Click on Picture to enlarge

 

Click on Picture to enlarge

Click on Picture to enlarge

F-16A / B

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost, high-performance weapon system for the United States and allied nations.

In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and combat radius (distance it can fly to enter air combat, stay, fight and return) exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. It can locate targets in all weather conditions and detect low flying aircraft in radar ground clutter. In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.

F-16 pilots may suffer Gravity-induced loss of consciousness (GLOC) when conducting high-speed turns. When flyers are in a high-G, combat environment, aircraft acceleration presents the biggest demand on their bodies. The F-16 is a high technology aircraft that requires pilot physical conditioning to perform up to nine G maneuvers. Sharp turns can induce loss of consciousness when gravity pulls blood toward the lower extremities, carrying oxygen away from the brain. After about 5 seconds of pressure, vision is progressively lost from peripheral vision to central vision. When blood flow is allowed to resume, vision is smoothly and rapidly recovered. Cerebral failure and recovery is much less graceful and predictable (Houghton, McBride, & Hannah, 1985). After about 5 seconds of blood flow stoppage to the brain, GLOC occurs suddenly and lasts from 10 to 30 seconds (average about 13 seconds). When consciousness is regained, it is usually accompanied by brief seizure-like activity and a period of confusion, which lasts about 12 seconds. During this 12 seconds, the aviator is unable to function effectively. An additional period of up to 2 minutes is required before cognitive and psychomotor performance ability recovers to normal. GLOC is a real threat to F-16 pilots. Over the lifetime of the F-16, by 2007 the US Air Force had lost 12 pilots and 16 aircraft to GLOC. GLOC is not a new problem, it has been around for every 70 years. Because of the emergence of high performance aircraft such as the F-16 and the fact that these aircraft can perform beyond the acceleration tolerance limits of the human, GLOC became the U.S. Tactical Air Force's second most serious human factors problem, second only to spatial disorientation.

The F-16 was built under an unusual agreement creating a consortium between the United States and four NATO countries: Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries jointly produced with the United States an initial 348 F-16s for their air forces. Final airframe assembly lines were located in Belgium and the Netherlands. The consortium's F-16s are assembled from components manufactured in all five countries. Belgium also provides final assembly of the F100 engine used in the European F-16s. The long-term benefits of this program was technology transfer among the nations producing the F-16, and a common-use aircraft for NATO nations. This program increases the supply and availability of repair parts in Europe and improves the F-16's combat readiness.

USAF F-16 multi-mission fighters were deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm, where more sorties were flown than with any other aircraft. These fighters were used to attack airfields, military production facilities, Scud missiles sites and a variety of other targets.

Originally conceived as a simple air-superiority day fighter, the aircraft was armed for that mission with a single six-barrel Vulcan 20-mm cannon and two Sidewinder missiles, one mounted at each wingtip. Over the years, however, the mission capability of the aircraft has been extended to include ground-attack and all-weather operations With full internal fuel, the aircraft can carry up to 12 000 pounds of external stores including various types of ordnance as well as fuel tanks.

The original F-16 was designed as a lightweight air-to-air day fighter. Air-to-ground responsibilities transformed the first production F-16s into multi-role fighters. The empty weight of the Block 10 F-16A is 15,600 pounds. The empty weight of the Block 50 is 19,200 pounds. The A in F-16A refers to a Block 1 through 20 single-seat aircraft. The B in F-16B refers to the two-seat version. The letters C and D were substituted for A and B, respectively, beginning with Block 25. Block is an important term in tracing the F-16's evolution. Basically, a block is a numerical milestone. The block number increases whenever a new production configuration for the F-16 is established. Not all F-16s within a given block are the same. They fall into a number of block subsets called mini-blocks. These sub-block sets are denoted by capital letters following the block number (Block 15S, for example). From Block 30/32 on, a major block designation ending in 0 signifies a General Electric engine; one ending in 2 signifies a Pratt & Whitney engine.

The US Air Force took delivery of its last F-16 Fighting Falcon on March 18, 2005, the last of 2,231 F-16s produced for the Air Force. The first delivery was in 1978.

In 2004 ACC solicited Boeing and Lockheed Martin for pricing information proposals to purchase additional F-15 and F-16 aircraft. The request was for as many as two fighter wings or 140 aircraft. This request by ACC was discovered by senior program and acquisition mangers — F-16s and F-15s in service will reach the end of their service life before replacement aircraft are fielded.14 The motivation to purchase more aircraft may have been risk aversion for any additional delays in the F-22 or predicted developmental delays of the F-35.

Some argue that the Air Force could purchase the F-16C block 50 and keep the F-16 production lines open. The need to compete for dollars in a fiscally constrained environment would cease, since there would be a logical sequence of purchasing enhanced F-16s as the Navy did with the F/A-18E/F. This F-16 purchase could serve as an insurance policy with aircraft delivered from 2005 to 2010. The result, should Congress delay or cancel the F-35 (as in the case of the F-22, C-17, and others), would be a manned fighter stopgap until the F-35 [or UCAV] is in full production.

 

 

The F-16 History

 

Click on Picture to enlarge

The air war experience in Vietnam, where the lack of maneuverability of US fighters at transonic speeds provided advantages to nimble enemy fighters, was the stimulus for the Lightweight Fighter program. The Air Force and designers of the Lightweight Fighter therefore placed great emphasis on achieving unprecedented transonic maneuver capability with excellent handling qualities.

In January 1972, the Lightweight Fighter Program solicited design specifications from several American manufacturers. Participants were told to tailor their specifications toward the goal of developing a true air superiority lightweight fighter. General Dynamics and Northrop were asked to build prototypes, which could be evaluated with no promise of a follow-on production contract. These were to be strictly technology demonstrators. The two contractors were given creative freedom to build their own vision of a lightweight air superiority fighter, with only a limited number of specified performance goals. Northrop produced the twin-engine YF-17, using breakthrough aerodynamic technologies and two high-thrust engines. General Dynamics countered with the compact YF-16, built around a single F100 engine.

The evolution of the YF-16 design at LMTAS included studies of configuration variables such as wing design, maneuvering devices, number and location of engines, control surfaces, number and location of tail surfaces, and structural concepts. As the configuration options matured, two candidate configurations competed for priority. The first configuration was a simple wing, body, and empennage design, while the second design was a twin-tailed, blended-wing body with vertical and horizontal tails on booms. The LMTAS team selected the best features of both configurations for the final YF-16 design. After considerations of performance, stability, and control were addressed, the YF-16 configuration incorporated a rather wide, blended forebody that produced strong vortices at moderate angles of attack. LMTAS had attempted to weaken the strength of the vortices by promoting attached flow, but these attempts were not successful.

In the early 1960’s worldwide interest in the phenomenon known as “vortex lift” increased as a result of aerodynamic studies of highly swept configurations such as the Concorde supersonic transport. The favorable effects of vortex on lift were demonstrated during development of the Swedish Viggen canard configured aircraft. The favorable effects of the canard trailing vortex on the lifting capability of a close-coupled wing might also be extended to higher angles of attack by the strong leading-edge vortex flow of a slender lifting surface. The leading edge of the blended forebody be sharpened to increase (rather than decrease) the strength of the vortices, which could be exploited for additional lift. This modification allowed the forebody vortices to dominate and stabilize the flow field over the aircraft at high angles of attack, improve longitudinal and directional stability for the single-tail configuration, and stabilize the flow over the outer wing panels. In addition, the sharpened strake significantly reduced buffet intensity at transonic maneuvering conditions. The wing-body strake of the F-16 is regarded as a key contribution to its success as a maneuvering fighter.

When the YF-16 team analyzed the effects of deflected leading- and trailing-edge flaps and the sharp-edged wing-body strake on directional stability at high angles of attack, they found that the stability contributions of a single vertical tail were significantly enhanced. However, the contributions of twin vertical tails were markedly degraded. As a result of this analysis, the YF-16 was configured with a single vertical tail. Thus, the Langley recommendation for a sharpened wing-body strake favorably impacted other configuration features of the aircraft.

Increased maneuverability for the YF-16 necessitated extended flight at high angles of attack where aerodynamic deficiencies caused by separated airflow can result in sudden decreases in stability and controllability. Therefore, special emphasis was placed on tests to insure that the YF-16 could provide the pilot with “care-free” maneuverability. To provide superior handling characteristics at high angles of attack, any undesirable handling characteristics were pushed out of the operating envelope of the aircraft and the flight envelope was limited with an advanced fly-by-wire flight control system by LMTAS. This concept has proven to be highly successful and has been used in all variants of the F-16.

Reliance on the flight control system to insure satisfactory behavior at high angles of attack required research on the ability of fly-by-wire control systems to limit certain flight parameters during strenuous air combat maneuvers. The F-16 employs the concept of “relaxed static stability” in which the aircraft is intentionally designed to be aerodynamically unstable while the flight control system provides integrated stability by sensing critical flight variables and making the control inputs required to stabilize the aircraft. Of particular concern was the ability of the horizontal tails and longitudinal control system to limit the aircraft’s angle of attack during maneuvers with high roll rates at low airspeeds. Such maneuvers are critical because rapid rolling maneuvers produce large nose-up trim changes due to inertial effects, whereas the aerodynamic effectiveness of the horizontal tails becomes significantly reduced at low airspeeds and high angles of attack.

Early on, tests of a YF-16 model indicated that if angle of attack was not limited by the flight control system, the aircraft could pitch up and attain an undesirable trimmed condition at very high angles of attack with insufficient nose-down aerodynamic control to recover normal flight. NASA Langley researchers viewed this “deep” stall as a serious problem that would require significant research for resolution. High-angle-of-attack test results obtained on models of the early production version of the F-16 configuration showed the same deep-stall trimmed condition that was noted in the YF-16 results. In subsequent high-angle-of-attack flight evaluations at Edwards Air Force Base, an F-16 that had been subjected to rapid rolls at diminishing airspeeds in vertical zoom climbs suddenly entered a stabilized deep-stall condition and the pilot was unable to recover the aircraft with normal aerodynamic controls. Fortunately, the test aircraft was equipped with an emergency spin recovery parachute that was deployed to recover the aircraft to normal flight conditions. This event brought all high-angle-of-attack flight tests of the F-16 to a stand-still while a solution to the deep stall could be found. The ultimate fix for the problem (which also improved takeoff performance) was increasing the size of the horizontal tail about 25 percent. This solution has been incorporated in all F-16 production aircraft.

When the Lightweight Fighter competition was completed early in 1975, both the YF-16 and the YF-17 showed great promise. The two prototypes performed so well, in fact, that both were selected for military service. On 13 January 1975 the Air Force announced that the YF-16's performance had made it the winner of its Air Combat Fighter (ACF) competition. This marked a shift from the original intention to use the two airplanes strictly as technology demonstrators. General Dynamics' YF-16 had generally shown superior performance over its rival from Northrop. At the same time, the shark-like fighter was judged to have production costs lower than expected, both for initial procurement and over the life cycle of the plane. At the same time, the YF-16 had proved the usefulness not only of fly-by-wire flight controls, but also such innovations as reclined seat backs and transparent head-up display (HUD) panels to facilitate high-G maneuvering, and the use of high profile, one-piece canopies to give pilots greater visibility. Thus, the Air Force had its lightweight fighter, the F-16.

 

 

Design Of The F-16

 

Click on Picture to enlarge

Click on Picture to enlarge

The F-16C / D

In designing the F-16, advanced aerospace science and proven reliable systems from other aircraft such as the F-15 and F-111 were selected. These were combined to simplify the airplane and reduce its size, purchase price, maintenance costs and weight. The light weight of the fuselage is achieved without reducing its strength. With a full load of internal fuel, the F-16 can withstand up to nine G's -- nine times the force of gravity -- which exceeds the capability of other current fighter aircraft.

The aerodynamic configuration of the F-16 is a highly integrated synthesis of such components as wing, fuselage, and inlet, with the aim of achieving maximum favorable flow interaction with subsequent optimization of overall performance. Configuration features include a cropped delta wing mounted near the top of the fuselage with large strakes extending forward from the leading edge to the sides of the fuselage. A single vertical tail is utilized together with a small fixed ventral fin located on the bottom of the fuselage. The all-moving horizontal tail is mounted in the low position and incorporates a small amount of negative dihedral.

A fixed-geometry, chin-mounted inlet supplies air to the single Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan engine, which is a variant of the same power plant utilized in the F-15. Since the forward portion of the fuselage provides some external flow compression, reasonable inlet efficiency is obtained even at a Mach number of 2.0. Good inlet efficiency through a wide range of angle of attack is ensured by the location of the inlet on the bottom side of the fuselage at a fore-and-aft location behind the forward intersection of the wing strakes with the side of the fuselage.

The cropped delta wing blends into the fuselage sides with large strakes that extend forward from the wing leading edges. Vortexes generated by these strakes help prevent wing stall at high angles of attack and thus increase the lifting capability of the wing. Leading-edge sweepback angle is 45° and the airfoil-section thickness ratio is 4 percent. Trailing-edge flaparons serve the double purpose of high-lift flaps and ailerons for lateral control. Leading-edge maneuvering flaps are deployed automatically as a function of Mach number and angle of attack.

In some respects, the control system of the F-16 represents a complete departure from previous fighter design practice. Although conventional-type aerodynamic control surfaces are employed, the control system utilizes a novel method of transmitting pilot commands to these surfaces. In previous fighter designs, some form of mechanical device linked the control stick and the rudder pedals to the hydraulic actuating system that moved the control surfaces. In contrast, the F-16 utilizes a fly-by-wire system in which movement of the pilot's controls initiates electrical signals that activate the hydraulic systems and cause the control surfaces to be moved in a prescribed manner. The fly-by-wire system is lighter, simpler, and more precise than the older mechanical systems, but it does raise questions relating to electrical system reliability. In the F-16, redundancy is provided in the electrical generating and distribution equipment, and four dedicated sealed-cell batteries give transient electrical power protection for the fly-by-wire system. Two completely separate and independent hydraulic systems supply power for actuation of the aerodynamic control surfaces and other utility functions.

Another novel feature in the control system of the F-16 is the incorporation of "relaxed static stability." This means that the inherent longitudinal stability is reduced, to a level traditionally thought to be unacceptable, by moving the aircraft center of gravity to a point very near the aerodynamic center of the aircraft. Tall load and associated trim drag are reduced by this process. Compensation for the loss in inherent aerodynamic stability is provided by a combination electronic-hydraulic stability augmentation system that senses uncalled-for departures from the intended flight condition and injects corrective signals into the flight control system.

The cockpit and its bubble canopy give the pilot unobstructed forward and upward vision, and greatly improved vision over the side and to the rear. The seat-back angle was expanded from the usual 13 degrees to 30 degrees, increasing pilot comfort and gravity force tolerance. The pilot has excellent flight control of the F-16 through its "fly-by-wire" system. Electrical wires relay commands, replacing the usual cables and linkage controls. For easy and accurate control of the aircraft during high G-force combat maneuvers, a side stick controller is used instead of the conventional center-mounted stick. Hand pressure on the side stick controller sends electrical signals to actuators of flight control surfaces such as ailerons and rudder. The arrangement of the pilot's control stick is a radical departure from standards that trace their origin to the early days of World War I. Traditionally, the fighter pilot's control stick used for actuation of the ailerons and elevators has consisted of a lever mounted on the floor of the cockpit between the pilot's legs. (There have, of course been many variations in the detail design of the control stick.) On the F-16, the traditional control stick has been replaced by a short "side-arm controller" mounted on the right-hand console of the cockpit. The side-arm controller is a small-displacement pressure-sensitive handle that, together with the fly-by-wire system, gives the pilot the ability to exercise very precise control of the aircraft. To help prevent unwanted commands to the control handle the pilot rests his right arm in a carefully designed support.

Avionics systems include a highly accurate inertial navigation system in which a computer provides steering information to the pilot. The plane has UHF and VHF radios plus an instrument landing system. It also has a warning system and modular countermeasure pods to be used against airborne or surface electronic threats. The fuselage has space for additional avionics systems.

The Fiber Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD) provides aircraft protection against modern radar-guided missiles to supplement traditional radar jamming equipment. The device is towed at varying distances behind the aircraft while transmitting a signal like that of a threat radar. The missile will detect and lock onto the decoy rather than on the aircraft. This is achieved by making the decoy’s radiated signal stronger than that of the aircraft.

 

 

The F-16A / B

 

The F-16A, a single-seat model, first flew in December 1976. The first operational F-16A was delivered in January 1979 to the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The F-16B, a two-seat model, has tandem cockpits that are about the same size as the one in the A model. Its bubble canopy extends to cover the second cockpit. To make room for the second cockpit, the forward fuselage fuel tank and avionics growth space were reduced. During training, the forward cockpit is used by a student pilot with an instructor pilot in the rear cockpit.

• Block 1 and Block 5 F-16s were manufactured through 1981 for USAF and for four European air forces. Most Blocks 1 and 5 aircraft were upgraded to a Block 10 standard in a program called Pacer Loft in 1982.
• Block 10 aircraft (312 total) were built through 1980. The differences between these early F-16 versions are relatively minor.
• Block 15 aircraft represent the most numerous version of the more than 3,600 F-16s manufactured to date. The transition from Block 10 to Block 15 resulted in two hardpoints added to the chin of the inlet. The larger horizontal tails, which grew in area by about thirty percent are the most noticeable difference between Block 15 and previous F-16 versions.
• Block 20 aircraft incorporate significant avionic and structural enhancements. Many of these enhancements are supported by a modular mission computer that replaces three other computers and has faster processing and a large growth capacity. The aircraft’s improved version of the APG-66 radar, called the APG-66(V3), has many new features, such as increased detection and tracking ranges and the ability to track more targets simultaneously. These F-16s also have an improved data modem, a ring laser inertial navigation system, a digital terrain system, an advanced interrogator for identifying friendly aircraft, wide-angle head-up display, color multifunction cockpit displays, up-front controls (a set of programmable pushbuttons placed just below the head-up display), and Block 50-style side stick and throttle controllers. Cockpit lighting is compatible with night-vision systems.
  The first Block 20 rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in July 1996. The first two aircraft were fitted with flight instrumentation and headed to Edwards AFB for developmental testing. While the airframe is similar to that of other F-16s (the wings and tail are Block 50 and most of the fuselage is Block 15), the avionics suite is completely different. The design of the Mission Modular Computer (MMC) makes supports two-level maintenance as technicians work with modules (ruggedized circuit cards) that slide into the MMC instead of larger line replaceable units located at various places within the airframe. What formerly amounted to entire LRUs now fit on one of these modules. The MMC contains redundant modules, so technicians can troubleshoot by swapping modules within an MMC or between MMCs.

 

 

The F-16C / D

 

F-16C / D

The F-16C and F-16D aircraft, which are the single- and two-place counterparts to the F-16A/B, incorporate the latest cockpit control and display technology. All F-16s delivered since November 1981 have built-in structural and wiring provisions and systems architecture that permit expansion of the multi-role flexibility to perform precision strike, night attack and beyond-visual-range interception missions. All active units and many Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units have converted to the F-16C/D, which is deployed in a number of Block variants.

• Block 25 added the ability to carry AMRAAM to the F-16 as well as night/precision ground-attack capabilities, as well as an improved radar, the Westinghouse (now Northrop-Grumman) AN/APG-68, with increased range, better resolution, and more operating modes.
• Block 30/32 added two new engines -- Block 30 designates a General Electric F110-GE-100 engine, and Block 32 designates a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine. Block 30/32 can carry the AGM-45 Shrike and the AGM-88A HARM, and like the Block 25, it can carry the AGM-65 Maverick.
• Block 40/42 - F-16CG/DG - gained capabilities for navigation and precision attack in all weather conditions and at night with the LANTIRN pods and more extensive air-to-ground loads, including the GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-24 Paveway laser-guided bombs and the GBU-15. Block 40/42 production began in 1988 and ran through 1995. Currently, the Block 40s are being upgraded with several Block 50 systems: ALR-56M threat warning system, the ALE-47 advanced chaff/flare dispenser, an improved performance battery, and Falcon UP structural upgrade.
• Block 50/52 Equipped with a Northrop Grumman APG-68(V)7 radar and a General Electric F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engine, the aircraft are also capable of using the Lockheed Martin low-altitude navigation and targeting for night (LANTIRN) system. Technology enhancements include color multifunctional displays and programmable display generator, a new Modular Mission Computer, a Digital Terrain System, a new color video camera and color triple-deck video recorder to record the pilot's head-up display view, and an upgraded data transfer unit. By mid-1999 Block 50/52 [aka Block 50 Plus] F-16s will carry the CBU-103/104/105 Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser, the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon, and the GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munition.
• Block 50D/52D Wild Weasel F-16CJ (CJ means block 50) comes in C-Model (1 seat) and D-Model (2 seat) versions. It is best recognized for its ability to carry the AGM-88 HARM and the AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting System (HTS) in the suppression of enemy air defenses [SEAD] mission. The HTS allows HARM to be employed in the range-known mode providing longer range shots with greater target specificity. This specialized version of the F-16, which can also carry the ALQ-119 Electronic Jamming Pod for self protection, became the sole provider for Air Force SEAD missions when the F-4G Wild Weasel was retired from the Air Force inventory. The lethal SEAD mission now rests solely on the shoulders of the F-16 Harm Targeting System. Although F-18s and EA-6Bs are HARM capable, the F-16 provides the ability to use the HARM in its most effective mode. The original concept called for teaming the F-15 Precision Direction Finding (PDF) and the F-16 HTS. Because this teaming concept is no longer feasible, the current approach calls for the improvement of the HTS capability. The improvement will come from the Joint Emitter Targeting System (JETS), which facilitates the use of HARM's most effective mode when launched from any JETS capable aircraft.
• Block 60 - In May 1998 the UAE announced selection of the Block 60 F-16 to be delivered between 2002-2004. The upgrade package consists of a range of modern systems including conformal fuel tanks for greater range, new cockpit displays, an internal sensor suite, a new mission computer and other advanced features including a new agile beam radar.

The Mid-Life Update (MLU) is an avionics modification program for the F-16 Block 15 A/B and is based primarily upon common requirements of the European Participating Governments (EPG) through the F-16 Multinational Fighter Program (MNFP) Steering Committee. The members of the F-16 MNFP are the Belgian Air Force (BAF), the Royal Danish Air Force (RDAF), the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF), the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF), and the United States Air Force. The MLU program evolved from the Agile Falcon/MLU pre-development stage, which began in January 1988. Transition to MLU Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) began in January 1990. The EPG elected during EMD to develop and buy aircrew trainers, Unit Level Trainers (ULTs) and Weapon System Trainers (WSTs). In October 1992, the US announced its withdrawal from the production phase of the MLU; and, in 1995, Denmark announced its withdrawal from the MLU trainer program with the intent to purchase directly from Hughes Training, Inc. (now Raytheon Training, Inc.). The MLU trainer program was established to support the remaining European Participating Air Forces (EPAF). The MLU trainer contract was awarded in June 1995 to Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems (LMTAS) in Ft. Worth, Texas, with the majority of the effort for both hardware and software development and integration being done by LMTAS's prime sub-contractor, Thomson Training and Simulation, Ltd. (TT&SL) in Crawley, England. The contract calls for a total of 12 trainers to be delivered to the EPAF, and one Training System Support Center (TSSC) at LMTAS. European participating industries competed equally for subcontracts on the F-16 Mid-Life Update Program. European participating industries were awarded a total of $303.3 million of the $380 million available for foreign manufacture on the F-16 Mid-Life Update Program. Contractors complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement in the solicitation, source selection, and award process for subcontracts on the F-16 aircraft Mid-Life Update Program. European participating industries who were not awarded subcontracts: had smaller production bases than U.S. companies; did not have nonrecurring costs subsidized by their respective European governments; could not overcome U.S. companies' technical advantages; or did not receive follow-up contracts for research and development on the F-16 Mid-Life Update Program.

The Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) for the USAF's F-16C/D fleet will provide significant avionics upgrades to Block 40 and 50 F-16s, ensuring their state-of-the-art capability well into the 21st century. A key element of the upgrade is a common hardware and software avionics configuration for these two blocks that will bring together the Block 40/42 and 50/52 versions into a common configuration of core avionics and software. The avionics changes consist of the following systems: Link 16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), commercial expanded programmable display generator, color multifunction display set, modular mission computer, mux loadable data entry display set and an electronic horizontal situation display. This package contains a number of systems being incorporated into European F-16s in the F-16A/B Mid-Life Update program.

The Air Force will soon be flying only Block 40/42 and Block 50/52 F-16s in its active-duty units. Block 25 and Block 30/32 will be concentrated in Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units.

As of late-January 2005, the CJ model of the F-16 Fighting Falcon at Shaw AFB had been upgraded with a number of features to improve its SEAD capabilities. These were the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, the targeting pod and the Link 16. The cueing system upgrade on a helmet shows heads-up display data on the helmet visor and allows the pilot to select a target without changing the jet’s direction. The system enables the pilot to visually identify, lock the weapons system on and engage an air or ground target without looking through the heads-up display on the aircraft itself. The targeting pod is another upgrade incorporated on the aircraft. It has a forward-looking infrared sensor which displays an infrared image of the target for the pilot. The pod helps with precise delivery of laser-guided munitions by using a laser to determine range to a target and to the ground. In the future, pilots are to have even greater capability with an advanced targeting pod known as the Sniper XR. The third upgrade for the aircraft is the Link 16 which allows aircraft to share cockpit data and lets pilots merge into one display what all the airplanes are seeing. The data link helps pilots quickly gain situational awareness, and it gives them a combat edge in having complete knowledge of the battle space around them.

 

 

The F-16E / F / XL

 

Click on Picture to enlarge
F-6XL
F-6XL & F-16
F-6XL

The F-16XL aircraft were built by General Dynamics as prototypes for a derivative fighter evaluation program conducted by the Air Force between 1982 and 1985. The aircraft were developed from basic F-16 airframes, with the most notable difference is the delta (cranked arrow) wing which give the aircraft a greater range because of increased fuel capacity in the wing tanks, and a larger load capability due to increased wing area. The F-16XL was able to take off and land in two thirds of the distance required by the F-16A. It was capable of speeds of 90 knots greater than the F-16A at sea level and had a 125% greater range than an F-16A with the same payload.

In the mid-1970’s the U.S. Air Force became interested in a fighter aircraft capable of “supercruise”—the ability to cruise supersonically without an afterburner while retaining respectable maneuver, takeoff, and landing characteristics. The supercruise requirement drove aircraft configurations to highly swept wing platforms. LMTAS appreciated the fact that the modular construction of the YF-16 allowed for relatively simple replacement of the outer wing panels and that a supercruiser demonstrator aircraft with a highly swept wing would undoubtedly attract considerable interest within the Air Force. In 1977 NASA Langley and LMTAS agreed to a cooperative study to design a new cranked-arrow wing for the F-16 to permit supersonic cruise capability.

By the early 1980s the day of the classical dogfight was almost over, since the first aircraft to acquire its opponent would be first to fire and most likely to win the engagement. A new philosophy for air combat tactics was thus developed by the USAF, who envisaged long range medium to high altitude penetration of hostile airspace by supersonic cruise capable fighters with all aspect fire and forget missile armament. A key element in the new strategy was the AIM-120 Amraam missile. The first aircraft to embody this new approach was the ill-fated F-16XL.

In February 1980 General Dynamics proposed the Supersonic Cruise and Maneuvering Program (SCAMP). The final configuration became known as the F-16XL (later designated the F-16E), which displayed an excellent combination of reduced supersonic wave drag, utilization of vortex lift for transonic and low-speed maneuvers, low structural weight, and good transonic performance. In March 1981 the US Air Force announced an effort to develop a new multi-role strike strike fighter. General Dynamics entered the F-16XL in the competition, with McDonnell Douglas submitting an adaptation of the two-seat F-15B Eagle [which eventually entered production as the F-15E Strike Eagle]. Had the F-16XL won the competition, production aircraft would have been designated F-16E (single-seat) and F-16F (two-seat).

A radical redesign of the F-16A, the XL was a supersonic cruise demonstrator with a cranked arrow delta wing optimized for that flight regime. The aircraft was a major technical success, with two demonstrators eventually flying. Although supersonic cruise without afterburner was an original goal of the F-16XL program, the aircraft did never achieved this feat. The highly swept inboard wing section of this aircraft produced substantial vortex lift at supersonic speeds, while also improving instantaneous turn rate and extending the 9G maneuver envelope well above Mach 1. An additional benefit of the new configuration was a substantial increase in internal fuel capacity, providing a 120% improvement in combat radius performance.

The single-seat F-16XL aircraft is powered by a Pratt and Whitney 100-PW-100 engine (with afterburner), rated at 23,830 pounds thrust, and features an analog fly-by-wire electronic flight control system. The delta (cranked arrow) wings on both aircraft provide strength for high wing loads during flight. The aircraft's dimensions are; length, 54.2 feet (16.52 m); wingspan, 34.3 feet (10.45 m); height at vertical tail, 17.7 feet (5.39 m). The aircraft's maximum weight is 48,000 pounds (17915.60 kg), has a design load of 9 "Gs" (In the research configuration, 3 "Gs"), and has a top design speed Mach 1.8.

In the mid-1970’s the U.S. Air Force became interested in a fighter aircraft capable of “supercruise”—the ability to cruise supersonically without an afterburner while retaining respectable maneuver, takeoff, and landing characteristics. The supercruise requirement drove aircraft configurations to highly swept wing platforms. LMTAS appreciated the fact that the modular construction of the YF-16 allowed for relatively simple replacement of the outer wing panels and that a supercruiser demonstrator aircraft with a highly swept wing would undoubtedly attract considerable interest within the Air Force.

NASA Langley staff had developed a research program known as the Supersonic Cruise Integrated Fighter (SCIF) Program under the leadership of Roy V. Harris, Jr. As participants in previous national and NASA civil supersonic transport programs (SST), the Langley staff were leaders in the development of databases and design methods for efficient SST configurations. Several in-house supercruiser fighters were designed and tested across the speed ranges at Langley. Subsequent to the SCIF program, Langley joined several industry partners in cooperative, nonproprietary studies of supercruiser configurations.

In 1977 Langley and LMTAS agreed to a cooperative study to design a new cranked-arrow wing for the F-16 to permit supersonic cruise capability. Personnel from LMTAS worked alongside the NASA researchers under the direction of Charles M. Jackson at Langley during the studies. The project leader for supersonic design was David S. Miller. The results of the wind-tunnel and analytical studies indicated that a viable wing could be designed to satisfy the supersonic and transonic requirements. With these results, LMTAS initiated a company funded development of an F-16 derivative with supersonic cruise capability. Following the spirit of the previous wing design cooperative venture with NASA, a cooperative agreement was signed for mutual efforts on the new demonstrator, which was called the Supersonic Cruise and Maneuver Prototype (SCAMP).

Extensive tests for SCAMP took place in Langley facilities, including the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, the 7- by 10-Foot High-Speed Tunnel, the 16-Foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, the Full-Scale Tunnel, the DMS, the Spin Tunnel, and a helicopter drop model. During these tests, a team led by researcher Joseph L. Johnson, Jr. identified low-speed stability and control issues that required modifying the wing apex with a rounded planform. Research on the SCAMP configuration by Langley researchers identified numerous advanced concepts for improved performance, including the application of vortex flaps on the highly swept leading edge for improved low-speed and transonic performance, automatic spin prevention concepts, and optimized wings for supersonic cruise. The final configuration became known as the F-16XL (later designated the F-16E), which displayed an excellent combination of reduced supersonic wave drag, utilization of vortex lift for transonic and low-speed maneuvers, low structural weight, and good transonic performance. The F-16XL flutter envelope was cleared in the 16-Foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel by Charles L. Ruhlin without significant problems.

Two (a one-seat and a two-seat) F-16XL demonstrator aircraft were subsequently built and entered flight tests in mid-1982. In recognition of Langley’s many contributions to the F-16XL, LMTAS management sent letters of recognition to Langley and senior NASA management. Marilyn E. Ogburn of Johnson’s group was an invited participant at flight-test evaluations of the F-16XL at Edwards Air Force Base. The results of flight tests validated the accuracy of Langley wing design procedures, wind-tunnel predictions, and control system designs based on DMS tests. Unfortunately, the interest in supersonic cruise was replaced by an urgency to develop a dual role fighter with ground strike capability.

The F-16XL suffered the fate of many pioneering aircraft before their time. The F-16E dual role lost out in a flyoff against MDC's bigger and more capable F-15E Strike Eagle, thus ending all prospects for its eventual production. Although the relatively large wing of the F-16XL carried a significant amount of weapons, the Air Force ultimately selected the F-15E in 1983 for developmental funding and terminated interest in the F-16XL. Many observers attributed its demise to a political strategy played by the USAF, to prevent an older generation airframe derivative from being used by legislators as an excuse to kill off or postpone the ATF program. Equipped with Amraam, higher thrust engines and new radar, the F-16XL could cover a large part of the role envisaged for the ATF at substantially lower unit and program costs. As an older generation airframe however its infrared and radar signatures are substantial and this would greatly reduce its effectiveness

NASA's single-seat F-16XL (ship #1), tail number 849, is stationed at Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. It arrived at Dryden on March 10, 1989, from General Dynamics in Fort Worth, TX. The aircraft was most recently used in the Cranked-Arrow Wing Aerodynamics Project (CAWAP) to test boundary layer pressures and distribution. The modified airplane featured a delta "cranked-arrow" wing with strips of tubing along the leading edge to the trailing edge to sense static on the wing and obtain pressure distribution data. The right wing received data on pressure distribution and the left wing had three types of instrumentation - preston tubes to measure local skin friction, boundary layer rakes to measure boundary layer profiles (the layer where the air interacts with the surfaces of a moving aircraft), and hot films to determine boundary layer transition locations. The first flight of CAWAP occurred on November 21, 1995, and the test program ended in April 1996.

The NASA Dryden two-seat F-16XL Ship #2 aircraft was used by the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, in a NASA-wide program to improve laminar airflow on aircraft flying at sustained supersonic speeds. It is the first program to look at laminar flow on swept wings at speeds representative of those at which a High Speed Civil Transport may fly. Technological data from the program will be available for the development of future high speed aircraft, including commercial transports.

 

 

F-16 Service Life

 

The F-16 fleet consists of several different configurations that were acquired in a long and successful evolutionary program. The Air Force has invested billions over the years to upgrade capabilities, engines, and structural enhancements needed to achieve its original life expectancy of 8,000 hours. Significant unknowns exist about extending the life beyond 8,000 hours should that be necessary. The oldest F-16s are to be retired by 2010, and the Air Force has halted modifications and funding for these aircraft.

As of 2007 the Air Force was not currently purchasing any new F-16’s, but the contractor was still producing them for foreign sale. The production is slated to continue past 2009 to accommodate recent sales. If the Air Force were to buy new aircraft, officials estimated that it would cost $380 million for development and about $50 million per aircraft procured.

In April 1990, the Secretary of Defense announced that a review of the Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program had found that the ATF is needed to replace the F-16 for the air superiority mission, but its production could be delayed because of changed world conditions and the possibility of a longer F-16 service life. The review showed that ATF production could be delayed because of a reduced conventional threat in Europe and indications that the life of the F-16 airframe could be extended beyond the year 2000. The Secretary directed that the initial production of the ATF be delayed from fiscal year 1994 to 1996.

The US Air Force’s Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) program began in 1991 as a relatively low-cost F-16 replacement. Similar in size to the F-16, the MRF was to have been a single-seat / single-engine aircraft, with a unit flyaway cost in the range of $35 to $50 million. A formal program start was expected around 1994. The MRF was expected to replace a large number of F-16s reaching the end of service life. The MRF might also have replaced Air Force A-10s and Navy F/A-18C/Ds. However, the post-Cold War defense drawdown made the F-16 service life situation considerably less critical. A reduction in the total number of U.S. Air Force fighter wings meant that the existing aircraft would not be replaced one-for-one. Furthermore, F-16 aircraft flying hours were reduced, allowing F-16s to remain in service longer than originally projected. In August 1992, the MRF program was effectively put on hold.

The readiness of America’s Armed Forces generally deteriorated throughout the 1990s. During this time, combat readiness of the Air Force fighter aircraft declined in varying degrees. One indicator of aircraft combat readiness, the mission capable (MC) rate, is used to identify the percentage of aircraft able to perform their primary wartime missions. The not mission capable (NMC) rate shows the converse. From fiscal year (FY) 1991 through fall 2001, the aggregate Air Force aircraft total not mission capable rate for maintenance (TNMCM) for all aircraft steadily increased from 7.6 percent to 18.1 percent while total not mission capable rate for supply (TNMCS) increased from 5.5 percent in FY86 to 13.4 percent in FY01.

The F-16 "sustainment crisis" in the late 1990s resulted from an inadequate life-cycle sustainment strategy, which negatively affected aircraft readiness. Preliminary analysis obtained from AFLMA’s TNMCM study of the F-16 block 42 aircraft revealed the total man-hours expended on TCTOs increased 120 percent from FY95 to FY99 and the man-hours per TCTO event increased 69 percent, indicating TCTOs may be becoming more manpower intensive and technically challenging. The analysis also indicated that low manning and fewer experienced technicians contributed to increases in man-hours required to complete them.

As a system’s cumulative operating time increases, the probability of its failure tends to increase, decreasing the system’s potential reliability. Reliability also decreases when the conditions under which the system was designed to operate change. Many of these aircraft are at critical points in their life cycles. For example, by 2001 many F-16s had reached 2,400 hours flying time, a significant point in an 8,000-hour service life. As these aircraft age and operating conditions changed, the reliability of systems and components decreases, and failures occur more often, which increased maintenance costs. Increased failures affect aircraft maintainability, requiring more maintenance and often increasing repair times when more hard breaks occur. In the case of the F-16, operational usage had been more severe than design usage (eight times more), resulting in the acceleration of its airframe service life at a rate that may not let it reach its expected overall service life.

The mission-capable rate for Air Force Reserve F-16s increased from 69.7% in fiscal 2001 to 76.3% during the first three months of fiscal 2002, despite Operation Noble Eagle flight activity.

In the late 1990s, the Air Force Reserve Component [ARC] recognized there was no follow-on replacement for the F-16 and reduced the annual flying-hour program in ANG and AFRC squadrons to 210 airframe hours per year. This number is a generalization with some fighter squadrons flying more to support spinup training and actual overseas AEF deployment rotations of Northern and Southern Watch. However, in 2002 and 2003, the aircraft were flown an average 300 hours per aircraft, way beyond their programmed 210 flying hours used in support of contingencies at home and abroad. Fiscal year (FY) 2002 saw ANG and AFRC aircraft heavily taxed in support of Operation Noble Eagle. Combat air patrol flying conditions were favorable to slow the effect of upper and wing-support bulkhead cracking caused by excessive wing root bending movement. FY03 saw continued support for Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and excessive use of F-16C aircraft supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. These contingencies resulted in additional stress on the bulkheads and airframes alike. This was caused by excessive munitions loads and heavy landings to deliver the payload during combat in support of close air support and air interdiction missions.

Simple calculation of 210 airframe and flying hours per year would mean the fleet would be able to support missions for another 19 years. At 300 airframe and flying hours, that number is reduced to 13 years or a 32- percent reduction. These numbers are actual flight hours. To receive a true meaning of the impact on the airframe, one needs to calculate using equivalent flight hours. Equivalent flight hours are the actual accounting of structural degradation that is determined from damage index data stored in the individual aircraft-tracking database, which is part of the aircraft structural integrity program.

The Falcon Up Structural Improvement Program program incorporates several major structural modifications into one overall program, affecting all USAF F-16s. Falcon Up will allow Block 25/30/32 aircraft to meet a 6000 hour service life, and allow Block 40/42 aircraft to meet an 8000 hour service life. Falcon UP and the Falcon STAR programs include numerous depot level structural modifications required to extend the service life of all F-16 aircraft to 8,000 hours. The F-16 CUPID program brought older F-16s (Blocks 25-32) new life by adding night vision equipment, enhanced avionics, and the ability to carry an infrared targeting pod and laser-guided munitions. Ultimately, CUPID-modified aircraft will have the capability to carry JDAM and other GPS-guided munitions. A small decrease in Ogden Air Logistics Center (OO-ALC) capacity in the out years is due to the completion of the F-16 Falcon-up Program and to a decrease in the F-16 Service Life Improvement Program (SLIP) quantity.

Click on Picture to enlarge
F-16E / F
F-16E / F

In view of the challenges inherent in operating F-16s to 8,000 flight hours, together with the moderate risk involved in JSF integration, the Department established a program to earmark by FY 2000 some 200 older, Block 15 F-16 fighter aircraft in inactive storage for potential reactivation. The purpose of this program was to provide a basis for constituting two combat wings more quickly than would be possible through new production. This force could offset aircraft withdrawn for unanticipated structural repairs or compensate for delays in the JSF program. Reactivating older F-16s was not a preferred course of action, but represented a relatively low-cost hedge against such occurrences.

One analysis in 2002 estimated that by fiscal year 2008, the Air Force would have a 108-fighter deficit based on a 20 Fighter Wing Equivalent requirement, with that number growing to 311 by fiscal year 2021. These numbers were based on the today's programmed F-16 attrition rate of 3.6%, an estimated 8,000-hour F-16 service life, and fielding of the Joint Strike Fighter beginning in fiscal year 2009.

Even relatively “young” aircraft like the F-16 (average age 9 years in 1998) are affected by age: skin corrosion, bulkhead cracks and landing gear wear are common. The F-16 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) extends the F-16A/B service life to 8,000 hours at a cost of $703K per aircraft in Fiscal Year 98. The F-16 Pre-Block 40 aircraft were developing structural cracks that must be repaired. As of 1999 an estimated 152 aircraft could be grounded due to structural cracks within the next two years. The Air Force’s fiscal year 1999 appropriations included $15 million to define a service life extension program and capability enhancement package for F-16- aircraft. But the Air Force did not plan to define this life extension program or the capability enhancement package. The F-16 Service Life Extension Program was completed in FY 2003.

FALCON STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap) is an effort to modify the airframe to allow the F-16 to reach the original 8,000 hours estimated for its flight life. The roughly $1 billion program is the result of more than four years of design and planning and ensures the F-16's original service life while allowing for an operational capability beyond the year 2020. Falcon STAR will allow the aircraft to remain in service through 2025. The first F-16 fighter jet to be a part of Falcon STAR, was handed off in February 2004 to members of the 148th Fighter Wing, Minnesota Air National Guard. The planning for the Falcon STAR program began in 1999. Aircraft modifications will continue through 2014, the majority of which will be performed at Hill AFB. By program's end, more than American 1,200 F-16s will have been modified including active-duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve aircraft. As of 2005 a total of more than 2,000 aircraft were to be modified by 2014. Participants in the program include the Air Force and air forces in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Israel, Greece, Singapore, Thailand and Bahrain. On average, it takes 175 days to modify an aircraft with the Falcon STAR kit.

Falcon STAR is a US Air Force-managed structural modification program for the F-16 that addresses service-life deficiencies for the Air Force. Falcon STAR modifications are applied to existing aircraft and added to all new F-16's to compensate for aircraft stress increased usage rates and heavier gross weights cause. Each aircraft, which uses an array of weaponry from GPS guided bombs to radar-guided air-to-air missiles, has a current [2007] maximum operational weight of approximately 39,000 pounds; the old, designed weight for the F-16 was only 22,500 pounds. Originally designed primarily for air-to-air missions, in practice it has mainly been used for air-to-ground operations.

Due to increased workload and weight that exceed the original specifications of the aircraft, the F-16 must be structurally modified to compensate for the increases. A number of common avionics and capabilities upgrades are necessary to provide increased processor speed and memories, color displays, and incorporate the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The F110 engine service life extension program addresses safety, reliability and maintainability concerns and new engines for the Block 42 aircraft will provide needed thrust improvements.

Click on Picture to enlarge

Under the Falcon STAR program, maintainers replace or repair known life-limited structures to avoid the onset of widespread fatigue damage. This is done to maintain flight safety, enhance aircraft availability and extend the life of affected components. Before Falcon STAR, some aircraft exhibited fatigue damage as early as 3,500 hours, he said. Once modified, the aircraft will meet its designed service life of 8,000 flight hours. The entire program involves modifying 13 different structural components, including wing fittings, and reworking skin areas. F-16 system program office experts at the Ogden Air Logistics Center manage the Falcon STAR program. Somewhere between 40 and 100 iterations of the kit are expected. The kit configuration is constantly changing because of the different aircraft configurations.

By 2007 the F-16C/D fleet was in the midst of standardizing capabilities through the Common Configuration Implementation Program. This modification program is a combination of several upgrades to F-16 avionics that enable integration of advanced precision weapons, Link-16 communications, improved situational awareness, and off-bore sight cueing of sensors and weapons. It provides for a new modular mission computer, color displays, advanced interrogator/transponder (Block SO/52only), Link-16 communication capability, and the joint helmet-mounted cueing system. It also enables the Block 40/42 aircraft to use the same operational flight program (OFP) software as the block SO/52 aircraft, which will reduce the sustainment cost of future OFPs. The FY08 PB requests $72.6M in FY08 to continue the modification of Block 40 aircraft. Block 50 modifications are complete.

Without improvements, as of 2007 it was estimated that almost 90 percent of the fleet would exceed design limits on engines by 2010. High usage, increased stresses, and more weight than planned threatened to cut life expectancy in half. Significant unknowns exist about extending the life beyond 8,000 hours should that be necessary. If it became necessary to enable the newest F-16 aircraft to reach a 10,000 flying hour life, a program official estimated in 2007 an additional cost of $2.2 billion for structural enhancements. The program office also identified another $3.2 billion in unfunded requirements, including radar upgrades to aircraft capable of suppressing enemy air defenses.

 

F-16 Mission Missile Configurations

F-16 Rail Stores Loadings

Right Wing

Center

Left Wing

Rail ID

9

8

7

7a

6

5R

5

5L

4

3a

3

2

1

Defensive Counterair

AMRAAM

AMRAAM

Sidewinder

370g Tank

370g Tank

Sidewinder

AMRAAM

AMRAAM

Interdiction 1

AMRAAM

GBU24

370g Tank

LANTIRN

370g Tank

GBU24

AMRAAM

Interdiction 2

Sidewinder

AGM65

370g Tank

ECM Pod

370g Tank

AGM65

Sidewinder

Suppress Enemy Air Defense

Sidewinder

Harm

370g Tank

LANTIRN

370g Tank

Harm

Sidewinder

F-16 Fighting Falcon Specifications
Primary Function	Multi-role fighter
Builder	Lockheed Martin Corp.
Power Plant	F-16C/D: one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200/220/229 or one General Electric F110-GE-100/129
Thrust	F-16C/D, 27,000 pounds(12,150 kilograms)
Length	49 feet, 5 inches (14.8 meters)
Height	16 feet (4.8 meters)
Wingspan	32 feet, 8 inches (9.8 meters)
Speed	1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)
Ceiling	Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)
Maximum Takeoff Weight	37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
Fuel	Single-Seat Two-Seat   370 Gal 600 Gal 370 Gal 600 Gal Internal 7,000 7,000 5,700 5,700 External 5,000 8,000 5,000 8,000 TOTAL * 10,000 13,000 8,700 11,700 Fuel on 3 & 7 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Conformal 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 * less 2,000 lbs for takeoff & landing
Combat Radius [F-16C]	740 nm (1,370 km) w/ 2 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks 340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks 200 nm (370 km) + 2 hr 10 min patrol w/ 2 AIM-7 + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks
Range	Over 2,100 nm (2,425 mi; 3,900 km)
Armament	One M-61A1 20mm multi-barrel cannon with 500 rounds; external stations can carry up to six air-to-air missiles, conventional air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions and electronic countermeasure pods.   MK MK AGM AGM CBU CBU CBU CBU GBU GBU GBU AIM AIM 20 82 84 65 88 87 89 97 103 10 12 31 9 120 MM 6                     2 2 500   2                   2 2 500     2                 2 2 500       2               2 2 500         4             2 2 500           4           2 2 500             4         2 2 500               4       2 2 500                 2     2 2 500                   6   2 2 500                     4 2 2 500                       2 4 500                         6 500
Systems	AN/APG-66 pulsed-Doppler radar   AN/AAQ-13 LANTIRN NAVIGATION POD AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN/SHARPSHOOTER AN/AAQ-20 PATHFINDER NAVIGATION POD AN/AAS-35 PAVE PENNY LASER SPOT TRACKER POD AN/ASQ-213 HARM TARGETING SYSTEM POD   AN/ALQ-119 ECM POD AN/ALQ-131 ECM POD AN/ALQ-178 internal ECM AN/ALQ-184 ECM POD   AN/ALR-56M threat warning receiver [F-16C/D Block 50/52] AN/ALR-69 radar warning system (RWR) AN/ALR-74 radar warning system (RWR) [replaces AN/ALR-69]   AN/ALE-40 chaff/flare dispenser AN/ALE-47 chaff/flare dispenser
Unit cost $FY98 [Total Program]	F-16C/D, $26.9 million [final order]
Crew	F-16C: one; F-16D: one or two
Date Deployed	January 1979
Total Production [for USAF]	1-seat F-16 A&C 2-seat F-16 B&D TOTAL Block 1 21 22 43 Block 5 89 27 116 Block 10 145 25 170 Block 15 409 46 455 Block 25 209 35 244 Block 30 360 48 408 Block 32 56 5 61 Block 40 234 31 265 Block 42 150 47 197 Block 50 175 28 203 Block 52 42 12 54 F-16A/B 674 121 795 F-16C/D 1,216 205 1,421 TOTAL 1,890 326 2,216 F-16C Block 50 currently in production Final 3 aircraft ordered in FY1998 15 aircraft to be delivered after 01 Jan 99 Final aircraft of 2216 delivered March 2001
Inventory	1996 total inventory = 1,450
PMAI Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory	246 Air Combat Command 126 Pacific Air Forces 72 US Air Forces Europe 60 Air Force Reserve 315 Air National Guard 105 Air National Guard Air Defense Force 924 TOTAL Only combat-coded aircraft Excludes development/ test, attrition reserve, depot maintenance, and training aircraft.

 

F-16XL Fighting Falcon Specifications
Crew size	F-16XL-2 two-seat cockpit F-16XL-1 single-seat aircraft
Length	54.2 ft (16.52 m)
Wingspan	34.3 ft (10.45 m)
height at vertical tail	17.7 ft (5.39 m).
Max. weight	48,000 lb (17,915.60 kg)
Engines	F-16XL-2 General Electric F110-GE-129 engine (with afterburner) rated at 29,000 lb thrust. F-16XL-1 Pratt and Whitney 100-PW-100 engine (with afterburner), rated at 23,830 lb thrust.
Controls	Both aircraft featured an analog fly-by-wire electronic flight control system during the laminar flow research. The single-seat aircraft now has a digital flight control system.
Wing construction	The delta (cranked arrow) wings on both aircraft are manufactured of advanced graphite composites to provide strength for high wing loads during flight.
Design load	Baseline F-16XL: 9 "Gs". Modified F-16XL: 3 "Gs")
Maximum Speed	F-16XL-2, Mach 2 (approx. 1,400 mph) (2,253 k/hr) F-16XL-1, Mach 1.8 (approx. 1,260 mph)
Range	Over 2,500 nautical miles (4,630 k), without in-flight refueling, and unlimited with in-flight refueling

 

 

USE YOUR BROWSER "BACK" BUTTON TO RETURN TO PERVIOUS PAGE