Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon News and Developments

Last edited:
Last edited:
snne said:
They do not pose a credible threat against modernized Flankers(Su-30/34/35S).
Click to expand...

Ah, no, I'd say they do definitely pose a credible threat and as Arjen has pointed out they can carry a wide range external stores including the AIM-9X and the latest AMRAAMs also from what I understand the Russian pilots training is bit inadequate so I think the Russian airforce will be in for a nasty surprise.

snne said:
How many were they getting again??
Click to expand...

From what I understand the total number of donated F-16s will add up to about 60 (There are several countries donating their F-16s).
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Ah, no, I'd say they do definitely pose a credible threat and as Arjen has pointed out they can carry a wide range external stores including the AIM-9X and the latest AMRAAMs.
Click to expand...
Yes, but will AIM-9Xs be delivered to Ukraine ?
From what I've read, the AMRAMs delivered will be older variants.
Maybe the F-16 can carry modern weapons, but the question is, will they be delivered ?
 
NMaude said:
Ah, no, I'd say they do definitely pose a credible threat and as Arjen has pointed out they can carry a wide range external stores including the AIM-9X and the latest AMRAAMs also from what I understand the Russian pilots training is bit inadequate so I think the Russian airforce will be in for a nasty surprise.
Click to expand...
Are they expected to get into dogfights with the Russians? Here are the facts:

1) The Russians can pose a credible threat to even tactical fighters from a 150 miles away.

2) They have superior situational awareness, they can see you further away than you can see them

3) They possess larger numbers and they also have superior firepower

4) Their aircraft have superior kinematics, meaning the missiles they launch have a better probability of hit, thus increasing their NEZ.

5) They can more easily replace their losses while you can't. Western support for Ukraine is dwindling and that's a fact.

6) Superior enemy firepower means that you have to commit more resources to protect the ones you already have. Essentially this means that you have to shoot down enemy missiles one way or the other even if you need to engage aircraft also.
 
From what I understand at Balakot Pakistani F-16MLU had the Su-30mki on the back foot. Given the difficulty the bulk of the Russian Air Force is having with a few Patriot batteries I don’t see why one would dismiss any additional air defense.
 
The latest Russian fighters have on occasion been caught by surprise and shot down in SAM traps so I would not rule out the possibility that F-16s could catch a few by surprise within effective AMRAAM range at least. Despite the advanced avionics in the most modern forms of their Flankers and Fulcrums it seems there are some weaknesses in the overall situational awareness picture their pilots are presented with.

Either way these F-16s are an improvement from old non-modernized Soviet aircraft the Ukrainians have been making do with. I'm not familiar with a lot of the specifics of these MLU updated F-16A/B models but considering they were the previous front-line aircraft of several NATO members I'd have to assume they have Link 16 and can get fed information from other assets.
 
snne said:
1) The Russians can pose a credible threat to even tactical fighters from a 150 miles away.
Click to expand...

Yes they can but do they have the sensors and are the pilots trained properly? The Russian airforces issues with their fast-jet pilots getting adequate training time.

snne said:
2) They have superior situational awareness, they can see you further away than you can see them
Click to expand...

Do they? Russia has only a handful of operational Beriev A-50 AEWACS aircraft with one being shutdown last month.

snne said:
3) They possess larger numbers and they also have superior firepower
Click to expand...

While Russia does have more fighter aircraft it can't deploy all of them to the Ukrainian theatre, remember the Russian Federation is very big (6,612,074 sq mi) and there are other areas that need to be patrolled - Russia's border with the Baltic states, Finland and Norway, the PRC border, North Korean border and Japan. Russia only has superior firepower in regards to its AA-12 Adder medium-range AAM (Easily countered by the AIM-120) and AA-13 Axehead long-range AAM of which has limited numbers and has been squandering on a daily basis (It's designed to intercept tankers and AWACS aircraft, targets not noted for their manoeuvrability, the AA-13 can probably be intercepted by an AIM-120). It should also be pointed out that an intact example of an AA-13 was found by the Ukrainians (Its' rocket-motor failed to ignite on launch) and it will have been analysed by now by western experts so they will know the strengths and weaknesses of its' seeker design including what ECCM features it has making it easy to jam/spoof.

snne said:
4) Their aircraft have superior kinematics, meaning the missiles they launch have a better probability of hit, thus increasing their NEZ.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how well their pilots have been trained. Very long-range shots are tricky and can be outmanoeuvred by an alert fighter pilot since the rocket-motor has burnout by this stage.

snne said:
5) They can more easily replace their losses while you can't.
Click to expand...

No they can't. Russia only produces about 20 fighter aircraft a year including five Su-34s, In the last two weeks IIRC Ukraine has shot down seven fighter, fighter-bomber aircraft. Even if Russia can build the engines and airframes it still has issues with building the avionics due to western sanctions making it difficult to get western built high-end electronic components.

snne said:
Western support for Ukraine is dwindling and that's a fact.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, currently its being interfered with by certain Republican House members for petty partisan politics and the EU has recently approved a large aid-package (It's in the EU's interest to see Russia defeated and expelled from Ukraine).

snne said:
6) Superior enemy firepower means that you have to commit more resources to protect the ones you already have.
Click to expand...

The Russians don't have superior firepower in the air as they have yet to obtain air-superiority over Ukraine also a number of Russian aircraft have been shot-down by their own side (The Russians appear to be very good at "Own Goal" shootdowns).
 
Arjen said:
The ex-Dutch F-16s can carry AMRAAM, IRIS-T, AIM-9X. LANTIRN, TFR, ECM-pods, Litening, FLIR. AN/APG-66v2 radar. They should be quite a handful to take on. The ex-Danish F-16s can at least handle AMRAAM and AIM-9X - https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-21-growler-tabm-sam.2985/page-10#post-635818
Click to expand...

From what I understand, all EPAF F-16 to be delivered are upgraded to MLU M6.5 tape standard. So they all have the same basic capabilites. The question is which weapons and sensors Ukraine will receive.
 
snne said:
Are they expected to get into dogfights with the Russians? Here are the facts:

1) The Russians can pose a credible threat to even tactical fighters from a 150 miles away.

2) They have superior situational awareness, they can see you further away than you can see them

3) They possess larger numbers and they also have superior firepower

4) Their aircraft have superior kinematics, meaning the missiles they launch have a better probability of hit, thus increasing their NEZ.

5) They can more easily replace their losses while you can't. Western support for Ukraine is dwindling and that's a fact.

6) Superior enemy firepower means that you have to commit more resources to protect the ones you already have. Essentially this means that you have to shoot down enemy missiles one way or the other even if you need to engage aircraft also.
Click to expand...
All of that is true but F-16 can carry MALD decoys (which is practically a cruise missile that can augmented its RCS to look like any particular fighter, from F-5 to B-52, some version carry jammer and 2 way datalink). Each F-16 can carry 4-8 MALD decoys depend on whether you want to carry fuel tank or not. These decoys can fly for 920 km at Mach 0.8.
Russian fighter have nothing equivalent.
1.jpg
2.PNG

So in practical
1) The Russians can pose a credible threat to even tactical fighters from a 150 miles away.
=> Russian fighter need to get within around 20-30 km to identify threat with their IRST otherwise they will just waste their R-77, R-37 on MALD. Or worse, on their own aircraft if these MALD replicate RCS characteristic of Su-35, Su-30, then the air situation will be very chaotic

2) They have superior situational awareness, they can see you further away than you can see them
=> More correctly is that Russian can get firing solution from greater range because their fighters have longer range radar and they have AWACS support. But F-16 also have RWR so they will be alerted when they are tracked. Normally, that is still advantage for the side with superior radar because radar can measure range/speed instantly. But in this case, we know for a fact that Ukraine now got MALD from USA, since Russian will need IRST to distinguish between the decoy and the F-16, the distance which both side can attack the other will be much closer. It could be even an advantage for F-16 side because it is a smaller aircraft

3) They possess larger numbers and they also have superior firepower
=> agree. But Ukraine has homefield advantage because they are defending their own land. So for example, it would be more likely that the location of Russian SAM batteries are reported by civilians than vice versa.

4) Their aircraft have superior kinematics, meaning the missiles they launch have a better probability of hit, thus increasing their NEZ.
=> it is true, in a vaccum when you put an F-16MLU against a Su-35S . But since neither side achieve total SEAD/DEAD, the flight altitude/speed of these aircraft will be limited.

5) They can more easily replace their losses while you can't.
=> it depend, something like A-50 and land ship are hard to replace


6) Superior enemy firepower means that you have to commit more resources to protect the ones you already have. Essentially this means that you have to shoot down enemy missiles one way or the other even if you need to engage aircraft also.
=> Or you can make more decoys to create more target for enemy to hit. That what happened in Vietnam war, Serbia war, and now Ukraine
 
Last edited:
I suspect that the F-16's electronics remain superior to Russian equivalents and that this superiority will increase over time.

The Su-27/30/34/35 series reportedly derive much of their superiority to the MiG-29 from the use of imported, semiconductor-based integrated circuit devices. Russia can no longer purchase these devices and cannot design or manufacture its own. Russia never developed a viable semiconductor industry and cannot do so now. Only a few vendors world-wide sell the equipment needed to make these devices, and sales to Russia stopped almost immediately after the invasion, even before formal sanctions took effect.

At this point, new-build Russian aircraft are probably consuming the last stocks of mported microdevices--hence the small numbers of new aircraft completed and the delays in fielding replacement types like the Su-57. When devices fail in serving aircraft, replacements are unlikely to be available. If the affected aircraft remain flyable at all, they will lose much or all of their ability to process targeting data.

Note also Russia's heavy use of older/obsolete missiles and iron bombs. The more advanced weapons are likely be in short supply and hard to replace, particularly if aircraft have priority for the limited remaining stocks of Western microdevices.

Given the above, I suspect that F-16s and AIM-120s will be more than enough to drive Russian aircraft out of Ukrainian airspace.
 
iverson said:
Russia can no longer purchase these devices and cannot design or manufacture its own. Russia never developed a viable semiconductor industry and cannot do so now.

At this point, new-build Russian aircraft are probably consuming the last stocks of mported microdevices--hence the small numbers of new aircraft completed and the delays in fielding replacement types like the Su-57. When devices fail in serving aircraft, replacements are unlikely to be available. If the affected aircraft remain flyable at all, they will lose much or all of their ability to process targeting data.

Note also Russia's heavy use of older/obsolete missiles and iron bombs. The more advanced weapons are likely be in short supply and hard to replace, particularly if aircraft have priority for the limited remaining stocks of Western microdevices.

Given the above, I suspect that F-16s and AIM-120s will be more than enough to drive Russian aircraft out of Ukrainian airspace.
Click to expand...
Excuse for my forthrightness, but this is nonsense.

Angstrem and Mikron in Zelonograd both design and manufacture semiconductors and chips.
There is also CLOUDbear, and Syntacore that manufacture chips.
This is apart from various government research institutions that design and research chips and IC's.

And this is ignoring the availability of chips and IC's available cheaply from their neighbour next door.

The types of chips and circuits typically used in military applications are nowhere near the level typically found in the latest commercial applications.
Like many others, even here in the West, COTS components are or were often used in military applications to lower costs or timeframes.
This does not correlate to an absolutist situation that there is no design or manufacture of local chips, even if production ramp-up bottlenecks are to be considered.

Many of your assertions, such as an inability to design and manufacture these components for military usage, are demonstrably false.

Part of the current problem in this politically charged environment is sifting through the heavily propagandised nonsense, from all sides btw, flooding the internet.
An example was the ridiculous nonsense about washing machines a while back, which serves to illustrate this.
I can understand that washing machine nonsense aimed at the easily influenced unwashed masses, but not when it was repeated by members (not by you) on a high calibre forum such as this.
 
Last edited:
BlackBat242 said:
Block 70 is a single seat "F-16V".
Block 72 is a two seat "F-16V".
Click to expand...
BlackBat242 said:
OK, that does better fit the existing naming conventions.

That article also refers to the aircraft as an "F-16D Block 70, a new-build equivalent to the upgraded F-16V", whereas what I had been seeing labeled all block 70/72s as F-16Vs.

As the Block 60s for UAE had been designated F-16E/F, it did not seem correct for the Block 70s to revert to the earlier type designation... especially with other Block 70s carrying the -V designation, but apparently they did.

What I saw (https://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article5089.html) said

which contradicts your reference.

So does anyone have something official from LM, the US government, or the Bahrain government (not the media) as to how these are designated?
Click to expand...
No, and you're just overly complicating things. The reason F-16 block 70/72 standard aircraft are still C/D is because the upgrade program itself was designed in such way that it fits existing F-16 C/D aircraft around the world, often using pre-existing avionics from CCIP standard aircrafts. E/F are structurally very different, especially the nose section.

Also, different block 70/72 specifications of different AFs around the world vary quite significantly in individual avionics configuration depending on their choice of avionics just like in previous blocks but still are designated "block 70/72".

Robert said:
"F-16V" seems to be a Lockheed Martin thing, for example this article from 2016: Meet the F-16V: The Most Technologically Advanced 4th Generation Fighter in the World

If we look at Bahrain, for example, in 2017 we see that they are obtaining the F-16V via FMS: Bahrain to buy 19 new F-16Vs and upgrade 20 current Block 40s

FMS aircraft are usually assigned a US military serial number. These aircraft for Bahrain were assigned FY18 serial numbers as follows:



(from Joe Baugher's serial number lists)

I'm not sure where to look up serial numbers otherwise, but if that is accurate, then the official US military designation is still F-16C and F-16D for these aircraft.
Click to expand...
The V designation is indeed a LM marketing thing as you've mentioned, but it has also been used in official documents, eg: DSCA notifications. It's the matter of convenience. Also, different AF designate their aircraft differently, eg: upgraded ROKAF KF-16s are designated KF-16U, not V
 
^ From what I understand, the E/F (Block 60) also require approval from the UAE to be sold to other places and maybe additional costs as well?

The first flight of the Block 60 was also over 20 years ago (time flies, felt like yesterday).
I am wondering how much the block 70/72 improves over them, if at all, at least in terms of avionics.
 
helmutkohl said:
^ From what I understand, the E/F (Block 60) also require approval from the UAE to be sold to other places and maybe additional costs as well?

The first flight of the Block 60 was also over 20 years ago (time flies, felt like yesterday).
I am wondering how much the block 70/72 improves over them, if at all, at least in terms of avionics.
Click to expand...
Actually while the software on the block 70 is almost certainly better I think the Block 60 radar has much greater range because it’s liquid cooled vs air cooled. It also has that monster engine and if I remember right a custom EW system and flight control.
 
I thought the UAE gets royalties on sales on the Block 60 but they have to approve sales as well? Seems a shame because it does have some nice features on it. Does it apply to specific components like the F110-GE-132 engine?
It seems odd to me that none of the customers for the current crop of improved F-15s and F-16s are getting them with either the F110-GE-132 or the F100-PW-232.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
The reason F-16 block 70/72 standard aircraft are still C/D is because the upgrade program itself was designed in such way that it fits existing F-16 C/D aircraft around the world, often using pre-existing avionics from CCIP standard aircrafts. E/F are structurally very different, especially the nose section.
Click to expand...

So many changes have occurred that they should be referred to as the G/H (Since E/F is already taken) not C/D.

Maro.Kyo said:
eg: upgraded ROKAF KF-16s are designated KF-16U, not V
Click to expand...

The K prefix shouldn't be used as it falsely implies that those F-16s have been modified into aerial-tankers.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I thought the UAE gets royalties on sales on the Block 60 but they have to approve sales as well? Seems a shame because it does have some nice features on it. Does it apply to specific components like the F110-GE-132 engine?
It seems odd to me that none of the customers for the current crop of improved F-15s and F-16s are getting them with either the F110-GE-132 or the F100-PW-232.
Click to expand...
As I understand the UAE didn’t pay for the development so much as the intergration of a lot of those systems. They recently offered the F110-GE-132 to India about a year or two ago.
 
NMaude said:
So many changes have occurred that they should be referred to as the G/H (Since E/F is already taken) not C/D.
Click to expand...

Actually it should have been:
Block 25/30/32: C/D
Block 40/42: E/F
Block 50/52: G/H
Block 60: J/K
Block 70/72: L/M
;)

NMaude said:
The K prefix shouldn't be used as it falsely implies that those F-16s have been modified into aerial-tankers.
Click to expand...

KF-16 like F-16V is not an USAF designation. Customers can call their aircraft whatever they want.
 
when the F-2 was the SX-3 Upgrade it was F-16 Kai, infuriatingly I can’t find any evidence it was the logical F-16J at any point, though that was seemingly used for an early F-16A proposal. The delta wing F-16 proposed to the UAE was sometimes called F-16U.
 
NMaude said:
So many changes have occurred that they should be referred to as the G/H (Since E/F is already taken) not C/D.
Click to expand...
When block 1/5/10/15/20 are all "same" A/B and 25/30 32/40 42/50 52 are C/D, there is zero reason to call 70 72 with a new designation, especially due to reasons I've mentioned.

NMaude said:
The K prefix shouldn't be used as it falsely implies that those F-16s have been modified into aerial-tankers.
Click to expand...
NMaude said:
Well then call it the F-16K.
Click to expand...
That ain't what you decide but ROKAF.

Also it's not like anyone would actually believe that the K prefix implies that these aircrafts are tankers. Do you think KF-21 is a aerial tanker-fighter? That KAF-18 is a total abomination of an aerial-tanker, attacker, fighter? Probably not.

Also, it only adds to my point that different users could name their gear whatever they want. Hence, don't read too much into the designation.

Colonial-Marine said:
That would have probably made more sense. It's what was done for the Japanese F-15J which was built under license by Mitsubishi.
Click to expand...
There are examples like CF-188 so I don't really see a problem here.
 
F-2 said:
infuriatingly I can’t find any evidence it was the logical F-16J at any point, though that was seemingly used for an early F-16A proposal.
Click to expand...
That's indeed correct iirc, although I also cannot remember the exact source nor could specifically confirm it was the A/B version. AFAIK there were also proposals for a license produced and "japonized" C/D in the later years also called the F-16J.

F-2 said:
The delta wing F-16 proposed to the UAE was sometimes called F-16U.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, there was also a model named block 61 that UAE considered in early 2010s as a follow-up order, a designation that is also not in-line with past conventions (the #0/#2 convention and renaming the suffix for major upgrade for pre-existinf blocks), just like "U". Though "U" makes tone of sense otherwise.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
That's indeed correct iirc, although I also cannot remember the exact source nor could specifically confirm it was the A/B version. AFAIK there were also proposals for a license produced and "japonized" C/D in the later years also called the F-16J.


Speaking of which, there was also a model named block 61 that UAE considered in early 2010s as a follow-up order, a designation that is also not in-line with past conventions (the #0/#2 convention and renaming the suffix for major upgrade for pre-existinf blocks), just like "U". Though "U" makes tone of sense otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think, key word think, the block 61 would have had some of the improvements of the block 70 back fitted onto the 60. Not sure if it will ever happen.
 
I would guess that represented the final iteration of the concept that started with the F-16XL and was revised into the F-16AT Falcon 21 which also I've also seen referred to as the F-16X Falcon 2000.

Had the UAE offered enough money to get this built would the changes necessary to the production line have meant an end of production of "standard" F-16 variants? Presumably there will be a day Lockheed Martin runs out of orders to build so I wonder if they'll make a final effort to interest any takers with an updated variation of this.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Had the UAE offered enough money to get this built would the changes necessary to the production line have meant an end of production of "standard" F-16 variants?
Click to expand...

I doubt that there'd have been a halt to production of the "Standard" F-16, IIRC aside from new wings the F-16XL just involved a fuselage-plug to extend the length of its' fuselage. So I think you'd see a seperate production line for the F-16U's wings and fuselage plug with final assembly being carried out on the normal production line.

Edited to add: I checked on the F-16XL wikipedia article and it was two fuselage plugs.

Also here's an interesting PDF article about the F-16XL - Elegance in Flight.
 
Last edited:
F-2 said:
I think, key word think, the block 61 would have had some of the improvements of the block 70 back fitted onto the 60. Not sure if it will ever happen.
Click to expand...
Yes, time-wise, that makes sense. Iirc the Taiwanese upgraxe programme, which became block 70/72 standard later, also started in the early 2010s, before the block 61 proposal. I could definitely see newer mission computers like MMC 7000A or B (AH is too new) being fitted for block 61, as well as the new IFF.
 
Aviation Week has given an award to the USAF Test Pilot School for its' X-62 VISTA team:


U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School and the X-62 VISTA Team score a major win. Here is the story of this unique and futuristic airplane.
Click to expand...
 
stealthflanker said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1751611023214473318

Some prediction i made on potential of RCS reduction from Have Glass. The big issue was no real description of the material used. Except that (but vague) It's a magnetic absorber and 0.3mm thick. In my estimate, the material covers almost whole surface of the F-16's and the inlet lip. The substitute material is Barium Hexaferrite which also a magnetic absorber.

View attachment 718546

There are 2 modeled cases (armed and unarmed) Along with 3 conditions, untreated, treated but with old radome, treated and with new bandpass radome.

View attachment 718547

The result can be seen above. the treatment along with bandpass radome allow the lowest RCS reduction to be attained, however addition of external weapons kinda diluted the "stealth" advantage of the airframe. This might work against older fighter types like Su-27SK's or MiG-29 Izd 9.13 with old N001 and N019 also to some extent More modern MiG-29SMT with N010 ZhukM/ME. It will however struggle against more modern types with much more powerful radar.
Click to expand...
I've read on this forum that Have Glass is up to 12mm thick...


NMaude said:
The K prefix shouldn't be used as it falsely implies that those F-16s have been modified into aerial-tankers.
Click to expand...
K for Korea. Same as K1 tanks, KF21 fighter, etc.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom