The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
F-16s, IDEXes Past, And The General

The F-16 is still selling, as Graham's post below reminds us. But I read that post on the same day that I was at IDEX - a show that I last visited in 1995, because when I worked for Another Company, the London office usually did that - and also remembered that retired Major General Khalid al Buainnain, now a very big wheel in UAE defense, was then Colonel Khalid.

Even then he was clearly a rising star, with ambitions to see the UAE with its own access to space surveillance, SIGINT and sophisticated weapons. At the time, he was managing the procurement of the Mirage 2000-9 and the UAE fighter competition that led to the F-16E/F.

In 1995, though, the UAE had ambitions beyond the Block 60. What was then informally known as the F-16U looked like this:


blog post photo
LMTAS photo my foot. Pic by Bill Sweetman

That's an F-22-based wing. Together with a stretched fuselage it boosted internal fuel capacity by 80 per cent. It also eliminated draggy multiple weapon pylons and made room for four semi-recessed AMRAAMs. That aircraft would have had range.

Lockheed (not yet Lockheed Martin) wasn't officially releasing any images of the aircraft, but the program manager knew I was apt to be wandering around with a camera and accidentally left the model unsupervised. Around the same time, I was in his office at Fort Worth, where there were some even more exotic-looking designs with diverterless inlets and saw-toothed nozzles. Vectored thrust and a new engine - but based on the commercial CFM56-7 core - were possible future upgrades, and the jet would have happily supercruised with that engine.

With Khalid pushing, the UAE was ready to go with it, on one condition (I learned much later):  that the USAF buy a wing of delta F-16s, so that they would not be alone with the new jet. But policy was already shifting towards JSF, and the Pentagon would not play.

Well, as I wrote at the time:   

With a single 180 kN engine, long range, multiple sensors and advanced avionics, the ultimate F-16 starts to look a lot like the Air Force's version of JAST.  "You have hit that right on the head," comments one non-Lockheed observer. "Do you want to replace the F-16 with something that goes Mach 2, does air-to-air and air-to-ground [the F-16U] or with something that doesn't have that level of performance and carries a lower payload?" 

But apparently that was just what they wanted to do. On the other hand, if something untoward does happen to JSF, some dusty files in Fort Worth might suddenly get reopened.

Tags: ar99f-16idex
Email this post
User Image
sferrin wrote:
Thing is though, by the time they added all the bells and whistles they'd demand you'd be right back to F-35 pricing without the degree of stealth. Not to mention the USN and USMC would be out in the cold. As much as I like the above design (and the even more interesting tailess version) it just seems like a bad idea from a cost/benefit perspective.
2/25/2009 8:44 AM CST
User Image
Ummm...How is this substantively different from the F-16XL?
2/25/2009 11:36 AM CST
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
It had a different wing design - a cambered delta rather than an arrow... Sferrin... I'd guess I would look at the price of an F-16IN and add something. At the time R&D was quite high, but a lot of it (engine, internal IR, AESA, EW and the new cockpit) got done under F-16E/F.
2/26/2009 3:37 AM CST
User Image
sferrin wrote:
The engine in the Block 60s is FAR from 180kN. That amount of power you're talking about an F119 or F135. Add in the R&D cost of a new stealthy airframe (they'd demand it), new sensors and avionics (because they wouldn't settle for "export standard") and you're starting to look like a Mitsubishi F2 situation. You'd effectively end up with F-35-like price but because it wouldn't have internal weapons carriage it would be crippled in the stealth debt and thus still being forced to go toe-to-toe with double digit SAMs and the future PAK-FA/J-XX. And you wouldn't be able to fly it off a carrier or assault ship so the USN and USMC would still be out in the cold. Just look at the LCS if you want to see that kind of thinking in action. Now if they'd keep the bells and whistles reasonable and buy a Vette instead of a Zonda they could keep the cost reasonable but they'd have to buy more F-22s to handle the air threat nor would the new F-16 mod have much range while carrying 5000lb class weapons. You'd still need F-15s around for that. So is a F-22/F-16X/F-15 force cheaper than an F-22/F-35 force? Certainly not from a maintanence/spares/training point of view. Thing is they'll be buying F-35s for a LONG time. Once R&D is over and production is ramped up they'll be able to get the cost to a more reasonable level as they're doing with the F-22. (The F-22's price would be even better if they hadn't done the cut and stretch idiocy but what can ya do?)
2/26/2009 7:38 AM CST
Most Recent Tags
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos