Listen To The F-16 Viper's Beautiful Sounding Start-Up Sequence

[SvenSvensonov]

I'm a sucker for the sounds of aircraft powering up. Each has its own unique crescendo of clicks, grunts, and hisses. The F-15 sounds like a howling wolf stirring to life. The S-3 Viking'swomp womp womp is notorious. But the F-16 has a distinct, rolling chorus that begins by throwing a handful of switches and pressing a few buttons.

Here's the start-up:

And the shutdown:

It's just as incredible from the pilot's perspective with the canopy closed:

But what's even more amazing is the amount of functionality crammed into the F-16's relatively simple and uncluttered cockpit. It does everything. The pilot can navigate around the world, fly intercepts, dogfight, drop a slew of different weapons, convey both radar, targeting pod and threat awareness sensor information, communicate with the outside world, and keep the man at the controls aware of the jet's health. And it manages to do all that with technology designed in the late 80s, with the majority of that tech taking to the skies with the first block of F-16As from the late 1970s.

Here's a quick tour of what it all does and how it works. File it away for the inevitable intergalactic uprising:

From Listen To The F-16 Viper's Beautiful Sounding Start-Up Sequence 

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

But what's even more amazing is the amount of functionality crammed into the F-16's relatively simple and uncluttered cockpit. It does everything. The pilot can navigate around the world, fly intercepts, dogfight, drop a slew of different weapons, convey both radar, targeting pod and threat awareness sensor information, communicate with the outside world, and keep the man at the controls aware of the jet's health. And it manages to do all that with technology designed in the late 80s, with the majority of that tech taking to the skies with the first block of F-16As from the late 1970s.

Thanks for those impressive videos. As a layperson, I wonder if you could enlighten me as to the reason why the trend has been towards single-seat planes, where one pilot does it all, as opposed to having a navigator/weapons officer help share the burden. Like you, I am amazed at everything that these planes can do, but I wonder in a complex situation whether one person can really process all of the information necessary and react quickly enough to do the job efficiently. Clearly, based on the trend of single pilot planes, the consensus is that a single pilot is enough, but are there any dissenting views?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Thanks for those impressive videos. As a layperson, I wonder if you could enlighten me as to the reason why the trend has been towards single-seat planes, where one pilot does it all, as opposed to having a navigator/weapons officer help share the burden. Like you, I am amazed at everything that these planes can do, but I wonder in a complex situation whether one person can really process all of the information necessary and react quickly enough to do the job efficiently. Clearly, based on the trend of single pilot planes, the consensus is that a single pilot is enough, but are there any dissenting views?

There have been several reasons why militaries transition towards single and away from dual seat fighters. To be fair not every military fighter jet is single seat, but the trend is certainly present. The first reason, as grim as this is, is that combat losses are going to happen. It's better to lose one qualified pilot then two. As avionics have been getting more and more advanced, the burden on pilots has been decreasing. The avionics will monitor many of the activities that the second man in a dual seat fighter would have to. Cost is another factors. A second person increases the size of the air-frame, increases fuel consumption, decreased aerodynamic performance, all of this increases maintenance costs over the course of the air-frame's life. Have one pilot in a single seat fighter also helps militaries control personnel costs. Rather then train two systems operators, they can train one, freeing up the other for other duties or eliminating the need to hire another person altogether.

Two person fighter were born from a lack of maturity in avionics. Once upon a time the F-4 need a WSO to lock missiles onto their targets... not anymore. And this is the main reason for the trend towards single seats. Aircraft systems and electronics have eliminated the need for a second person, though on attack, bomber, transport and tanker aircraft and some naval aviation fighters a second person is still present.

 

[gambit]

Thanks for those impressive videos. As a layperson, I wonder if you could enlighten me as to the reason why the trend has been towards single-seat planes, where one pilot does it all, as opposed to having a navigator/weapons officer help share the burden. Like you, I am amazed at everything that these planes can do, but I wonder in a complex situation whether one person can really process all of the information necessary and react quickly enough to do the job efficiently. Clearly, based on the trend of single pilot planes, the consensus is that a single pilot is enough, but are there any dissenting views?

For highly specialized missions like electronics warfare, there is a need for a distinct system operator. When in combat, the burden of monitoring and focusing of EW resources is very much equivalent to that of piloting the aircraft itself.

 

[SQ8]

For highly specialized missions like electronics warfare, there is a need for a distinct system operator. When in combat, the burden of monitoring and focusing of EW resources is very much equivalent to that of piloting the aircraft itself.

However, considering that the evolution of EW aircraft began from the EA-3Bs 7 crew to the EA-6s 4.. and now down to the Growlers 2. With greater "AI" in future EW systems that need for a systems operator will also meet its demise.