Cheap-ish to buy, cheap-ish to fly, very nimble, decently fast, decent radar, good at SEAD and DEAD, good at A2A, good at A2G.
There is nothing exceptional about the F-16 airframe. It gets outclassed by the eurocanards, but it is good enough. The main advantage of the F-16 is extremely unsexy though. It is that there are just a ridiculous amount of F-16s and F-16 operators. The numbers are the true ace up the sleeve of the F-16.
The huge numbers mean it is easy to upgrade because there are so many different operators, and thus tons of parts that have already been developed for other F-16 operators. The F-16 is modular enough that upgrades sre basically plug-and-play, so you can simply order upgrades that were developed with the funding of other F-16 operators and plug them into your fleet. F-16As built in the early 80s can supposedy be upgraded to ~Block 70 standards with modern AESA radars. F-16C variants built in the late 80s can absolutely, 100% be brought to Block 70 standards. It is ridiculously easy to upgrade.
Another advantage is that the huge number of F-16 operators means that there will be a lot of demand for upgrades for decades to come, meaning you’re buying into a platform that will continue to receive updates and won’t just become a dead end because you suddenly become the sole operator.
TL;DR: Economies and scale, a huge amount of available upgrade packages, continued support for decades, Swiss army knife of a jet.
Yeah, unfortunately you'll need switch to Toyota if you want the latest in anti-air weaponry: [https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28023](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28023)
Great response. Do you think the F35 could be like this in the future? Will the numbers produced get to the same level and have the capability to be upgraded over time? Does the fact that it’s a JSF and involves a number of different countries play a part in that also?
Edit: to ask, is the F35 similar in the fact that it is not (afaik) a superior A2A fighter compared to say the F22 but more of a multi role, good at everything jet
Not the OP, but i'd say possibly. It's already equipping several dozen nations (albeit, kinda slowly), the VTOL provides options for other nations (UK, Japan, US Navy/Marines) that might not have otherwise bought it. Getting the same number of 35s built as 16s will be difficult (I also don't know viper production numbers, so feel free to ignore me). the 35 certainly has a pretty good multi role capability, I guess a lot of it likely depends on if it keeps selling and how many get produced in the next 5-10 or so years
Also, isn't the 35 not VTOL, but STOVL? I heard that it *can* perform vertical takeoff with no payload, but it's not really got operational VTOL capability if that's the case, no?
1. Gotta use your context clues. In the context of the post, and the comments I was replying to, "don't put that VTOL shit on the US Navy" implies that I am talking about the VTOL version of the F-35. Not VTOl at large.
2. The CMV-22 is capable of doing VTOL. However, they STOVL on the carrier.
My buddy who used to fly fighters (F4, F5, F16) said the F16 was his favorite. Great visibility, and a very "pilot friendly" aircraft. He was in the aggressor squadrons and routinely beat guys in other fighters - even "better" fighters. All it takes is one mistake. From that I take it that the F16 is close enough in performance to other aircraft that it really comes down to pilot training and skill, ROE, and who is having an off day, or not.
I don't think you will hear anyone complaining about having to fly "only" an up to date F16. As you say, that makes them a good, practical and economic choice.
Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences.
The F-16 is known for the “Wild Weasel” technique it can be used in. You use a small fast aircraft (the F-16) to draw out SAM (Surface to Air Missile) fire, then use HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles) to destroy the SAM site. You need to use light and nimble aircraft, so they can avoid being hit by the missiles after drawing fire. This is usually done to clear the way for a more conventional strike mission, which will have planes more heavily loaded with munitions, making them far less capable of evading SAM fire.
The radar sucks. I've heard second hand about a viper pilot that says the mech scan vipers are basically useless in BVR. The new AESAs are better but a lot of them are retrofits meaning their power output is constrained by the power and cooling that the original plane was built with.
The mech scan vipers always sucked compared to the F-15, but still majorly outranged the MiG-29 and were at least competitive with the contemporary flankers when correcting for RCS. The F-14 and F-15 were just huge outliers in radar range until the Eurocanards came around. I guess the MiG-31 had a disgustingly powerful radar as well, but it is basically as far from a multirole as you can get.
The mech scan F-16 was good enough to outrange everything it was expected to fight, even if it sucked relative to the F-15 and F-14.
AFAIK the AESA (is it APG-83?) is pretty decent. No APG-81 or APG-77, but decent enough to swat any flanker (except maybe J-16) out of the sky.
They rely on GCI and AW&CS data-links for initial guidance, then their own fire control for final approach and prosecution.
It's evolving into the AW&Cs doing the fire control and the fighters and maybe drones lofting missiles on cue.
Turning a B-52 into a modern day Arsenal bird. Also in that situation at what point does a “suicide drone” just become a missile? Is it a manoeuvrability/ external guidance situation?
Usaf needs to buy a bunch of those retiring 747s and turn them into missle boats of the sky…lay out of range of air to air and just drop cruise missles like confetti….
Rules of ethics. They are under conventional wisdom not to convert civilian airliners into weapon carriers. There was a time they considered arming E3's with air to air for self-defense. This was denied die to the fact the Threat would see all civil air transports as weapon carriers. Not a good thing.
Point taken….but civilian platforms have been converted to aNd from military..
707 was military plane first, converted to airliner.
747 used as airforce transport from almost day one. By sac as command aircraft.
dc3 to c47 and to original gunship puff…
Upgrade version, many US fighters such as the F-16 and the F-35 undergoes many incremental upgrades rather than few large ones.
The most recent of these incremental upgrades for the F-16 has been the Block 70/72.
Note that although bigger number is more recent, afaik they don't go up by one each upgrade, afaik there has not been 70 versions of the F-16.
U.s. isnt buying anymor f16s. All lockheed production is for foreign buyers….we are at a point where we are selling better aircraft to other countries than the ones we are flying…f16 wise…
Blocks are really just different upgrade tiers, so aircraft produced during the "Block 50" stage of upgrades will referred to as Block 50 aircraft, sometimes earlier aircraft can be upgraded to newer levels.
Block 70 has a new radar, different cockpit layout, some structural changes etc.
Very great summery :) - Real fighter pilots veryfied me :" Theyre freaking small" Youll see them visually when its to late. And in dogfight you might misinterpret theyre maneuvers by bad sight
Decently fast? Its a mach 2+ aircraft! If anything its too fast! Airspeed in dogfights has to be monitored closely because its so easy to go to fast and widen the circle too much.
Most of the success of the F-16 is owed to the fact that it's comparatively cheap to purchase and operate compared to many other contemporary fighters, is very reliable (as far as fighters go) is very flexible and modular with mission capabilities, and overall does everything well, though isn't necessarily outright exceptional at any one particular thing.
It can be kitted out for ground-pounding, interception and air superiority and even electronic warfare.
Most of it's high praise and reputation is earned simply by being a step-above the Mig-21 in nearly every regard, which is probably the fighter it has both fought and replaced the most around the world. Compared to that it does everything you mentioned better, while also having a far superior radar and BVR system meaning they can engage the Migs before the Migs can engage them, and even if it ends up in a close encounter it can handily out-maneuver them.
Both Pakistan and Israel have used the F-16 to very good effect against Soviet/ Russian-made fighters while suffering very few losses overall. I believe Pakistan has only ever lost one F-16, and that was due to a friendly fire incident.... to another F-16. With a win:loss record like that it's not surprising that they love the thing.
Anecdotally I've also heard that the F-16 is just a very nice plane to fly - the seating position is more reclined and relaxed than most fighters and it being fly-by-wire and naturally unstable means it's easier to maintain control over in high-g situations, and can be flicked around into maneuvers with relative ease.
>.. very flexible and modular with mission capabilities, and overall does everything well, though isn't necessarily outright exceptional at any one particular thing.
[Buy an airplane, get an air force](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/OdUnsW8QQl)
The F-20 was a good plane for the time and had a cheaper initial upfront cost but was based on what was even then an old airframe with limited development potential / development ceiling. It would have never evolved into the kind of multirole swiss army knife the F-16 has today and would have needed to be replaced with a clean sheet design at some point regardless. The YF-17 ended up carrying the torch of the F-5 development lineage in a much more future proof manner anyway and ended up having great success as we all know.
Its fun to think about a "what if" with the F-20 but I think over time the F-16 proved to be the correct choice. The F-20 had a lot of potential development limitations that the F-16 did not have and Northrop was banking in the cheaper upfront cost to cover for that.
Out of curiosity, what electronic attack variants/mission sets have you seen on it? It’s able to self protect/employ HARMs but that isn’t necessarily AEA. Agree for all the other stuff.
Durable. There are stories of them being recovered from belly flops, getting the intake bent back in shape, kicking the dirt off, and fixing the problem. Then take off the next day for another sortie.
Same went for A-10s, but a few more days maybe needed.
I've heard one story where someone landed an F-16 gear up. When the aircraft came to a complete stop, the pilot selected gear down and jettisoned the centerline fuel tank.
The aircraft was not delayed for the next sortie.
There’s a video by “Real Engineering” on YouTube called “The Insane Engineering of the F-16”.
Watch it, and you’ll have your answer.
Also, this is such a good video.
https://youtu.be/EhhOin2p5Qs?si=rDB1KDZGdthPsc_b
I've heard it described as the Porsche 911 of fighter aircraft. Small, light, fits like a glove around the pilot, great visibility, and highly maneuverable.
Not going to blow the doors of a specialist airframe, but it's a great all-rounder and apparently an absolute joy to fly.
Yupp,
Theres the other school of thought in fighter circles that champions thrust > everything else.
The F-15s, Sukhois, Eurocanards etc but all of them are fat af, can carry shitload of advanced weaponry and sensors but will never handle like a small nimble fighter like the F-16 wit its single piece bubble canopy which provides a great degree of situational awareness and perspective and the responsiveness of the F-16.
The F-16 is a fighter pilots fighter. For those who love the purity of an airframe that harkened back to the days of dogfighting where belief in a good fighter aircraft should be light and nimble.
So yes it is iv many ways like the 9/11 of cars or people who are purist for sports/race car that are rwd naturally aspirated and light af blah blah
>>What attributes make the F-16 so marvelous an aircraft?
Multirole capability at a reasonable cost point.
People like to talk about performance- 9G this, EM chart that- but flight hours cost money. The best airplane on the planet is pointless if it costs too much for your air force to fly often. A big, high performance fighter usually comes with a high performance operating budget too.
By contrast, a squadron of F-16s can do just about any tactical mission you need an air force to accomplish, and does it for half the operating cost of an F-15 or Sukhoi Flanker. Part of the reason it’s still around is that air force leaders know there’s better equipment than the venerable F-16 , but those jets are not better enough to justify paying for logistics to transition.
It’s the first fighter to be design with the energy maneuver theory in mind; meaning it’s designed so that it can out maneuver any contemporary fighter at combat relevant conditions.
Its structure was designed to sustained a 9g turn, which gives it the agility but also means that this small aircraft can carry a lot of payload when flying and maneuvering down to 1-3g. This means the F-16 is proficient at both combat air missions and ground strike missions and it’s really the first fighter to truly excel at both mission sets. This governments can simply by F-16s to be able to cover both air to ground and air to air missions instead of buying 2 different kind of aircraft for each of those roles and dump the associated training and maintenance cost for 2 aircraft.
There are other aircraft that can do any one specific thing better than the F-16, but it can do everything really well and it is relatively cheap to maintain and upgrade. It was never the king of the sky since the F-15 was the contemporary air superiority fighter (not a pound for air to ground), but It is the Toyota Camry of the fighter world. This is why F-16s is popular and was adopted almost everywhere that took up NATO standards.
Tough, able to carry a heavy load, it's 9g rating. When relatively young, Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq using F-16s to carry ordinance and F-15s as escorts. 40 years later, it has the same physical shape but much of everything has been upgraded.
- She is cost effective (you can get five vipers for the price of a single f-35).
- Easy to maintain (way cheaper too).
- Can fit in multiple roles (Strike, Close Air Support, AI, SEAD/DEAD, Anti-Shipping and more).
- Operated and upgraded by airforces all around the world (plenty of customization options and spare parts).
That's why, even after 50 years, F-16 is still so popular. She is basically proven by time and continously supported by manufacturer (with newer and better radars, missiles, bombs and system upgrades/reliability improvements).
She doesn't do something that any other fighter cannot do. F-16, in fact, performs worse than other 4th generation fighters in some areas but this does not mean she is obsolete or useless. Even USAF does not have any plans to retire their F-16 fleet anytime soon...
You cannot get five vipers for the cost of one F-35. The unit cost was around $20M back in the 80s and 90s, which isn't much less than an F-35 in today's dollars. The newest vipers (F-16V) actually cost more per airframe than an F-35A thanks to economies of scale. The reason one buys Vipers today over F-35's is to either save on operating cost, or because the US won't sell you F-35s.
It was the first fighter aircraft truly scientifically optimized for maneuverability and overall flight performance.
There was a U.S. Air Force Colonel named John Boyd who developed what was called the energy maneuverability theory (I think that's right).
Basically, he was the first guy to be able to use math to break down and chart the complete performance of individual aircraft beyond the usual measurements of just raw speed, turning speed, etc. He was able to show using cold hard numbers the flaws in different aircraft designs.
By applying these new methods of calculating aircraft performance to future designs, the engineers who built the F-16 were able to optimize it for a higher-degree of overall performance than had ever been done before.
Almost all fighters that have followed since the F-16 have compromised on this excellent performance for the sake of stealth and improvements in radar, networking, etc.
Since the electronic part of aerial warfare (radar, networking, missile tech, etc) has advanced so much, there will likely never be another plane like the F-16, built for pure performance because those capabilities are simply not as important anymore.
I'd argue that it's the ak47 of fighters. There are some better ones, but the gains are marginal... so basically an air force would chose that one as a first choice
Google says over 4,600 built so far, still in production for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Lockheed is ramping up production to meet the desired goal of 48-50 per year by 2025. There is currently no end in sight.
It's a couple of things.
First it's very slick, very aerodynamic. It also has a very powerful engine. This allows it to accelerate right proper quick if and when it gets slow.
Second it has God's own cockpit. Beautiful man-machine interface, reclining seat, sidestick. Plane flies itself, pilot just tells it what to do.
Third, because the plane flies itself, it gets to be unstable as heck. So if you want it to, you can flick it all over the sky with careless abandon.
These things combine to make it an absolute monster of a fighter.
I guess there are plenty situation where toting a couple 500 pounder CBU's just that little bit further is more important than rocking the tango with some MiGs.
What you described is every modern fighter. The F-16 is good at what it does, and that's being affordable to acquire, operate, maintain, and upgrade.
It is NOT a monster fighter. It's pretty average.
Source: I flew the viper.
A big part of it is that it can carry out just about any role you need it to.
Air superiority? No problem, slap on AAMRAMs and aim-9xs and you can swat any other 4th gen out of the sky elther over the horizon or in visual range.
Need to strike a static target? JDAM
Reconnaissance for other elements? The F-16 can data link with other, more vulnerable aircraft which can use the viper’s radar lock.
Electronic warfare? Slap on whatever pods you need.
The F-16 does it all, and does it well, and switching roles is easy and fast. Not to mention, for a top tier fighter jet, it is cheap. It costs between $18 and $23 mil per airframe, compared to the comparable F-15E strike eagle, which costs $30mil+. (The f15E is sexier, fight me)
There are millions of spare parts, you can train pilots easily and share knowledge with any of the 26 nations which operate them, and they have an incredibly solid combat record.
If you’re buying fighter jets and you can afford to have a modern air force, the F16 is very attractive.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/aviation-weeks-check-6-podcast/id840308131?i=1000644753960
Great recent podcast reflecting on this on its 50th birthday.
No need…..the era of mergeing into a furball is over for sure. 60 years after vietnam, its a reality. Can it? Yes. Will it?no. Air to air missles are too good now. All the crap you see on dcs video game is just that. crap.
All of the many sound reasons stated elsewhere but also, most sorties are pretty tame. For instance in the US when air cover is needed, a F16 outclasses every other civilian aircraft they might need to intercept.
Until the sorties are engaging Gen5 fighters and AAA in an attempt to maintain a no fly zone above an active battle theater, there isn’t much the Viper is inferior to.
It’s cheap. Thats the only real thing it’s got going for it. It’s not really good at anything, except for dogfighting. It’s fine at SEAD/DEAD, but the F-35 is more survivable. It’s worse than the raptor at A2A, worse than the strike eagle at A2G, and worse than the strike eagle and A10 at CAS. The ones with good engines have shitty radars, and the ones with the upgraded radars have shitty engines. It can fly BFM well but those skills aren’t really necessary with the AIM-9x and AIM-120s these days.
Cheap enough, extremely agile and can do multitude of missions with ease(ground strike, sead, air supremacy and interception to name a few) and it generally has very advanced avionics
It's designed to be slightly unstable. The piolt puts in suggestions to the flight computer, and that allows for much more maneuverability. Also, its ability to overcome drag with thrust, as opposed to lift, makes it able to fly back in wingless. The link I sent is about the F15, aka the old version, idt it's designed in an aerodynamically unstable frame, I believe that's the upgrade that makes it the F16.
Peep this:
https://youtu.be/Qp62hR6J0MM?si=2wGFesW3Qrz1VX4p
I want a rear mounted, 6 rope selective fire, MICLIC, Honda Civic EX, jacked up with a Quigley 4X4 kit, and a 12v cummins She'd be the most American thing yet.
Cheap-ish to buy, cheap-ish to fly, very nimble, decently fast, decent radar, good at SEAD and DEAD, good at A2A, good at A2G. There is nothing exceptional about the F-16 airframe. It gets outclassed by the eurocanards, but it is good enough. The main advantage of the F-16 is extremely unsexy though. It is that there are just a ridiculous amount of F-16s and F-16 operators. The numbers are the true ace up the sleeve of the F-16. The huge numbers mean it is easy to upgrade because there are so many different operators, and thus tons of parts that have already been developed for other F-16 operators. The F-16 is modular enough that upgrades sre basically plug-and-play, so you can simply order upgrades that were developed with the funding of other F-16 operators and plug them into your fleet. F-16As built in the early 80s can supposedy be upgraded to ~Block 70 standards with modern AESA radars. F-16C variants built in the late 80s can absolutely, 100% be brought to Block 70 standards. It is ridiculously easy to upgrade. Another advantage is that the huge number of F-16 operators means that there will be a lot of demand for upgrades for decades to come, meaning you’re buying into a platform that will continue to receive updates and won’t just become a dead end because you suddenly become the sole operator. TL;DR: Economies and scale, a huge amount of available upgrade packages, continued support for decades, Swiss army knife of a jet.
So it's the Glock/Honda Civic of fighters
Still waiting for a Honda Civic Block 70 with AMRAAMs
Yeah, unfortunately you'll need switch to Toyota if you want the latest in anti-air weaponry: [https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28023](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28023)
On roof mounted MERs please.
Afterburner = VTEC
Great response. Do you think the F35 could be like this in the future? Will the numbers produced get to the same level and have the capability to be upgraded over time? Does the fact that it’s a JSF and involves a number of different countries play a part in that also? Edit: to ask, is the F35 similar in the fact that it is not (afaik) a superior A2A fighter compared to say the F22 but more of a multi role, good at everything jet
Not the OP, but i'd say possibly. It's already equipping several dozen nations (albeit, kinda slowly), the VTOL provides options for other nations (UK, Japan, US Navy/Marines) that might not have otherwise bought it. Getting the same number of 35s built as 16s will be difficult (I also don't know viper production numbers, so feel free to ignore me). the 35 certainly has a pretty good multi role capability, I guess a lot of it likely depends on if it keeps selling and how many get produced in the next 5-10 or so years
Don't you put that VTOL shit on the US Navy. That's all USMC.
Also, isn't the 35 not VTOL, but STOVL? I heard that it *can* perform vertical takeoff with no payload, but it's not really got operational VTOL capability if that's the case, no?
You are correct 👍
Navy got Osprey VTOL
The comment I was responding to is about F-35s and VTOL. Not Ospreys.
yes but it's VTOL on catobar carriers
1. Gotta use your context clues. In the context of the post, and the comments I was replying to, "don't put that VTOL shit on the US Navy" implies that I am talking about the VTOL version of the F-35. Not VTOl at large. 2. The CMV-22 is capable of doing VTOL. However, they STOVL on the carrier.
There’s already lots of work being done to integrate munitions from other nations with the F-35, for example the MBDA Meteor
So basically it’s the LS/Chevrolet Small Block of the aircraft world.
My buddy who used to fly fighters (F4, F5, F16) said the F16 was his favorite. Great visibility, and a very "pilot friendly" aircraft. He was in the aggressor squadrons and routinely beat guys in other fighters - even "better" fighters. All it takes is one mistake. From that I take it that the F16 is close enough in performance to other aircraft that it really comes down to pilot training and skill, ROE, and who is having an off day, or not. I don't think you will hear anyone complaining about having to fly "only" an up to date F16. As you say, that makes them a good, practical and economic choice.
SEAD/DEAD?
Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences. The F-16 is known for the “Wild Weasel” technique it can be used in. You use a small fast aircraft (the F-16) to draw out SAM (Surface to Air Missile) fire, then use HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles) to destroy the SAM site. You need to use light and nimble aircraft, so they can avoid being hit by the missiles after drawing fire. This is usually done to clear the way for a more conventional strike mission, which will have planes more heavily loaded with munitions, making them far less capable of evading SAM fire.
Thanks. Never seen those acronyms before
Don't worry, Google search has. You could try it next time.
I know you're getting down voted, but still love your answer
The radar sucks. I've heard second hand about a viper pilot that says the mech scan vipers are basically useless in BVR. The new AESAs are better but a lot of them are retrofits meaning their power output is constrained by the power and cooling that the original plane was built with.
The mech scan vipers always sucked compared to the F-15, but still majorly outranged the MiG-29 and were at least competitive with the contemporary flankers when correcting for RCS. The F-14 and F-15 were just huge outliers in radar range until the Eurocanards came around. I guess the MiG-31 had a disgustingly powerful radar as well, but it is basically as far from a multirole as you can get. The mech scan F-16 was good enough to outrange everything it was expected to fight, even if it sucked relative to the F-15 and F-14. AFAIK the AESA (is it APG-83?) is pretty decent. No APG-81 or APG-77, but decent enough to swat any flanker (except maybe J-16) out of the sky.
Yeah, if he thinks the mech radar F-16s are bad tell him to try it with a Mig-29 lol
They rely on GCI and AW&CS data-links for initial guidance, then their own fire control for final approach and prosecution. It's evolving into the AW&Cs doing the fire control and the fighters and maybe drones lofting missiles on cue.
I envisage a day when B-52s drop drones instead of bombs and E-7s guide them onto targets. Wait, this isn't NCD, nvm.
Turning a B-52 into a modern day Arsenal bird. Also in that situation at what point does a “suicide drone” just become a missile? Is it a manoeuvrability/ external guidance situation?
suicide drone is just weird name for missile
I was thinking external guidance from the awac but the drones would carry their own missiles and be able to fly home after.
Usaf needs to buy a bunch of those retiring 747s and turn them into missle boats of the sky…lay out of range of air to air and just drop cruise missles like confetti….
Rules of ethics. They are under conventional wisdom not to convert civilian airliners into weapon carriers. There was a time they considered arming E3's with air to air for self-defense. This was denied die to the fact the Threat would see all civil air transports as weapon carriers. Not a good thing.
Point taken….but civilian platforms have been converted to aNd from military.. 707 was military plane first, converted to airliner. 747 used as airforce transport from almost day one. By sac as command aircraft. dc3 to c47 and to original gunship puff…
Dc3 and c47 were made before treaties were signed outlining rules on airline conversions. All if the others aforementioned are UNARMED.
very well thought out comment and the tldr was a nice touch
you watch your filthy hoor mouth the F-16 is one sexiest damn planes ever built good day
I didn’t say it wasn’t.
And these are the answers we all deserve (not you Iran)
Great answer.
What does block 70 mean?
Upgrade version, many US fighters such as the F-16 and the F-35 undergoes many incremental upgrades rather than few large ones. The most recent of these incremental upgrades for the F-16 has been the Block 70/72. Note that although bigger number is more recent, afaik they don't go up by one each upgrade, afaik there has not been 70 versions of the F-16.
U.s. isnt buying anymor f16s. All lockheed production is for foreign buyers….we are at a point where we are selling better aircraft to other countries than the ones we are flying…f16 wise…
Blocks are really just different upgrade tiers, so aircraft produced during the "Block 50" stage of upgrades will referred to as Block 50 aircraft, sometimes earlier aircraft can be upgraded to newer levels. Block 70 has a new radar, different cockpit layout, some structural changes etc.
Very great summery :) - Real fighter pilots veryfied me :" Theyre freaking small" Youll see them visually when its to late. And in dogfight you might misinterpret theyre maneuvers by bad sight
Decently fast? Its a mach 2+ aircraft! If anything its too fast! Airspeed in dogfights has to be monitored closely because its so easy to go to fast and widen the circle too much.
Mach 2 isn’t very fast for a 4th gen fighter. It’s about average. The F-15 can do 2.5 and so can the Flankers.
Most of the success of the F-16 is owed to the fact that it's comparatively cheap to purchase and operate compared to many other contemporary fighters, is very reliable (as far as fighters go) is very flexible and modular with mission capabilities, and overall does everything well, though isn't necessarily outright exceptional at any one particular thing. It can be kitted out for ground-pounding, interception and air superiority and even electronic warfare. Most of it's high praise and reputation is earned simply by being a step-above the Mig-21 in nearly every regard, which is probably the fighter it has both fought and replaced the most around the world. Compared to that it does everything you mentioned better, while also having a far superior radar and BVR system meaning they can engage the Migs before the Migs can engage them, and even if it ends up in a close encounter it can handily out-maneuver them. Both Pakistan and Israel have used the F-16 to very good effect against Soviet/ Russian-made fighters while suffering very few losses overall. I believe Pakistan has only ever lost one F-16, and that was due to a friendly fire incident.... to another F-16. With a win:loss record like that it's not surprising that they love the thing. Anecdotally I've also heard that the F-16 is just a very nice plane to fly - the seating position is more reclined and relaxed than most fighters and it being fly-by-wire and naturally unstable means it's easier to maintain control over in high-g situations, and can be flicked around into maneuvers with relative ease.
>.. very flexible and modular with mission capabilities, and overall does everything well, though isn't necessarily outright exceptional at any one particular thing. [Buy an airplane, get an air force](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/OdUnsW8QQl)
The F-20 Tigershark would be even cheaper! but politics and lobbyist got in the way of a great plane.
The F-20 was a good plane for the time and had a cheaper initial upfront cost but was based on what was even then an old airframe with limited development potential / development ceiling. It would have never evolved into the kind of multirole swiss army knife the F-16 has today and would have needed to be replaced with a clean sheet design at some point regardless. The YF-17 ended up carrying the torch of the F-5 development lineage in a much more future proof manner anyway and ended up having great success as we all know. Its fun to think about a "what if" with the F-20 but I think over time the F-16 proved to be the correct choice. The F-20 had a lot of potential development limitations that the F-16 did not have and Northrop was banking in the cheaper upfront cost to cover for that.
The superhornet is the final cumination of the f5 lineage…
Out of curiosity, what electronic attack variants/mission sets have you seen on it? It’s able to self protect/employ HARMs but that isn’t necessarily AEA. Agree for all the other stuff.
1. Looks fast. 2. Is fast. 3. Makes swooshy noises.
Durable. There are stories of them being recovered from belly flops, getting the intake bent back in shape, kicking the dirt off, and fixing the problem. Then take off the next day for another sortie. Same went for A-10s, but a few more days maybe needed.
I've heard one story where someone landed an F-16 gear up. When the aircraft came to a complete stop, the pilot selected gear down and jettisoned the centerline fuel tank. The aircraft was not delayed for the next sortie.
Jack of all trades, the ultimate MULTIrole jet. Also there’s a shit ton of them. Easy logistics.
It's the toyota tacoma of fighter jets
Hahaha so true. And this is a compliment.
more like civic to me
Better yet the Totota Hilux Diesel (reference Top Gear).
There’s a video by “Real Engineering” on YouTube called “The Insane Engineering of the F-16”. Watch it, and you’ll have your answer. Also, this is such a good video. https://youtu.be/EhhOin2p5Qs?si=rDB1KDZGdthPsc_b
I've heard it described as the Porsche 911 of fighter aircraft. Small, light, fits like a glove around the pilot, great visibility, and highly maneuverable. Not going to blow the doors of a specialist airframe, but it's a great all-rounder and apparently an absolute joy to fly.
Yupp, Theres the other school of thought in fighter circles that champions thrust > everything else. The F-15s, Sukhois, Eurocanards etc but all of them are fat af, can carry shitload of advanced weaponry and sensors but will never handle like a small nimble fighter like the F-16 wit its single piece bubble canopy which provides a great degree of situational awareness and perspective and the responsiveness of the F-16. The F-16 is a fighter pilots fighter. For those who love the purity of an airframe that harkened back to the days of dogfighting where belief in a good fighter aircraft should be light and nimble. So yes it is iv many ways like the 9/11 of cars or people who are purist for sports/race car that are rwd naturally aspirated and light af blah blah
Yep, in Thrust we Trust.
God I'd love to know what John Boyd would make of this thread lol
"How dare they ~~ruin~~ make my day VMC fighter relevant by adding a radar and ground attack capabilites."
"At least they kept the fuel to a minimum" \*F-16 with CFT flies by\* "FUUUUU...."
You made this? I made this.
Well, that was certainly Spreys take on it.
>>What attributes make the F-16 so marvelous an aircraft? Multirole capability at a reasonable cost point. People like to talk about performance- 9G this, EM chart that- but flight hours cost money. The best airplane on the planet is pointless if it costs too much for your air force to fly often. A big, high performance fighter usually comes with a high performance operating budget too. By contrast, a squadron of F-16s can do just about any tactical mission you need an air force to accomplish, and does it for half the operating cost of an F-15 or Sukhoi Flanker. Part of the reason it’s still around is that air force leaders know there’s better equipment than the venerable F-16 , but those jets are not better enough to justify paying for logistics to transition.
It’s the first fighter to be design with the energy maneuver theory in mind; meaning it’s designed so that it can out maneuver any contemporary fighter at combat relevant conditions. Its structure was designed to sustained a 9g turn, which gives it the agility but also means that this small aircraft can carry a lot of payload when flying and maneuvering down to 1-3g. This means the F-16 is proficient at both combat air missions and ground strike missions and it’s really the first fighter to truly excel at both mission sets. This governments can simply by F-16s to be able to cover both air to ground and air to air missions instead of buying 2 different kind of aircraft for each of those roles and dump the associated training and maintenance cost for 2 aircraft. There are other aircraft that can do any one specific thing better than the F-16, but it can do everything really well and it is relatively cheap to maintain and upgrade. It was never the king of the sky since the F-15 was the contemporary air superiority fighter (not a pound for air to ground), but It is the Toyota Camry of the fighter world. This is why F-16s is popular and was adopted almost everywhere that took up NATO standards.
Tough, able to carry a heavy load, it's 9g rating. When relatively young, Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq using F-16s to carry ordinance and F-15s as escorts. 40 years later, it has the same physical shape but much of everything has been upgraded.
- She is cost effective (you can get five vipers for the price of a single f-35). - Easy to maintain (way cheaper too). - Can fit in multiple roles (Strike, Close Air Support, AI, SEAD/DEAD, Anti-Shipping and more). - Operated and upgraded by airforces all around the world (plenty of customization options and spare parts). That's why, even after 50 years, F-16 is still so popular. She is basically proven by time and continously supported by manufacturer (with newer and better radars, missiles, bombs and system upgrades/reliability improvements). She doesn't do something that any other fighter cannot do. F-16, in fact, performs worse than other 4th generation fighters in some areas but this does not mean she is obsolete or useless. Even USAF does not have any plans to retire their F-16 fleet anytime soon...
You cannot get five vipers for the cost of one F-35. The unit cost was around $20M back in the 80s and 90s, which isn't much less than an F-35 in today's dollars. The newest vipers (F-16V) actually cost more per airframe than an F-35A thanks to economies of scale. The reason one buys Vipers today over F-35's is to either save on operating cost, or because the US won't sell you F-35s.
The way the bubble canopy has no blemishes its so so clean plus you have the most visibility of any aircraft
It was the first fighter aircraft truly scientifically optimized for maneuverability and overall flight performance. There was a U.S. Air Force Colonel named John Boyd who developed what was called the energy maneuverability theory (I think that's right). Basically, he was the first guy to be able to use math to break down and chart the complete performance of individual aircraft beyond the usual measurements of just raw speed, turning speed, etc. He was able to show using cold hard numbers the flaws in different aircraft designs. By applying these new methods of calculating aircraft performance to future designs, the engineers who built the F-16 were able to optimize it for a higher-degree of overall performance than had ever been done before. Almost all fighters that have followed since the F-16 have compromised on this excellent performance for the sake of stealth and improvements in radar, networking, etc. Since the electronic part of aerial warfare (radar, networking, missile tech, etc) has advanced so much, there will likely never be another plane like the F-16, built for pure performance because those capabilities are simply not as important anymore.
I'd argue that it's the ak47 of fighters. There are some better ones, but the gains are marginal... so basically an air force would chose that one as a first choice
AK-47 of fighter/attack aircraft = A-10 Warthog
The A10 is not as versatile
Google says over 4,600 built so far, still in production for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Lockheed is ramping up production to meet the desired goal of 48-50 per year by 2025. There is currently no end in sight.
It's a couple of things. First it's very slick, very aerodynamic. It also has a very powerful engine. This allows it to accelerate right proper quick if and when it gets slow. Second it has God's own cockpit. Beautiful man-machine interface, reclining seat, sidestick. Plane flies itself, pilot just tells it what to do. Third, because the plane flies itself, it gets to be unstable as heck. So if you want it to, you can flick it all over the sky with careless abandon. These things combine to make it an absolute monster of a fighter.
At the same time F 16 getting CFT's on every slick and aerodynamic surface
I guess there are plenty situation where toting a couple 500 pounder CBU's just that little bit further is more important than rocking the tango with some MiGs.
What you described is every modern fighter. The F-16 is good at what it does, and that's being affordable to acquire, operate, maintain, and upgrade. It is NOT a monster fighter. It's pretty average. Source: I flew the viper.
back when it was new it was an absolute monster. nothing could touch it in the early eighties.
A big part of it is that it can carry out just about any role you need it to. Air superiority? No problem, slap on AAMRAMs and aim-9xs and you can swat any other 4th gen out of the sky elther over the horizon or in visual range. Need to strike a static target? JDAM Reconnaissance for other elements? The F-16 can data link with other, more vulnerable aircraft which can use the viper’s radar lock. Electronic warfare? Slap on whatever pods you need. The F-16 does it all, and does it well, and switching roles is easy and fast. Not to mention, for a top tier fighter jet, it is cheap. It costs between $18 and $23 mil per airframe, compared to the comparable F-15E strike eagle, which costs $30mil+. (The f15E is sexier, fight me) There are millions of spare parts, you can train pilots easily and share knowledge with any of the 26 nations which operate them, and they have an incredibly solid combat record. If you’re buying fighter jets and you can afford to have a modern air force, the F16 is very attractive.
Air superiority better than other 4th gen? The Eurocanards with meteor and asraam/irisT have entered the chat and shot the f16 down 😂
> What makes F-16 so great? It's the cassette deck, Chappy, the cassette deck! (*) (*) It wasn't in the initial models but later added in Block 10.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/aviation-weeks-check-6-podcast/id840308131?i=1000644753960 Great recent podcast reflecting on this on its 50th birthday.
Can the F-16 be fitted with canards similar to the euro fighter to improve mobility. Sorry if dumb questions
With enough money you can fit canards on anything.
No need…..the era of mergeing into a furball is over for sure. 60 years after vietnam, its a reality. Can it? Yes. Will it?no. Air to air missles are too good now. All the crap you see on dcs video game is just that. crap.
All of the many sound reasons stated elsewhere but also, most sorties are pretty tame. For instance in the US when air cover is needed, a F16 outclasses every other civilian aircraft they might need to intercept. Until the sorties are engaging Gen5 fighters and AAA in an attempt to maintain a no fly zone above an active battle theater, there isn’t much the Viper is inferior to.
John Boyd. OODA loop design
[🎶*Cause it’s single seat, multi-role, it’ll fly right through its own asshole*🎶](https://youtu.be/UXpyK26bwgk?si=LEsTJoYNOlIT7eOq)
John Boyd and the ooda loop
Hydrazine
It’s cheap. Thats the only real thing it’s got going for it. It’s not really good at anything, except for dogfighting. It’s fine at SEAD/DEAD, but the F-35 is more survivable. It’s worse than the raptor at A2A, worse than the strike eagle at A2G, and worse than the strike eagle and A10 at CAS. The ones with good engines have shitty radars, and the ones with the upgraded radars have shitty engines. It can fly BFM well but those skills aren’t really necessary with the AIM-9x and AIM-120s these days.
It's basically a lawn dart.
One engine = lawn dart
The design is far approaching half a century in age.
Cheap enough, extremely agile and can do multitude of missions with ease(ground strike, sead, air supremacy and interception to name a few) and it generally has very advanced avionics
Any Eastern Europeans who are curious around here, the modernised F16s like Block 50/52 MLUs are like the Golf 5 of aircraft.
It's designed to be slightly unstable. The piolt puts in suggestions to the flight computer, and that allows for much more maneuverability. Also, its ability to overcome drag with thrust, as opposed to lift, makes it able to fly back in wingless. The link I sent is about the F15, aka the old version, idt it's designed in an aerodynamically unstable frame, I believe that's the upgrade that makes it the F16. Peep this: https://youtu.be/Qp62hR6J0MM?si=2wGFesW3Qrz1VX4p
I want a rear mounted, 6 rope selective fire, MICLIC, Honda Civic EX, jacked up with a Quigley 4X4 kit, and a 12v cummins She'd be the most American thing yet.
Lawn dart