How America almost put F-16s on aircraft carriers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- The F-16 Fighting Falcon has been the U.S. Air Force’s workhorse fighter for more than forty years, and at one point, it looked like a carrier-capable version would do the same for the U.S. Navy.
📰 Articles Cited
Vought 1600: The plan to put the F-16 on America's carriers
➡️ sbxx.us/3kVxHDy
📱 Follow Sandboxx on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
📱Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswriter
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
As an f-16 maintainer, i can tell you this is a very bad idea.
Navy loves single engine planes that can’t handle a steep landing.
Yea the F-16 doesn't not handle well enough in a slow speed configuration for carrier ops, also single engine means it would end up in the bottom of the ocean if a failure were to arise. Also their landing speed is above 185 knots which is way higher than a F-18 at 145 knots. Would be a interesting sight to see but a dangerous one as well.
@@tyberious3023 f35 is a single engine jet fighter
@@izacaqsha3480 Ok and if that engine fails where’s the aircraft going to end up? The F-35C was a compromise due to the Navy needing a generation 5 command and control platform the only downfall was it being single engine and yes it is known that if a engine failure were to arise that aircraft would be where again?
@@tyberious3023 more engine= twice as much moving parts=statistically more likely to fail
God..... when you opened with "the F-16 has been around for 40 years", it makes me feel REALLY OLD. When I first saw the F-16 as a boy at the Mildenhall air show in England, I fell in love with it there and then. It looked totally different to any other aircraft at that time with its huge intake under the fuselage, short wings and only one engine. When I also found out that it was deliberately designed to be unstable, it baffled me as I'd never heard of this design feature. What's fantastic for me is that it continues to evolve with constant upgrades and the F-16 XL is a phenomenal aircraft as well.
The cockpit of the F-16 and the pilot positioning is pure perfection!
Actually, for carrier landing it might well not be. You don't want to be reclined when you are trying to see a LSO or the landing visual aids.
Far from perfection.. the chair reclined angle is nothing to do with g-endurance improvement. That is a myth.
If you want best g-forces experience, you set seat to about 8-12°. You align the seat such way that heart and brain will be at much as possible in the same vertical line relative to g forces. That makes heart pumping blood easiest as heart and brains have as close as possible pressure flow.
The reason why viper has chair as it has is very obvious when you get it.... It is so tiny cockpit that ejection seat can't be placed in any other angle to fit pilot in... That is the reason. The Viper fans created this own myth about high g withstanding by pilots because seat etc. It is just BS.
Almost every fighter from that era can make 9g pulls (and lot more than viper because they have more suitable chair). But here is s thing....
F-16 priority was to be cheap and easy to build fighter, with excellent outside visibility. That is why it is so tiny has great bubble canopy. It was designed to have so many that you saturate the enemy airspace so that they can't pick multiple falcons surrounding them.
Another interesting fact is that the "fighter mafia" purposely designed Falcon to be non upgradable. Its avionics bays and wiring was designed to keep it cheap and simple. But history made it most modified, most upgraded and most equipped fighter in USA history regardless that. The future engineers had lot of problems to solve to do what they have done, and they basically did impossible (equal to make motorbike as six person minibus).
We did the whole one plane for all services with the F4, it served very well
Doing it again with the F-35 hahaha
Only because the plane was orginally designed and built for the Navy. Lots of naval fighters have gone on to be excellent land based fighters. Unfortunately having to use fighters designed by the Navy hurts the air force's pride too much.
They even tried to name the F4 Phantom variant they adopted the F110 Spectre because they didn't want to admit to using a Navy fighter.
@@jackjack906
To add to that the F-14 was considered for NORAD duty, and even though the head of NORAD preferred the Tomcat and a study showed 1 for 1 the F-14 was the better aircraft for the mission, the USAF still chose the Eagle.
Exactly, which is why we're going back to that model with the F-35.
The us lost too many f 4 phantoms during the Vietnam War
An incorrect belief is that the RAAF chose the F/A-18A over the F-16A when replacing their aging Mirage IIIO fighters was due to the hornet having two engines. This is not the real story. The real story is that the RAAF wanted all weather capability, BVR missile capability and Computer/radar guided A-G capabilty. The F-16A at the time had none of these capabilities, although a superior close in dogfighter, the F-16 only had AIM9s and it's gun. Although promised by general Dynamics that all three capabilities would 'soon' be incorporated into the F-16, the RAAF couldnt wait and went with the F/A-18 in 1984. Indeed, at exercise Cope Thunder 90 in 1990 there were still USAF F-16 squadrons present with no BVR capability, lthough most of the F-16 squadrons finally received the capability in 1991. Further modifications finally delivered computer/radar guided A-G to the F-16
Even they achieved the capability in 1991 because of the amid Gulfwar. Even another countries didn't achieved BVR capabilities for their F16 until early 2000. While that time Russia was dominating this category with Soviet built R27 and R73 NVR missiles.
Although the Hornet havibg two engines may have been a factor in the US Navy selection decision.
The RAAF looked at a larger number of aircraft than most know. The list of respondents included the Tornado, F-14A, F-16A, Mirage 2000 and F-15A. The biggest issue was the ability to perform both air to air and air to ground equally proficiently with two engines. That eliminated everything but the Hornet, however, the RAAF seriously looked at the F-16A as well within the finalists proceedings. General Dynamics promised air to ground capabilities within a certain time frame, as did McDonnell Douglas for the F-15A, but this didn't suit our time frames. The single engine, lack of air to ground, inferior range, inferior avionics, lack of robust landing gear and air frame structure akin to a carrier designed aircraft and inferior technology eliminated the F-16A. Alas the F/A-18A/B Hornet won. Money was never an option as we could absolutely afford the rest, including the Tomcat and Eagle. History will show that within the next 10 to 20 years, the Eagle, Viper and Tomcat all evolved into versions that were both A2A and A2G capable, however, this was far too late for the RAAF. History will also show that the RAAF, with its HUG (Hornet UpGrade) program and unique modifications had one of, if not, the superior Classic Hornet in the world that gave it a 4+ Gen platform. We integrated Israeli technology alongside the 'off the shelf' US stuff. The Classic Hornet has served us with absolute distinction and coupled with Australian crew has presented as one of the most formidable fighter platforms in the world. We are now replacing her with the F-35. A huge step change in capability.
@@smeary10 Did you know that when the F-14A was on the list the Australian government slapped the RAAF in the face by saying it was too complicated for the RAAF. THE HUG did indeed give the RAAF a world class fighter, with AN/AAQ-28(V)5 Litening and the excellent 8222 ELTA ECM pod and BOL countermeasure dispensers
The F-16 in general has become something very different than what it was adopted too be. It started life is a light weight air superiority fighter, designed to excel in dogfighting with sidewinders and guns; but in today's day and age, it's the primary multirole/ground strike fighter the US has.
As it's mission has changed, so has the aircraft. It's significantly heavier than the first A models and consequently lost some manueverability, but that isn't saying much as the F-16 is still one of if not the best handling aircraft in the world. What it lost on manueverability, it gained in BVR capability, radar potency and ground strike abilities.
Should've just made more F-14 Bs and Ds. And from what I've seen of the F-21, updated Tomcat for the 21st century, would have been outstanding and blows the F18F in nearly every category.
Northrop Grumman made exclusively a lot of carrier fighters they knew the standards for carrier aircraft. The Bear cat, Hell Cat, wild Cat, the cougar, tiger cat, and the panther.
Northrop wasn't involved in those projects.
Grumman wasn't involved in the Cobra/Hornet project.
Northrop Grumman was more than a decade away from existing when the LWF and VFAX programs were going on.
Northrop had never made a carrier plane
@@tomcatter2027 Correct. That's why they teamed with McDonnell Douglas.
@@cab6273 yes and no Northrop themselves has not made a carrier plane other than the f-17 and f18. It is now Northrop Grumman which have made a lot of carrier born aircraft from the F4F wildcat all the way to the F14 tomcat
@@godzilladamonster4813 thank you I was just about to say that XD
The USN did not want the F-16 for several reasons. One big reason is by the time the YF-16 is designed to withstand catapult take-offs and carrier landings, the additional weight destroys the performance advantages the F-16 would have versus a carrier version of the YF-17 converted to the F/A-18.
After seeing this, I've now realized that pretty much any naval version of any non-naval aircraft would be awesome... F22, F16, F15. If someone figures out how to make a naval B52 hmu.
A "navy bone" (B-1) would be sick
They tried the C-130 the B-24 now let see what’s next
@@ZaHandle a navalized version of C-17 would be epic
The B-52 itself are already effective for ocean surveillance, and can assist the Navy in anti-ship and mine-laying operations. For example, a pair of B-52s, in two hours, can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface. From the 1980s B-52Hs were modified to use Harpoons anti-ship missiles
B-52? Maybe amphibious variant would be better
When I was a young teen I wrote my senator to ask why the Navy didn't have a carrier version of the F-16. I got back a lengthy letter explaining why beefing up the F-16 for carrier ops would be bad. I'll bet the senators DoD aide was in Naval Aviation.
In the 1960s and into the 1980s, the US military already had a multi-service fighter platform before, in the F-4 Phantom II. It was in use by the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. So the concept wasn't that far-fetched at all.
But it was designed and developed as a Navy/Marine fighter and the Air Force only had to buy them afterwards. It's the same story with the A-7 Corsair II. The Air Force didn't have any input in the design process for either of them. You can even go back to the Boeing F4B/P-12. Navy all the way through development, and then the Air Force (or Army Air Corps in the P-12's case) just bought the finished product as it was the best choice for the job they were looking to fill. I think the first "inter-service" aircraft development program was the F-111. And we know how that turned out.
It wasn’t all that good at anything though.
@@stevenharder308what? Tf you mean? 😂 It was one of the fastest and most powerful aircraft in the world and hugely advanced the concept of BVR combat. It pioneered modern air power and was damn good at what it was designed for at the time lol just because it wasn’t a dog fighter doesn’t mean it wasn’t good at anything
@@wtbanation6268 "fastest" in terms of top speed, which it took a long time to reach, after which it would promptly run out of fuel. Huge, sluggish, dangerous to maneuver, armed with unreliable missiles and no gun. The situations it was designed for never materialized. The fact that it was useful at all is a testament to the people who flew it, not to the aircraft itself, and certainly not to the brass who commissioned it. It advanced the concept of BVR combat mainly by bringing mistakes to light, since it continually fell short of "on paper" expectations.
@@stevenharder308 😂 aright dude it’s glaringly obvious you’re not very well-read on this. “Huge and sluggish” compared to 2nd gen fighters designed with cannons as their primary weapons, sure. Despite this, the F4 STILL boasts a positive kill ratio against them. Especially in Vietnam, under greatly less-than-ideal circumstances. They’re even more successful in later wars like Iran-Iraq and Israel’s endless 70s/80s conflicts. Doing EXACTLY what they were designed for.
The situations it was designed for DID materialize, that statement is pretty blatantly untrue, or is a wild dramatization along with many other of your claims. You’re talking about a naval interceptor craft pushed into multirole use across the entire DoD here. It never did what it was designed for because it never partook in a large-scale fleet defense? I guess that’s kind of true. But it DID pioneer missile technology and fielded it with success against a more experienced and more appropriately-equipped enemy.
As for the testament to the people who flew them, they overwhelmingly tended to like the F4, flaws and all.
Here’s how I know your argument is nonsense: You didn’t even mention most of the F4’s REAL problems, being the stall-spin hazard, smokey engines and maintenance heavy electronics. And you’re seemingly comparing its performance with the 4th generation aircraft that came out decades later and are popular in service today.
An interesting overview, well told. Thanks, Mr. Hollings.
"Almost" is probably too strong a word.
Very informative as usual, always cool to see the concepts&think What IF...? Loved the video you put together on the ATF showdown between the YF-22 & YF-23. Wish the Navy adapted the YF-23 for its range alone. Hope its revived by the Japanese Air Force? Just a BIG fan of the Black Widow II! Looks almost like a science fiction star fighter even though its now 30 years old. Keep the excellent content comin, much appreciated👊🏼
The YF-22 was considered to be the more adaptable option for naval aviation. It's a small part of why it was chosen over the YF-23. Then there's the ill-fated FB-22 attempt.
YF-23 was an amazing aircraft. We got what we got and the F-22 is also an amazing aircraft. Wish we had both though.
@@VisibilityFoggy there was also a navalized redesign of the f-23
Another excelllet and informative video Alex… well done 😀
Great video, thanks Alex.
Before even watching this, I can tell you that the F-16 (small and relatively cheap) could not have been structurally improved enough to survive thousands of carrier landings, and all that (corrosive) salt.
Nothing about what you said comes close to "almost".
anyone with any aviation engineering or maintenance experience knows that to be fact, but the author obviously subscribes to the saying 'never let the truth spoil a good story' lol
@@davidewhite69 Most of the issues are to do with alloys. 1080A for example or even better 5083 instead of high mag alloys for corrosion resistance. 5083 is also tougher than many alloys. So actually the structure could have been improved radically, but at a cost. As a design engineer I can tell you pretty much any issue is fixable. It's fixing it without cost getting out of control or other unacceptable compromises that is the issue. Run an extra load spreading spar from the nose gear to near the tail and that is one problem sorted. The empty weight and gross weight of an F-16 and an F-8 are near identical. So theoretically you could use quite similar landing gear assuming the strengthening elsewhere. The only issue is you would have to land with no more than about 4500 pounds of fuel, and no ordnance.
@@gordonlawrence1448 That why F/A18 E/F Super Hornet were born address the later issue
That was addressed by Vought. It's not like the company had not ever built a carrier capable fighter.
true, to made an F-16 carrier based aircraft, I think it'd involve major structural changes. Aircaft like Mitsubishi F-2 despite based on Block 40, ended up very expensive to procure due to slightly bigger airframe, wider wingspan, altered leading edge, enlarged canopy, enlarged nose randome, etc. The technology wasn't there enough for the YF-16 to be converted as fully capable carrier based multi-role fighter.
This is such an awesome channel, I really appreciate the time you take to make these videos! Happy holidays and please keep doing what you do!
Imagine how cool would "Sea Falcon" look like 😀👌
Great video dude, loved it!
Great content. Your analysis and knowledge are spot on. The F-16 will always be a top 5 fan favorite jet long past it’s useful lifetime.
Everyone!!!!! 👏🏼 F-16s 👏🏼 cannot 👏🏼 operate 👏🏼 on 👏🏼 carriers!!!! The navy didn’t lose out because it went with the F-18. The hornet has been an outstanding airframe and it fits the navy’s aviation mission perfectly. The F-16 wouldn’t survive hard landings and months inhaling sea salt.
Apples-to-later oranges ...
Wouldn’t the landing gears be buffed to survive hard landings?
Reinforce the fuselage and get more rugged landing gear would give the F-16 the ability to land on an aircraft but that is not the real reason there was never a naval version. I would think there was not a naval version of the F-16 is because there was not a second engine and when your out in the middle of the ocean most of the time this not a good idea.
Also salt water is not that great of a issue to naval aircraft or we would not have naval aircraft so that argument is meanigless.
@@brianvanveghel7815 Many single engine Naval fighters have existed, and the Navy even currently uses one in the F-35C.
fantastic footage!
The fact that the F-16's approach speed is 300km/h versus a Hornet's 148km/h is a huge reason why the Viper never made on board.
Yes, but the navalized versions (V-1600, V-1601 or V-1602) would have an approach speed very similar to the F/A-18. Just like the F-17's speed was reduced for carrier operations.
Dumbass extension on the spoilers and elevons and you're fine. Is this your first day?
@@grtorrest modifying the F16 to sustainably tolerate carrier landings (aka controlled crashes) would have anihilated much of its performance advantage.
@@dcs-web-editor yes, something normal for amolst every navalized plane derive from a land bases aircraft, at the end any navalized F-16 would have been quite diferent. To the original aircraft, very similar to what happened to the F-17 during navalization.
Presumably, bringing down the approach speed was one of the reasons they added so much wing area.
Thx man i just learnt some stuff about both the F16 and FA 18
Great video
The F-16 is used by the Navy but not as a carrier aircraft rather aggressor training aircraft and in fact the Air Force is giving their old F-16s to the Navy for that role now. The F-16N as a variant made for this side role but long retired I had no idea the Navy would had a carrier version of this plane.
The Navy F-16 wasn't the first attempt to make a Navy version of a famous fighter. There was also a Navy version of the legendary F-86 called the FJ-Fury and it was a flying turdbox. Despite having a more powerful engine, the Fury was heavy, slow and underpowered, with short legs and a dangerously high landing speed. The Navy wound up using it as a bomber and it had a short career, being eclipsed by the lighter, cheaper and much more able A4 Skyhawk. All of these shortcomings with the Fury were eerily similar to shortcomings of the Navy F-16 and Admiral Holloway had to be keenly aware of this since he was serving when the Fury was flying off the decks of US aircraft carriers. In the end, the Navy did make the right choice in adopting the more versatile YF-17 which became the successful and long-serving F-18 Hornet.
They also tried to shoehorn the F-15 into carrier use instead of buying the F-14. That would have been interesting to say the least.
Technically the FJ-1 fury preceded the F-86 then navalized into the FJ-2/3. Due to the XP-86 prototype came from the FJ-1
@@TheRandCrews True but the FJ-1 was a straight wing jet that had nothing in common with the Sabre. The FJ-2 was the first near-peer to the the F86 and it was introduced in 1951, after the Sabre.
@@criticalevent The F-15 wouldn't be nearly as crazy as the F-111 the Navy almost ended up with in the fleet defense role.
@@MarchHare59 You have to wonder, if they think long range missiles have replaced dog fighting, why didn't they just save a few bucks and put them on fast cigarette boats that zoom around ahead of the fleet? :)
They try this streamlining the supply chain BS with every single plane, and when it finally succeeded, we got the F-35 financial disaster.
Ireland really needs these
Why? Ireland was Neutral in WWII.
6:34 "...grew to a total of 369 feet." That's a lot of wing span, unless 369 square feet of wing area was meant.
The other major issue that was not presented in the video is the fact that the F-16 is not only a single engine aircraft which is deemed dangerous when flying above open waters but also that the F-16 had had a belly air intake this meant that it could not have been able to be catapulted safely since the landing gears retracted essentially near the intake and the catapulting would have resulted in half of the aircraft staying on deck. Therefore the only way to catapult the aircraft would have been via gears cable that get tossed in the water with each launch like the old fashioned aircraft of the 50’s and 60’s. This issue was the same reason the Brits weren’t able to « navalise » the Eurofighter, and why the French left the program and opted for side air-intakes (also because the central pylon had to carry bigger weapons)
Not sure if you respond to your older podcasts? Your video reminded me of a previous joint fighter project, another over budget boondogle. Would you enlighten us about the joint F-111 and why the Navy couldn't use it? Thank you
makes me wonder if the F-16XL would have been good for the Navy
Never heard of carrier based F-16s being considered, however there were some designs considered for the navy that resembled the F-16, except they predate the F-16 and were designed by Vought, if I remember right. The F-16 itself had too fast a stall speed for carrier use.
They were based on the F-8 Crusader
@@Tigershark_3082 Perhaps one of the USN'S best fighter ever.
@@blackopscw7913 You don't mean the guns, do you? Check the stats on gun kills in Vietnam. The 'sader got one kill and an assist with her guns. All the rest of her kills were Sidewinders.
@@Mishn0 No
@@blackopscw7913 No what? What do you mean then?
There was a very odd twin engine prototype variant of the F-16. It had larger wings by a tad and split intakes like the F/A18-B. I think it even had the heavy landing gear from an existing jet. I don't think there was ever more than 1 prototype built though. Even then I think it was a static prototype not a rolling one.
Hong kong's FCK-1?
@@derlibero9668 taiwan's FCK-1
@@3nglehart yes
Next week's video: *And the US Navy successfully introduces a navalized version of the F-16XL and the rest is history!*
Got to see them at Edwards in the 80s so cool
Delta wings probably won't ever be on carriers. Take up too much room. Would be really good though. Short take off range, low stall speed and long range is navies dream lol.
@@Fred-eg9sx Uhh. Rafale in video and Tejas on Indian carriers? ua-cam.com/video/GPvbYATPmgI/v-deo.html
@@BV-fr8bf we are talking about US policy no? And India needs to operate planes like Rafael. They still using ramp. Need the lift from the Delta wing. Rafael is the best thing they can get their hands on. A eurofighter typhoon would probably be really good for ramps too.
@@Fred-eg9sx First off, French carriers use CATOBAR like US carriers, so the Rafale-M was NOT designed for a ski-jump from conception. In fact, the Rafale-M can operate from U.S. carriers as well as access the elevators and hangar bay. Saab has also proposed the Gripen-E naval fighter, which is likely to be adopted by Brazil should they acquire another carrier, which is their ultimate goal. The rumor mill seems to state that could eventually order a QE class from the Brits. It's also in the running for India along with the Super Hornet and Rafale-M.
Love the Falcon in VF-41 livery.♠️
I think it would be interesting to see a video on the development and use of the Mitsubishi F-2 variant.
It’s kind of cool how a lot of the videos are the 148th fighter wing’s F-16s in Duluth since I live right next to the airport they operate out of.
The fighter mafia's thoughts on ground attack capability was because before the 4th generation aircraft were developed, ground attack systems. Long range radar, etc. Were big and bulky. The 4th generation fighters were designed just as vacuum tubes were giving way integrated circuits. This cut the size, weight, and power generation needs of avionics.
good vid.
The name of the company at the time was LTV, and from stories related to me by some who were involved, someone snuck in a 2 engine requirement that was missed or ignored by GD/LTV
How can you not love the F-16? What it achieves on a shoestring budget is phenomenal, it's a bargain basement priced aircraft that punches way above it's weight in my opinion.
I loved the F-16's Bi-centurial paint job when I was a kid. I still like it.
At the part about the gold plating now. Wasn't it Boyd who had the idea for America to have a cheap expendable plane like the Mig where we could make enough to overwhelm the enemy and not feel the impact of a lost aircraft?
And let's not forget how bulky equipment was back then where adding a mission could change everything. We take for granted now, but we used to have a separate plane for everything on the carrier.
We have so many f-16s that they should train if they need to to have an emergency landing on a carrier I think that's something that multi should consider, where in Norway's Waters and one of her f-16s doesn't have ability to land, this is how you integrate your warfighting capability to be able to help each other work together as a cohesive force
"technically" they could land one and arrest it using the barricade system, but that would pretty much destroy the F-16, as it is not made for such abuse. The landing speed would be so great compared to the Navy fighters that an untrained, or even lightly trained F-16 pilot would be more than lucky to find an accurate final approach, the right glide slope, adjust to the pitch and roll of the deck, line up, and then meet the ramp at a positive attitude... only to have the wings basically torn off by the barricade and the pilot injured by the high speed/stop event! They don't have tail hooks, remember, and to add one means strengthening the entire aircraft so you don't pull it apart when it catches a wire. That strengthening requires more weight added = bigger engine to meet the weight = larger wings to accommodate the weight and power, and soon you have a whole new aircraft. Easier to ditch the plane and recover the pilot.
It's surprising that the navy would approve F-35C with only one engine for carrier based. F-16 was way too early for the navy one engine acceptance.
F-8 Crusader, A-7 Corsair, A-4 Skyhawk. Single engine fighters, excelling while in Navy service.
Well it was either single engine or they weren’t getting a new aircraft, they had to compromise
@@bosoerjadi2838 F-8 replaced by the dual engine F-4. A-7 and A-4 replaced by the dual engine F/A-18. Yep, proved they wanted 2 engines alright..
Thanks for video. I was always told that the F-16 was unable to be navalized. I didn't know Vought attempted to navalize the F-16. I think General Dynamics should have teamed up with McDonnell Douglas instead of Vought. McDonnell Douglas has always been the Navy's perfered contractor then if they can't deliver they turn to the other contractors.
It still is as the final outcome was the F-18. I saw what 700' per decent rate did to a Navy F-16 guess what aircraft never flew again
Holloway's book is great: especially the sketchy moment when CVN 65 almost had a reactor scram at the Pearl Harbor missile magazine and losing literally every squadron CO KIA or MIA in his first cruise to Yankee Station.
This story parallels the F-35 program to some degree with the YF-16 and YF-17 showdown for a carrier version, as you point out. Very possible the 1600 could have paved the way for "modular" procurement and acquisition. The difference being though, the YF models were both very close to production ready and demonstrated capabilities close to what was needed (If I interpreted the story correctly). An interesting possibility in aircraft procurement that could have been. That Schlessinger ambush is classic corporate tactics, but Holloway would have none of it! Seems as though we ended up with two very capable aircraft for what they did, all's well that end's well.
The Air Force and Navy should have adopted F-35Bs. When missiles start tearing up airfields and carriers in WWIII, the ability to land, refuel and rearm literally anywhere will be a huge advantage.
You should do one about the F111 being the originator of the FX program that got scrapped in favor of the tomcat
It’s weird how the military continues to obsess over using one fighter for everything, even though using different fighters for naval and land based forces has always worked incredibly well.
Would the best F16 that you covered about 1 month ago been a better candidate for use on a carrier?
I think you meant the LWF and the NACF program not the ACF. One thing not mentioned was the fact the Vought 1600 only had one engine. Doctrine at the time was shifting from single engine to multiengine for redundancy the aircraft it was replacing was the A-7 and A-4 both single engine aircraft that would be another point Halloway would have brought up in the meeting.
I want to see an F-20 Tigershark for the Navy!
Somewhere in an alternate reality, US carriers are stocked with stealth Super Tomcat 21s and thrust-vectoring F16XLs.
I thought the Navy has them as their aggressor aircraft for top gun
2:26 gigity gigity goo
Funny thing is except for range there was a better case for the hornet to become the primary second tier fighter for the USN USAF...capability simple as that and the plastic bug as it came to be known had an availability rate way beyond the F14 that eventually would see the end of the F14 that and the fact that the F14 airframes were by the time of retirement Facked even though the D model was one of the best all rounders in the sky...
The F-16, Fighting Falcon; my favorite fighter aircraft. I was born around the same time as the F-16, and due to my dad being USAF at the time of my birth, I spent the first years of my life at Nellis AFB, Neveda: home of the USAF "Thunderbirds," which adopted and still use the F-16.
When I was a kid, I remember having a die-cast metal toy replica of the F-16 with its prototype paint scheme. Unfortunately, due the military necessities of relocating, at some point in time the toy was lost. :-( Nowadays, I live near a U.S. Air Reserve Base which has (at least) one F-16 available for training. I mention "at least" because there were two, but a few years ago, one was lost when a training session resulted in an F-16 running out of fuel and crashing into a nearby warehouse. (Fortunately, the incident happened on a Sunday, so the warehouse was devoid of most personnel, resulting in no casualties since the pilot was, as well, able to safely eject.) Since then, I am unsure if the lost F-16 was ever replaced.
There is no such thing as too much power where air superiority is concerned.
It sounds like some of the physical changes for the 1600 are very similar to what Japan ended up doing on their f-16 derivative the J2
Imagine if the Boeing design won LWF. It's got no room for a radar at all. The Navy would have laughed at it.
F4s,F14s and F16s will always be my favorite war bird. Wait one, F18 hornets may be a compete to the F16.
So if they had partnered with Grumman instead of Voight there could have been a navy viper
Can we please get a episode on the F5/F20? To this day I still believe that the F5 is the most beautiful and sexy jet of all time!!!
There are a lot of things that could be done with the F-16 to reduces radar signature, and these achievements I believe could be, fitting the parts and just changing certain areas of surfaces and ducks and everything like this we could actually we could actually make that 15 with kits and 3D printing we can make it less we could cut down its radar signature it has it's amazing but it has that intake that is a significant radar signature we could change that with composite materials very financially rewarding to both parties and be able to keep it in significant numbers
And to think that the RNZAF would have the F-16 today, had Helen Clarke not disband the air combat strike wing.
Would have been interesting. I could imagine what an F-16 with a more powerful engine, bigger wings and bigger leading edge root extensions would look like.
Converting an air force aircraft to be carrier normally isn’t worth it. Whereas the conversion to a navy fighter for use by an air force is comparatively easier.
The F-8 Crusader was essentially an older F-16. Similar landing gear and single engine. It's possible.
@@SoloRenegade …. Possible, yes. The F-8 Crusader was designed for operating off aircraft carriers. The navy had it’s reasons for getting the F/A-18 beyond beyond the parochial reason of being an USAF aircraft.
The only land based aircraft I can think of that was successfully converted for carrier use was the BAE Hawk when McDonnell Douglas modified it to become the T-45 Goshawk trainer for the Navy, and that required an awful lot of modification to make it carrier compatible.
@@mrjockt … As an aside I believe the navy’s North American FJ Fury series was a redesigned F-86 Saber. Back in the 1950’s.
@@Idahoguy10157 That's true but it did take them a while to get it right, the original FJ-2 Fury (navalised F-86E) was considered unsuitable for carrier usage due to its excessive weight and was primarily issued to land based USMC units, the FJ-3 and the redesigned FJ-4 were much more suitable carrier aircraft, although the FJ-4 seemed to find its niche as an attack aircraft rather than a fighter.
6:67 Como que 33?
This looks and sounds a lot like what the Japanese are flying now in the form of the Mitsubishi F-2...
The F-16 never had a shot with only one engine and no range. It's to light to withstand carrier operations.
Could you cover the history of the F-15
Wasn't the F-16. This was the VoughtV-526, different aircraft, different manufacturer.
Would be nothing but a really expensive FOD maker.
Ironically, the Navy did end up with 2 sets of F-16Ns that were used at FWS.
yes, but they were not carrier capable, they were purely for non similar capability in the adversary role
lol ... the Saints beat absolutely the sh** out of those airframe (they stick to the marketing "handly free,let the flybywire handle it)... the poor fella has to be phase out after some years due to cracks and fatigue... Superb airplane anyway, i really think that they love it
No! No! and Never! was this a serious consideration I doubt the Navy ever look past the napkin drawings. As a matter of fact the F/A-18 was the only serious consideration, and it is based on the YF-17 that was the losing competitor to the YF-16 for the Air Force LWF fighter jet. At the time the Navy preferred BVR missiles (AIM-7), multi-engine aircraft and the wider landing gear of the YF-17. The F-16 had No Range (that was also a problem with the F/A-18 but it still had 1/3 greater combat range with 4000lbs more payload), no AIM-7 BVR (and AIM-120 wasn't around for over a 15yrs, not even all the F-16 squadrons in Desert Storm had the AMRAAM), no all aspect AIM-9L (until a few years after Navy selected F/A-18), no onboard ESM/ECM, no dual AA and AG mission support radar (not much point of the AA modes of the F-16's APG-66 if it can't shoot AIM-7s)...
The F-16 was attractive because it had the most advanced technology it was able to carry thousand-pound bomb it was able to carry the air ram it was able to carry the Sidewinder it was able to fight in the phone booth comic the F-16 was where Aerospace learned how to work with our allies and give them a potent are forcing air-defense Belgian flying the F-16, without all the undue expenses we can make kits 3D printing to cut down the radar signature even though old F-16, and cut down the cost as well it doesn't have to be that expensive but you know what the F-16 program is always been a program of cost reduction and more power for the buck
Attractive even aesthetically.. Though not as the F-14.. Sexiest jet ever imho..
For me F16XL would have been the best choice for USAF. Ofcourse not with that time engines but with Newer Engines.
I would like to see a Falcon carry more than its weight in fuel/ordnance. It would never get off the ground. The A-6 Intruder did that with ease!
The F-16A/B did not carry the most advanced technology!!! It was just the opposite it didn't have:
1. Advanced Radar: The APG-66 was stripped down to bare minimum to save weight. It was lower power and didn't have the CW Illuminator mode required for the AIM-7 Sparrow.
2. Electronic Warfare: It's "Radar Warning Receiver" was little more than a car's "Fuzz Buster" and it never had internal ECM capability. Why do think they always fly with jammer pods taking up space on an external pylon? Can you say ALQ-184???
3. Electro-Optics: None!!! Why do think they had to carry LANTIRN EO pods on external pylons???
The F-16 was stripped down to bare minimum so that it could fly beautiful AIR Show routines, but it lost a large part of that "fight in a phone booth" capability as soon as you put bombs/fuel/ALQ-184/LANTIRN under its wings...
The reason why the F-16(YF-16 as of the time of this) was beaten by the YF-17(Future F/A-18) in the Navy was due to a myriad of reasons
-Air frame is more rugged, thereby making it more suited to Carrier Operations
-Heavier Landing Gear, thereby stronger, again, suited to Carrier Operations
-2 Engines, no Idea why
-Certain Design Elements that makes it more suitable for Carrier Operations
Generally, the YF-17, despite the flaws and the main reasons it failed against the YF-16 for the USAF, the aircraft, was more promising for the Navy, solely because the YF-17 fit the Navy's Requirements better than the YF-16 as the USAF's and USN's requirements are different
So, with the 1600, Vought wanted to build the F2 before Japan knew they wanted the Zero Viper?!? Because getting a F-16 slightly larger in every direction gets you a Mitsubishi F2!
What’s an air force “benner”?
Any air force can use a navy carrier capable fighter. Witness the F-4 Phantom’s. Going the other route however is generally unattainable
👍👍👍
Every time the pentagon tries to save money on aircraft, they lose money on aircraft spending.
Wow. Their argument against the engine hitting decks during carrier landings really wasn’t any different from morons playing online games screaming “Git Gud”. That speaks volumes.
, the ability to carry out a lot of bombs and ordinance and deliver them accurately and fight your way in and fight your way out and the F-18 proved itself, F-18 was designed to be able to carry bombs hit ground targets with precision, and even dogfight with a full missile and bomb load even dogfight and it did it with excellent it took out the folk rooms if there are a lot of damage and that's a pocket rockets
Heeemm... One still got nailed by a Foxbat in the first Gulf War..
Streamlined logistics? I went to an Air Warrior Exercise at Nellis back in the early 90s. As I walked down the ramp, I could see four different squadron's F-16s parked on the ramp, and every squadron had a different engine installed in their aircraft. More like a logistical nightmare engine wise.
was there an f17?
YF-17 Cobra was the predecessor of the F/A-18 Hornet
369 foot wingspan?
Interesting story, thank you for sharing. In regards to Super Hornet, I am very happy that Block III is starting production and delivery.
The F-16 never considered. The USN was trying to get away from single engine as the engine technology at the time was still unreliable
Later: How America almost put b-52s on carriers
The Number 1 decisive difference was 2 engines vs 1.
What about the f2?
No wonder fighter procurement is in such a shambles. All the experts spend their time commenting on UA-cam.
The only time we had a one engine aircraft ice besides world war was the Skyraider, flew over Vietnam did a lot of damage they were pretty impressive plans but I don't think they had the ability of the F-16 F-16 even if I went up against and I never flew a kite in my life but if I went up against a MiG-29 or anything like this and I was signing F-16 I feel I have a better chance to beat him out
Wrong. F-86 Sabre, p-80 shooting star, f104- starfighter, f35 - lightning.
I've worked on F-16s and built F-35s. I'll take the F-16 any day. That bird just keeps coming back.
Vipers would get eaten alive where the F-35 would survive.
@@Inspadave And what situation is that?
@@justsomemainer1384 Everywhere besides a clean config dogfight
@@aidanwilliams9452 That how that went in Desert Storm?
@@justsomemainer1384 Misread your comment whoops. But honestly I imagine vipers would struggle in modern contested environments against a near peer, the amount of pods and ordnance they keep piling on is slowing them down. They’re good aircraft but there’s only so far an airframe can be upgraded, F-15’s are different in that they have more room and versatility to adapt. F-35 is just a lot more capable