Delta wing F-16s: SCAMP, F-16XL, Falcon 21 and more

[sferrin]

In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.

It looks like an F-15 forward fuselage to me.

There are three drawings. Middle is based on F-18. Bottom is based on F-16 (that looks like a friggin' spaceship).

 

[TomS]

In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.

It looks like an F-15 forward fuselage to me.

There are three drawings. Middle is based on F-18. Bottom is based on F-16 (that looks like a friggin' spaceship).

Expand the first one all the way. The first note across the top reads "F-18 FWD FUS WITH 15 IN LONGER RADOME" just above the line "F-15 INLET" The lettering is clear -- this is a bit of a Frankenstein design.

Comparing with F-15 line drawings confirms it, IMO. For starters, the canopy isn't an F-15 canopy, which would have two frames and extend much further behind the pilot's headrest. It's clearly an F-18A/C canopy. The forward fuselage is also narrower than an F-15. The reprofiled/extended radome throws it off a bit, but definitely F-18 bones here.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi Sundog -

These were standalone prints in a collection donated to the Museum. Tell me more about your book!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Retrofit]

Strange mini-missiles (SM) on the wing-tips of the F-16 look-alike!
Any clue on their complete identity?
Thanks in advance

 

[sferrin]

In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.

It looks like an F-15 forward fuselage to me.

There are three drawings. Middle is based on F-18. Bottom is based on F-16 (that looks like a friggin' spaceship).

Expand the first one all the way. The first note across the top reads "F-18 FWD FUS WITH 15 IN LONGER RADOME" just above the line "F-15 INLET" The lettering is clear -- this is a bit of a Frankenstein design.

Comparing with F-15 line drawings confirms it, IMO. For starters, the canopy isn't an F-15 canopy, which would have two frames and extend much further behind the pilot's headrest. It's clearly an F-18A/C canopy. The forward fuselage is also narrower than an F-15. The reprofiled/extended radome throws it off a bit, but definitely F-18 bones here.

Agreed. Was focused on the intakes. Also, the drawing indicates it based on the F-15 ???

 

[Arjen]

Expand the first one all the way. The first note across the top reads "F-18 FWD FUS WITH 15 IN LONGER RADOME" just above the line "F-15 INLET" The lettering is clear -- this is a bit of a Frankenstein design.

That will teach me to take a proper look at drawings. Thanks!

 

[TomS]

Agreed. Was focused on the intakes. Also, the drawing indicates it based on the F-15 ???

Well, to be fair, it is mostly based on the F-15 -- the inlets, most of the center fuselage and engine nacelles (with a section spliced in between the forward fuselage and the original center fuselage), the vertical tails, the propulsion system, main landing gear and a good deal of the mechanical systems.

It's pure speculation, but I'd guess they needed a slightly finer forward fuselage to make the aerodynamics work, so they grafted on the closest available alternative. If they had been serious about building a demonstrator from existing parts, the F-18 would have been a better candidate, since it looks like it needed less surgery.

 

[tigercat2]

In doing some research on the F-16XL, it seems that it improved on the original F-16 in many ways. I know that it lost the competition for a strike fighter to the F-15E, but wonder why the USAF/Lockheed/other countries did not pursue this design. With the thousands of F-16s in use worldwide, it seems that it would be possible to modify a standard F-16 to the XL design, or build them from new. The XL had sigificantly more range that a standard F-16, and could carry a great many more bombs, perhaps twice as many as a standard F-16. I suppose cost would have been an issue, but you would getting almost 2 for 1.


Wes W.

 

[Foo Fighter]

For myself, I wonder about the potential agility of the XL but many that may have been interested would become F-35 client nations and these have much more profit potential.

 

[Sundog]

For myself, I wonder about the potential agility of the XL but many that may have been interested would become F-35 client nations and these have much more profit potential.

That was addressed further up thread. See here.

 

[tigercat2]

Thanks so much for re-directing my post to this most informative one concerning the F-16XL/SCAMP.


Wes W.

 

[Foo Fighter]

For myself, I wonder about the potential agility of the XL but many that may have been interested would become F-35 client nations and these have much more profit potential.

That was addressed further up thread. See here.

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[Jeb]

I found an F-16XL. It's the single-seater 849 with the black wing and white forebody.

34°54'45.0"N 117°55'15.0"W · 405s Rosamond Blvd, Edwards, CA 93523

405s Rosamond Blvd, Edwards, CA 93523

goo.gl

 

[quellish]

I found an F-16XL. It's the single-seater 849 with the black wing and white forebody.

34°54'45.0"N 117°55'15.0"W · 405s Rosamond Blvd, Edwards, CA 93523

405s Rosamond Blvd, Edwards, CA 93523

goo.gl

Yes, it's on display at the Edwards AFB Flight Test Museum.

 

[bobbymike]

F-16XL: Why America didn’t get the best F-16 - Sandboxx

For more than forty years, the F-16 Fighting Falcon has served as the backbone of the U.S. Air Force's fighter fleet, but one year before the first F-16 entered service, the team behind its development had already developed a better F-16, in the F-16XL. The fighter was so capable, in fact, that...

www.sandboxx.us

 

[Dynoman]

The other F-16XL (parked alongside X-34's) at Edwards:

34°57'31.5"N 117°53'00.7"W · Edwards AFB, CA 93523

Edwards AFB, CA 93523

goo.gl

 

[Bhurki]

Any info or photos of the F-16U?

 

[TomS]

Any info or photos of the F-16U?

Check back through this thread; there are several posts and a couple of images on page 1.

 

[bobbymike]

F-16XL: Why America didn’t get the best F-16 - Sandboxx

For more than forty years, the F-16 Fighting Falcon has served as the backbone of the U.S. Air Force's fighter fleet, but one year before the first F-16 entered service, the team behind its development had already developed a better F-16, in the F-16XL. The fighter was so capable, in fact, that...

www.sandboxx.us

 

[Springtime]

Any thoughts on if Lockheed Martin would offer a F-16V blk 70/72 updated version of the F-16XL

 

[GTX]

Any thoughts on if Lockheed Martin would offer a F-16V blk 70/72 updated version of the F-16XL

Why would they?

 

[bartenational]

Bought these at a flea market, anyone out there interested in buying them?

 

[allysonca]

Here is an actual in-house resin two seat F-16XL that I was fortunate to acquire.. Was a bit rough but a light sanding and some judicious paint matching and Ta Daa........ Rare as can be and a welcome addition to the XL collection. Oh shoot.... gotta add the probe.... LOL

 

[bartenational]

I like your bases, they look pretty substantial

 

[allysonca]

Actually this is an injected Precise models base made for their XL's and F-16's. The upright is plastic and can be a bit floppy. In house models were typically wood or resin in this shape with an aluminum support.... having some made as I am doing up 2 sets of 4 Vought V-1600 Navy F-16's like these and also need some additional ones for several of my GD models in the works as well.

 

[Conspirator]

with this "Delta Wing" design you could have a better wing load capacity and wing area for better climbing capabilities and weapon carrying capacity correct?

 

[aonestudio]

F-16XL: Why America Didn’t Get the Best F-16

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a great aircraft. The Air Force almost had an even better version.

www.military.com

 

[jsport]

Like the YF-23 that lost to Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor, the F-16XL has since been remembered as an aircraft that might have been better than the jet we ultimately got … with concerns about dollars and cents making the decision, rather than maximum capability.

The F-16XL, with its significant fuel range, good performance and hardpoints for 27 weapons,....

Even with the heavy bomb load aboard, the aircraft went supersonic without a tremble. Handling characteristics at mach 1.2 with the heavy ordnance load were remarkably similar to those of the standard F-16 without bombs.”

The F-15E, on the other hand, offered only 15 hardpoints -- which it’s important to note, is still a lot. The F-15E also delivered a higher top speed (Mach 2.5 versus 2.05) and a higher service ceiling at 60,000 feet (compared to the F-16XL’s 50,000).

again a 5thG- should include previous F-16 enhancements.
Two dual role fighters (5thG- & F-15X) is a good option while NGAD need not be hurried until a leap frog capability can be delivered.

 

[F-2]

I was told even after losing out to the F-15e the F-16xl still had a shot to be the block 50 but ATF funding killed that.

View topic - Air Show Sustained Turn Rates. F-35a,b,c. • F-16.net

Military aviation forum since 2003, with high quality discussion focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters and the C-130.

www.f-16.net

From John Will at F-16.net. John worked on the XL, AFTI, F-2, and F-16. He’s an all around great guy and forgot more about vipers then most people will ever know.

I'm not a flyer, just a simple structures engineer who supported flight test. As I recall, it flew about as you would expect any delta, good initial pitch response, but draggy at higher AoA. Very fast with or without weapons, but didn't accelerate as well as F-16 due to added weight of structure and much more fuel. It wasn't a refined product, only a demonstrator that could have been developed into a great airplane for its time.

 

[F-2]

From red eagles America’s secret migs

I wonder if this is why the xl was given the YF-22 wing to become the Falcon at? The NASA paper highlights sustained turned ability compared to the regular viper, combined with the XLs more desirable traits.

 

[KHambsch]

F-16XL early designs

Hello PaulMM, do you have anything more on the F-16 scamp...other than the image?
Thnx, Kevin

F-16XL early designs

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Have you read the NASA book: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf

 

[KHambsch]

Have you read the NASA book: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf

Awesome! Thank you very much! Kevin

 

[Cjc]

Does anyone know the difference in proformance between the delta wing on the f-16xl and the biconvex wing of the f-16U? Like differences in fule load, range and carry capacity.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

General Dynamics Evaluates Concepts for F-16 Successor
DAVID A. BROWN/FT. WORTH



Two fighter design programs are under way at General Dynamics for the Air Force’s Advanced Multirole Fighter competition that is to replace the current F-16 series sometime after the year 2000. The first program—designated the Falcon 21—is based on a design derived from the existing F-16. It would have supersonic cruise and supersonic maneuvering capability better than the current F-16 and subsonic maneuvering capability better than the F-16 Agile Falcon. It also has been viewed as a potential challenger to the Air Force’s advanced tactical fighter
(AW&ST Apr. 9, p. 16).

The Agile Falcon no longer is considered by General Dynamics as an aircraft that could meet USAF requirements.
The second program involves a completely new design that probably will incorporate integrated vectoring nozzles, active aeroelastic wing section tailoring using advanced actuation systems and an all-composite wing structure. It also is likely to include additional control surfaces other than those now commonly used on high-performance aircraft and a variety of other control and survivability features on the forward edge of aircraft engineering technology.

Both approaches track closely with the Air Force’s perceived options of either a completely new aircraft to replace the F-16 force or a major development of the basic F-16 design. The Air Force and the Defense Dept. disagree on the timing for making a choice and beginning work on development of an F-16 replacement, however.

A third possibility for the Air Force’s future low—end fighter in a high-low mix is continuing development of the current F-16 design. F-16C/D Block 50 aircraft are scheduled to enter production in mid-to- late 1995 (AW&ST Apr. 16, p.29). A production run of 715 originally was planned, but it has not been determined how many, if any, of these actually will be built in light of Defense budget cutbacks.

POSSIBLE ATF REPLACEMENT

A more-advanced version, the Block 60 aircraft, also has been defined and could provide a follow-on to the Block 50 aircraft (AW&ST Apr. 16, p. 30). Most of the changes in the Block 60 aircraft would involve new or advanced avionics capabilities, including such things as headsteered forward-looking infrared (Flir), helmet-mounted displays, a variety of digital avionics systems and improved nuclear hardening.

The Falcon 21 design is being developed through a steady iteration of studies within General Dynamics embracing a wide range of technological areas. The Falcon 21 design also could be a candidate to replace the Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) if funding constraints or a perceived decreasing threat changes the tactical requirements upon which the ATF design is based.

However, the Defense Dept. did not include the Falcon 21 as a potential alternative to the ATF in its recent Major Aircraft Review (MAR). The only F—16 versions considered in that study were the F-16XL and the Agile Falcon. The Agile Falcon concept has since been abandoned by General Dynamics as a potential USAF aircraft. Other nations are interested, however.

INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL CARRIAGE

The current Falcon 21 configuration— Falcon 21-104—was developed from the basic F-16XL concept, with a new wing planforrn that gives a better compromise between subsonic and supersonic maneuvering capability. The new wing, with 630 sq. ft. of area, is a trapezoidal delta or so—called “clipped delta” design, with a biconvex airfoil shape that ranges from 0.4 to 8.5 deg. twist. It has a span of 34 ft. 8.3 in. and an aspect ratio of 1.91 with a leading edge sweep of 50 deg. The fuselage, which is 48.45 ft. long, could carry four semisubmerged AIM-120 AMRAAMs, with two advanced versions
of the AIM-9L Sidewinder or two ASRAAM missiles carried on under-wing pylons (AW&ST June 4, p. 24). Gross weight of the aircraft is projected at 35,320 lb., and the internal fuel capacity is 10,832 lb., giving it a fuel fraction of 0.31, greater than the existing F-16s, which have a fuel fraction of 0.29. General Dynamics officials said there are still questions as to whether an advanced derivative of the F-16 can meet Air Force ATF requirements. These requirements have not been finalized, but some may be beyond the capabilities of the Falcon 21.

“We believe we could meet the supercruise and stealth requirements with an F-16 derivative,” Mike Nipper, General Dynamics manager of USAF programs, said. “Whether we could meet STOVL requirements or advanced wing configuration requirements is uncertain.” A senior Pentagon official noted that the current Falcon 21 design is optimized for ordnance weight, supersonic cruise, long range and, to a degree, low observability. “This type of design lets you carry a lot of ordnance,” he said, “but it’s a little big in terms of weight. The F-16 fuel fraction is more than adequate—this is a big fuel fraction.”

The Falcon 21 could prove to be real competition for the ATF, he said, since the ATF would store all its weapons internally, limiting its payload. The semisubmerged weapons carriage configuration of the Falcon 21 would give it more flexibility in weapons carriage, while providing
a degree of low-observability. “The real issue is do you need internal carriage [of weapons in order to get] signature levels that low,” he added. “Those are answers that need to be revisited in light of the changing threat.”

The Falcon 21 study initially began with configuration work on providing conformal and low-drag weapons carriage— both of air-to-air and air-to-ground
weapons—and incorporation of the new wing design into the aircraft without compromising the weapons capability. General Dynamics officials estimated that an advanced F-16 derivative airframe embodying the avionics packages developed for the ATF could do possibly 85-90% of the ATF’s mission. Basically, the ATF was designed to provide NATO with air superiority for up to 200 mi. behind any front line in Europe. Not only was it designed to attack and destroy such high-value targets as Soviet airborne warning and control aircraft, but also to reach and hit large formations of Soviet tactical aircraft before they could form up into a so-called “gorilla package” and stage a mass attack on NATO forces.

New questions now have affected this concept. One is the possible loss of Soviet air bases within 200 mi. of the current East-West border due to political changes in Eastern Europe. The addition of a large buffer space would reduce the requirement for the type of high-speed intervention and attack capability that has been engineered into the ATF. Another question is whether the Soviets will continue to have the capability to mount the type of attack the ATF was designed to counter. If either of these conditions have changed, the requirements for an ATF type aircraft also could change.

Source: AW&ST June 11 1990

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Emphasis on Stealth Clashes With Aircraft Update Plans

Shrinking defense budgets have forced military officials around the world to delay or cancel procurement of new aircraft, missiles and other armament, and look for alternatives. Extending the life of existing weapons systems through upgrade programs is often the only viable option available to those charged with meeting armed threats to their nations. This AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY speciaI report spotlights several existing and planned international upgrade programs. The report was prepared by a team comprising Senior Engineering Editor William B. Scott, Senior Mlitary Editor John D. Morrocco, Bonn Bureau Chief Michael Mecham and Engineering Editor Michael A. Domheim.

Proposals to upgrade existing airframes rather than building new ones to meet U. S. requirements for front-line combat aircraft have become more relevant than ever, given the shrinking Defense Dept. budget. But unyielding modernization requirements to match perceived threats, particularly the emphasis on stealth technology, have undermined these attempts.

Long-term acquisition plans call for a smaller yet more capable force as the U. S. Air Force moves into the 2lst century. But even with planned force structure reductions from 35 to 26 wings during the next five years, it is questionable whether the Air Force can afford to sustain its modernization plans into the next century without substantial funding increases.

A recent Congressional Budget Office study said this is especially true if the service decides to develop the advanced tactical fighter (ATF) and a new multirole fighter to replace the F-16 (AW&ST Apr. 29, p. 68). Some Pentagon officials question whether the service can afford both programs, which have overlapping schedules to a large degree. While budget cutbacks have made upgrades more attractive, there has been no reduction in the requirements set for new military aircraft. Despite the diminished Soviet threat, the U. S. Air Force is continuing full bore with fighter modernization, assuming the Soviet Union can and will continue its ambitious new fighter programs and modernize its air defenses. As a result, upgrades often fare poorly when matched against new aircraft designs. This is all the more true given the emphasis placed by the military on stealth technology. It has become the cornerstone of all next-generation U. S. military aircraft programs. The Persian Gulf war, which illustrated the value of low-observable aircraft such as the Lockheed F-ll7, has reinforced this view. Modernization, in effect, has become synonymous with stealth.

Although aircraft upgrade programs can offer substantially improved performance, they cannot offer the same stealth capabilities as the military requires. It is virtually impossible to develop a derivative of an existing aircraft that incorporates the same degree of stealth as a new design. The paradox was illustrated vividly during recent evaluations of upgraded aircraft as alternatives to the ATF. Upgrades first were considered during the major aircraft review ordered by Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney last spring.

Upgrading gained support among cost-conscious lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Concerned about the high cost of the ATF, Congress required the Air Force to examine upgraded versions of the F-15 and the F-16 to fill the ATF role. McDonnell Douglas offered the F- 15XX, which involved a larger wing and substantial airfoil improvements (AW&ST Feb. 19, 1990, p. 16). General Dynamics has been working on a variety of F—16 upgrades, including a family of derivatives generically labeled the Falcon 21 (AW&ST June 11, p. 21). The Falcon 21+ + configuration, designed for air superiority, was considered the most likely ATF altemative from among F-16 upgrade designs.

Both offered improved low-observable characteristics. The contractors tried to build the stealthiest F-16 and F-15 they could, because stealth was a high leverage item to meet the requirements, Maj. Gen. Joseph Ralston, director of tactical programs, said.

The studies, completed in early April, were conducted by independent technical teams at the service’s Aeronautical Systems Div. at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Ralston said the evaluations were run by officials within the F-16 and F-15 system program offices rather than the ATF program. Key individuals on each contractor design team were given access to relevant classified technologies, he said. Data on both aircraft, agreed upon by the contractors and Air Force, were then run through computer modeling analyses. The Air Force employed TAC Brawler, the premier air-to—air computer model which uses a threat scenario approved by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Both upgrades were fairly close to the ATF requirements in terms of aerodynamic performance. But in each case, Ralston said the primary shortcoming was the inability to modify an existing airframe to achieve sufficient signature reduction. “In both cases, neither one of them came up to the requirements,” Col. Mike Ridnouer, chief of the Air Force’s Fighter Acquisition Div., said.

McDonnell Douglas retained the basic F-15 airframe in its derivative design. The company relied on semisubmerged weapons and special radar-absorbent coatings on the missiles to improve stealth characteristics. While this provided the F-15XX a larger payload capability than the ATF, it offered far less in terms of survivability. “It did relatively poorly in all-aspect observability,” Ridnouer said. Air Force officials also noted that the McDonnell Douglas design relied on weapon treatments and coatings to reduce observability that were still on the drawing board, which meant additional development risks. The F-15XX could carry a slightly larger payload than the ATF. But the additional missiles did not necessarily increase its effectiveness, Ridnouer said.

The Falcon 21++ involved a more radical departure from the current F—16 design and offered better low-observable characteristics than the F-15XX, according to Air Force officials. The airframe itself was of a low-observable design. It provided for internal carriage of air-to-air missiles as well as missiles carried externally which were cocooned to help reduce their radar signature.

FALCON MORE STEALTHY

The Falcon 21 + + was found to be more stealthy than the F-15XX due to its internal missile carriage capability. While it carried the same number of missiles as the ATF, internal carriage provisions created space limitations in terms of radar and avionics equipment. But the main drawback was in terms of observability.

The Air Force also evaluated a single-engine ATF, called the SE-FX, which was designed by engineers at the Aeronautical Systems Div. While it offered some cost savings, the SE-FX suffered from the same space limitations as did the F-16/Falcon 21++, Ralston said. It also had far less range than the twin-engine ATF.

Ralston and Maj. Gen. Richard E. Hawley, director of operations, informed the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on conventional forces in late April that the F-15XX and F—16 Falcon 21++ were not that much cheaper than the ATF. “The study concluded neither alternative aircraft is a low-cost answer for modernizing the air-to-air force," the generals said. Air Force officials said development costs for the two aircraft were roughly 30% lower than for the ATF. The F-15XX would require a $7 8-billion research and development effort. The Falcon 21+ + was in the $6-7-billion range. As altematives to the ATF, they also would have to carry ATF engine and avionics development costs, which were incorporated into both aircraft designs. Full-scale development for the ATF airframe and engine is expected to cost $12 billion.

Production costs were about the same for both the twin-engine ATF and F-15XX, Ridnouer said. Falcon 21 + + production costs were lower simply because it is a single rather than twin-engine aircraft. Because the ATF program is already well under way, the upgrade programs would not offer much advantage in delivery schedules, he said. A contract is expected to be awarded next month to begin full-scale development of the Lockheed/Boeing/ General Dynamics F—22, which the Air Force selected over the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23. The first aircraft is scheduled to fly in 1995, with an in-service date of 2002.

Since the two derivatives are merely “paper aircraft." they also involve more risk than the ATF, which has completed an extensive prototyping phase. But the key objection raised by Air Force officials after evaluations of the derivatives was their inability to meet stated requirements for a next-generation air superiority fighter. Those requirements are based on the notion that there is now rough parity between U. S. and Soviet fighter aircraft. U. S. Air Force officials noted that since the F-15 was introduced, the Soviets have fielded three new air superiority fighters— the MiG-31, MiG-29 and Su-27. The Pentagon expects the Soviets will field two MiG-29 and Su-27 follow-ons, with low-observable technology, early in the next century. The growing sophistication of the Third World threat also has been raised to justify modernization plans.

FUTURE UNCERTAIN

Some critics question the validity of these assumptions. however. The gulf war indicated that sophisticated weaponry is not all that effective when manned by poorly led and poorly trained forces. The nature of the threat the U. S. will face in the future, particularly in terms of the Soviet Union, is fraught with uncertainty. “You have to believe in a super, heavy duty threat in the future," one Senate staffer said. “That is the starting point to their analysis.“ The key questions are how much is enough in terms of stealth and whether the U. S. can afford the associated costs. The breaking point may be reached on the multirole fighter (MRF) program.

The Air Force is considering a new aircraft to replace the F-16 as the service’s MRF. But budget pressures may force the service into buying a derivative. The Navy has moved in this direction with its decision to develop an upgraded version of the Mc-Donnell Douglas F/A—18 to bridge the gap until the AX comes on line. Ralston said affordability has to be the primary characteristic of any MRF. The service wants to keep the cost per aircraft at about $25 million.

The Air Force learned from the alternative ATF aircraft studies that some degree of stealth can be achieved in derivative aircraft, Ralston said, adding “there is some thought that if you have an ATF with a high degree of stealth that you may be able to live with a less stealthy multirole fighter.” Currently, the service plans to run a full and open MRF design competition. The service will look at design concepts for new aircraft as well as derivatives during a concept exploration and definition phase scheduled to begin in February, 1992. A decision is expected in early 1993 on which path to take (see chart). Northrop, General Dynamics and Mc-Donnell Douglas are among those companies known to be working on new designs.

Tentative plans call for production of an F-16 derivative to begin in Fiscal 1997 with an initial operating capability in the year 2000. Developing a new aircraft would require a four-year demonstration/validation phase beginning in Fiscal 1995 followed by full—scale development in Fiscal 1999. Production would not start until Fiscal 2003, with the first aircraft delivery in Fiscal 2005.

General Dynamics officials are discussing an F-16 derivative with Air Force counterparts informally. The company is working on several configurations to meet evolving MRF requirements. The designs are derived from the Falcon 21 family. Air Force officials also expected Mc-Donnell Douglas would propose an F/A- 18 derivative as well. An F—15 derivative is also a possibility although service officials said it would probably be too costly.

The Air Force has a requirement for 2.000 MRFs. But the winner of the contract also would be in line for substantial foreign sales as other nations replace their F- 16s. “It‘s a plum contract," a service official said. “There are a lot of F-16s out there that European and Foreign Military Sales countries fly.“

One of the potential drawbacks to a new aircraft design that incorporates a high degree of stealth technology, however, is its suitability for export. The U. S. has yet to sell stealthy weapons systems abroad.

Source: AW&ST July 23 1990

 

[F-2]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960022946/downloads/19960022946.pdf another NASA paper on the Falcon 21 configuration. This one Mach .2

 

[F-2]

Netradičné verzie stroja Lockheed Martin (General Dynamics) F-16

Various unconventional modifications of the F-16 fighter, such as AFTI, CCV, V/STOL, SCAMP and F-16XL, F-16X, UCAV, Falcon 21, Swept Forward Wing proposal, Agile Falcon, F-16/79, MATV/VISTA, DSI and LOAN testbed and Mitsubishi F-2 modification.

www.hitechweb.genezis.eu

Wind tunnel model for the Falcon 21

 

[F-2]

Lockheed Martin pushes delta 'Falcon 2000' for US Air Force​

27 June 1995

LOCKHEED MARTIN Tactical Aircraft Systems is positioning itself to offer a re-winged F-16 "Falcon 2000" to the US Air Force if the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) programme is delayed or cancelled.

"We are ready to start cutting metal on this aircraft," says programme manager John Bean, who adds that private-venture design of the delta-winged aircraft has been under way for about 18 months.
The company is also offering the aircraft, as the F-16U, alongside an upgraded "Block 60" version of the basic F-16, for the United Arab Emirates' 80-aircraft fighter requirement, competing against aircraft such as the F-15E, Dassault Rafale and Sukhoi Su-35. A decision is expected before the end of this year.

The Falcon 2000 has a 65m2 delta wing with 52¡ leading-edge sweep, and a 1.4m fuselage extension. The new wing planform offers 20 hardpoints, compared with the standard aircraft's 13 and together, with the fuselage stretch, offers an internal fuel-capacity of more than 7,200kg - more than double that of the F-16C/D. The Falcon 2000 "can equal or exceed" the 4,450km (2,400nm) range of the McDonnell Douglas F-15E, says Bean. "We have prototyped all the things that are on this aircraft," he adds.

Lockheed Martin sees a market for the aircraft emerging within three to four years, as an alternative to further USAF F-15E acquisitions. The company says that it could begin deliveries within three and a half years of a programme launch.
The US Congress, meanwhile, is beginning to show signs of support for further USAF F-16 acquisitions, with the House National Security Committee approving funds for the procurement of six aircraft in the defence budget for fiscal year 1996.

Air Combat Command chief Gen. Michael Loh says that the USAF needs 120 additional F-16s, and has outlined technology improvements required for the aircraft under its Fighter Configuration Plan.

Source: Flight International

So I guess it was Falcon 2000 as well?

Lockheed Martin pushes delta 'Falcon 2000' for US Air Force

LOCKHEED MARTIN Tactical Aircraft Systems is positioning itself to offer a re-winged F-16 "Falcon 2000" to the US Air Force if the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) programme is delayed or cancelled. "We are ready to start cutting metal on this aircraft," says programme manager John...

www.flightglobal.com

 

[fightingirish]

Here some new pictures of the F-16XL, posted by Fighterman_FFRC at twitter :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1619583184680939520

View: https://twitter.com/Fighterman_FFRC/status/1619583184680939520?t=mM9q3fPsb36hCjJxg_7xkA&s=19

https://twitter.com/x/status/1623831311981940736

View: https://twitter.com/Fighterman_FFRC/status/1623831311981940736?t=1gF3V2a05qcJt489sqcbqA&s=19