Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon Developments

Scott Kenny said:
I've read on this forum that Have Glass is up to 12mm thick...
Click to expand...

Yeah and it's based on this :

www.key.aero

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about
www.key.aero www.key.aero

Which also give 10-12 mm.

But it cant give just 100 Kg of weight increase to the F-16's with over 60% of surface area being painted by that. As typical density of paint would be something in order of 1300 kg/cubic meter. Since the paint also contain ferromagnetic absorber.. odds are it would be bit denser.

for every square meter of that 12 mm paint it would weigh around 15.6 Kg. Thus an entire wing of F-16 which about 28 sqm, would need some 436.8 Kg of paint. That's not 100 Kg. Which made me suspect that there might be confusion between Milimmetres and Mils. Now change that 12 mm to 12 Mils you have 0.3 mm. Which for that same 28 sqm wing area would need only about 11 Kg.
 
kaiserbill said:
Excuse for my forthrightness, but this is nonsenseis using thrid parties
Click to expand...
My thoughts may be inaccurate. But they are hardly nonsense.

Sure, Russia has made ICs. But it has not made state-of-the-art ICs in real commercial quantities or achieved anything near the performance of recent Western ICs. China is not a likely source of ICs either, in my opinion. China imports most of its ICs at present (most of the world's ICs are manufactured in Taiwan), and the Chinese electronics industry depends on exports to the West. So China seems unlikely to help Russia circumvent sanctions. Bottom line: Russia cannot easily replace Western chips that it is already using or match their performance with homemade equivalents.

Even duplicating its less-than-state-of-the-art ICs may prove to be a problem for Russia. It does not currently have access to chip-making technology. Only a few companies make and service the required equipment--and regular service and refurbishment are essential (these machines operate under extreme conditions). New sales to Russia and return of refurbished, Russian-owned units are now embargoed--and the embargo is being felt. I happen to know of a number of Russian entities that tried to get around the embargo using third parties in the months after the invasion.

So neither time nor technology is on Russia's side, in this respect:

[1] If upgraded, post-1990 upgrades of Soviet-era aircraft made use of cheaper, higher performance, Western ICs, as has been reported (rightly or wrongly), replacements won't be readily available or affordable.

[2] If Russian aircraft use Russian ICs, they will lack the overall performance and reliability of Western equivalents like the F-16.

[3] As its irreplaceable manufacturing tools wear out, even Russian ICs will eventually get scarce.
 
In regards to Russia's difficulty in manufacturing advanced ICs the below Asianometry video is quite enlightening:


In late February 2022, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or TSMC announced that it would halt shipments to Russia per a new round of sanctions.
Click to expand...
The TSMC halt ended shipments from fabless companies like Baikal, MCST, Yadro and STC Module. Intel and AMD have stopped their shipments to Russia as well.
Click to expand...
In recent years, Russia has been looking to create their own supply of semiconductors. While there are some interesting domestic design successes, domestic capacity to manufacture those designs have been falling farther and farther behind.
Click to expand...
We find ourselves living in strange times. In this video, we are going to do an overview of Russia's ever-worsening domestic semiconductor manufacturing industry.
Click to expand...
Read Ian’s write up on the Elbrus: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15823/...
Click to expand...
 
stealthflanker said:
Yeah and it's based on this :

www.key.aero

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about
www.key.aero www.key.aero

Which also give 10-12 mm.

But it cant give just 100 Kg of weight increase to the F-16's with over 60% of surface area being painted by that. As typical density of paint would be something in order of 1300 kg/cubic meter. Since the paint also contain ferromagnetic absorber.. odds are it would be bit denser.

for every square meter of that 12 mm paint it would weigh around 15.6 Kg. Thus an entire wing of F-16 which about 28 sqm, would need some 436.8 Kg of paint. That's not 100 Kg. Which made me suspect that there might be confusion between Milimmetres and Mils. Now change that 12 mm to 12 Mils you have 0.3 mm. Which for that same 28 sqm wing area would need only about 11 Kg.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.
 
I was looking at the F-16 wikipedia article today and I was wondering is the F-16V the official DOD designation for the F-16 block-70 or is that just a LM marketing gimmick?
 
