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.
