• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed Martin’s F-16V Fighting Falcon

V8Interceptor

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I've always wondered if; had the official name for the F-16 been simply "Falcon", it would have been accepted and referred to as such by the fighter pilot community.
After all, they had no problem with "Eagle"
Was the "Fighting" suffix added to the name of the aircraft as a way to avoid confusion with the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon series of air-to-air missiles? The -4F/-4G variants of that AAM were still in the ANG inventory during the F-16 procurement;they remained in service with the Guard until 1988 when the last F-106s were retired?
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
33
V8Interceptor said:
I've always wondered if; had the official name for the F-16 been simply "Falcon", it would have been accepted and referred to as such by the fighter pilot community.
After all, they had no problem with "Eagle"
Was the "Fighting" suffix added to the name of the aircraft as a way to avoid confusion with the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon series of air-to-air missiles? The -4F/-4G variants of that AAM were still in the ANG inventory during the F-16 procurement;they remained in service with the Guard until 1988 when the last F-106s were retired?
Sounds logical to me. -SP
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,270
Reaction score
1,295
TomS said:
Probably -- my memory is vague. At the time, all I'd seen was X-Wings and TIE fighters (and Vipers).
Was January of '79 and overcast with a bit of rain as I recall.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,270
Reaction score
1,295
V8Interceptor said:
I've always wondered if; had the official name for the F-16 been simply "Falcon", it would have been accepted and referred to as such by the fighter pilot community.
After all, they had no problem with "Eagle"
Was the "Fighting" suffix added to the name of the aircraft as a way to avoid confusion with the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon series of air-to-air missiles? The -4F/-4G variants of that AAM were still in the ANG inventory during the F-16 procurement;they remained in service with the Guard until 1988 when the last F-106s were retired?
I'd heard they couldn't use "Falcon" because Dassault was already using it for a business jet.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,240
Reaction score
418
FighterJock said:
Steve Pace said:
As I understand it the V suffice simply stands for the name Viper which USAF pilots prefer their '16s to be called. The official name Fighting Falcon never really turned '16 drivers on. -SP
So why did the USAF not call the F-16 the Viper instead of the Fighting Falcon? A highly strange situation if you ask me.
Highly strange? Maybe not. Notice they didn't they rename the A-10 as the Warthog although NO ONE calls it a Thunderbolt II.

There have always been official names and pilot-given names for operational combat types. That doesn't mean the latter should necessarily make it into the official documents. The only case I'm aware of when it actually happened was the F-111, whose later variants received the name Aardvark, a nickname which had been in use for a while with the pilots.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
33
Then there's the Bone for B-1 (B-one), Boner for B-1R (B-one Regional) bomber - on and on and on...
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
1,049
Officially, the F-111 was named Aardvark only at its retirement ceremony; before then there was no official name for the type. Oddly enough, the EF-111 was officially the Raven even while the base model was unnamed.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,826
Reaction score
294
marauder2048 said:
LowObservable said:
Wouldn't be too sure about that. The F-16 aftermarket is much bigger than any other, and the Korea experience showed how difficult it is to break in.
Willful misrepresentation (and that's a kind way of putting it) makes it difficult to break into just about any market.
More on that willful misrepresentation (I did use that term advisedly)

BAE Spoiled $1.7B Radar Deal With Korea, Suit Says

By Adam Sege
Law360, Wilmington (February 3, 2016, 6:06 PM ET) -- Defense giant Raytheon sued BAE and two subsidiaries in Delaware Chancery Court on Tuesday over the soured $1.7 billion sale of F-16 aircraft radar upgrades to South Korea, saying BAE hid the fact the deal was in trouble and caused its ultimate demise.

While Raytheon Co. had met all its obligations as a subcontractor, prime contractor BAE Systems Holdings Inc. concealed mounting problems with the project and ultimately caused price increases that led to the deal's failure and the subcontractor's losses on the project, the complaint alleges.

“[R]elying on BAE-T’s representations, Raytheon invested millions of its own dollars in the upgrade program,” the suit states. “BAE-T, however, failed to meet its own obligations, both to the U.S. government and to South Korea, and these repeated failures ultimately caused Korea to cancel the purchase.”

The dispute relates to a planned, $1.7 billion sale in which Raytheon and BAE were to provide the South Korean government with radar upgrades for F-16 fighter jets, according to the complaint. After reaching an agreement with the Korean government, the U.S. government designated BAE as the prime contractor on the upgrades, with Raytheon listed as a subcontractor, the suit says.

Raytheon says it assigned 70 employees to the project and abided by all its obligations.

But the sale ultimately fell apart, with the Korean government ending its contract with the U.S., the U.S. government nixing its contract with BAE, and BAE terminating its subcontract with Raytheon.

Raytheon claims that cost increases caused by BAE contributed to the breakdown, and that BAE contributed to Raytheon’s losses by hiding warning signs about the project.

“Despite knowing the upgrade program was in serious trouble, BAE-T continued to tell Raytheon negotiations were on
track and that Raytheon should continue to invest its own funds,” Raytheon says.

The subcontractor’s claims against BAE and its subsidiaries include breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In addition to its immediate losses associated with the botched deal, Raytheon says, the sale’s failure has impacted the subcontractor's future business by robbing it of an opportunity to demonstrate its capability in the F-16 radar market.

“For both companies, winning these contracts represented a beachhead into the large and lucrative F-16 upgrade marketplace, theretofore dominated by Lockheed Martin, the F-16’s original manufacturer, and by Northrop Grumman,
supplier of the F-16’s original radar system,” the suit states.

In a company statement emailed to Law360, BAE said it was "disappointed" to learn its former partner on the project had filed suit.

"As we have said previously, BAE Systems does not believe the company owes the Republic of Korea any monies related to Korea’s decision to cancel the KF-16 upgrade program," BAE continued. "By extension, we do not believe BAE Systems owes Raytheon any additional monies outside of the normal contractual termination settlement process. We are currently reviewing Raytheon’s complaint and will respond in due course through the appropriate legal processes.”

An attorney for Raytheon declined to elaborate on the company’s complaint.

Raytheon is represented by Jack B. Jacobs, Mark D. Hopson, Gordon D. Todd, Maureen B. Soles and Morgan Branch of Sidley Austin LLP.

Counsel information for BAE was not immediately available.

The case is Raytheon Co. v. BAE Systems Holdings Inc. et al., case number 11957, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,717
Reaction score
1,839
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/05/americas-last-fighter-jet-makers-scramble-keep-production-alive/128274/

The company has plans to make structural improvements to the F-16s that remain in military service even after production stops. The company is now pushing what it calls the F-16V, a new configuration that includes some of the technology developed for its successor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The upgrades include a new mission computer and Northrop Grumman-made radar, which is common with the same system used on the F-35. That allows the plane to track more targets in the air and on the ground.

The configuration is part of the upgrade the U.S. is offering Taiwan’s existing fleet in lieu of selling new F-16s. Lockheed is also pitching the upgrades to Indonesia. Howard said the company is in discussions “with multiple countries for upgrades of their existing F-16s.”
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,826
Reaction score
294
DOD Contracts for Nov. 18, 2016

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded a $1,204,200,000 fixed-price-incentive-fee contract to upgrade F-16 aircraft for the Republic of Korea. Work will be performed at Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be complete by Nov. 15, 2025. This contract is 100 percent foreign military sales to the Republic of Korea. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-l 7-C-6045).
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
500
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Fighting Falcon Evolves With New F-16V

1st, I think we need to merge the "F-16V Takes Flight' topic into this one.

2nd. First time I see an F-16 with a triple AMRAAM launcher and I am impressed although its probably just a rendering and nothing like this exist yet.
Via
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/lockheed-martins-new-f-16-block-70-fighting-falcon-has-f-22-26419

Update: also found this official tweet from LM India, so the 3 launcher is not fan art
https://twitter.com/lmindianews/status/985017881732710400
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,197
Reaction score
860
Done, thanks for the clue !
Title shortened, as it's about 6 years ago, that the F-16V was unveiled and 3 years, that
it had its maiden flight !
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
371
Reaction score
84
Re: Lockheed Martin’s Fighting Falcon Evolves With New F-16V

lantinian said:
2nd. First time I see an F-16 with a triple AMRAAM launcher and I am impressed although its probably just a rendering and nothing like this exist yet.
It looks very similar to the launch rack F-16's have for Maverick
 

Attachments

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
500
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com

Attachments

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
173
Reaction score
90
I see that picture of the Block 70, and all I can think of is how much Pierre Sprey must be frothing at the mouth over it.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
351
MihoshiK said:
I see that picture of the Block 70, and all I can think of is how much Pierre Sprey must be frothing at the mouth over it.
How dare an aircraft evolve to better suit what the customer actually wants and actually uses them for....
A fine line between visionaries and zealots, and the former can easily evolve in the latter...
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,079
Reaction score
42
MihoshiK said:
Pierre Sprey must be frothing
He started doing that within 5 years of the F-16 going IOC as they added BVR weapons and more sensors to the F-16.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
1,049
If they can do that from the air, they can do that from a ship ;)
Kinematics aren't as favorable shooting up from a standing start as they are shooting down from 500 knots.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
524
Reaction score
218
That's a nice "side use" of capability.

For cruise missile scenario tho.. i would put more faith on AMRAAM's.
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
177
Reaction score
65
Isn't that just a trick of kinematics like dropping a bomb ana flying helicopter? Or...?
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
259
Reaction score
107
The Block 70 was a different configuration on offer to India. Then there's the Block 61. The "V" designation is more amorphous and unblock like since, IIRC a customer an do a la carte upgrades from the "V" grab bag of avionics.
Block 70 has SABR and F-110GE129 while Block 60 has APG-80 and F-110GE 132
GE-132 has higher thrust and block 70 has no cooling upgrade like block 60, so SABR range is much worse than APG-80
1.PNG
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
524
Reaction score
218
Aw.. looking at above paper really reminds me that i have to take down the AESA radar calculator and replace it with the fixed version ASAP.

The earlier version i put up have issue namely inconsistent unit, for calculation of detectability factor. I admiteddly made mistake with the equation. The issue was not really obvious as the calculator still does work and give reasonable result, it only came to my awareness after the researcher contacted me and finally i re-read the literatures.

The version used in the paper is rectified version where i finally (hopefully) got things straight with the help of the researcher. The latest version is on the work but i havent released it yet as i incorporated some more features and actually attempt to make a user manual. Containing the equations and "flows" of the sheet.
 
Top