NMaude said:
I was looking at the F-16 wikipedia article today and I was wondering is the F-16V the official DOD designation for the F-16 block-70 or is that just a LM marketing gimmick?
Click to expand...
I believe the official designations are Block 70/72
 
From what I gather the USAF isn't getting any new Block 70/72 F-16s but some existing (probably Block 50/52) aircraft will be refurbished and upgraded to a standard that is nearly but not quite that. It sounds like those F-16s will continue to use the overarching F-16C/D designation but I'm not sure if they will be called Block 70/72 or something else. As for international buyers I suppose they could choose to use the F-16V designation if they wished to, though I'm not sure what they would call the two-seater. I'm guessing most will instead choose to keep using the C/D designator.
 
The V designation is used very loosely. Newly produced F-16s are F-16V, but so are older F-16A/B from ROCAF that retains older engine but are upgrade to V standard in terms of radar/avionics/weapons.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
As for international buyers I suppose they could choose to use the F-16V designation if they wished to, though I'm not sure what they would call the two-seater.
Click to expand...

Since the UAE already has dibs on the F-16E/F wouldn't it better to call the F-16 Block 70/72 the F-16G/H? The latest F-16C/D is a great deal more capable than the original baseline F-16C/D.
 
NMaude said:
Since the UAE already has dibs on the F-16E/F wouldn't it better to call the F-16 Block 70/72 the F-16G/H? The latest F-16C/D is a great deal more capable than the original baseline F-16C/D.
Click to expand...
The E/F has pretty much all new internals, flight control, radar cooling. you couldn’t realistically turn even a late model block 50/52+ into a block 60. just about any F-16 block 30 up can be made into a V (Taiwan’s block 20 are structurally block 32 aircraft). It’s a fairly low risk approach.
 
F-2 said:
The E/F has pretty much all new internals, flight control, radar cooling. you couldn’t realistically turn even a late model block 50/52+ into a block 60. just about any F-16 block 30 up can be made into a V (Taiwan’s block 20 are structurally block 32 aircraft). It’s a fairly low risk approach.
Click to expand...
didn't know about the new internals, makes sense since they opted for this config over the delta wing design, both must've required substantial internal redesign to worth all that development cost.

V is a bit tricky though, aren't those Taiwanese B20s technically still Block 20 MLUs with upgraded avionics fitted in? I wouldn't consider calling that a V, the situation resembles F-16AM MLUs more hence I'd call them F-16AV/BV or something.
 
snne said:
didn't know about the new internals, makes sense since they opted for this config over the delta wing design, both must've required substantial internal redesign to worth all that development cost.

V is a bit tricky though, aren't those Taiwanese B20s technically still Block 20 MLUs with upgraded avionics fitted in? I wouldn't consider calling that a V, the situation resembles F-16AM MLUs more hence I'd call them F-16AV/BV or something.
Click to expand...
They are MLU aircraft but they were built in the early 90s and are basically a C/D frame with MLU A Avonics inside. The MLU itself is very close to the post CCIP Block 40/50. I presume if you really wanted to upgrade a classic A/B or Block 25 you could. The upgraded aircraft are not seemingly all that different from new build jets. I do think they keep the old block numbers but the practical differences don’t seem to be that great.
 
TomcatViP said:
ACES II
Click to expand...

Well I know about the ACES II what I meant was what was this about British ejection seats not being involved so the deal should be fine, as far as I know there hasn't been any attempt to refit F-16s with Martin-Baker ejection-seats.
 
snne said:
didn't know about the new internals, makes sense since they opted for this config over the delta wing design, both must've required substantial internal redesign to worth all that development cost.

V is a bit tricky though, aren't those Taiwanese B20s technically still Block 20 MLUs with upgraded avionics fitted in? I wouldn't consider calling that a V, the situation resembles F-16AM MLUs more hence I'd call them F-16AV/BV or something.
Click to expand...
Are those Taiwanese aircraft getting newer engines than the F100-PW-220s those F-16s probably have if they were configured like the Block 20? Depending on how much weight such a major upgrade as this adds the resulting F-16 would probably be rather sluggish (by F-16 standards) without one of the newer F100 or F110 variants.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Are those Taiwanese aircraft getting newer engines than the F100-PW-220s those F-16s probably have if they were configured like the Block 20?
Click to expand...

