Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Navalized F-16 Falcon


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Double T

Double T

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 2 Months and 27 Days
  • 82 topics

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:59 AM

Should the F-16 have been appropriated for the US Navy?
Was it designed solidly enough for high-stress carrier operations?
I realize the US Navy prefers two engines for their F/B aircraft--aka the FA-18 Hornet/Super Hornet... but the F-16 HAS proven itself to be an exceptional airframe.
Opinions?

Tim

Facebook Comments

#2 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,448 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 5 Months and 11 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 30 July 2009 - 07:44 AM

It certainly scores highly in the space-saving category. Is there anything preventing it from toting anti-ship weaponry? Looking at some of the other stores it carries, I would guess that a software upgrade would be all that was required.

#3 Pioneer

Pioneer

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 5 Months and 27 Days
  • 2 topics

Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:29 PM

The proposed navalized version of the F-16 was the Vought (LTV) Model 1600/1601!

Try reading a great book by the title - The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet
By James P. Stevenson
ISBN: 978-1557507754

It totally change my thoughts and choice about the selection of the Northrop (McDonnell Douglas) YF-17 (F/A-18) design over that of the General Dynamics (LTV) YF-16, as the basis of a new cost effective carrier-based fighter, and what the U.S Navy was prepared to both do and say to get the YF-17 as its choice!



Some extract from a book review-



- Despite a rather lengthy discussion about minutiae detail as to why the Navy rejected a Navalized F-16N, the factor of twin engine versus single engine is not brought up! Instead he spends most of the time claiming the Navy killed the F-16N based on a specious argument about its tail clearance angle. The F-16 features the same F-100 engine as used on the F-15. In another section of the book he disparages the low reliability of the F-100 engine and how acceptance flights of the F-15 experienced as high as a 15% failure rate for the engine. Although the F/A-18 is powered by a significantly more reliable F-404 engine the point is made. The lack of jet engine reliability coupled with blue water operations where rescue was unlikely in case of engine failure (and pointless in the North Atlantic Cold War battleground where the pilot would die from exposure within minutes of hitting the water anyway) was the primary reason the Navy wanted the actually slightly inferior performing but still highly capable twin engine YF-17 for its flight decks and not the otherwise superb single engine YF-16. In the event of a single engine failure the F/A-18 still has a decent chance of getting back to the ship, the F-16 has none and the pilot is likely lost too. This is the same reason that Canada, Finland, and Australia chose the F/A-18 over the F-16, all three countries have relatively vast wastelands which are difficult to perform search and rescue in and can easily kill downed aircrew if not rescued quickly. In a 389 page book with reams of notes and appendices the author doesn't even pay lip service to this primary reason the Navy chose the YF-17 but instead rips the decision for tens of pages citing secondary and tertiary issues only to make the Navy and the hornet look bad. The meticulously documented data of the tail clearance issue is an example of depth at the expense of breadth to a point that the much bigger picture is entirely missed. This was of course a decision of its time. The Navy had traditionally operated single engine aircraft, but there was a massive increased focus in safety and force preservation starting in the late 1950's which eventually drove the preference for twin engine Navy aircraft. Recently, improvements in engine reliability have allowed (some would say forced) the Navy to accept the single engine F-35, but not without uneasy reservations from many Naval Aviators.

P.S. Hay how do I post a picture on this forum???
For I would post a few pictures of the Model 1600/1601 if you didn't know what it looked like!

Regards
Pioneer

#4 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,711 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 2 Months and 28 Days
  • 158 topics

Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:59 PM

The proposed navalized version of the F-16 was the Vought (LTV) Model 1600/1601!

P.S. Hay how do I post a picture on this forum???
For I would post a few pictures of the Model 1600/1601 if you didn't know what it looked like!

Regards
Pioneer


Posted Image

If you have a picture you want to post which is not on the web you will have to load it into a image hosting site such as ImageShack (imageshack.us).

Once you have the web link you can then post it in teh forum using the Posted Image button and pasting in the link.

You could also type the [IMG] and [/IM G] html tags (without the spaces) and place the image link in between.


There is a thread around somwhere discussing this which lists a few image hosting sites..

#5 borrows123

borrows123

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 1 Month and 27 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:11 AM

Thanks guys,

I'm glad this didn't come across to everyone as bragging ... and that certainly was not the intent.

Just reporting to the forum.

I realize that if more people volunteered at active museums, we'd see more of this stuff concerning restoration and updates on older aircraft / engines. Believe me, when I get a plane or kit of my own, not in joint ownership ... I'll report it with some relish (with pics), but not with bragging in mind.

So ... how about all you Warbirsdforum members who DO own aircraft ... let's hear about it! ... and see some pics! We are all interested. I believe that would be abn allowed thread seeing as how this is an aviation forum!

Keep 'em flying! Cheers.

#6 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 10 Months and 28 Days
  • 196 topics

Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:49 AM

Hey Borrows123,

Are you a member or what?

That's my post from another thread. Does that explain your username?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com