testbed in the supersonic laminar-flow research project.
Specifications
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan (ship no. 1), rated at 12,240 lb.s.t. dry and 23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan (ship no. 2), rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,260 mph) for ship no 1 and Mach 2 (1,400 mph) for ship no. 2 at 40,000 feet. Service ceiling 50,000 feet. Maximum range 2850 miles. Initial climb rate 62,000 feet per minute.
Dimensions: wingspan 34 feet 3 inches, length 54 feet 2 inches, height 17 feet 7 inches, wing area 633 square feet.
Weights: around 22,000 pounds empty, 48,000 pounds maximum takeo
Cranked-Arrow Wing
F-16 Versions main menu
History
In February of 1980, General Dynamics made a proposal for a Fighting Falcon version with a radically-modified wing shape, which was originally proposed for use on supersonic airliners. The project was known as SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuvering Program) and later as F-16XL. The delta wing was to be of a cranked-arrow shape, with a total surface of 633 sq. ft. (more than double the area of the standard F-16 wing).
The research objectives included exploring innovative wing planform and camber shapes to provide efficient supersonic cruise performance while providing fighter-like transonic and supersonic turn agility. The design was intended to offer low drag at high subsonic or supersonic speeds without compromising low-speed maneuverability.
Structure & Avionics
Unique F-16/79 and F-16XL (Ship no. 1) formation. (LMTAS photo)
The program was initially funded by the manufacturer, and involved conversion of two FSD F-16A's. In late 1980, the USAF and General Dynamics agreed on a cooperative test program, with the Air Force providing the third and fifth FSD F-16s (A-3 (#75-0747) and A-5 (#75-0749)) for modification into F-16XL prototypes.
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.
The XL has no ventral fins for the same reason, but evidently did not need them, since the XL stability characteristics are in general superior to that of the F-16.
The engine inlet was only affected by the rear lower fuselage 26in extension, since the 30in forward fuselage extension was applied to the upper fuselage only. As a result, the F-16XL engine inlet is 26in longer than on a standard F-16A.
The wing planform was altered in a cranked-arrow delta wing (120% larger than the original F-16 wing), with extensive use of carbon composite materials (in the upper and lower layers of the skin) to save weight. Weight savings in the wings alone amounted to 600lbs. or 272kg. The wing is of multi-spar design with the leading edge sweep angle ranging from 50º to 70º, and is 2,800lbs (1,179 kg.) heavier than the original. The increase in internal volume (both by lengthening the fuselage and expanding the wing) allowed for a 82% increase in internal fuel capacity, while the increased wing area allowed the incorporation of up to 27 stores stations. Despite the apparent lengthening of the fuselage involved with the program, the new XL designation does NOT stand for "extra large".
Through wing planform improvements and camber optimizations, the final configuration offered a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio over the F-16 supersonically, and 11% improvement subsonic. The handling of the F-16XL was reportedly quite different from that of the standard F-16, offering a much smoother ride at high speeds and low altitudes. The configuration had matured into a very competent fighter with a large wing that allowed low-drag integration of large numbers of external weapons.
Formation take-off of the two F-16XL ships. (Erwin Boone Collection)
The first of two F-16XL's (#75-0749) to be modified, A-5 (5th Full-Scale Development F-16A) had a single seat and was powered by an F100-PW-200 turbofan. It flew for the first time on July 3rd, 1982, with James McKinney at the controls. The second F-16XL (#75-0747), was originally powered by a 29,000 lb.s.t. General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan. It was converted from the 3rd FSD aircraft (A-3), which was severely damaged in a landing accident (nose tire failure) during the Edwards Open House in August of 1980. The aircraft took-off and blew it's nose tire in the event. The decision was taken to land with gears up. As soon as the nose gear touched down, it dug into the lake bed and snapped off. This caused the trailing edge of the radome , the leading edge of the forward equipment bay and the intale to carry the load. The intake scooped up tons of dry lake. In the process it was ground off on a line even with the forward bulkhead, (where the radar antenna hangs and the main gear tires). The radome was trashed and the equipment bay was ripped up. When this airframe arrived at Fort Worth for use in the XL program, it was accordingly missing the entire front end, and a new 2-seat front section was constructed for this aircraft. XL no. 2 flew for the first time on October 29th, 1982, piloted by Alex Wolf and Jim McKinney.
USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter Program
In March of 1981, the USAF announced that it would be developing a new advanced tactical fighter. General Dynamics entered the F-16XL in the competition, the McDonnell Douglas company submitting an adaptation of the two-seat F-15B Eagle. Because of its increased internal fuel capacity and payload, the F-16XL could carry twice the payload of the F-16 and 40% further. The increased payload was carried on 27 hardpoints, which were arranged as follows:
- 16 wing weapons stations (750 lb capacity)
- 4 semi-submerged AIM-120 stations
- 2 wingtip stations
- 1 centerline station
- 2 wing "heavy / wet" stations
- 2 chin stations for LANTIRN
F-16XL carrying a full complement of weapons: 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders on the wingtip stations, two underwing 370 gal fuel tanks, 10 Mk.82 (500lbs) General Purpose bombs on underwing stations, 2 Mk.82s on the centerline, and 4 semi-recessed AIM-120 Amraams. Note the aircraft is carrying the maximum amount of underwing stores with fuel-tanks fitted. (Erwin Boone Collection)
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.
In February of 1984, the Air Force announced that it had selected the McDonnell Douglas design in preference to the proposed production versions of F-16XL. The McDonnell Douglas proposal was later to enter production as the F-15E Strike Eagle. Had the F-16XL won the competition, production aircraft would have been designated F-16E (single-seat) and F-16F (two-seat). John G. Williams, lead engineer on the XL: "The XL is a marvelous airplane, but was a victim of the USAF wanting to continue to produce the F-15, which is understandable. Sometimes you win these political games, sometimes not. In most ways, the XL was superior to the F-15 as a ground attack airplane, but the F-15 was good enough."
Following the loss of the contract to MDD, General Dynamics returned both F-16XL's to Fort Worth during the summer of 1985 and placed them in storage. They had made 437 and 361 flights respectively, and although supersonic cruise without afterburner had been an original goal of the F-16XL program, the aircraft did never quite achieve this feat.
Modifications & Upgrades / NASA
In late 1988, the two prototypes were taken out of storage and turned over to NASA, where they received the serials #849 (A-5, ex #75-0749) and#848 (A-3, ex #75-0747). They were used in a program designed to evaluate aerodynamics concepts to improve wing airflow during sustained supersonic flight.
Superb photograph of F-16XL ship no. 1 in black/white color scheme, with afterburner lit. (NASA photo)
The first F-16XL, ship no. 1 was reflown on March 9, 1989 and delivered to the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards AFB. This aircraft was modified for laminar-flow studies, with an experimental titanium section on its left wing (called a glove), with millions of tiny laser-cut holes (typical 2,500 holes/sq inch and 5 sq feet of holes).
Designed and built by Rockwell International's North American Aircraft Division (El Segundo, CA), its purpose was to siphon off (through active suction) a layer of turbulent surface air. This turbulent air layer, usually found on the wing's surface, affects flying performance by causing increased drag and fuel consumption. By removing the turbulent air layer, the laminar flow layer touches the wing's surface and far less drag is produced. Research by NASA to improve laminar flow dates back to 1926 when NASA's predecessor organization, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), photographed airflow turbulence in a wind tunnel at its Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA. Smoke was ejected into the air stream and photographed as it showed visual signs of turbulence on the upper wing surfaces.
NASA two-shipper: SR-71A no. 844 and F-16XL Ship no. 1 #849, which was involved in sonic boom research. (NASA photo)
Early research such as this led to the eventual elimination of protruding rivet heads and other construction and design features that could create turbulence on high speed aircraft.
The first flight with the new wing took place on May 3rd, 1990, pilot Steve Ishmael at the controls. In January 1995 it performed a series of high-speed flights with NASA's SR-71. The aircraft were used to study the characteristics of sonic booms as part of the agency's high-speed civil transport program. Speed during these flights ranged from Mach 1.25 to Mach 1.8. During the flights, engineers recorded how sonic booms are affected by atmospheric conditions.
Later, ship no. 1 was transferred to NASA Langley, VA, where it was part of a flight test program for improving takeoff performance and reducing engine noise, and it was painted in an attractive high-viz black/yellow color scheme (with white front fuselage). The #849 went back to Edwards AFB by 1995, where it takes part in a sonic boom research project with an SR-71A.
F-16XL Ship no. 2 involved in supersonic laminar flow testing - note the active suction glove on the port wing. (NASA photo)
The second F-16XL, ship no. 2, a two-seater, was delivered to NASA with a developmental engine that needed to be replaced before any flight testing could be done. NASA acquired a General Electric F110-129 engine through GD Ft. Worth, which provided surprisingly good performance. Supercruise was accidentally achieved in military power early on in the program; a speed of Mach 1.1 was achieved at 20,000 feet. A passive glove (foam and fiberglass fairing) was installed on the right wing in order to examine the aerodynamic fluid mechanics along the leading edge of a supersonic surface, noise environment, and pressure distribution. On the left wing, a new active glove was installed (double the size of ship no. 1's glove) consisting of a foam and fiberglass fairing around a test section of a high-tech composite with a porous titanium skin.
The glove has a maximum thickness of 2.5 inch, and covers 75% of the wing's surface and 60% of its leading edge. It was designed by a NASA-contractor team which included the Langley Research Center, Dryden, Rockwell International, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas. The wing's S-Shaped blend was extended straight forward on the left side to match more closely the proposed wing for the high speed civil transport. The active section, the middle 66% of the glove, has at least 2,500 laser-drilled holes and is at least 10 sq feet large. The holes lead into 20 cavities beneath the wing's surface, which are used to control the suction at the wing's surface. The glove is chemically bonded to the skin itself with common epoxy resins. After the paint is removed from the aircraft, a couple of fiberglass layers are applied onto the skin of composite material, serving as protection for the skin when the glove is taken off again. Ship no. 2 is currently used as a testbed in the supersonic laminar-flow research project.
Specifications
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan (ship no. 1), rated at 12,240 lb.s.t. dry and 23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan (ship no. 2), rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,260 mph) for ship no 1 and Mach 2 (1,400 mph) for ship no. 2 at 40,000 feet. Service ceiling 50,000 feet. Maximum range 2850 miles. Initial climb rate 62,000 feet per minute.
Dimensions: wingspan 34 feet 3 inches, length 54 feet 2 inches, height 17 feet 7 inches, wing area 633 square feet.
Weights: around 22,000 pounds empty, 48,000 pounds maximum takeo