Well from the wikipedia F-16V article:

The first of these were for Republic of China Air Force (Taiwan) F-16A/B Block 20s. The upgrade of its 144 aircraft fleet started in January 2017 and is expected to complete by 2023.[30] In 2019, Taiwan and the United States signed an $8 billion deal that would deliver 66 new-build Block 70 aircraft.[31][32]
Click to expand...

I'd say that the new build F-16 Block 70s are getting the latest engines and given that in the last few years the US has started giving a lot more help to Taiwan I'd say it's likely the upgrades will be getting newer engines too.
 
There were talks with LM on converting the old birds with new engines, with PW-229 being promoted in the Taiwan Defence Show for a few years. Apparently the ROCAF decided modification for the new engines were too expensive and they stick to the old ones
 
SK2 said:
Apparently the ROCAF decided modification for the new engines were too expensive and they stick to the old ones
Click to expand...

Given how the situation with the PRC has been deteriorating in the last few years (The PLA:N getting more aggressive for example) I suspect the RoCAF will have likely changed its mind about the engine upgrade (Taiwan is facing an existential threat from the PRC).
 
NMaude said:
Given how the situation with the PRC has been deteriorating in the last few years (The PLA:N getting more aggressive for example) I suspect the RoCAF will have likely changed its mind about the engine upgrade (Taiwan is facing an existential threat from the PRC).
Click to expand...
Not that an F-16A with a monster engine isn’t fun to think about, it’s not as if it’s underpowered with the f100-PW-220 and there are other funding issues.
 
F-2 said:
Not that an F-16A with a monster engine isn’t fun to think about, it’s not as if it’s underpowered with the f100-PW-220 and there are other funding issues.
Click to expand...
Having all your F-16s use the same engine saves money due to only needing one set of spares.
 
NMaude said:
Well I know about the ACES II what I meant was what was this about British ejection seats not being involved so the deal should be fine, as far as I know there hasn't been any attempt to refit F-16s with Martin-Baker ejection-seats.
Click to expand...

The British government has blocked sales of other aircraft to Argentina due to British content, including ejection seats. The memory of the Falklands looms large.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Having all your F-16s use the same engine saves money due to only needing one set of spares.
Click to expand...

Due to budgetary balance, AESA, avionics and ECM (cough) upgrade should be prioritized first, as well as funding the new-build F-16V (they are with PW-229 engines)
 
TomS said:
The British government has blocked sales of other aircraft to Argentina due to British content, including ejection seats. The memory of the Falklands looms large.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. As rightly underlined, F-16s have ACES II american ejector seats, so UK will not be able to use their "Martin Baker deterrent" against Argentina (I'm half joking of course).
 
NMaude said:
I hope that some or all of those F-16s are sold to Ukraine also the Mirage 2000-5s would be a welcome addition too.
Click to expand...
Greece donating them would be even better.

Going forward, I think a mixed fleet of M2000s, F-16s and Mig-29s would suit Ukranian needs the best.
 
SK2 said:
Due to budgetary balance, AESA, avionics and ECM (cough) upgrade should be prioritized first, as well as funding the new-build F-16V (they are with PW-229 engines)
Click to expand...
Granted, but that doesn't mean that you should forget about upgrading the engines entirely.
 
Their current priority on F-16 is to get the datalink and ECM (for upgraded F-16V) done. The progress of new ECM pod for upgraded jets is currently stalled due to changes in USAF decisions. Then they keep requesting for F-35 (well...). The engine upgrade is probably the last thing they would do...
 
Forest Green said:
www.defensenews.com

F-16s arrive at Eglin to be modified with self-flying tech

The Air Force hopes its Venom experiments will allow it to more quickly develop self-flying drone wingmen known as CCAs.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
www.armyrecognition.com

US Converts F-16 Fighter into Unmanned Aircraft with Latest Modifications | Defense News April 2024 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2024 | Archive News year

United States Modifies F-16 Multi-Role Fighter To Make It A UAV
www.armyrecognition.com www.armyrecognition.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom