Unbuilt F-16 based projects

hesham said:
Generally,best seen is here for Falcon 21,

Click to expand...

I suspect this paper may have a clue about the Falcon 21++ with internal weapons, but strangely this paper is missing in the AIAA website.

Durham, A. H. and Park, P. H., "Integrated Air Vehicle/Propulsion Technologies for Multi-Role Fighter - A General Dynamics Perspective," AIAA Paper AIAA-90-2279, AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 26th Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, Florida, 1990.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/MJPC90

aiaa.PNG
 

Attachments

  • download.jpeg-1.jpg
    download.jpeg-1.jpg
    167.6 KB · Views: 347
Sorry guys,my memory is not well this days,

did we talk about A-16 version,Close Air Support & Battlefield Air Interdiction,which competed Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II successor and Vought YA-7F Strikefighter,A-16 was the winner,later cancelled for F-16C/D Block 30 ?.
 
Worth adding is the NF-16D Vista which became the X-62A:
www.edwards.af.mil

NF-16D VISTA becomes X-62A

The NF-16D Variable In-flight Simulator Aircraft (VISTA) has been redesignated as the X-62A, effective June 14, 2021.
www.edwards.af.mil
 

Attachments

  • X-62A.jpg
    X-62A.jpg
    155.9 KB · Views: 223
  • 190130-F-CX978-0230.jpg
    190130-F-CX978-0230.jpg
    966 KB · Views: 254
hesham said:
Sorry guys,my memory is not well this days,

did we talk about A-16 version,Close Air Support & Battlefield Air Interdiction,which competed Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II successor and Vought YA-7F Strikefighter,A-16 was the winner,later cancelled for F-16C/D Block 30 ?.
Click to expand...
Is this thread the one you're thinking of - F/A-16. A CAS aircraft with some get up and go.
 

Attachments

  • s-l1600 (1).jpg
    s-l1600 (1).jpg
    237.3 KB · Views: 215
  • s-l1600 (2).jpg
    s-l1600 (2).jpg
    84.8 KB · Views: 213
  • s-l1600.jpg
    s-l1600.jpg
    256.4 KB · Views: 293
RAP said:
Not an unbuilt version but alternate cannon armament might-have-been.
Click to expand...
Mauser BK27 or Oerlikon KCA 30mm would have been good for a hypothetical A-16. The DEFA shoots 30x113mm, so I don't think I'd want that.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Mauser BK27 or Oerlikon KCA 30mm would have been good for a hypothetical A-16. The DEFA shoots 30x113mm, so I don't think I'd want that.
Click to expand...
The 30x113 was design as a jet killer for both the Brits and the French on most of their jets til the 80s.

With a honorable mention to the EE Lightning and the Israeli using the heck out of them including getting a few aces.

It actually fairly decent in all.
 
Firefinder said:
The 30x113 was design as a jet killer for both the Brits and the French on most of their jets til the 80s.

With a honorable mention to the EE Lightning and the Israeli using the heck out of them including getting a few aces.

It actually fairly decent in all.
Click to expand...
Painfully low velocity, though.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Painfully low velocity, though.
Click to expand...
Not really?

Its books its at nearly 850 meter a second from a barrel third of the length of any you listed while using mine shells, the BK23 is the only one that uses a similar shell and gets only 100 ms faster.

And with modern.... everything, its not any more harder aiming then the old Vulcan with similar effective range.

Plus since you are tossing a decent amount of HIEX at something. Not many things can survive a single HIT from that which are not MBT level armoring* or Burke plus ship size.

Also the newest round has a proxy fuse, so for aircraft you dont even need to hit. While ground targets get to deal with airbursts from plane strafes.

*the US Army M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) can pen over a inch of armor at any range thanks to its heat nature. Which is a good bit more then even the A10 Gau8. So even tanks get to have a bad day.
 
I think the later versions (don't know which numbers specifically) of the ADEN and DEFA cannons and the newer M230 chain gun had a muzzle velocity of roughly 805 mps but earlier versions were lower velocity although the shell they used were slightly heavier. Those were still better than the throwing-a-grapefruit trajectory of the WWII German MK108 at least.

30x113mm HEDP can penetrate over an inch but that the DU-core API of the 30x173mm GAU-8 on the A-10 can do over twice that at a kilometer. Some of the European countries made 30x113mm AP/API ammunition but I can't imagine its performance is all that impressive.
 
ADEN had a muzzle velocity of 715m/s

Not found a specific figure for the DEFA 552 or 553. The 554 was 765m/s firing APHEI-SD, 815 m/s with HEI and 820m/s with TP ammo.
I suspect the 552 and 553 would have been similar.
 
814m/s according to these links:

552

The South African Air Force

Privately run, unofficial website on the South African Air Force. It is maintained by myself during my (limited) spare time so please read the Disclaimer. I hope you enjoy the experience and visit again soon. All suggestions are welcome - Dean Wingrin
www.saairforce.co.za

553

The South African Air Force

Privately run, unofficial website on the South African Air Force. It is maintained by myself during my (limited) spare time so please read the Disclaimer. I hope you enjoy the experience and visit again soon. All suggestions are welcome - Dean Wingrin
www.saairforce.co.za

Makes sense that the muzzle velocity is roughly in the same ballpark, as this is a family of weapons, firing the same ammunition, with incremental design changes and improvements focusing on the feeding mechanics, rate of fire, and durability.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's not WWII anymore, where you need longer span to reach higher altitude and engage high flying enemy bombers or reconnaissance aircraft. Missiles do the job.

But a larger wing F-16 was indeed studied and proposed to some customers (mainly the European countries who originally bought the first F-16As and were in search of a mid-life update) as the Agile Falcon. The purpose of the larger wing was to regain maneuverability despite the heavier weight of the new F-16s (more avionics, heavier structure to allow more ordnance). Not sure if the maximum altitude was increased, the engine and pilot equipment might be the limiting factors.

For all post 60's fighters that I can think of which had a larger (or longer span) wing (actually built or just projected) variant, the aim was to improve agility, payload, internal fuel and range... Not maximum altitude.
 
Manuducati said:
But a larger wing F-16 was indeed studied and proposed to some customers (mainly the European countries who originally bought the first F-16As and were in search of a mid-life update) as the Agile Falcon. The purpose of the larger wing was to regain maneuverability despite the heavier weight of the new F-16s (more avionics, heavier structure to allow more ordnance). Not sure if the maximum altitude was increased, the engine and pilot equipment might be the limiting factors.
Click to expand...
And which was produced in Japan as the Mitsubishi F-2.

They don't look any bigger until you see an F-2 parked next to an F-16.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And which was produced in Japan as the Mitsubishi F-2.

They don't look any bigger until you see an F-2 parked next to an F-16.
Click to expand...
Mitsubishi F-2's wing was basically an entirely domestic effort. The original US plans were for something like Agile Falcon, with wing consisting of a metal sub-structure covered with composite panels, but the Japanese had different ideas, and essentially developed an almost entirely domestic aircraft which just happened to be in the shape of an F-16, with an all-composite wing.

 
Last edited:
I don’t think the F-2 has a higher operating ceiling then say a Block 50 F-16, but I don’t think it suffers a dramatic drop in turn rate at higher altitudes like the F-16 does. I’ve heard the F-16 dominates an F-15 at low altitudes while an F-2 dominates the F-15J up to “medium” altitudes, whatever those are.
 
Last edited:
fb_img_1641304188294-jpg.670905

Imperial Iranian Air Force
(h/t TsrJoe)

Interestingly, training of IIAF pilots slated to fly the F-16 had apparently already begun at the USAF's Hill AFB in Texas Utah prior to the revolution.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
fb_img_1641304188294-jpg.670905

Imperial Iranian Air Force
(h/t TsrJoe)

Interestingly, training of IIAF pilots slated to fly the F-16 had apparently already begun at the USAF's Hill AFB in Texas prior to the revolution.
Click to expand...
The only Hill AFB I know of is the one in Utah - that was built in WW2 to modify & repair B-24s, A-26s, B-17s, B-29s, P-40s, P-47s, P-61s, etc, and which has served since then as a fighter base (F-105s, F-4s, F-16s, F-35s) and a major repair depot for many USAF aircraft, such as F-4s, F-111s, A-10s, C-130s, Minuteman missiles (they have a small silo complex for final testing before the missiles are sent back to their real silos), air-air & air-ground missiles, and so on.

It currently is the unified major repair & upgrade depot for F-35As & F-35Bs, and serves as world-wide engineering & logistics HQ for these, F-16s, & A-10s.

Hill has easy access to the Utah Test & Training Range in western Utah - currently the largest contiguous block of over-land supersonic-authorized restricted airspace in the contiguous United States.


Hill was also the training center for IIAF F-4 and F-16 pilots (a friend in high school was the son of an IIAF Colonel overseeing the F-4 training - because his family was with him it was easy for him to request political asylum after the revolution).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom