What's new

Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Still just a failed, unemployed ex-grad student (from Oscar's home state) brother. Aircraft are just my hobby.

Short Answer:

There is a reason (besides the monetary) that the USAF, with its large tanker assets, has not adopted CFTs [Conformal Fuel Tanks] on their F-16s, and you always see their aircraft take off with only two and not three tanks. Well there are actually a few:

Mainly, CFTs while exacting very little drag penalties make the aircraft somewhat 'loose and skittish' underneath a tanker, air-to-air refueling already being already a hazardous proposition.

Also, it is easier to jettison just wing tanks for combat and go light, rather than to vent internal fuel (which would be a psychological block anyway). You cannot jettison away the thousand plus pounds of the CFT's weight, in any case.

While the F-16C is heavier and shorter-ranged than the A model, it still has enough range to accomplish most mission objectives with two tanks. The extra drag (and possible, though infrequent, jettison-time separation issues) of a centerline tank, with wing tanks and Sniper installed, are not deemed worth the extra twenty minutes loiter time.

The tankers operating inside your own controlled airspace can assist in extending the mission radius of your fighters exponentially. The most important benefit of a tanker is being able to get gas when you are at the end of your endurance, get lost in a furball (extended, complicated, messy fight), and use up too much fuel to be able to make it back to even your forward airfields.

During the 2016 Turkish coup, the rebel F-16s were carrying two tanks I believe and stayed up all night long with their tankers when they had no place to land.

View attachment 352715

Please note that all these (and more) are reasons why in combat Mission Profile IV, the two-tank option is voted most likely.

As regards your minimum fuel load, I believe that even in an air-defense role over very tiny countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, the minimum takeoff load for an F-16AM would likely be a centerline tank and four missiles. Please see combat Mission Profile II above for clarity (there is a reason for working through and listing four options here although only two of them are very likely).

Well, that became the LONG answer quickly. I don't know when to shut up.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not necessarily true and have nothing to do with any of the air forces mentioned. I have never even met a fighter pilot or an aerospace engineer (working, not just a grad student).

EDIT: Just remembered I went to the home of an ex-PAF pilot in Riyadh when I was little. He tried to explain Gs to me with the Child's Swing example and I had no idea what he was saying for many years, because I had not been on many swings. The mission analysis quoted above also took me more than two months to learn to do (something fighter pilots have to learn in a couple of days for a new jet). Regards

Allah keep everyone safe.

Hi,

I should have been more clear in my inquiry---. Taking off with two tanks with minimal fuel---full weapons load---and then filling up the tanks thru a refueler in the air---like the U S navy pilots do when taking off from an aircraft carrier.
 
Hi,

I should have been more clear in my inquiry---. Taking off with two tanks with minimal fuel---full weapons load---and then filling up the tanks thru a refueler in the air---like the U S navy pilots do when taking off from an aircraft carrier.
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Fault is in my comprehension, brother. I don't know of the practice you mention.

I know the F-/A-18As suffered from short range even when loaded up with two or three tanks, and had to be almost empty of fuel and not carrying more than two 1000-pounder bombs and missiles in order to land. The F/A-18E has better range despite suffering from high drag due to its canted wing tanks but can bring back 4,000 pounds+ payload and fuel (total up to 9,000 pounds) to the aircraft carrier.

However, these have to do with landing weights; the catapult assisted takeoff weights for both are pretty generous, at around 50,000 and 60,000+ pounds, respectively, for most situations. So, they can takeoff with three full tanks and 2,000+ or 4,000+ bomb load (respectively) with some ease.

To alleviate the short range of the fighters, usually a fully fueled F/A-18 with a buddy refueling pack will takeoff first and transfer fuel to a flight of armed F/A-18s some distance from the carrier, in order to replenish the attack fighters' fuel to help compensate for the few thousand pounds fuel used in takeoff, climb, and initial cruise.

The buddy tankers are also flown off the carrier first when aircraft are returning from their mission, so that they can fuel up fighters that are low on fuel or use up too much fuel in aborted landings.

The F-14 had sufficient range and I don't remember an operational case where it had to employ buddy-refueling (not from other F-14s; S-3 Vikings [EDIT: A-6 Intruders, primarily] were used back then, I believe), out of operational necessity. Some F-14s probably did, even if my limited knowledge has no recollection of it.

The F-14's combat mission chart summary below:

Grumman F-14 Combat Radius & Ferry Range.jpg


The F-16 has sufficient thrust to takeoff with full fuel loads and a 4,000 lbs+ bomb load. Their is no operational need for a heavier bomb load (For heavier loads, an F-15E would be used). The USAF also considers combat range and persistence from the fighter's last refueling to be more pertinent. There would, however, be no operational necessity for a fighter to takeoff with empty drop tanks.

However, this is where your question becomes somewhat prescient. The F-16 can also employ 600 US gallon drop tanks in place of the 370 gallon wing tanks. An F-16 with two 600 gallon wing tanks, a 300 gallon centerline tank, 4,000 pounds bomb load, missiles, pods, and other expendables happens to exceed the maximum allowed takeoff weights (37,500 pounds for an F-16A model, 48,000 pounds for the F-16C block 50 with CFTs; the UAE's Block 60s have further beefed-up landing gear to allow a 52,000 gross takeoff weight and can actually handle this payload).

In this scenario, the F-16 would takeoff with half-filled 600-gallon wing tanks and top-up from tankers before entering the war zone. The USAF does not employ this tactic but the Israeli Air Force might, in order to hit very long-range targets.

I hope I have understood and answered your question. Forgive me, otherwise.

Allah keep everyone safe.
 
Last edited:
The F-16 has sufficient thrust to takeoff with full fuel loads and a 4,000 lbs+ bomb load. Their is no operational need for a heavier bomb load (For heavier loads, an F-15E would be used). The USAF also considers combat range and persistence from the fighter's last refueling to be more pertinent. There would, however, be no operational necessity for a fighter to takeoff with empty drop tanks.
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Not to drone on but there is another factor I neglected to mention:

Every pound of fuel transferred air-to-air, consumes many pounds as much fuel as originally lifted from the ground (think of the fuel consumed by the refueling aircraft here). You also have to launch as much as twice as many resources (aircraft) and use up more manpower for this 'simple' act.

So, there is an operational demerit for launching with less fuel than you can safely takeoff with.

Allah keep everyone safe.
 
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Not to drone on but there is another factor I neglected to mention:

Every pound of fuel transferred air-to-air, consumes many pounds as much fuel as originally lifted from the ground (think of the fuel consumed by the refueling aircraft here). You also have to launch as much as twice as many resources (aircraft) and use up more manpower for this 'simple' act.

So, there is an operational demerit for launching with less fuel than you can safely takeoff with.

Allah keep everyone safe.

Hi,

There was a time when rifles could be loaded with one bullet only---and when the 5 bullet magazine came into design---the battle scenario change---.

From 5 it went to 10---15---20---30---and so on---. There are always operational demerits---but what are the gains resulting from the action.

A military in itself is an operational demerit---.

So---when are you going to admit who you really are---? I mean to say that your answers are so full of technical -- that even @Khafee and and @Indus Falcon want to know who you really are---am I right or no---!
 
Last edited:
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Not to drone on but there is another factor I neglected to mention:

Every pound of fuel transferred air-to-air, consumes many pounds as much fuel as originally lifted from the ground (think of the fuel consumed by the refueling aircraft here). You also have to launch as much as twice as many resources (aircraft) and use up more manpower for this 'simple' act.

So, there is an operational demerit for launching with less fuel than you can safely takeoff with.

Allah keep everyone safe.
Would be nice if you gave this forum a little bit of sanitized info about your background.
 
Hi,

There was a time when rifles could be loaded with one bullet only---and when the 5 bullet magazine came into design---the battle scenario change---.

From 5 it went to 10---15---20---30---and so on---. There are always operational demerits---but what are the gains resulting from the action.
...
So---when are you going to admit who you really are---? I mean to say that your answers are so full of technical -- that even @Khafee and and @Indus Falcon want to know who you really are---am I right or no---!
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Brother, I have to re-iterate that I am extremely undeserving of all your compliments but I humbly thank you for them. I am just an amateur student of the history of science and technology (and nations and mankind in general). I was only ever good at Math and a little bit of Physics, but I can't even do basic calculus anymore.

I love reading about the lives and careers of people such as Richard Feynman, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, Colonel John Boyd, Harry Hillaker, and Soichiro Honda. You quickly learn to be humbled when you realize the quickness, sureness, and completeness of the critical thought processes and decision making of these geniuses. It would be extremely educational to have been Soichiro's janitor in the sixties and seventies. He was indeed a loving and gracious employer as well as being the pre-eminent automotive genius of the 20th century.

I registered on this forum because I have been trying to study (for over four decades now) why certain aircraft (and other machines) are shaped like this and not like that, why they are equipped with certain devices, and what certain configurations posit for their performance and capabilities. Having a place to jot down my thoughts and being corrected on them, seemed to be the best way to learn of my misconceptions and shallowness of knowledge.

If I had been a pilot or an aeronautical engineer, I would tell you; but I also would have no need to do all this, and could have safely and anonymously continued to read the musings of Allamas Oscar, johnwill, and Gums.

Now, to the question at hand. I intend to take a little bit of time and to hold my peace afterwards on this thread, Insha'Allah. You are probably more knowledgeable of the Lightweight Fighter Program (LWF) and the development of the General Dynamics YF-16 and F-16:

YF-16 and F-16.jpg


The YF-16 is to the left. Pursuant to Colonel Boyd's experiences in Vietnam, he developed his Energy-Maneuverability theory in conjunction with academia; and, afterwards, he went on to fight for the introduction of a suitable air-superiority fighter for the USAF. He felt the F-15 that was subsequently developed was still too big and pushed for a little fighter with the biggest engine, highest possible fuel fraction, and no radar (given the pathetic performance of radars and radar-guided missiles in the 1960s (and even until around 1980).

The design requirements of the LWF were to fly 500 nautical miles, engage in air-to-air combat with cannon and missiles, and return to base. The YF-16 exceeded this range requirement by 40% and was more maneuverable than the other competitor, the Northrop YF-17 (subsequently developed into the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A Hornet and later, the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet for the US Navy).

YF-17 and F-18A.png


The F-16's E-M chart vs. the aircraft it was designed to beat, the F-4 Phantom and Mig-21:

F-16 F-4 MiG-21Sustained Turn Rates Comparison.jpg


We rehash this old history to stress the first point that the F-16 (and the F/A-18 despite whatever their monikers might claim) were designed to be air-superiority fighters and not attack aircraft or bomb trucks (more on this later). The F/A-18, with McDonnell Douglas's historic maritime expertise, became a delightful handler in carrier operations - landings were greatly eased by its low-speed handling thanks to the higher-aspect ratio (think wider rather than deeper) wings and twin-tail planforms. These (and the engine placement) also made it a ground-breaker in high-alpha nose-pointing ability, opening up new avenues in air combat.

The Blended Wing Body (BWB) planform of the F-16 was a genius stroke in #1 increasing volumetric efficiency (the internal fuel fraction was as good as deltas or fatter attack-type designs), #2 producing the most lift with the least amount of drag (at all subsonic and transonic speeds), and #3 the under-fuselage air intake (incidentally) reduced Radar Cross Section (RCS) greatly by hiding the turbofan blades (from a possible 5 square meters to about 1 square meters without external stores).

The short landing gears predicated by these design choices meant that they could not be beefed up to withstand the jarring impacts of carrier landings, and the aircraft could not be converted successfully for maritime operations (landing speeds and flare requirements would probably have been undesirable, in any case).

But, for land operations, here was a fighter that could fly farther, be harder to detect, turn harder and for much longer, and need much fewer resources than its contemporaries (and is still competitive today in everything but stealth and the high-speed, high-altitude corners of the performance envelope).

Henry Hilaker recognizing that the F-16 production line would stop at 300 if it was marketed solely as an air-superiority fighter, increased wing area from 280 square feet to 300 square feet, added two hardpoints (GD later beefing up the middle point for heavier weapons and adding chin stations for targeting and navigation pods), and enlarged the nose to accept a radar, much to the chagrin of Colonel Boyd. The aircraft lost a little bit of its agility (and a little bit more when the big tail was introduced to offset the chin points, and the radar and avionics weight gains moved the Center of Gravity forward, reducing the aircraft's pitch instability and most of the lift produced by the tail).

