Why the Air Force didn't buy the best F-16 

my uncle worked for Nintendo

​@@spurgearMy uncle worked for TomTom

thank you sir

I love it when videos like this, created by people with little knowledge in the subject under discussion, say "the wrong choice was made", but someone in the comment section drops a heavy dose of actual knowledge.

F-16XL's larger wings also reduce acceleration. Good acceleration is important after executing a hard instantaneous turn.

also, the other one is prettier.

F-16 was rated for 5.5g when loaded with ordnance. 9g was only for the air-to-air role. I *think* the XL's limit with ordnance was 7.5g, mainly due to the distributed load points, but could be wrong.

Funny thing Supercruise was an accident on this platform, then they started to research it.

@@neogenmatrix6162 No, supercruise research predates the F-16XL.

@@markhamstra1083 Correct, but they started researching it on this platform when it magically went supercruise accidentally.

@@neogenmatrix6162 Nope. The boundary layer control efforts were part of the supercruise research program, and were well under way before the re-engined F-16XL inadvertently demonstrated supercruise.

@@markhamstra1083 I stand corrected. Still such a wicked aircraft. Should have built it to replace the F-16 block xx long ago.

The similarities are obvious

Yes indeed.

Ive had like 6 SAABs, cars...but the one that was the greatest, started on a 900s t line,and ended up on the 25th anniversary 93 line, then the VIGGEN line,it was a 2.3 lt t with a major air-cooling system, and just, nothing could touch it from 70-150. whats crazy as i had work done on another Saab i had as a weekend car/Sunday driver was an 87 Saab 900 s Convertable, the car stood out like a sore thumb and nobody could get it from stalling, every time i went there i asked for a price, and was told it was going to be taken apart for spare parts,i bought a scanner for 289 bucks, and they told me there scanner said it was in map 4 which was an area of the car, anyways long story short i got the car as-is for pennies and for free got a MAP, which was 4 screws and it ran over 300k

The draken configuration is quite amazing.

@@ImmersedInHistory That's one of my favorite-looking planes, it was 20 plus years ahead of its time, I love everything SAAB makes, I was part of a Crowdsourcing effort to keep them making cars in 2012... their cars are made for special people, once you drive one you're hooked...out of the 6 I had one was a 2.3 lt t VIGGEN, that not one American made V8 car could catch from 70-155...

@name name If it was mass produced like the standard F-16 the price difference would have to become negligible, as it used mostly standard parts, and only the wings where completely new parts, although there were only 2 of them, compared to 2+2 on the standard F-16.

Not only could it have run missions with a cleaner configuration, a "heavy" configuration would've been much less of a detriment to its performance because of the larger wings - as mentioned in the video. (It's also worth mentioning that the Su-27 maintains its incredible maneuverability even with a full combat load of external stores - something the smaller F-15 and F-16 can't do - although I think that's the product of a different aeronautic principle).

You know that triangle looking Aircraft UFO......seems to me like a modern version of the F-16XL that has been pushed to its ultimate efficiency (Complete Triangle) with a fully functional SCRAM.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2KHVJiUwoYI.html This video and the other referenced in the Begging= the REAL UFO's in America! :D So awesome!

I was looking for a comment like this. The Draken is one of my all time favorite jets, and the design still looks futuristic today.

Excellent point. I loved F-16XL design from the beginning I saw it however I didn't know why. Thanks to your point I realized as big fan of Draken that these two airplanes have similar wing design. It's a shame that F-16XL was never manufactured once engineers put a lot of effort to develop it. They could sell it for export at least. Same for F-23, another beautiful design wasted.

Mark, the 1 vs 2 engine choice didn't just come down to engine reliability. As the video pointed out, these planes are made to fly deep into enemy territory, where they will be subject to enemy action. If that enemy action takes out one engine, a two engine plane might still be able to come home. That would save, not only the millions spent on the plane, but also the pilot.

@@123bentbrent Are there many instances in modern twin engine fighters of just one engine going out due to enemy action? Back when engines were spaced out along a wing or across the fuselage, it makes sense that one could get hit and not the other. With engines installed right beside each other, only inches apart, damage to one would probably affect the other. To put just one of those two closely spaced engines out of action would take damage in just the 'right' place, probably by chance. Nevertheless, I am in the twin engine camp - give me two engines, for all the many reasons in which one could be damaged, and the other still fly the jet.

The Pratt sucked to work on compared to ge

After the F-16XL, the F-17, the XF-23, and that tanker, I’m wondering if we shouldn’t question procurement decisions at some point.

Looking back, it's laughable some of the P&W engineers tried blaming the pilots for F100 reliability issues...accusing them of unnecessarily going into burner.

Would the gov however have allowed it as they generally don't like others having better toys.

@@rztrzt Also, the new production line would've priced out most foreign buyers. The added range wouldn't really help either as most air forces are for regional power projection, not international. They have less need for loitering.

@@pbdye1607 Yeah but most nations don't have carrier fleets or the logistics of major nations, so long range is a game changer.

@@Vespyr_ the countries who don't have carriers or logistics for overseas operations also don't really need long range operations. They basically need something for air defense, and the range demands for that are not that high.

@@salter1630 Until two of their most prized buildings are hit upper midshaft and fall down. Then they will need jets to loiter overhead for days.

I love the Saab J35 Draken. It would be such a fun airframe with modern composites and a turbofan. Look at the Fairey Delta 2 as well from the Brits, which had blended inlets with the leading edges of the delta wings. There’s a company in the US that flies Drakens for contract red air.

It looks very much like the double delta design of the J35 Draken. One of my favourite planes from the early Cold War era. And it is pretty impressive how long the J35 lasted. Considering how much changed during that time in aviation, especially on the fighter side.

@@Cythil The Draken was well ahead of its time, although there was a lot of delta wing development going on in multiple nations in those days. The Germans did a lot of delta wing experimentation even with gliders, and the US, France, and UK all developed delta wing fighters. The Draken sets itself apart by having more blended wing with the cranked leading edge and inlets, while still being pretty lightweight. There was a lot of US fire control and missiles, with British Rolls Royce Avon engine in the Draken.

@@LRRPFco52 Yep. Could not agree more.

If only it had had onboard radar, eh?

F-16XL would have slower acceleration after an instantaneous turn.

Unfortunately, the F-35, while more expensive, it has 1 thing the Falcon does not: Stealth. Also, what are the differences between the XL and the F-2A?

Considering the USAF decided to invest in F-15EXs, there is the potential option available to upgrade the existing F-16s to modernized F-16XL variants; moreso since the F-16 is a widely used aircraft and could also recoup any remaining R&D costs in foreign sales. With stealth aircraft having a premium on external weaponry, a fully operational F-16XL (2.0) design would also be a very effective bomb/cruise missile truck, much like the revised USAF plans for a high-low mix of F-35s for the high end and F-15EX for the low end. The F-16XL would be trading one engine for more bombs (F-15EX has up to 22 hardpoints, F-16XL has up to 27, before special add-on multi-rails). Further, the F-16XL would compare well against other delta-winged aircraft used by other foreign air forces; such as the Gripen, and be extremely useful for long-range patrols alongside drone wingmen that have similar or greater endurance than the regular F-15EX or F-16 (before the use of any external fuel tanks; but then the F-16XL would still have more hardpoints available).

@@valenrn8657 BUT LIKE WHAT? X2 the range and x2 THE LOAD? Well worth the exchange buddy.

@@droman608 THE PRICE TAG? Y capability to Cary x2 more ammo?

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2KHVJiUwoYI.html This video and the other referenced in the Begging= the REAL UFO's in America! :D So awesome!

possibley but as with all dod contracts the idea will be won or lost in congress committees to see what states get the jobs

@@roobear78 not entirely. The aerospace companies build in only a handful of states (none of them build in Montana for instance). The real question is Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or Boeing?

@@jayburn00 dude no one builds ANYTHING in montana and it goes far beyond the states they build in i have worked for one of the companies you listed and i dont even live in usa! plus you have all the sub contractors etc etc! yeah lobbying plays huge role but the main reason its those 3 is consolidation they purchased there competition,beleve me bro its all down to jobs and locations it goes far far beyond the few states assembley takes place in

@@roobear78 oh, I understand. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. Just adding a caveat. And yes, the subcontractor are where things really get complicated.

@@jayburn00 i tell you though if you think dod contracts a kabookish in usa should have a look at some in europe and some of the civilan deals too like airbus totally crazy deals

Exactly. Retrofit the majority of the fleet and shunt the remaining legacy vipers to national guard units. There's no need for that kind of range and payload over the homeland, at least you would hope.

You know that triangle looking Aircraft UFO......seems to me like a modern version of the F-16XL that has been pushed to its ultimate efficiency (Complete Triangle) with a fully functional SCRAM.

Frankly? This is still a _conversion_ of an F-16 airframe, it isn't a new design and because of that it means that any (as in the majority of the ANG airframes) Falcon is a candidate for conversion without having to retire any airframe.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2KHVJiUwoYI.html This video and the other referenced in the Begging= the REAL UFO's in America! :D So awesome!

@Bowhunters You did not watch the whole video or its predecessor did you? What, you think the U.S. was just gonna give access to film the thing to a RU-vidr>

Loved the Wingman series!!!! Did you know he's up to number... 20, I think? I just heard him a week ago on Coast to Coast AM talking about his latest book about hauntings and ran his name through Amazon. 20 or maybe 21 just got published. I had no idea he'd started up again back in '13. He may have just scratched out the "Star Fox" series, or whatever it was called. I'm going to have to get caught up. I sent him an e-mail the last time I heard him on C2C and he told me to shoot him my mailing address. He sent me an autographed book and a "Pirate Hunters" patch. Cool guy.

I love those books. That's what made me want to see the XL. If it could have done what was written about is than it would have been unbeatable.

@@jenniferbeyer6412 I don't know about any XL ever getting a vector engine, but I did see a segment on some tabloid talk show back in the mid to late 90's that showed a vector engine fighter that was literally doing everything Maloney had Hunter's Cranked Arrow doing in the books. When I saw that thing flying straight down a runway about 50 feet up then suddenly turning ninety degrees to the right, but continuing on STRAIGHT DOWN THE RUNWAY without losing speed, I could have shit. The bad news is I think the bird was Russian. Maloney actually brought a lot of stuff to my attention that I'd never heard about before. The big things were Roswell and Area 51. I think that was in "War Heaven", the sequel to "Thunder Alley". I thought he'd made that stuff up. Then I saw another tabloid show that let me know that Roswell and Area 51 were an actual thing. HOLY COW!!!!!

@@charlesballard5251 Thank you for the additional information. I know that Hunters XL was fiction and. But just the thought that the XL itself is real what else is also real. Or what the people at Area 51 and Skunk Works have thought of. And possibly built. Or are building.

@@jenniferbeyer6412 It's dumb to think there's anything special going on in area 51 anymore, all the equipment and eggheads were move to the moon in '83

In fact, there is a proposal to essentially build a new fighter using the F-16XL platform called the _F-36 Kingsnake_ . It's essentially the F-16XL but with two vertical surfaces on the wings and the jet engine from the F-22A _Raptor_ .

@@Sacto1654 I can dig IT!!!!!! :)

Yeah, the XL wasn't better. I'm a big fan, and I think it should have been built for deep strike. I often look at the modern F-16 blocks with all the mr potatohead fuel tanks mounted to the outside, I wonder why not build some XL's that hold that internal. BUT, the F-16 was built to be a fighter. The original config is a much better fighter all around than the XL. It can not turn with an original F-16. It has some problems with flying qualities that come with the delta wing. Now, if they had moved to an F-16 XL+, with leading edge flaps to enhance turn abillity, and canards - like all the succesful modern delta layouts - you might have something.

If it was this good..(which it was) I Feel why Chinese didn't copied it instead of Lavi? Or maybe both.

@@johngoscinski1995 yeah, the original plan for the F-16U addressed a good deal of what the XL program left unfinished. Still a Delta Wing but without the massive fuselage stretch of the XL and with nearly as much internal fuel capacity as the XL had in spite of losing some length. All it needed was the canards to close the circle. And with long coupled canards like the Typhoon it would have really been something at altitude.

The f35 is replacing the f16 as they age out.

You know that triangle looking Aircraft UFO......seems to me like a modern version of the F-16XL that has been pushed to its ultimate efficiency (Complete Triangle) with a fully functional SCRAM.

I've read all those damn books. Nothing like imagining an F16XL in Thunderbird livery saving the free world.

Thank you, brother. Any time you say I’m on target, I know I must be.

I loved that series of books. I lost all my books years ago. I will have to find them again.

Holy Crap...! talk about a blast from the past... I loved those books.

Just found them on Amazon Kindle.

I do a lot of voice work as well. It is so nice to hear a person do the voice work. Those new computer narrators just plain suck.

@@andrewluchsinger Agreed. I'm sure the tech will get better, but I doubt it will ever replace the human element.

@@TheWeatherbuff Do you work in radio or just do audio books? I mainly work in radio, but I do have my private studio at home where I produce any non radio or possible agency work.

China has them too. Dems have sold everything off to your enemies. The new gen democraps consider border and defense outdated. Try to convince a pack of narcissistic imbeciles that they are wrong. There is only one way to win...

Not profitable enough for shareholders.

@@Lachausis Ivanka literally got Chinese patents worth millions fast tracked right after trump was elected 🤣 but yeah the democrats are working with the Chinese 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@Lachausis Oh fucking give it a rest

@@irvingnavarro1394 do you have a source you could share for that?

All the su and migs *hold my beer*

4th generation is the PINNACLE of fighter design. No era can touch the 70's and 80's in fighter design.

F16 is old hack.

Right? Literally the first thing that came to mind when I saw the thumbnail!

A very obvious example of "not invented here"

Well, that's easy, he's not comparing similar design aircrafts but talking about how and why this F-16 version didn't get its chance to enter the USAF because of economic reasons, despite proving to be an excellent choice at the time.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2KHVJiUwoYI.html This video and the other referenced in the Begging= the REAL UFO's in America! :D So awesome!

@@LittleMacscorner AIM-9X: "Challenge accepted"

Wouldn't a jet flying at low altitude be able to use more fuel than one standing on the ground? With the jet not being stationary, the air is hitting the first stage of the compressor at a very significant speed which means there is more air to mix with fuel. At least that would be the theory.

@@twoknife Afterburners provide more thrust with increasing speed. Turbojets provide more power with increasing speed. So in general, I think it would not be unexpected that total fuel flow though the engine increases with speed.

Sounds like you have simple misconception about simple combustion physics. You are thinking about it the wrong way.

Is it industry standard to measure fuel flow _per hour_? Is it not more practical to indicate fuel flow per minute?

​@@hypervious8878 By the minute might be more useful for some purposes, but fuel flow gauges have historically been calibrated per hour and everybody is used to working that way.

I'm a lawyer and I'm a CFI and all I can afford is an old M20C Mooney. An M20C with a manual Johnson Bar. But then, flying is flying no matter what you fly. I'd prefer a Decathlon if I knew how to maintain it. I love aerobatics. Decathlons were great for learning basic aerobatics, but for the old wooden spar issues that at one time made the airplane almost inert and unflyable. But the newer models had the problems resolved, eventually.

Yes. Procurement critics are usually against "Gold Plating", except when it can be applied to an airplane they want.

unless those additions are a game changer. Lately pentagons been making "oh no" noises about our data systems going south 5 seconds into air combat with china. Top line inertial guidence systems are nice in a dirty E environnent. Those get engineering advances regularly. I was amazed the few times ive been lucky enough to get a close look into a fighter cockpit, at how unfinished they appear compared to civillian cockpits. pure function.

@@Rivenburg-xd5yf F-16XL was not a game-changer.

This makes sense, but the problem is mission requirements are usually based on yesterday's fight, not tomorrows. That extra capability isn't really necessary, until suddenly the situation changes. Having a more capable, more powerful platform is rarely an issue, especially if you can get it at a relatively low risk/cost. Look at how quickly aircraft, (or other platforms like tanks, ships, etc) evolve or are replaced in wartime, and you see the benefit of having extra abilities in your pocket. The biggest thing about the XL is that it was largely a normal F16, with a better wing design allowing better performance/payload. No super fancy exotic engines, no "cutting edge" electronics, nothing overly untested or unreliable. Cost is part of the issue with adding bells and whistles, but reliability is often just as critical. Look at all the teething problems the f35 has had, or any other revolutionary/overambitious design. The xl got the same performance boost, without resorting to high risk technology.

@@danbell3827 We'll we didn't buy the F-16XL and relied on the sorry "regular" F-16A-D models that to this day dominate in every fight they are involved in. Looks like someone really screwed up big time lol

I’ve noticed that also.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2KHVJiUwoYI.html This video and the other referenced in the Begging= the REAL UFO's in America! :D So awesome!

No, China like. Hurry up and hit the print screen key.

@@olliversdad8447 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

U.S.A. to China: , "Give China all of our chips" . China doesn't know we have built self destruct circuits inscribed into them and we can destroy all of our chips they copied at our whim. China you stupid ignorant fools, you copied our chips. As General Patton said to his adversary, Field Marshall Rommel during the African battle of "Operation Torch" after General Patton was beating the crap out of the Nazi bastards. Gen Patton shouted out to Rommel during a battle in the hilly sands and said: " Rommel, I read your G damn book you SOB". As Al Pacino also said in the great movie "Scarface" to his adversary who tried to make a kill hit on Al and before Pacino blew his brains out all over the passenger side window: Pacino said: "Just look at you now you stupid F**K." Well, China, now look at you, you stupid F""K. All of the chips you stole from us are "fixed". I'm sure you know what that means don't you?

When the B2 bomber was first displayed at the United States Airforce Museum near Dayton, Ohio a group of about a dozen Chinese nationals were standing under it, touching its surfaces, talking among themselves. They seemed intensely focused.

Given what a clusterf#ck China's 919 program has turned out [knockoff of BA's 737, with avionics/engines/operating systems sourced from the West], I wouldn't lose any sleep w/the premise that China could develop any military aircraft that would pose a threat to Western military aircraft. Duplicate & imitate....yes. Innovate? Not hardly.

The wing of the Saab Draken and the F-16XL may look similar at first glance. But different airfoil, flap and aileron layout, G-load, etc are totally different. There's no comparison between the two when you look at the performance of the aircraft.

@@fletsepopje "are TOTALLY different. There's NO comparison" Exaggerated manner of speaking bothers me. Especially when there is no need for it. End of rant.-

@@2canines Oh my, it's the Sheriff of the Political Correctness RU-vid Police. Well, I'll make sure to never use the words TOTALLY and NO again. Then again, nope. I'll just never read comments like yours again, way easier.

Even if it was dumbed down, some of its capabilities would have lived on if it was exported. However, Carter was too busy trying to please mainland China & limiting US' allies capability, that now we ended up regretting most of it.

Sounds fine to me. Eventually someone provides it to enemies….just as we did with the early Russian jets.

@@TheRibbonRed that's not even remotely close to being accurate. China at the time wasn't that relevant.

First flight of F-16XL was in 1982, more than a year after Carter was out of office. He was hardly in a position to block export sales of the aircraft.

As said before he was already out of office but even then, no point selling our most capable version of the aircraft to other people🤣 we aren't using it nobody will

or the avro arrow, iirc.

@@MrJay_White ??

@@ethimself5064 The Arrow was a canadian supersonic jet that looked a little bit like a delta MIG-25. It was cancelled because it was expensive and Canada needed the US to buy into it. They had their own plans for jets, and it never went ahead. Was going to be the most advanced jet of it's time, though (mid-late 50s).

@@Brendan2097 I know this - I was responding to Jay White's comment.

The F18 has already a lower thrust to weight than the F16, if those wings are to heavy for one, they are to heavy for both.

@@HappyBeezerStudios for F/A 18 just replace engine with F110-GE-132 (32.500 lbf).

Hahah brother, I included that clip JUST because it caught my eye and I wondered if anyone else would notice. Well done!

thats why most F-16s carry AMRAMMS on the wing tips becase they reduce wing flutter or depending on the situation or block AIM-9s

That’s a regular F-16Cwith with wingtip-mounted AIM-120s. In the early days of the F-16A, they found that it was more aerodynamic with better Specific Fuel Consumption when it had AIM-9s on stations 1 & 9 (wingtips). It’s even better with AIM-120s on the tips. The wings are so flexible that when loaded with the standard suspension equipment and external fuel tanks, it exacerbates how “fluttery” the wingtips are, leading to reduced aerodynamic efficiency. Heavier missiles on the tips helps fight this condition.

@@LRRPFco52 Thanks for the background on this. Really appreciate it.

@@brrrtnerd2450 I grew up watching them flying with AIM-9Js, then Ls, then Ms, so when I saw them start to fly later Block Vipers with -120s on the tips, I wondered what was going on. I first thought it was some kind of optimum stores management approach under the assumption that if they fired AIM-120s first, it would make the aircraft more maneuverable, but it was in fact due to the SFC and better performance with them there all the time. It’s counter-intuitive. They usually fly with 3x AIM-120C7s, 1 AIM-9X, and whatever A2G weapons on stations 3 & 7, either HARMs or GBU-12s, sometimes multiple GBU-12s on TERs.

Well, easier and cheaper to get production started with, at the very least. And it's hard to argue that two engine redundancy isn't an asset for a plane that would potentially have to do deep strike missions without support.

except it wasnt, it was just cheaper

@@pancake5830 in some way cheaper was better. In the case of the Mudhen it absolutely was the better aircraft.

Yes. And with only a center-line-tank, it still has legs for smaller countries, while carrying a lot of punch like centerline, 2xGBU's and 6 120's for example. Or 4 120's and 2 9x's

@@jakobole it depends on what country, the US normally always has a jammer on the center pylon and 2 wing tanks which brings the fuel capacity to around ~12,000 lbs, but the inner pylons that the fuel tanks go on dont have wiring for some smart weapons like JDAM, JSOW, HARMS, etc. Some export countries like israel do have the inner pylons wired for smart munitions do they can take 6 amraams and 2 smart bombs.

@@oppotato5440 Thanks

Also, air tankers outside a combat are prolific.

@@roxybot9840 since when?

That seems a little harsh on the Strike Eagle, which has amassed an impressive combat record.

More like ordering a Mustang and getting a Challenger while already owning a Mopar warehouse. Both are beautiful and capable designs, but one ultimately made more sense in cost and maintenance than the other.

A Tempo? What did you fly, Spads?

F16s have conformal tanks too. Which the 425th squadron has equipped. At luke afb.

F-16 CJ.

@@chrisl6263 Not at the time of this competition they didn't.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2KHVJiUwoYI.html This video and the other referenced in the Begging= the REAL UFO's in America! :D So awesome!

Why do you need a naval f15 when you have the f14 tomcat?

@@OnEEmONErD The F14 was a MAJOR failure with significant engine issues. When you buy more of the same thing you pay less per unit price. F18 is NOT a swing wing design and the F15 would eat an F14's lunch every time, all the time.

@@pauleveritt3388 you gotta be smoking crack if you think the f14 was a failure. Especially the later ones with better engines. The f14 can out rate an f16 so it can dogfight the Eagle.

@@OnEEmONErD I saw the smoke plume of the F14 that crashed into a house in south Nashville years ago. Killed three people on the ground. The pilot was a hero as he and his weapons office could have pushed out, but they did not. Had they punched out, the aircraft would have hit an office building with some 300 occupants. Both the F14 and F15 had/have long service histories, however the F14 had a much worse safety record.

@@pauleveritt3388 then the f16 is the worst plane ever flown. Crashed at a rate of 2 a month during its first decade of service. Name a plane that never crashed.

sure, but can it do the Kulbit? :p

@@BlokeOnAMotorbike I guess the Swedes never saw any tactical use for that 😎

I've had similar "What if?" discussions regarding RAF projects that never made it. From the P 1154 supersonic VTOL to the TSR 2. There's also a *lot* that could be done with existing ars to both expand their roles and extend their lifespans for significantly less cost than building an entirely new platform. Even just changing the materials can have a massive impact. Sadly only the Russians appear to understand this concept.

We got drones for that now. 30 years ago that would've been a good idea. Now it's obsolete

They already tried replacing the A-10 with the F-16 it didn't work out so well. Now they're trying to do the same with the F-35 lmao. They never get the message make another dedicated attack aircraft if they want a new one so bad. A-11 let's do it.

=> It already is a 4.5 gen fighter. => "Lower the radar cross section?" - ok you can achieve some improvements, but the redesign will be costly and potentially increase the price of the aircraft. => It has an internal gun. That said, I also would have been curious to see how this cranked-arrow design would have fared on the F-16 long term.

@@mikewoodman2872 Possibly less than the Block 70 upgrades, probably more as budgeting seems to be a skill the worldwide aviation industry know nothing of. Some of the potential areas for lowering radar profile such as blending the horizontal and vertical surfaces would have both an aerodynamic improvement as well as providing more space for the new packages near the CG/CL. Stuffed as far as the tail fin goes though, most likely the best you could do would be to try and make it more transparent to radar. Maintenance wise the cranked arrow would potentially have been much better as the stress loading on a delta is significantly lower than a traditional wing (Victor vs Vulcan at low altitude proved this) but it is potentially higher on the outboard sections so you would have to design with this in mind. Sacrifice a little fuel for ease of replacement, keep spares.

Nothing ever replaced the F-111, not in full anyway. Although it competed with the F-14 as a naval fighter, USN made the right decision adopting the Tomcat for naval aviation and USAF adopting the F-111 for land based operations was also the intelligent decision. What makes the F-111 special even today isn't its variable geometry or even its TFR capability. It is its sheer speed and range for delivering a single high value asset onto a very precise target space during deep penetration missions. The F-111 could simply go where no other aircraft would survive the journey, let alone reach the destination. With the advent of cruise missiles, the role of the F-111 became that of an extender for such missiles, being able to effectively increase the maximum mission range attainable. There is no true replacement to the F-111 because no such requirement exists. For my nation, Australia, the F-111C Pig holds a very special place in our military aviation history and was our "big stick" during regional tensions during the second half of the 1900s. Australia is an island nation (if you can call an entire continent an island) surrounded by three oceans and geographically distant from its closest allies and neutral neighbours. In the event of conflict we were to depend on our fleet of Pigs to be the backbone of our defense. But age and fatigue caught up with the airframes and we retired them a full decade earlier than planned when General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman _a cote de_ Lockheed Martin were unable to renew a contract to supply us with spares for our airframes. Instead, Australia adopted the F/A-18F Super Hornet and the -18G Growler as an interim capability gap measure while the F-35 Lighting II program continued its development. The Super Hornet provides a fair approximation to the capability lost with the early retirement of the Pig but we have never fully regained the incredible combat radius provided by the Pig. The Lightning Ii itself will be more of a replacement for our -18A/B Classic Hornet fleet than a true replacement for the F-111C. I believe that while it's regrettable to lose the capabilities only the F-111 series could provide, its role as a deep penetration strike aircraft has long since been made obsolete with the rotation of modern air warfare more toward low intensity conflicts where the requirement for combat air patrols and close air support of ground forces is much more valuable and reasonable.

1) Pretty much how it went down. Added note the "Bone" also made it's first flight in 1974 just like the F-16 (and yeah, us GDFW guys are still pissed Rockwell stole the F-111 variable geometry tech from our F-111). "President Richard Nixon reestablished the AMSA program after taking office, keeping with his administration's flexible response strategy that required a broad range of options short of general nuclear war.[30] Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, reviewed the programs and decided to lower the numbers of FB-111s, since they lacked the desired range, and recommended that the AMSA design studies be accelerated.[30] In April 1969, the program officially became the B-1A.[11][30] This was the first entry in the new bomber designation series, created in 1962. The Air Force issued a request for proposals in November 1969.[31]" 2) Yes, Tomcats are 4 years older than F-16 making it's first flight in 1970 vs 1974 for the Falcon.

@J Jones Yup. And with the F-35, we have the evolution of that mission. It can do what the F-117 did but in a supersonic package capable of air to air combat. The F-111 remains awesome simply because it once got an air to air kill with it's maneuvering computer.

But if I remember correctly, it very unstable at low speeds.

Those books took so much liberty with the reality of physics, but GOD, were they ever a fun read.

@@musewolfman And that was before they went to space. It was Fast and Furious way before Vin.

@@earnestbrown6524 oh my god, yeah! I only read the first one of that series... really went off the rails.

I think the Block 50/52 should have been built to this airframe design. We should have built both this and the F-15E. The F-15E could have been used much as intended, while the F-16XL could be used as a general purpose multi role fighter.

Agreed, but unfortunately, these same people only ended up spending the money on OTHER wastes of taxpayer money, that only serve to continue to war machine.

@@dcaseng yeah that’s true. That’s been true forever. Sometimes it feels like making a new “toy” for a general or a congressman or something. My point was, the money went to, what seems to me, to be a more effective weapon. I.e. more F-15’s, more training, more airtime, etc, etc.

If you think we don't need to replace our worn-out F-16's at this point, you're deluding yourself; if you further think that the F-35A is a bad deal for us to be part of and have access to, in the current global political situation, you're downright dangerously naïve. Regarding the old Drakens, those at the time decades-old things didn't even have radar (and thus no BVR capability), nor did they have near the performance of the F-16's we replaced them with. The advantages of the F-16 are that it has been one of the most successful truly multi-role platforms in history, which again is especially important when you can only afford a small fleet and need it to do everything well. 20/20 wise hindsight requires you to not be blinded by whimsical nostalgia and wishful thinking.

The missiles truck idea is actually the new F-15 now. It carries I think 14-16 missiles.

Um, Star Wars was viable and helped to collapse the Soviet Union. See the Patriot Missle and the Iron Dome are the result of Star Wars. And the F35 is a disaster

@@Gtrips07 I respectfully disagree on both opinions. I do agree that "Star Wars" helped to bring down the Soviet Union but would say our Military build up of Aircraft and the USSR attempting to keep up with our economy was the main downfall. I'm sure the Reagan Admin. did a great job bluffing with Gorby ... but in actuality, it was merely a "theory" for which at the time we did not have the technical ability to execute (or the Budget to get us there). As to F-35 being a disaster ... how so?

@Drew Peacock Your comments are duly noted ... I can only hope you are a Russian and/or Chinese asset ... keep believing that way ... it only helps with the battle plans. You tarried too long on internal payloads so I'm doubtful as to your Aerospace or Military background ... you've completely missed the point of what an F-35's role is ... it sure isn't air to air or air to ground; internal loads are merely back up. GEN 4, Patriots, Blackbirds with Hellfires ... THEY will do the heavy lifting. Lase the Target, fall like Dominoes. They also communicate with AWACs and NOBODY is stealth against long wave ... but you have to be able to vector your squadrons to an approximate location ... but after that, it's up to the opposing aircraft to "See/Shoot" given what they have on board. Guess we'll see when the first skirmish occurs .... and trust me ... she's got enough range to get to the target with refuels that are far enough away that enemy aircraft can't get there ... for they too have the same fuel issues.

@Drew Peacock Whatever ... arguing with a Fool only proves there are 2

I covered it in my first video! I’ll stick a link below - but full disclosure, it was my first crack at RU-vid and the sound quality is pretty rough. Let me know what you think! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sDgMG4Ze5zg.html

I don't see why the DoD would have jurisdiction over NASA property. I mean, the Space Shuttles weren't classified it was a civilian agency program. Also, two of the Shuttle orbiters - Enterprise and Columbia - were already completed and finished over a year before the F-16XL took its first flight, and even before the Enhanced Tactical Fighter program began.

Sheesh, I'd like to see that person's collection!

Both F-16XL prototypes are at Air Force Flight Center Museum, Edwards AFB.