Was the F-16IN Super Viper the first time that the name Viper was used in marketing materials?
TomS said:(I rthink I might have been at the first open house after the name was assigned -- I certianly remember being at Hill to see the F-16 as a kid).
Sounds logical to me. -SPV8Interceptor said:I've always wondered if; had the official name for the F-16 been simply "Falcon", it would have been accepted and referred to as such by the fighter pilot community.
After all, they had no problem with "Eagle"
Was the "Fighting" suffix added to the name of the aircraft as a way to avoid confusion with the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon series of air-to-air missiles? The -4F/-4G variants of that AAM were still in the ANG inventory during the F-16 procurement;they remained in service with the Guard until 1988 when the last F-106s were retired?
TomS said:Probably -- my memory is vague. At the time, all I'd seen was X-Wings and TIE fighters (and Vipers).
V8Interceptor said:I've always wondered if; had the official name for the F-16 been simply "Falcon", it would have been accepted and referred to as such by the fighter pilot community.
After all, they had no problem with "Eagle"
Was the "Fighting" suffix added to the name of the aircraft as a way to avoid confusion with the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon series of air-to-air missiles? The -4F/-4G variants of that AAM were still in the ANG inventory during the F-16 procurement;they remained in service with the Guard until 1988 when the last F-106s were retired?
FighterJock said:Steve Pace said:As I understand it the V suffice simply stands for the name Viper which USAF pilots prefer their '16s to be called. The official name Fighting Falcon never really turned '16 drivers on. -SP
So why did the USAF not call the F-16 the Viper instead of the Fighting Falcon? A highly strange situation if you ask me.
Steve Pace said:Then there's the Bone for B-1 (B-one), Boner for B-1R (B-one Regional) bomber - on and on and on...
marauder2048 said:LowObservable said:Wouldn't be too sure about that. The F-16 aftermarket is much bigger than any other, and the Korea experience showed how difficult it is to break in.
Willful misrepresentation (and that's a kind way of putting it) makes it difficult to break into just about any market.
BAE Spoiled $1.7B Radar Deal With Korea, Suit Says
By Adam Sege
Law360, Wilmington (February 3, 2016, 6:06 PM ET) -- Defense giant Raytheon sued BAE and two subsidiaries in Delaware Chancery Court on Tuesday over the soured $1.7 billion sale of F-16 aircraft radar upgrades to South Korea, saying BAE hid the fact the deal was in trouble and caused its ultimate demise.
While Raytheon Co. had met all its obligations as a subcontractor, prime contractor BAE Systems Holdings Inc. concealed mounting problems with the project and ultimately caused price increases that led to the deal's failure and the subcontractor's losses on the project, the complaint alleges.
“[R]elying on BAE-T’s representations, Raytheon invested millions of its own dollars in the upgrade program,” the suit states. “BAE-T, however, failed to meet its own obligations, both to the U.S. government and to South Korea, and these repeated failures ultimately caused Korea to cancel the purchase.”
The dispute relates to a planned, $1.7 billion sale in which Raytheon and BAE were to provide the South Korean government with radar upgrades for F-16 fighter jets, according to the complaint. After reaching an agreement with the Korean government, the U.S. government designated BAE as the prime contractor on the upgrades, with Raytheon listed as a subcontractor, the suit says.
Raytheon says it assigned 70 employees to the project and abided by all its obligations.
But the sale ultimately fell apart, with the Korean government ending its contract with the U.S., the U.S. government nixing its contract with BAE, and BAE terminating its subcontract with Raytheon.
Raytheon claims that cost increases caused by BAE contributed to the breakdown, and that BAE contributed to Raytheon’s losses by hiding warning signs about the project.
“Despite knowing the upgrade program was in serious trouble, BAE-T continued to tell Raytheon negotiations were on
track and that Raytheon should continue to invest its own funds,” Raytheon says.
The subcontractor’s claims against BAE and its subsidiaries include breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In addition to its immediate losses associated with the botched deal, Raytheon says, the sale’s failure has impacted the subcontractor's future business by robbing it of an opportunity to demonstrate its capability in the F-16 radar market.
“For both companies, winning these contracts represented a beachhead into the large and lucrative F-16 upgrade marketplace, theretofore dominated by Lockheed Martin, the F-16’s original manufacturer, and by Northrop Grumman,
supplier of the F-16’s original radar system,” the suit states.
In a company statement emailed to Law360, BAE said it was "disappointed" to learn its former partner on the project had filed suit.
"As we have said previously, BAE Systems does not believe the company owes the Republic of Korea any monies related to Korea’s decision to cancel the KF-16 upgrade program," BAE continued. "By extension, we do not believe BAE Systems owes Raytheon any additional monies outside of the normal contractual termination settlement process. We are currently reviewing Raytheon’s complaint and will respond in due course through the appropriate legal processes.”
An attorney for Raytheon declined to elaborate on the company’s complaint.
Raytheon is represented by Jack B. Jacobs, Mark D. Hopson, Gordon D. Todd, Maureen B. Soles and Morgan Branch of Sidley Austin LLP.
Counsel information for BAE was not immediately available.
The case is Raytheon Co. v. BAE Systems Holdings Inc. et al., case number 11957, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The company has plans to make structural improvements to the F-16s that remain in military service even after production stops. The company is now pushing what it calls the F-16V, a new configuration that includes some of the technology developed for its successor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The upgrades include a new mission computer and Northrop Grumman-made radar, which is common with the same system used on the F-35. That allows the plane to track more targets in the air and on the ground.
The configuration is part of the upgrade the U.S. is offering Taiwan’s existing fleet in lieu of selling new F-16s. Lockheed is also pitching the upgrades to Indonesia. Howard said the company is in discussions “with multiple countries for upgrades of their existing F-16s.”
Why would the F-15A be called Rhodan?sferrin said:
dan_inbox said:Why would the F-15A be called Rhodan?sferrin said:
I suppose that it is a reference to to scifi books hero Perry Rhodan, but I don't get it.
5000 seems like an outside shot but possible, 5200 seems pretty unlikely.Archibald said:Will the F-16 beat the 5000th mark, and the Phantom production run ?
Archibald said:Will the F-16 beat the 5000th mark, and the Phantom production run ?
Colonial-Marine said:I love the look of the Phantom but I don't know if I'd call it beautiful. Wasn't there a saying about the Phantom only being able to fly because the ground was repulsed by how ugly it was?
lantinian said:2nd. First time I see an F-16 with a triple AMRAAM launcher and I am impressed although its probably just a rendering and nothing like this exist yet.
MihoshiK said:I see that picture of the Block 70, and all I can think of is how much Pierre Sprey must be frothing at the mouth over it.
MihoshiK said:Pierre Sprey must be frothing
If they can do that from the air, they can do that from a ship
Block 70 has SABR and F-110GE129 while Block 60 has APG-80 and F-110GE 132The Block 70 was a different configuration on offer to India. Then there's the Block 61. The "V" designation is more amorphous and unblock like since, IIRC a customer an do a la carte upgrades from the "V" grab bag of avionics.