Posted on 01/05/2016 9:47:28 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
I suggest a new updated version of the F-16N Fighting Falcon, With the updated Viper package with the conformal fuel tanks (Same as the Israelis). The US Navy was the only operator of the special N-series of the F-16. They were specifically designed for the Navy to be used as aggressor aircraft in a dissimilar combat environment. The airframes featured a strengthened structure and although derivatives of the C/D-models they had the older APG-66 radar installed. The aircraft is still in production.
It wasn’t so much being a generation behind as having made different design tradeoffs.
The Zero is alleged to have been based on the stolen designs for the Hughes Racer. Whether that’s true or not is debatable, but what isn’t is that the Zero was very much a racing design that traded weight, stability and survivability for raw performance. It wasn’t nearly as rugged as the F4F, lacked self sealing fuel tanks and was unstable in a dive.
So long as the Wildcat didn’t get into a climbing, turning fight with a Zero, it was the better plane in a dogfight. Once the Wildcat pilots figured out that Zeros died pretty easily if you dived into them, or ganged up on them (Thatch Weave) the F4F racked up a net positive kill ratio.
The undercarriage is not strong enough. It would take a whole redesign. A carrier landing is very violent and tough on airframes.
See them all the time at NAS Fallon.
Thanks. R S.
That makes sense. Good information.
Ha!
The “N” series F-16 wasn’t carrier capable. It was a stripped down cheaper version designed to be used, as you said, as an adversary.
As it was the aircraft had to be retired after a few years due to fuselage cracking from excessive g-loading on the airframe.
The Navy did, briefly, look conceptually at a carrier-based F-16 in the 1970s, choosing instead to go for a completely new aircraft based very loosely on the plane (YF-17) that lost to the F-16 in the Air Force’s Lightweight Fighter competition.
And, to add, the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G are still in production. The Navy is making additional purchases to allow the older and trapped out Legacy Hornets to be retired, and I think there are now two all-Superbug airwings (CVW-5 in Japan flying from the Reagan is one). And the newer F models are (thanks to the Aussie buy) wired from the start for later conversion to EAs.
With all that, I’m not too worried about NavAir and I think this article is pretty alarmist. Shortfalls in the Legacy Bug force can be continued to be offset by new SuperBug purchases. Which will have the added benefit of resulting in a surplus of Superbugs down the road that can be converted to more EA-18Gs or bringing back a dedicated aerial refueling capability thst was lost when the KA-6s left service. There’s just no need for a replacement based on the F-16.
Uh, yes. I worked for a now-defunct LockMart contractor. The Air Force and LockMart saved *some* of the tooling back in 2010-2011, but by 2015 most of the tooling, especially the stuff at subcontractors, was gone, gone, gone.
No tactical stealth, huge IR signature, no high off-bore capability, and no, the gear needed for it sadly won’t fit - not without redesigning the airframe. The F-16 also still has the problem of strong radio signals interfering with the flight controls and the hideously dangerous APU in the tail.
Didn’t recall he was in an F4F. Sounded like one incredible pilot. I also didn’t know he survived; so glad to hear that he evaded them and got some help.
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.