F-16XL vs EF-2000

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Please also notice that it used a different engine that used more fuel, and it WEIGHED a lot more than the original F-16. It had two or three fuselage plugs added to make it long enough for the cranked arrow wing.

Yes, yes, I do saw it, so that's why I state wing load at very first place. The weight of F-16XL almost 10ton, but arrow wing square increased proxi to 60m.s. so WL still much less than F-16 orignal version.

But it was only DESIGNED for 40% more range than a standard F-16. They said that from the start.

That should be understood as a CONSERVATIVE Estimation! Even 40% increased still is very considerable!

I think we can agree that its a pitty that the F-16XL concept wasn't adopted as it would have given the world a much better F-16. It would be interesting if the concept was hypothetically revisited now. Imagine if fitted with a detuned F-135 engine of say 32-35KLbs, how much weight and probably fuel burn it could save. Better CFD modeling today might have tweaked the aerodynamics and adding CFT's IF needed would have freed up the semi conformal weapon stations. Or perhaps a rethink could have reprofiled the stations so external tanks wouldn't overly interfere with the non wet stations. Speaking of which Zaphod, couldn't they just adapt some of the later low profile/low drag twin racks that were developed in recent years? I seem to remember one being developed here in Australia for the Hornets a few years back.

LEE.

There wouldnt be any point to putting in a high thrust engine then detuning it. You end up with a bigger and heavier engine than is needed, with more drag resulting from the larger engine and airframe modifications needed. I wouldnt be surprised if the F-135 is a larger engine.

Our British friends put their own Rolls-Royce Spey engines into their F-4s which theoretically should have made them better performers due to higher thrust, but did work out that way in reality, they ended up being slower I think.

No firepilot,
the F-119/135 and for that matter the F-136 are not larger than the current F-100/110 series engines.

There wouldnt be any point to putting in a high thrust engine then detuning it. You end up with a bigger and heavier engine than is needed, with more drag resulting from the larger engine and airframe modifications needed

There most certainly is a point. When I said detune I of course meant "derate". This does not require modification of the engine or airframe, civillian engines on airliners have been doing this for years. With modern FADEC systems it is a simple matter to lower maximum thrust and the specific fuel consumption of an engine. By doing so you can greatly increase overhaul time and add literally years onto the hot section life. In the case of the F-135 this is of particular concern on the F-35 as it is far and away the hottest running fighter engine so far built (some 200-250C above the F100-110 class engines). As for engine weight I am unable to get access to any hard numbers as they are probably commercially confident or classified and as their development is not finished they could change. However one reliable source states that airforce and P&W technical data indicates the engine is significantly lighter than the F100-110 series engines.

So to return to my point it would indeed be possible to fit a modern day F-16XL with the latest generation engine(s). The only area that woud need looking at would be the inlet to ensure adequate mass flow and reballasting for the lighter engine.

LEE.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by thebozeian]

Okay, I figured it had greater frontal area, guess I learned something.

The British should have chosen a westernised version of the Flanker when it had the chance. Thrust Vectoring, proven battle machine with British avionics.. we would have had the best fighter in the world 10 years before anyone else and at the fraction of the price of the white elephant called the eurofighter.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by rustiswordz]

You might think that, but I cannot possibly agree with you. If I might say so, anyone who says the RAF would be better off with the Flanker clearly doesn't know very much about the Typhoon (even its name!).

There is fascinating series of articles about the Typhoon in RAF service in this weeks Flight magazine, I wouldn't dream of copying out the whole thing (very naughty) but here are some of the salient points which I offer up for discussion/argument

* standard armament of the current Typhoon is the ASRAAM and AIM 120C-5 but this will soon be upgraded to the C-7 (thinks; why hasn't the ASRAAM got a proper name yet?)

* The 27mm Mauser cannon on the RAF Typhoon is to be re-activated, and before the Type deploys to Afghanistan for the first time. According to ACM Sir Glen Torpey "I definitely see a role for the cannon", and "the cannon is a good way of demonstrating intent before you start dropping 1,000lb weapons". Speaking personally, I was always confident that particular decision would be reversed, and said so on here (smug mode).

* Speaking about the current Tranche 1, block 5, Typhoons (as are due to be deployed overseas) AVM David Walker says "Typhoons air to ground detection and delivery capability is right up there with the F-15E, it is already the best strike aircraft we have ever had and it is only going to get better over the coming years".

* The next squadron to recieve the Typhoon will be No 6 Sqn who will swap their Jaguars for Typhoons early next year, they will then move to Leuchars and take on the QRA role alongside 111 and 43 Sqns Tornado F3's before replacing them in a few years time. (all Typhoon squadrons will be swing role with equal A2A and A2G capability, such as the Typhoon was designed for, hence the apparent change in missions for Nos 3 and 6 Sqn which is not actually the case as each squadron will take its turn on QRA duty in future).

*6 Sqn will also be the first to operate tranche 2 (block 8) standard aircraft and the first of these is already in final assembly at Warton.

* Current Typhoon jockeys are all currently ex-Jaguar, Harrier, Tornado F3 and Tornado GR4 jocks, giving a wide range of experience and ability in various A2A and A2G roles.

* 17 Sqn, the Typhoon OEU has 'routinely' deployed two aircraft and 30 personnel to the USA to operate alongside US aircraft 'including the F-22 Raptor' to make sure that 'the integration between the two platforms is working'.

*(AVM Walker again, from the US deployment experience) "if you take stealth as being the deciding factor then the Typhoon comes second to the F-22, however in all other areas the Typhoon is equal, if not better and the Typhoon will more than hold its own, its how you use it, not what it is that counts".

* BAE test pilot Mark Bowman on the same subject; "the F-22 is three times the cost but you would struggle to see any advantage, the cost is there to maintain the stealth". (with this in mind I'd love to see a Raptor pilots take on the deployments, obviously the British guys are biased, and so would the US pilots be, naturally, but it would be good to see how their views differ).

*Typhoon involvement is under discussion in a Red Flag exercise and also in a two-type evaluation to take place at RAF Waddington this year against IAF Su-30's (would love to be there for THAT! )

* with Flight reporter Craig Hoyle on board (who even got to take control during the flight - lucky git) one of the RAF's oldest Typhoon T1.s (not yet upgraded to block 5 capability and with restrictions still in place) demonstrated supercruise and also gave an indication of its 'blistering acceleration' by going from 200mph to the speed of sound in 20 sec. It was also reported how the Typhoon can reach supersonic speed in dry thrust whilst climbing, and with 4 AIM-120 and 2 ASRAAM in place. I would love to know how this compares with (A) full standard single seaters and (b) other fighter types, if anyone has the data?

* Finally, there is said to be a new phenomenon surfacing in the RAF amongst crew posted to Coningsby, it is being called the 'Typhoon Grin'

I hope people find this post stimulating and informative, thank you (there is more but I want to keep it interesting, if anything specific is asked that is included in the article I will post it as a reply, hope thats ok.



[edit on 24-4-2007 by waynos]

How many Typhoons have we currently got. I thought the Typhoon was still in pieces with polititians squabbling over what to do with it.

Originally posted by rustiswordz
How many Typhoons have we currently got. I thought the Typhoon was still in pieces with polititians squabbling over what to do with it.

By EOY2006 111 Eurofighter aircraft had been delivered to the four partner nations.

Originally posted by rustiswordz
How many Typhoons have we currently got. I thought the Typhoon was still in pieces with polititians squabbling over what to do with it.

The typhoons that keep flying over my house would beg to differ with you on that one. Its a beautiful aircraft and looking forward to its usual exhuberant display at the airshow this year (though it may take 2nd place to the vulcan in terms of crowd pleasing). Im also glad we have something to be proud about now even if it is in collaboration with other countries. The eurofighter is definitely a great next-gen fighter and look forward to seeing its performance in the future.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by tronied]

Originally posted by rustiswordz
How many Typhoons have we currently got. I thought the Typhoon was still in pieces with polititians squabbling over what to do with it.

as of now

3 Squadron RAF Coningsby
17 Squadron RAF Coningsby
29 Squadron RAF Coningsby

all deploy the type - and No 3 Squadron have replaced there Harrier GR7`s (which went to joint force harrier)

yes a A2G unit are the first front line unit with the type

and of course don't forget 11 Sqn, I posted about them reforming a couple of weeks ago with some nice pictures

Actually. 3 Sqn are no longer an A2G squadron, as with 6 Sqn next year as I reported above. 3 Sqn will soon be taking some responsibility for the air defence of Southern England from Tornado F3's, its all part of the 'swing role' premium that Typhoon gives us. 3Sqns Harrier swere passed to 800NAS I believe.

Rusti - stop reading about the Typhoon in The Sun and do a bit of proper reading on it, you might be surprised

[edit on 25-4-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
its all part of the 'swing role' premium that Typhoon gives us.

Remember that the Eurofighter doesnt have swing role capability at the moment, that will appear in Trache 1 Block 5 aircraft.

did you read waynos post?

they are ready to deploy tranche 1 block 5 overseas (afghan)

so the RAF have them in service ergo they have A2G capability.

Originally posted by Harlequin
did you read waynos post?

they are ready to deploy tranche 1 block 5 overseas (afghan)

so the RAF have them in service ergo they have A2G capability.

I did read it, and it doesnt make much sense with regard to the production schedule.

Tranche 1 Block 5 only received type acceptance in February 2007, no new aircraft of that type have yet been delivered to any customer, and arent scheduled to be delivered until 4Q 2007.

Tranche 1 R2 refits to Block 5 standard are currently undergoing, with the first aircraft being delivered to customers in 3Q 2007.

All Tranche 1 aircraft are due to be upgraded to Block 5 standard by 2012.

Tranche 2 Block 8 aircraft are due to be delivered in 2008.

The Afghan deployment is slated for the July 2008, described in the Flight article as a 'peg in the ground'.

this;

Speaking about the current Tranche 1, block 5, Typhoons (as are due to be deployed overseas)

is however a bit ambiguous, my apologies. By current, I meant current production standard,

[edit on 26-4-2007 by waynos]

ive been doing some looking up and im amazed at how far the Typhoon has got. So im eating humble pie here!

All we need is one of those trimaran super carriers that were proposed and park it in the gulf.... "you want to capture who's patrol boats now"

rusti, I did love that trimaran aircraft carrier! Shame it was designed in Britain, inventors of everything, builders of nothing.