However, the resulting aircraft sold in numbers exceeding 4,000 and was adapted to every fighter / attack role under the Sun, from Close Air Support (CAS) to Deep Strike to Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses. The USAF never actually used the F-16 for air superiority, just for everything else, save as a transport or an air-refueler.

The F-16's highly-loaded wing, and more importantly its relaxed static stability, made it an ideal low-level bomb-delivery platform. It was as good and stable a platform, if not better, than dedicated aircraft designed for the task such as the Vought A-7 Corsair, Grumman A-6 Intruder, General Dynamics F-111, Panavia Tornado, and Sepecat Jaguar.

Despite its precision attack capability, if you need to use it as a bomb truck, the F-16 is capable of accurately delivering twelve 500 or 750 pound bombs as the PAF aircraft below is doing.

PAF F-16 dropping 12 Bombs.jpg


A more representative load would be four 2,000 or 2,400 pound bombs to take out reinforced structures or tightly-enclosed troop formations (less likely, maybe barracks). It can deliver this payload as far as 300 nautical miles.

The question in your mind is why don't we see such payloads operationally, like the F-4s, F-105s, A-6s, and A-7s of the Vietnam War. A good read on the history of weapon delivery and tactics would be the book "Sierra Hotel - Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade after Vietnam" by C.R. Anderegg. Please Google for and download it.

You will see the woefulness of the F-4 tactics and the need to deliver eight bombs at a time and still not hit anything (the F-105 Thud and F-111 were better in this regard; the PAF's favored possible acquisition, the A-7, was as excellent as the F-111 and much more frugal and maintainable).

Now, the purpose of bombing is to destroy your targets and not to make lilies in the fields around them. Over the target (or when involved in air combat), 40 seconds is a long time, even when you have air superiority. There is a reason for an upper limit of two minutes afterburner combat in our examples. The pilot is usually so fatigued at this point and so much fuel has been consumed that it is better to just head back home.

Combat experience has shown that it is usually not feasible (you won't have the time) to hit more than two targets in a mission. Even in the (supposed) absence of enemy air defenses, a second pass by an attacking formation is unwise to be attempted (at least from the same direction). Usually, even with good target identification and targeting, three to four delivered munitions is the upper limit that would normally be delivered. And, sometimes you come back without releasing anything (hence, the importance of payload bring back capability, particularly for Navy fighters).

It is more important to have the correct payload for your mission. Please see the various weapons loadouts for the F-15E and you will rarely see more than four bombs. The F-16XL ("F-16XL Elegance in Flight" is another good download) and the F-15E Strike Eagle were both designed to carry twelve (and as much as sixteen) 750 pound bombs, and they can deliver these weapon loads out to 500 nautical miles easily.

F-16XL attack and fighter payloads.jpg


Interesting and educational to read Hilaker's comments on page 11 of the attached interview (downloaded from Code One magazine; despite what he says, please keep in mind that the F-16XL still had unresolved controllability issues when the Strike Eagle was chosen - itself not a great low-level attack aircraft, though that point became moot later when all bombing was switched to medium-altitudes).

Tactically, it has been found to be better to send a multi-ship formation of fighters with two to four deliverable munitions, precision navigation and targeting capabilities, and the ability to evade enemy defenses and / or fight their way in and out of contested airspace.

Their is a reason the PAF would prefer an Su-35 in the anti-shipping role over the Su-34 or JH-7. They might actually like the F-16 for this (better for the logistics train) but cannot integrate modern longer-range weapons beyond the Harpoon here.

Building your force around one or two multi-role types pays huge dividends during a war also. We have to remember that the enemy will be attacking us as well, destroying our infrastructure, bombing our airfields and our fuel and ammunition reserves, and killing our personnel.

The survivable (or 'victorious') force will be the one that has a large bank of trained pilots for its aircraft types, whose fuel and weapons reserves (and airfields) are sufficiently distributed, and whose aircraft are adaptable to as many tasks as possible, and are plentiful, light, and frugal enough to take off from half-destroyed airbases, use as little as possible of precious JP-4/5, and be effectively able to take the fight to the enemy.

When you are down to your last F-16, by all means, ditch your drop tanks, put on a dozen bombs, and fly and fight until your wings fall off.

Anyway, that is the limit of my admittedly extremely limited knowledge. Please download the books mentioned here (they are excellent reads) and the three attachments with this post.

Allah keep everyone safe.
 

Attachments

  • F-16 Design Origins.pdf
    917.7 KB · Views: 98
  • F-16 Designer Harry Hillaker - Interview.pdf
    277.3 KB · Views: 82
  • F-16 Designer Harry Hillaker - Tribute to John R Boyd.pdf
    133 KB · Views: 62
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Brother, I have to re-iterate that I am extremely undeserving of all your compliments but I humbly thank you for them. I am just an amateur student of the history of science and technology (and nations and mankind in general). I was only ever good at Math and a little bit of Physics, but I can't even do basic calculus anymore.

I love reading about the lives and careers of people such as Richard Feynman, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, Colonel John Boyd, Harry Hillaker, and Soichiro Honda. You quickly learn to be humbled when you realize the quickness, sureness, and completeness of the critical thought processes and decision making of these geniuses. It would be extremely educational to have been Soichiro's janitor in the sixties and seventies. He was indeed a loving and gracious employer as well as being the pre-eminent automotive genius of the 20th century.

I registered on this forum because I have been trying to study (for over four decades now) why certain aircraft (and other machines) are shaped like this and not like that, why they are equipped with certain devices, and what certain configurations posit for their performance and capabilities. Having a place to jot down my thoughts and being corrected on them, seemed to be the best way to learn of my misconceptions and shallowness of knowledge.

If I had been a pilot or an aeronautical engineer, I would tell you; but I also would have no need to do all this, and could have safely and anonymously continued to read the musings of Allamas Oscar, johnwill, and Gums.

Now, to the question at hand. I intend to take a little bit of time and to hold my peace afterwards on this thread, Insha'Allah. You are probably more knowledgeable of the Lightweight Fighter Program (LWF) and the development of the General Dynamics YF-16 and F-16:

View attachment 354308

The YF-16 is to the left. Pursuant to Colonel Boyd's experiences in Vietnam, he developed his Energy-Maneuverability theory in conjunction with academia; and, afterwards, he went on to fight for the introduction of a suitable air-superiority fighter for the USAF. He felt the F-15 that was subsequently developed was still too big and pushed for a little fighter with the biggest engine, highest possible fuel fraction, and no radar (given the pathetic performance of radars and radar-guided missiles in the 1960s (and even until around 1980).

The design requirements of the LWF were to fly 500 nautical miles, engage in air-to-air combat with cannon and missiles, and return to base. The YF-16 exceeded this range requirement by 40% and was more maneuverable than the other competitor, the Northrop YF-17 (subsequently developed into the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A Hornet and later, the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet for the US Navy).

View attachment 354313

The F-16's E-M chart vs. the aircraft it was designed to beat, the F-4 Phantom and Mig-21:

View attachment 354315

We rehash this old history to stress the first point that the F-16 (and the F/A-18 despite whatever their monikers might claim) were designed to be air-superiority fighters and not attack aircraft or bomb trucks (more on this later). The F/A-18, with McDonnell Douglas's historic maritime expertise, became a delightful handler in carrier operations - landings were greatly eased by its low-speed handling thanks to the higher-aspect ratio (think wider rather than deeper) wings and twin-tail planforms. These (and the engine placement) also made it a ground-breaker in high-alpha nose-pointing ability, opening up new avenues in air combat.

The Blended Wing Body (BWB) planform of the F-16 was a genius stroke in #1 increasing volumetric efficiency (the internal fuel fraction was as good as deltas or fatter attack-type designs), #2 producing the most lift with the least amount of drag (at all subsonic and transonic speeds), and #3 the under-fuselage air intake (incidentally) reduced Radar Cross Section (RCS) greatly by hiding the turbofan blades (from a possible 5 square meters to about 1 square meters without external stores).

The short landing gears predicated by these design choices meant that they could not be beefed up to withstand the jarring impacts of carrier landings, and the aircraft could not be converted successfully for maritime operations (landing speeds and flare requirements would probably have been undesirable, in any case).

But, for land operations, here was a fighter that could fly farther, be harder to detect, turn harder and for much longer, and need much fewer resources than its contemporaries (and is still competitive today in everything but stealth and the high-speed, high-altitude corners of the performance envelope).

Henry Hilaker recognizing that the F-16 production line would stop at 300 if it was marketed solely as an air-superiority fighter, increased wing area from 280 square feet to 300 square feet, added two hardpoints (GD later beefing up the middle point for heavier weapons and adding chin stations for targeting and navigation pods), and enlarged the nose to accept a radar, much to the chagrin of Colonel Boyd. The aircraft lost a little bit of its agility (and a little bit more when the big tail was introduced to offset the chin points, and the radar and avionics weight gains moved the Center of Gravity forward, reducing the aircraft's pitch instability and most of the lift produced by the tail).

However, the resulting aircraft sold in numbers exceeding 4,000 and was adapted to every fighter / attack role under the Sun, from Close Air Support (CAS) to Deep Strike to Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses. The USAF never actually used the F-16 for air superiority, just for everything else, save as a transport or an air-refueler.

The F-16's highly-loaded wing, and more importantly its relaxed static stability, made it an ideal low-level bomb-delivery platform. It was as good and stable a platform, if not better, than dedicated aircraft designed for the task such as the Vought A-7 Corsair, Grumman A-6 Intruder, General Dynamics F-111, Panavia Tornado, and Sepecat Jaguar.

Despite its precision attack capability, if you need to use it as a bomb truck, the F-16 is capable of accurately delivering twelve 500 or 750 pound bombs as the PAF aircraft below is doing.

View attachment 354326

A more representative load would be four 2,000 or 2,400 pound bombs to take out reinforced structures or tightly-enclosed troop formations (less likely, maybe barracks). It can deliver this payload as far as 300 nautical miles.

The question in your mind is why don't we see such payloads operationally, like the F-4s, F-105s, A-6s, and A-7s of the Vietnam War. A good read on the history of weapon delivery and tactics would be the book "Sierra Hotel - Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade after Vietnam" by C.R. Anderegg. Please Google for and download it.

You will see the woefulness of the F-4 tactics and the need to deliver eight bombs at a time and still not hit anything (the F-105 Thud and F-111 were better in this regard; the PAF's favored possible acquisition, the A-7, was as excellent as the F-111 and much more frugal and maintainable).

Now, the purpose of bombing is to destroy your targets and not to make lilies in the fields around them. Over the target (or when involved in air combat), 40 seconds is a long time, even when you have air superiority. There is a reason for an upper limit of two minutes afterburner combat in our examples. The pilot is usually so fatigued at this point and so much fuel has been consumed that it is better to just head back home.

Combat experience has shown that it is usually not feasible (you won't have the time) to hit more than two targets in a mission. Even in the (supposed) absence of enemy air defenses, a second pass by an attacking formation is unwise to be attempted (at least from the same direction). Usually, even with good target identification and targeting, three to four delivered munitions is the upper limit that would normally be delivered. And, sometimes you come back without releasing anything (hence, the importance of payload bring back capability, particularly for Navy fighters).

It is more important to have the correct payload for your mission. Please see the various weapons loadouts for the F-15E and you will rarely see more than four bombs. The F-16XL ("F-16XL Elegance in Flight" is another good download) and the F-15E Strike Eagle were both designed to carry twelve (and as much as sixteen) 750 pound bombs, and they can deliver these weapon loads out to 500 nautical miles easily.

View attachment 354327

Interesting and educational to read Hilaker's comments on page 11 of the attached interview (downloaded from Code One magazine; despite what he says, please keep in mind that the F-16XL still had unresolved controllability issues when the Strike Eagle was chosen - itself not a great low-level attack aircraft, though that point became moot later when all bombing was switched to medium-altitudes).

Tactically, it has been found to be better to send a multi-ship formation of fighters with two to four deliverable munitions, precision navigation and targeting capabilities, and the ability to evade enemy defenses and / or fight their way in and out of contested airspace.

Their is a reason the PAF would prefer an Su-35 in the anti-shipping role over the Su-34 or JH-7. They might actually like the F-16 for this (better for the logistics train) but cannot integrate modern longer-range weapons beyond the Harpoon here.

Building your force around one or two multi-role types pays huge dividends during a war also. We have to remember that the enemy will be attacking us as well, destroying our infrastructure, bombing our airfields and our fuel and ammunition reserves, and killing our personnel.

The survivable (or 'victorious') force will be the one that has a large bank of trained pilots for its aircraft types, whose fuel and weapons reserves (and airfields) are sufficiently distributed, and whose aircraft are adaptable to as many tasks as possible, and are plentiful, light, and frugal enough to take off from half-destroyed airbases, use as little as possible of precious JP-4/5, and be effectively able to take the fight to the enemy.

When you are down to your last F-16, by all means, ditch your drop tanks, put on a dozen bombs, and fly and fight until your wings fall off.

Anyway, that is the limit of my admittedly extremely limited knowledge. Please download the books mentioned here (they are excellent reads) and the three attachments with this post.

Allah keep everyone safe.


Hi,

When I joined my automotive engineering school in the U S in the 80's---it took me a long time to comprehend why the americans design the cars the way they do and why the german and swedes and the japanese design their cars as they do.

Took me awhile to learn that engineering technology design and function is a frame of mind---your ethnicity and your environment determines what you are going to produce and how your brain works.

Why the engineers from one nation build helicopters whose rotors turn clockwise and the engineers from another nation build them to go anti clockwise---.

Why the americans care less about the fancy italian or british expensive rifles and shotguns and prefer their own less expensive ones focusing more on shooting straight rather than the price.

Now I am going to read what you wrote one more time. Thank you.

Hi,

Thank you for a wonderful post on strike aircraft. In 1997 or 98 the chip manufacturing companies were wondering if their business of producing microchips is coming to an end---.

Modern warfare is a different warfare---. The smart computer and sensor in the aircraft would be able to tell the pilot---if the targets he chose on the first strike were hit or not---and if a second pass can be made---those targets that were hit would be overlooked and those not hit would be struck---so a possibility would be that an intelligent and smarter and smaller bomb maybe and would the weapon of choice.

Lighter military hardware in higher numbers has overcome heavier military hardware---but when you are facing the problem of a heavier military hardware in higher number---then the general rule of good utility in lesser numbers overcoming the odds does not work.

Wars are a brutal business---sometimes it is not only the machine---but the awe behind that machine that determines the result of the combat---the fear factor---makes many an operator make basic and fundamental mistakes---that is why it is not necessary to have the most functional equipment---you ought to have a " shining sword " in your arsenal as well.
 
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

The F-35 (and other 21st century fighters under development) have been designed to stealthily creep up to their target, take their time, and take out as many targets in one sortie as possible.

They can thus carry and use up to eight Small Diameter Bombs (or six Brimstone or ASSM missiles for the Rafale et. al.). Alternatively, two 2,000 pound JDAMs are used for hardened targets.

Conversely, AV-8B Harriers are rarely seen with more than one 500 pounder, F/A-18Cs with more than two 500 or 1,000 pound-class munitions, AH-1s with more than four missiles, ...

On July 10, 2006 a four-ship of F-15Es based at Lakenheath demonstrated the bombing of 16 targets with SDBs in one pass (on a training range).

So, you are right - needs and priorities do change.

Hilaker said it best in his 1991 Code One interview (attached with my previous post):

"With the F-16XL, we reduced the drag of the weapon carriage by sixty-three percent. The drag of the XL with the same fuel and twice as many bombs is a little over thirty percent less than today’s F-16 when you load it up. This points up a fallacy that has existed for thirty years, and I’m concerned that it may still exist. Our designs assume clean airplanes. Bombs and all the other crap are added on as an afterthought. These add-ons not only increase drag but they also ruin the handling qualities. They should be considered from the beginning.

We ought to start with the weapon. That’s really the final product. We ought to determine what the weapon is and what it will take to deliver it and then do the airplane. Now, we design the airplane and smash the weapon on it."

Anyway, i have agreed with you. If you don't mind, I will close this chapter here and not go off-topic any further.

Regards,

Allah keep everyone safe
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom