Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon Developments

[kaiserbill]

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.

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.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Block 70 is a single seat "F-16V".
Block 72 is a two seat "F-16V".

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?

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".

"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.

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

 

[helmutkohl]

^ 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.

 

[F-2]

^ 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.

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.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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.

 

[NMaude]

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.

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

eg: upgraded ROKAF KF-16s are designated KF-16U, not V

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

 

[F-2]

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.

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.

 

[isayyo2]

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

The K is for Block 52s produced under license by Samsung, hence KF-16. This is to differentiate against the Block 32 F-16s procured earlier in Peace Bridge I.

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

 

[NMaude]

The K is for Block 52s produced under license by Samsung, hence KF-16. This is to differentiate against the Block 32 F-16s procured earlier in Peace Bridge I.

Well then call it the F-16K.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Well then call it the F-16K.

That would have probably made more sense. It's what was done for the Japanese F-15J which was built under license by Mitsubishi.

 

[F-2]

Well then call it the F-16K.

KF-16 is its official designation in Korean service. Turns out if you cut a check for a couple hundred million dollars nobody stops you calling your jet what you want.

 

[eagle]

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

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

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

KF-16 like F-16V is not an USAF designation. Customers can call their aircraft whatever they want.

 

[F-2]

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.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

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

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.

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

Well then call it the F-16K.

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.

That would have probably made more sense. It's what was done for the Japanese F-15J which was built under license by Mitsubishi.

There are examples like CF-188 so I don't really see a problem here.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

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.

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.

The delta wing F-16 proposed to the UAE was sometimes called F-16U.

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.

 

[F-2]

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.

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.

 

[NMaude]

The delta wing F-16 proposed to the UAE was sometimes called F-16U.

Was that to have been basically a production version of the F-16XL?

 

[F-2]

Was that to have been basically a production version of the F-16XL?

Sort of the fusalage was the same but the planform was different, didn’t bleed as much, better rcs characteristics. The role was the similar to the XL

https://twitter.com/x/status/1749068307569713451

View: https://twitter.com/ValkStrategy/status/1749068307569713451

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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.

 

[NMaude]

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?

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.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

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.

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.

 

[NMaude]

. I could definitely see newer mission computers like MMC 7000A

Do you have any details and/or links concerning the MMC 7000A? It's the first time I've heard of it.

 

[NMaude]

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

I've read on this forum that Have Glass is up to 12mm thick...

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

K for Korea. Same as K1 tanks, KF21 fighter, etc.

 

[NMaude]

K for Korea. Same as K1 tanks, KF21 fighter, etc.

Then it should be the F-16K.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Then it should be the F-16K.

I agree, but the Koreans didn't do that.

 

[F.L.]

Then it should be the F-16K.

It's a bit like the F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger : NF-5 for the Netherlands, VF-5 for Venezuela, CF-5 for Canada, SF-5A for Spain, KF-5E for Korea...
These are special designations for variants of certain foreign operators.

 

[stealthflanker]

I've read on this forum that Have Glass is up to 12mm thick...

Yeah and it's based on this :

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about doing just that

www.key.aero

Which also give 10-12 mm.

But it cant give just 100 Kg of weight increase to the F-16's with over 60% of surface area being painted by that. As typical density of paint would be something in order of 1300 kg/cubic meter. Since the paint also contain ferromagnetic absorber.. odds are it would be bit denser.

for every square meter of that 12 mm paint it would weigh around 15.6 Kg. Thus an entire wing of F-16 which about 28 sqm, would need some 436.8 Kg of paint. That's not 100 Kg. Which made me suspect that there might be confusion between Milimmetres and Mils. Now change that 12 mm to 12 Mils you have 0.3 mm. Which for that same 28 sqm wing area would need only about 11 Kg.

 

[TomcatViP]

I think you nailed it. Have glass doesn't look that thick or be foamed to counter the density penalty on mass.

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1721870426501005630

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1721870426501005630?s=20

 

[iverson]

Excuse for my forthrightness, but this is nonsenseis using thrid parties

My thoughts may be inaccurate. But they are hardly nonsense.

Sure, Russia has made ICs. But it has not made state-of-the-art ICs in real commercial quantities or achieved anything near the performance of recent Western ICs. China is not a likely source of ICs either, in my opinion. China imports most of its ICs at present (most of the world's ICs are manufactured in Taiwan), and the Chinese electronics industry depends on exports to the West. So China seems unlikely to help Russia circumvent sanctions. Bottom line: Russia cannot easily replace Western chips that it is already using or match their performance with homemade equivalents.

Even duplicating its less-than-state-of-the-art ICs may prove to be a problem for Russia. It does not currently have access to chip-making technology. Only a few companies make and service the required equipment--and regular service and refurbishment are essential (these machines operate under extreme conditions). New sales to Russia and return of refurbished, Russian-owned units are now embargoed--and the embargo is being felt. I happen to know of a number of Russian entities that tried to get around the embargo using third parties in the months after the invasion.

So neither time nor technology is on Russia's side, in this respect:

[1] If upgraded, post-1990 upgrades of Soviet-era aircraft made use of cheaper, higher performance, Western ICs, as has been reported (rightly or wrongly), replacements won't be readily available or affordable.

[2] If Russian aircraft use Russian ICs, they will lack the overall performance and reliability of Western equivalents like the F-16.

[3] As its irreplaceable manufacturing tools wear out, even Russian ICs will eventually get scarce.

 

[NMaude]

In regards to Russia's difficulty in manufacturing advanced ICs the below Asianometry video is quite enlightening:

In late February 2022, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or TSMC announced that it would halt shipments to Russia per a new round of sanctions.

The TSMC halt ended shipments from fabless companies like Baikal, MCST, Yadro and STC Module. Intel and AMD have stopped their shipments to Russia as well.

In recent years, Russia has been looking to create their own supply of semiconductors. While there are some interesting domestic design successes, domestic capacity to manufacture those designs have been falling farther and farther behind.

We find ourselves living in strange times. In this video, we are going to do an overview of Russia's ever-worsening domestic semiconductor manufacturing industry.

Read Ian’s write up on the Elbrus: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15823/...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah and it's based on this :

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about doing just that

www.key.aero

Which also give 10-12 mm.

But it cant give just 100 Kg of weight increase to the F-16's with over 60% of surface area being painted by that. As typical density of paint would be something in order of 1300 kg/cubic meter. Since the paint also contain ferromagnetic absorber.. odds are it would be bit denser.

for every square meter of that 12 mm paint it would weigh around 15.6 Kg. Thus an entire wing of F-16 which about 28 sqm, would need some 436.8 Kg of paint. That's not 100 Kg. Which made me suspect that there might be confusion between Milimmetres and Mils. Now change that 12 mm to 12 Mils you have 0.3 mm. Which for that same 28 sqm wing area would need only about 11 Kg.

Makes sense.

 

[NMaude]

I was looking at the F-16 wikipedia article today and I was wondering is the F-16V the official DOD designation for the F-16 block-70 or is that just a LM marketing gimmick?

 

[GTX]

I was looking at the F-16 wikipedia article today and I was wondering is the F-16V the official DOD designation for the F-16 block-70 or is that just a LM marketing gimmick?

I believe the official designations are Block 70/72

 

[Colonial-Marine]

From what I gather the USAF isn't getting any new Block 70/72 F-16s but some existing (probably Block 50/52) aircraft will be refurbished and upgraded to a standard that is nearly but not quite that. It sounds like those F-16s will continue to use the overarching F-16C/D designation but I'm not sure if they will be called Block 70/72 or something else. As for international buyers I suppose they could choose to use the F-16V designation if they wished to, though I'm not sure what they would call the two-seater. I'm guessing most will instead choose to keep using the C/D designator.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The V designation is used very loosely. Newly produced F-16s are F-16V, but so are older F-16A/B from ROCAF that retains older engine but are upgrade to V standard in terms of radar/avionics/weapons.

 

[NMaude]

As for international buyers I suppose they could choose to use the F-16V designation if they wished to, though I'm not sure what they would call the two-seater.

Since the UAE already has dibs on the F-16E/F wouldn't it better to call the F-16 Block 70/72 the F-16G/H? The latest F-16C/D is a great deal more capable than the original baseline F-16C/D.

 

[F-2]

Since the UAE already has dibs on the F-16E/F wouldn't it better to call the F-16 Block 70/72 the F-16G/H? The latest F-16C/D is a great deal more capable than the original baseline F-16C/D.

The E/F has pretty much all new internals, flight control, radar cooling. you couldn’t realistically turn even a late model block 50/52+ into a block 60. just about any F-16 block 30 up can be made into a V (Taiwan’s block 20 are structurally block 32 aircraft). It’s a fairly low risk approach.

 

[snne]

The E/F has pretty much all new internals, flight control, radar cooling. you couldn’t realistically turn even a late model block 50/52+ into a block 60. just about any F-16 block 30 up can be made into a V (Taiwan’s block 20 are structurally block 32 aircraft). It’s a fairly low risk approach.

didn't know about the new internals, makes sense since they opted for this config over the delta wing design, both must've required substantial internal redesign to worth all that development cost.

V is a bit tricky though, aren't those Taiwanese B20s technically still Block 20 MLUs with upgraded avionics fitted in? I wouldn't consider calling that a V, the situation resembles F-16AM MLUs more hence I'd call them F-16AV/BV or something.