Merch Store! www.foundandexplained.shop NEW CHANNEL: • Launched from the bigg... Discord: / discord My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt Join this channel to get access to perks: / @foundandexplained Patreon: / foundandexplained
The fighter maffia where not good designers They also said that these things are useless: radar, radio, advanced sensors, missiles and other things that are crucial in today’s air to air landscape
Pierre sprey and the fighter mafia being given any credit is a massive red flag to the validity of anything said in this video tbh They were horrible designers with wrong predictions, Sprey wasnt even a designer he was a jazz label producer who lied to gain fame with his ludicrous claims
Sprey was a scammer who was eventually proved wrong. Even though the Gulf War proved him and his fellow travelers in the liberal media wrong, he tried to point to that war as proof of what he had advocated. That's hutzpah. It's amazing anyone listened to him, and that was only due to his skill at self-promotion.
The Light Fighter Mafia (later rebranded itself the "Fighter Mafia" after the F-15 was a rousing success that combined high performance and heavy payload in one airframe) was far less influential than they want people to think in historical retrospect. They were right in broad strokes, but the way they were right is actually extremely trivial (and they were extremely guilty of pushing things like James Burton's horrifically flawed "Blitzfighter" concept that would have gotten every single man flying it killed - and no, Blitzfighter was not a "precursor" to the A-10 Warthog, it was an attempt to design a smaller, stripped-down, COMPLETELY VULNERABLE A-10 Warthog and it was laughed out of the room every time it was introduced). "A plane with high thrust and low weight will be a better dogfighter than a plane with moderate thrust and high weight"? NO FUCKING SHIT! The LFM wanted to take the things that made the F-16 a worthwhile fighter aircraft away from it, and leave it as a single-engine light fighter with a maximum capacity of four Sidewinders - and they didn't even really want the Sidewinders.
@@croc-biteplays5337 the F-16, honestly should have had a more capable radar and more fuel from the outset. The viper has to sortie with bags for just about everything, and that’s a problem.
I find it funny that Hillaker was the only member of the Fighter Mafia who was actually qualified to design a plane, and he tends to be among the lesser known members due to being one of the more reserved ones and even began to distance himself from the group in later years, wich I think speaks volumes.
Still sad to see the blasphemy of Fighter Mafia being spread around, I've lost all respect for Pierre Spray. And regarding the F16XL, regarding how much of a significant improvement it was in all aspects, from weaponry, range, payload, fuel economy, etc; the air force really should've kept the F16XL. Would've opened up so many options for it today.
Nice thing about the 16 being a cheap parts collection and modular from the start is that it can also serve as the basis for a shitload of experiments, hence why NASA loves them as a starting point.
Let's call it what it is: Fantasized. Not "rumored." The F-16 and F-35 are both built by Lockheed Martin. There is NO REALISTIC WAY that LM is going to offer air forces a product that internally competes with their own flagship aircraft.
Oh, to see it come back, with Conformal Fuel Tanks, DSI air intake, GE engine with thrust vectoring and bl. 70 built and avionics, hardpoints rewired for SDBs / JAGMs.... and YF-16 vertical stabilizer for good measure.
same profile as the Swedish J35 in the -60s. due to export regulations, the USA was not allowed to buy combat aircraft from Sweden then and tried the same profile on the F16 model.
SCAMP was original purpose of the XL, not multirole combat. You don't supercruise and maneuver at supersonic speed when lugging bombs under the wings. The emphasis on bombing came later when the design was repurposed and entered in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition, was was won by the F-15E. The video omits the fact that the XL didn't really achieve supercruise until it was later given a more powerful engine by NASA. It also doesn't mention that the XL was inferior to the production F-16 in subsonic high G maneuvering due to greater energy bleed.
Yes the F-16XL was a good plane, but so was the F-15E and that plane just fit the strike fighter needs better. Remember, this was a competition to replace the F-111 so it had big shoes to fill in speed, range and payload capacity.
@@merafirewing6591 You are correct, the Aardvark was a Tactical Bomber. The F-16XL was primarily there to fix one of the biggest problems with the F-16, no range. We'd laugh while at Red Flag, when the F-16's would have to fly out last and return first in a mission package, due to their .7 (7/10ths of an hour) average mission times (without external bags). The Blk 50 and up gets an extra 30% or so with CFTs The F-15's could clock 1.5 mission times and my F-111's could do 2.1 on internal fuel only. The base F-16 had to have inflight refueling to carry a load and have range.
@merafirewing6591 You are correct. The AMP (Avionics Modification Program) was in full swing but due to the Air Force trying to talk Congress into 3 to 400 more F-22's, by getting rid of all unwanted airframes, they happily yanked them out of depot, unfinished and scrapped them as soon as they could. AMP gave the Vark a full glass cockpit, dual laser gyros, and a bunch of other systems. The F-15E is a good airplane, but it can not do the same nighttime low level (200 ft) penetration effectively. Essentially, it's an accurate higher level bomb truck with some air defense capabilities. It IS a moot point, though, as the F-111 would have only lasted a few more years anyway, the Aussies had them until 2010 and they were still relevant then. Loved the airplane!
People seldom realize just how good the F-14,F-15,F-16 & F-18 really are. All you have to do is look at all the different fighter designs leading up to the teen series designed in the 1970s. Then look at the new fighter designs after the teen series was adopted. There have been four completely different designs and only two of those have been adopted since the teen series came out in the 1970s, those are the F-22 & F-35. But we are still building new F-15, F-16 and F-18 fighters today roughly 50 years after their introduction. The designers really did an amazing job with the designs in the 1970s.
Is that the ketsusjin Studio game? Ive been trying to find it but havent got a gripe of It so Far. Loved riding on the F86 at high speeds using WEP hehehehej
This is one of my all time favorite 'what-if' fighters! I would love to see your take on the Lockheed Martin FB22, which is the ultimate 'I wish they built it' plane IMO!
After I got to sit in the F16 as a kid when my did flew the BudLight MicroJet in the Airshows, I was hooked on it! It's still my favorite fighter... I'm surprised those new integrated Fuel Tanks don't affect the Performance of it
F-16XL is what the F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, F-104 Starfighter and F-4 Phantom supposed to be. However, the problem with the F-16XL is the intended role has been filled by F-15C and F-15EX, also the F-16V and the Navy counterpart F/A-18E/F can do the same ground strike missions at the same time carry air to air missiles for self defense. On the other hand, how to compete against Rafale in the international market is a big question.
The F-16XL was a contender for the Advanced Tactical Fighter (which the F-15E won because of upgradability) role not an interceptor and many of the technologies developed for it have found their way into newer F-16 variants
I’ve always wondered why this project couldn’t be revived and sold primarily to foreign governments. I also have thought that the F-16XL could have been paired with a revived F-20 program, the proposed upgraded F-5, as an export only, technology transfer program. Both being sold as a low cost, multi-role, air/ground/interceptor system, with overlapping technologies, interchangeable avionics and engines.
@@soulsphere9242 International export technology sharing, like the Korean KF-21, on a single model, that does the missions of both the F-16 and F-15; to be manufactured in the buyer's country, without having to turn over the technology to build anything equivalent to a Block 70 F-16 and/or F-15QA?
If the F-16XL had been built, it would have had to replace either the base F-16, or the F-15E. The budget wasn't there to do reasonable numbers of all three. You could have replaced the base F-16, but that would result in fewer total as due to the increased cost of the XL. You could have replaced the F-15E, but that would have been buying less capable airframes for the same cost., especially maintenance costs due to it being a third separate airframe. In the end, it was just more cost-effective to use a high/low procurement of F-15Es and F-16s.
Thank you for the video, I read an article about these about 1990 or so and wondered why I never saw them again. It's no wonder they were outclassed by the f-15. Another mystery solved.
same profile as the Swedish J35 in the -60s. due to export regulations, the USA was not allowed to buy combat aircraft from Sweden then and tried the same profile on the F16 model.
I remember first seeing this version or something very much like it in a Chevy Chase film from 1983 called ‘Deal of the Century’ which also featured combat between it and an advanced UAV. The movie wasn’t very good but I thought those scenes were pretty rad for the time.
The USAF may use the F16 for strike missions a lot but for many export customers it is their air superiority aircraft. Hillaker got it right the first time. The second version F16XL would have been great for its intended role too.
The problem with the F-16XL is that for purely the strike fighter role, the F-15E Strike Eagle was better. And for a multi-role fighter...it's a lot more expensive than the standard F-16.
The F-16XL was designed and built in the early '80s, the HAL Tejas was designed in the '90s and built in the 2000s based on the Dassault Mirage series.
Not to be nitpicking, but I have to nitpick - at 11:35 ; the European 4th generation fighters did not follow the designed proved effective by the F-16XL, the delta and double delta wing had already been proven long before that (for example the Saab Draken first flew in 1955, and Saab Viggen first flew in 1967). Europe always liked the short takeoff/landing distances that the delta wing provided, even better with the canards. With that said, the F-16XL is a beautiful plane, and it's truly a shame it never got to be put in operational service.
To see some of the footage -- that was great, the way that the author tried to 'talk up' the XL (I assume it was because he liked it -- not practical -- that's a kids' concept) showed that they knew of very little in both comparison(s) and capabilities.
The F-16XL should return as the F-16EX, and become the new standard for both domestic and export F-16s. Esp. as range and carrying capacity on a relative budget becomes important again.
While I love the idea of the F-16XL, I wonder what would’ve happened to European aerospace if it was approved. Going by what happened with the F-100, F-104, and the F-4, we’ve might not’ve had such beautiful European designs.
No... what happened is that the Phantom IIs were kicking butt! However.... after a friendly kill incident, the "Brass" ordered thereafter that all engagements must be in visual range.... and so, the Phantom that had no internal Gun had a major disadvantage since the Phantom II was pretty much designed as a middle boat designed for long range engagements.... not dog fighting.....
The Air Force generals in charge are F-15 veterans. Who wanted the F-15E over the F-16XL. Had the air force ever ordered additional F-16’s the XL would likely have been produced
The last tranche of F-16s ordered were delivered from 2006-2010. We got a LOT of Vipers, and relatively few Eagles. The XL was proposed to replace the F-111, a very large tactical bomber.
@@katherineberger6329 Pretty sure the USAF got its last F-16s around 1997 (and the last of the F-15Es were around 2001). But yes, this was all long after the XL was canned.
Love the F16XL in every way, what could have been the cousin to fly next to the f16 on missions. Even though not successful the f16XL shows many similarities to what happened with the F15 and F15E, the two single greatest aircraft ever made
the Rafale, grippen and Eurofighter actually have straight delta wings, not cranked delta wings. They also all have Canards, which the F-16XL didn't have
I like the look of the F-16XL however, the viper just looks completely menacing, ready to tear other planes apart. So I’m kinda glad we (Denmark) got the F-16
Each aircraft is defined by parameters such as wing/loading and thrust/weight. Someone is lying here. For a maximum engine power of 29,500 lbf and a mass of 48,000 lb, you cannot get anything other than a thrust/weight of 0.61, which means that the engine is too heavy and the rate of climb cannot be 62,000 ft/min but 27,604 ft/min. There is also mention of an engine upgrade to the regular F 16 that allows a rate of climb of 62,000 ft/min, but then the F 16XL would have a rate of climb of only 34,229 ft/min.
The air force hardly ever justifies it's choice. It's stupid because there are always better options. Like the Yf22 and the yf23. The yf23 was the better choice, but the looks of the yf22 won. Trivia: the YF 22 has bellyflopped on the ground twice once before it went into production.
One of the failures to be built was a fly-off against the original F16 where it's air-air abilities showed it to be compromised. Plus the newest F16 added leading edge and additional integral fuel to its wings "borrowing" some of the XL advantages. Just look at a brand new F16, it's obvious
i thik something important to think about for a dogfighter is energy retensions. My source is warthunder which might not be the best source but i think the wings would preduce a crap ton f drag in a turn. So i think that this dewsign is worse than the f 16. It is also bigger and would need more maintenece. Thats just what i think, based on a limited knowledge about airforces and wars(i am not some insane 5 star general or some shit like that.). Also sorry for any spelling mistakes :)
The F16XL is being reevaluated because it has the same number of weapon stations as an A10. For much of the last year the A10s were being tested in a different role in the Pacific. A MLD launch platform. The problem is there are less than 300 serviceable ones left. That is why none will go to Ukraine. A large number of MLDs plus a respectable range. The F16XL or its upgraded version would fill that role nicely. It’s all about the money as usual.
I have a hypothesis, that is if these went into production the IAF would have purchased up to 16 of them. Then nobody's Mooslim nuclear weapons reactor program would have been out of range of Israel. Also, the platform would have given the U.S. air force and its Allies significant reach in the Pacific ocean. Wonder for a moment how that matters today? So they cooked up an uneven match with an enlarged F-15 to give BillyBoy the President political cover from the Israelis for ditching the program.
Strike Eagle is a beast of a strike craft, Viper is also a monster dogfighter in its own right, XL would have lost the rate fighting capability of the original Viper and then again fall short of a powerhouse like the Strike Eagle... XL faced the same problem Tiger shark faced in its own time, being a good design nobody really actually needed cause more familiar and accessible options were already present... For example since F35 is available for export many countries just go on and buy it, when they can't or denied, like Turkey for example then making one becomes an option, or the counterparts that Russia and China claim they have to offer as stand in versions, or F22 is not for export so Korea makes their own, but when they can buy they buy F15K, perhaps the best Strike Eagle out there... we will later see about the EX or SE...
