F-16XL: The best F-16 that never was?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лют 2022
- Invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/binkov
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.
See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.io/about/disc...
Our latest video talks about the history of the F-16XL, a special and radical variant of the fighter jet that never made it past the two technology demonstrators. Why wasn't the XL chosen as the future of USAF? Watch the video to find out.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbatt...
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattl...
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/binkov
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.
See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.io/about/disclaimer
F36 Kingsnake concept is F16XL reborn.
do a vid about SUPER DUPER MEGA STRONG SUPERPOWER ESTONIA VS WORLD
love these videos but dear GOD man sort you're comments to filter by top the bad takes are so cringe
Sounds like the plane for Canada! BTW still looking for used F/A-18A/B. Please send any offers to Canadian ministry of defence. ☺️
Binkov nice video, what do you think about Croatia buying Bradleys from US?
Former F-15C pilot here. The F-16 is probably the best export aircraft of its time, but the F-16XL aircraft just didn't augment the native capabilities high enough to justify a whole new variant, instead they added capability with BLOCKS. 1 engine is probably the biggest Achilles heel. 2 engines = 1 more engine PLUS 2 more hydraulic systems and 1 more electric generator. The additional engine adds more redundancy benefits than just additional thrust, which is huge when you're being shot at.
Former F-15 avionics technician, the F-16 weak sauce radar was no match for APG-63 or APG-70 back when I was working on them. The fact that you could run 2 GE F100-129's in the F-15 means an even greater thrust advantage. Finally, even the C model could be fitted with CFT's further enhancing the overall capability of the F-15C and E (no one cares about the F-15D, aka family model). I would argue that the best export aircraft will be the F-15EX soon.
Hey how trained are Chinese pilots compared to Americans?
@@shinchan-F-urmom Hey. Do you know Jesus?
@@buckhondomurray3027 I think
@@buckhondomurray3027 The Hippie turned Zombie that Kickstarted a whole religion?
As far as *budget restrictions,* the Air Force was also secretly developing the X-301 and then the X-302 Space Interceptor, as well as the X-303 Battle Cruiser.
Underrated comment. If you know, you know.
A stupid expense when you can just walk anywhere in the universe
Man what are these? How did you get this information?
What's X-301 X-302? Pls elaborate
@@shinchan-F-urmom Stargate
Indeed.
Choosing the F-15E was the correct call. Having the WSO and 2nd engine is important. I mean Israel did do the F-16I to at least add the WSO, but you still can't get a 2nd engine on the F-16.
F16 XL was proposed to have a WSO
This is true plus making the f-16 bigger and heavier (not that the near delta wing didn’t have its benefits) is a bit counterintuitive considering it was built to be a lightweight cheaper nimble fighter which if you ask me is close to the pinnacle of its design keeping it maneuverable and cost effective is what it was built for therefore upgrading the large fast heavy and venerable f-15 to the F-15ex with duel engines and the payload being upgraded to make the EX a missile truck for the stealthy more expensive 5th gen fighters and still be the premier and retaining top k/d ratio with all new avionics and flight systems with more powerful engines just makes more sense even if they are at a cost of $80-$85 million a piece
what's wso?
@@viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476 f 16XL actually had cheaper operational costs, it could even super cruise which was fantastic value for money. Shame it never went into full production.
@@NoNameAtAll2 weapon system officer.
It now lives on in the Ace Combat series
Ah yes, those glorious lads from OADF "Wizard Squadron".
And if I remember correctly the Yuktobanian AF used XLs for Op Desert Arrow?
Back in the 90s I bought a pack of cheap toy metal airplanes in a Dollar store that were made in China. What attracted me to it was the selection. In addition to the F4 Phantom II, the 747 and the SAAB Viggen, it included very nice and accurate metal models of the F20 Tigershark and the F16XL. It said a lot about what planes impressed the Chinese back then.
The F-16XL with it's large wing definitely looked more modern and cool than the F-16 but I also bet that since the XL never made it to production it was very easy and cheap to make models for it, there weren't any copyrights to worry about and you could probably cheaply snatch up one of the models made during development to use as a basis for your molds. Same goes with the other planes, they're either older planes like the F-4 and 747 where it was super easy to just steal another companies model design or buy second hand molds or it's the Viggen which y'know was only made and used by Sweden so no one was coming after them for that and the Tigershark which was another failed prototype upgrade.
Curious. I also remember a line of die-cast metal airplane toys from China in the '90s and it also featured the F-4, F-16XL and F-20. I personally had the F-15 though. My brothers had the F-4, F-16XL and F-20. The F-4 toy was painted in orange, the F-16XL was blue, and the F-20 was some burgundish red. My F-15 was just metallic with red wingtips iirc.
These jet fighter toys were mostly in die-cast metal but the nosecones (as well as the canopies) were cast in chromed plastic. Except for the F-15 one (which I had, because I am a diehard F-15 fan) that had the nosecone in die-cast metal as well. Neither the F-20 nor the F-16XL had the wingtip missiles moulded into them. None of these toys had any missiles, in fact.
Could it be the same toyline?
@@Leadblast Now that you mention it, the pack of metal fighter plane toys did include an F15. (I have it stored in a box somewhere so I had to work from memory.) Based on your description of how they were constructed I believe it was the same toy line other than maybe my pack included the Saab Viggen.
Give XL an AESA radar and F-135 engine, making it the "interceptor in the dream"
I always think that XL was mis-placed in double role competition, its best role is large area air defense against outnumbering enemies:
It supercruises
It can carry many missiles (if the 16 wing hardpoints can be reconfigured to carry AAMs)
It has long range
If GD had not given it up, modified it to be such air defense fighter/interceptor, I think Saudi Arabia, Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Vietnamn, Pakistan etc... would show high interest in it
It's nice given the current situation in Europe to still watch military vids without the accompanying anxieties.
I think one of the main reasons for selecting the F-15 Strike Eagle was that around 80% of the spares needed for previous F-15's were identical on the Strike Eagle making maintenance and repair a lot easier and cheaper , the F-16XL had a very limited commonality with the original F-16 meaning a completely new supply chain and very large extra through life costs.
It seems like the late cold war thinking regarding attack and light bomber aircraft really emphasized multiple engines, my guess would be for survivability reasons.
Larger planes generally have longer range and larger payload, and the F-111's service life was coming to an end, F-15E was far closer to F-111's in term of strike capabilities than the F-16XL.
You nailed the same issue with legacy F/A-18s (A/B/C/D) upgrading to the E/F Super Hornets. They may look alike, but they are entirely different beasts.
@@420JackG I don't think two engines is safer... In fact it only helps in route, but taking off from a carrier..more dangerous. From ground, yes, safer.
In any case, double the maintenance.
The f15 is more of a plane ,but the f16 takes the sales!
Ok, the F-16XL was ok, and even potentially better for some missions than the F-16. However, it isn't even close when compared plane to plane with the F-15E.
this is the greatest binkovs video of all time
There is actually a plan to Bring back the F-16XL still with the same delta Wing design but upgraded avionics with two tale blades and also an engine used on the F-22
Japan with mechs controlled be teen girls, gundams, Godzilla, and anime vs Luxembourg
Japan had to cope with its ww2 defeat somehow.
Now make a video on Mirage 4000 and Su 47 .That will be awesome.
The f-16 was originated as a light weight, cheap and superior air to air FIGHTER capability and it did that in spades. It was NOT originally designed or created as a multi roll air craft.
Though it has performed admirably in that role, while it's home is in air superiority it's very adaptable.
@@hedgehog3180
No one said it wasn’t adaptable. I repeat and stand by what I posted
Love your videos!
Great video to put this plane into perspective. The XL looks like a nice support aircraft for ground attack and air patrol. Watching this made me realize how it was almost like an early F-35 prototype in that regard. The XL is so attractive looking too, makes me wish the design would be converted into a cheap attack plane just to see a few of these flying around.
Unless you play Ace Combat games or write Ace Combat fanfics. Then the F-16XL can still be found.
The only thing called XL that ever got refused by americans. Had they call it F-16 Big Burger or Big Gulp XL it would've been accepted.
Seriously, how can they have such a great plane like this and not build it? The YF-23 was another project with huge potential.
While the YF-23 Black Widow is my favorite fighter jet of all time (you would not believe my excessive nerd-out when I saw the shell of one in the LA air museum), it was mainly rejected due to concerns with the manufacturing company, not the plane itself.
The F-15E might have been the right call in the mid-80's, but I can't help but wonder if the technologies that have come to prominence since would have found a better home on the F-16XL. The ever smaller, precision guided ordinance of today could be carried in far greater numbers, providing a much needed overwatch capability, and it's range and vast number of hardpoints could support 5th generation fighters in the arsenal ship role.
In currently modern world
The way fighter jets are used in war
And the evolved technologies.
The f 16 xl if produced would be better for the role of f 16 then f 16 itself
F15s are were and will remain the best fighter jets ever made. Also they are the fastest fighters still to this day
Well I doubt the F-16XL could have provided support for 5th gen fighters since the support required there is in being a long range missile truck and those are heavy and big.
Love your Work Binkov greetings from Germany.
Thank you for such a well rounded video. When I was a teen back in the 1980's, I actually made a plastic model of a F-16XL, and was always curious about the full story of the plane.
Thank YOU 🙏 AGAIN Comrade Binkov that was an EXCELLENT video in ALL aspects 👍👏👏👏👏💪🍺 I have seen lots of videos on this aircraft and your work sir is top shelf
May I request a Part 2 of this video where the F-16XL is compared with the Mitsubishi F-2, and the much later F16 blocks say.. the Israeli ones with conformal fuel tanks, more powerful radars, etc etc.
In my opinion the DoD made the right call in supporting the F15E over the F16XL. The F16XL added a lot to future fighter design. It was a good research project.
The answer is clear. New F36 is basically the he F16XL. It was a better design, single engine so maintenance is cheaper. Just a great plane
F-36 CONCEPT there is nothing set in stone
The F-36 doesn’t exist, it’s a thought experiment that got drafted up by hobbyists
I wondered why F-16XL never have a chance, but everything you said here make sense.
Super interesting and informative.
Very interesting, Binkov! Your videos on comparative military equipment are definitely worth watching. And your new sponsor is also quite interesting!
Big fan here! Watching from Philippines!
Binkov, now you've done the F-16XL, how about the FB-111H? Would it have been a better choice than the B-1B?
Excellent experiment.
To answer the question in the thumbnail, the F-15E "dominated" the F-16XL in the air superiority & deep strike roles. It could carry far more payload, to considerably greater distances with superior radar, and retain much more maneuverability and combat capability with that load. Not to mention the EW capabilities (that unspecified avionics capacity).
The weight issues & handling characteristics of the F-16XL made it an untenable design for a fighter which relies heavily on dogfighting maneuverability to fulfill it's role. So it wasn't even good competition vs. the original F-16 design.
The crank arrow wing itself was superb. The F-16 just didn't have the thrust to really leverage it well on it's P&W F100 engines. With a F110-GE-132 engine though, or even a regular F110, it could have been a viable design, and possibly worth resurrecting. The problem is that the F-16XL design preceded an engine of that size/weight with enough thrust to make it highly viable by over 10 years. If GD wanted to make the XL a viable plane in the early 80's, they really needed to scale back the hard point count, and give it a somewhat smaller crank arrow delta wing with less internal fuel, to get the weight down. In no situation would any F-16XL with one engine really be capable of replacing the F-111 as well as an F-15 based design, but with a smaller crank arrow wing and less weight, or with an engine 10-20 years more advanced than available at the time, it could have been a viable upgrade to the F-16 itself (which was really the program goal, apart from just testing crank arrow delta wing tech).
but the f-15e also doesn't really replace the f-111 (the f-117 was supposed to, then the FB-22) that wasn't even what the program was about, at least until after the cold war and the f-111 was retired.
@@cjcolehour2778 The F-111 had about a 10-20% range advantage over the F-15E. But the F-15E has a significant advantage over the 111 in air to air capability, even while carrying it's air to ground ordinance load. And a somewhat more updated EW suite.
The F-117A doesn't have the range or payload to really compete for the same sorties as the F-111 or F-15E. Though for a very light precision ordinance load against closer targets, it's obviously preferred due to stealth.
Excellent video
2:58 Of course the chair force's jet designer is a passionate golfer
Beautiful plane. But, I think the Air Force made the right call in the end. F-16XL blurred the lines between the mission profiles of the F-16 and F-15, which isn't really a good thing. Better to have two very different aircraft cover both ends of the spectrum than one Frankenstein in the middle that covers neither extreme all that well.
Still, I'm a bit surprised that mod-tier countries who weren't on such a tight budget didn't get a chance to purchase it.
yeah but it wasn't the plane that blurred that it was the USAF doctrine. Since the f16 is very numerous in the USAF it still was used in the missions that the f15E did as well so in the end that didn't matter cause it was going to happen. The argument is more about having the current f16 fleet mostly or just partially upgraded to the xl for those said missions rather than having them replace f15Es
I don't think any countries would have wanted it, like if the US wasn't gonna adopt it would be a technological dead end, so if you have the choice between adopting the plane the USAF is using and will keep developing for the next 40+ years or one the USAF scrapped and won't develop at all the choice is pretty obvious. You don't want to be left holding the bag on an expensive and incomplete project when you have way less money to spare than the US. There's a reason why whenever other NATO countries develop aircraft it's often in cooperation and with a specific multi-role profile and an aim at making them long term viable.
This was a very nice video on me f-16 and the f-15 and the attempts to come up with new variants!!
Excellent video Binkov.
How about a video about the F-20 Tigershark and its ill-fated "competition" against the F-16? Surely the USAF forsaking the F-20 is still a subject very much debated upon even today
imagine how much damage Doug Masters and Chappie Sinclair could have done with two of these in "iron eagle"?
That movie and Namco Air combat are what sparked kid me fondness for the F-16.
Thanks very much🇺🇸
The forward swept wing version looks fantastic
Just something to point out with ordinance, More is generally better but past a certain point you Have to balance that against how much you can realistically use in a single engagement. Past a certain point it's just more weight and drag that's gonna have to fly back with you.
I made an RC version of the XL. It was a fun project.
Fokker was building the European Eagles, the XL was actually looked at with much interest. Even for the Dutch air force as additional aircraft due to a lack of bombers. There were parties within the air force that did look at the project but got shot down by the American government. Also Belgium and Norway were to some level interested to acquire a few aircraft.
The F-16XL might live again as the F-36. We can only hope.
And now it was given another thought exercise with the F 36 Kingsnake thought proposal.
The moment he mentioned the sustained turn rate issue, I thought that the decision was a good one.
Sustained turn rate is the main strength of the F-16. Since no other aircraft before the Raptor could match it, the Viper essentially just had something it could always rely on against any opponent.
These days you could argue that instantaneous turn rate is more important and STR nearly irrelevant because of the realities of how high-off-boresight missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 work, but since fighting is almost exclusively BVR these days, it's not a big deal and not really a major argument in favor of the XL.
You can now fly General Dynamics F-16XL in Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown
The project was called super so on cruise and maneuver, SCaM.
Yeah, probably should’ve rethought that naming convention.
Tejas's Quadraplex digital fly by wire was used in F16EX,I don't know may be it was our first export of aircraft component to any Western nation
Binkov for World Leader
What we could've had huh?
Though the new F-16 Viper is pretty phenomenal.... when slipping from supersonic to subsonic it can pull 10 Gs.
No mention of the Saab Draken , which pioneered the double delta design in the 50s ?
I was surpriced to learn about the long takeoff and landing distances, considering the Draken was designed for short takeoff and landing. (well, short by the times standards.) The planes have pretty much the same design, so how come the XL needed so long runways? bad brakes? It doesn't seem like it's the double delta design doing it.
For the 30% disparity in sustained turn rate performance, was that the model with thrust vectoring and was it being used during that test?
You can’t compare these two fighters!
That being said, i regret so much, they didn’t go on with the F-16 XL!!!
Less wing loading, more fuel, better maneuverability, more hardpoints, and what a look!
The F-16XL was impressive and would have been great for a ground pound platform and it had good AOA, Range and Speed so it could have been a decent air to air platform as well, But the standard F-16 we all know was still a better platform in air to air because it had an advantage in sustaining energy due to it not having a delta wing that just absolutely bleeds airspeed.
I had a diecast metal F-16 toy when I was a kid. It was painted red white and blue like the test plane was. Did anybody else have one of those? It was pretty big about 6 inches long not a matchbox
Was it part of a series called Dyna-Flites?? Had a lot of those as a kid, loved them!
@@christianpethukov8155 I don't know but it was one of my favorite toys. I love that
I have to wonder, would there be any market for a new F-16XL that incorporates all the improvements of the latest models like the F-16V Block 70 and F-21?
Imagine how many *long range air superiority fighters* the *US Navy* could have, today if (solving virtually all demands F-35 and even F-18 fall short of like range and missile number)...
The ideal weapon that exceeds in all roles doesn't exist - that is why there's *_'combined arms' warfare_* , tested at _Gaugamela_ against numerical superiority and reflected in the cost effective F-16 program...
Props for General Dynamics to circumvent *'Airforce department bias'* via _private funding_ of a _plausible_ concept.
I like this video because so often stories like this about planes that did not make it into production are told as if the USAF was obviously stupid for not choosing it because they focus too narrowly on a few performance characteristics and miss the bigger picture, you provide that very well and lay out why the choice the USAF did go with was actually probably the best one. It's important to remember that a plane isn't all numbers and while the XL might seem better than the base F-16 on paper it wasn't competing for that role, it was competing for the strike fighter role role and one of the biggest strengths of the F-16 wasn't so much it's performance as the price to performance it offered.
Nah the F16xl would’ve been a waste. They made the right call.
except when you consider what we have actually used thes planes on (and even regular f-16) then the xl comes on top, it might have not been as upgradable as the f-15E, but literally, nothing else about f-15 that was better than the f-16xl has been needed in the last 30 years, what was needed, a plane you only had to do matince on one engine, not two.
Ive seen this plane in PC game back then. The F22 simulator Total Air War / Air Dominance Fighter. But it was codenamed F16U. It has the delta wing just like this
Would've been interesting with cfts and the avionics/engine of the latest block 70.
0:17
Yep, the YF-23 comes to mind!
To me, the XL seemed more like a sequal than a varient. It would be impossible to retrofit and exisitng fleet.
I worked on F-16I with the CFT extra fuel tanks on top, and the XL model was a much better option
realy?
I respect that they didn't want to afford to do both. However I think it would not have replaced the F-16, at least initially. With the ability to have F-16's for shorter ranged missions & a parts commonality with F-16 XL, General Dynamics could upsell a strike/interceptor XL in small numbers to complement the fighter/strike F-16. Most of the airframe would be different however same engines, radars, cockpits, safety/environmental controls, etc.
I'm a big fan of the F-16 XL concept, but it still had some work to be done to develop into a useable airplane. Obviously, there was a need and a market, as many of the most modern F-16s are being built with all these strike oriented Mr. potato-head add-ons like the avionics spine and the over-wing fuel tanks. Seems to me, those volumes were already built in to the XL. Kind of strange to build and deliver those without looking again at the XL.
THe issues the XL needed to fix: The high landing speed was because the tailpipe would not allow a higher angle of attack at landing. The landing gear needed to be moved rearward by the same amount as the rear fuselage stretch to allow a reasonable landing pitch angle. This would be addressed by the addition of a canard which, as we are seeing with the Eurofighter, is what a delta wing needs to be maneuverable in a dogfight. THe canard would both offer lift to keep the nose up with rearward landing gear, and the sustained pitch rates needed for dogfight. The 3rd change is the addition of leading edge flaps, to add camber to the leading edge of the delta wing, necessary to reduce high drag incured at high angles of attack. Permanent LE (conical) camber was used on swept wings from the F-106 to the F-15. The LE flaps would serve the same purpose and stow wen not needed. They were considered for the XL, but for some reason, not included in the build.
Landing Speed: Solution, Gear location and canard.
Sustained pitch rate: Solution; canard and LE flaps.
Chonky Falcon! Always loved the look of this prototype and hope the Kingsnake does go into production.
Just looked at Edwards AFB on Google satellite map view. 1 is sitting at the base museum on static. The one is on the north east side parked by some F18s. Looks like 2 drone shuttles by them and on other side of hangar space shuttle booster rockets
Smaller or less well funded Air Forces generally have as few aircraft models as possible. They can't afford the multiple logistical and training costs of multiple lines. The US is a rich country and can afford a lot of specialized aircrafts.
F-36 kingsnake is XL rebirth!
Blinkov - could you cover the F-20 Tigershark?
Hey, Binkov, here's a thought for this:
What if, somewhere in the 1980s USA, a War Game test was held involving a surprise American Counter Invasion of the Soviet Union's Far East?
During the exercise, it was realized that things could ripple effect badly. Namely, the main concern is North Korea. That North Korea could go to the aid of the Soviets, making a nuisance of themselves. The Chinese might get dragged in on the side of the Soviets, though it is considered a possibility, but one with too much risk in it.
Even if neither country were to be involved, it was determined the US Military alone might not have the available capability. Essentially proving to not be up to the task of such a Two-Front War. The problem it is realized, is that taking the Soviet Far East would shut down the Soviet Pacific Fleet and remove a potential invasion of Alaska. Not to mention, the Soviet Far East Air Forces would be eliminated as well and potentially a number of Soviet ICBM sites could be captured, rendering them moot for the rest of the war.
A greater push to the Urals is ruled out due to the logistical difficulties.
Still, the issue is lack of American support as well as other War Games indicate a fair-likely degree of possibility that a hypothetical Asian-Pacific Front would be unavoidable in general and could ripple effect no matter what is done.
Coupled together, realization sets in, that America's East Asian allies are or might not up to the task of fighting this hypothetical front.
So, in that regard, there are two scenarios here I'd like to know if you can address:
The first, frankly, is a Asian-Pacific Front in a 1980s Third World War.
What would it be like? How could it begin in the first place? Equipment, potential alliances, things of that matter. As well as potential points of conflict and pay offs for success by either side.
The second is a continuation of this video, following a divergence of two paths.
The first path being what if Japan acquired some F-16XLs? Namely to replace the fighters it had just or was about to retire. But also, as a means to cover some of the costs, purchased a number of F-16A/Bs to cover their investment in the event the F-16XL would never work out. A short of backstop insurance package.
In addition, they looked at other available aircraft, like the F-15E Strike Eagle and F-20A Tigershark but were more interested in something they could mount Anti-Ship Missiles on. A reasonable consideration given that Japan is an island nation. If they can stop the invasion with Air and Naval Forces, they're in good shape.
A ripple here, is that the Philippines and South Koreans want to update and take a look. Of course, I see the Philippines going towards F-20s because they are actively using F-5s and South Korea is also using F-5s and looks at all three main aircraft, with McDonnell-Douglas tossing in the F/A-18 Hornet for potential sale as well.
Taiwan sneaks into the window shopping, hoping to acquire something or get something. But is given some due consideration under the table.
The other path is based on the starting above scenario. As a result of the discovery of the potential for an Asian-Pacific Front in a WW3, the USA begins looking to see what they could interest and help their allies in the region get. This includes helping the ROCAF acquire new aircraft, spare parts, and munitions plus other resources and supplies, initially under the table.
Again, each nation has an idea of what they want. But even with American support, they are still limited to what they can get and how many. Still, they wish to take away some good aircraft.
How would that play out and who else could be brought in from the PAN countries?
Don't forget while the f15s dogfighting record is 105-0, the f16s record isn't far off that mark. 82-2
Reminds me of Typhoon/Rafale/EuroFighter
Regarding the worse/weaker sustained maneuverability of the xl than normal models, it will be offset by the use of better radar, targeting systems & latest missile variants. I mean why crank the jet hard to get a lock on when you can just point your head to the target and fire off an all-aspect missile? The maneuverability of the xl is a given; after all, the doctrine of the usaf is *long range stand-off fights* . Something usaf ironically undermines
Also the engine fit: improved performance had general dynamics upgraded it with more powerful version. That'll solve the issues the xl encountered in test flights
"That program was called scam"
Why does this feel like foreshadowing
Great plain
The canard version was discarded but a delta canard with the cranked arrow would have been interesting. It would have fixed the sustained turn rate and to/ldg distance problem.
I’m totally copping a hoodie Binkov, I like the picture of everyone nuking the shit out each other lol 🔥
I was there helping to build these two aircraft (one single seat, one two seat). The Japanese placed an order for fifty XL's before number one ever flew. The USAF wanted the F-15E and after the competition was over, both aircraft were hidden from public view for over two years. They were later used by NASA out of Edwards.
If the Japanese HAD gotten F-16XL, they'd likely reduced or replaced their F-86F Kyokko (Japanese Saber variant which had just been retired), F-4EJ Phantoms (remained until 1995), and F-104J Eiko (Japanese variant of the Starfighter, which happened to be getting retired at that time) in addition to their Mitsubishi F-1 Attackers (only recently retired). With the Eiko and Kyokko out of service, the F-16XL would have expanded Japanese capabilities and some of the issues with the early F-16XL wouldn't have been that big of a deal compared to flying the Phantom. Especially in that Attacker Role.
Modifications and Anti-Ship Capabilities would have been required, but I'm guessing 90% of any problem was that the F-16XL was a conversion of two existing F-16A/Bs in the first place. A dedicated hull and further refinement would have likely addressed the issue of future upgrades and the performance issues the F-16XL suffered from.
Costly, though, on the other hand, to introduce the F-16XL, the Japanese could have bought regular F-16A/B Fighting Falcons. While not as high a performer as F-16XL, it would have been a major market opener. The Japanese might have even cancelled the F-4EJ Kai upgrade program or still have gone through it due to how fickle the Japanese budget could be and that the RF-4EJ would have remained in inventory, being a cheaper alternative.
Still, had Japan bought the F-16XL and gotten F-16A/Bs to help cover the costs, the General Dynamics would have won big. The USAF could then sit to the side and watch how the F-16XL could have been finalized and maybe thought to precure a few themselves down the road. Like today.
Additionally, other countries that hadn't looked at F-16s might reconsider and even do a little window shopping of other American Aircraft. Like the Philippines which were planned to retire their Vought F-8H Crusaders in 1988 which itself had replaced the previous F-86D and F-86F Sabers (both retired 1977) and were also still using F-5A/Bs (retired 2005).
While buying the F-16XL was unlikely to happen, potentially buying either or both the F-16A/B Fighting Falcon and/or F-20A Tigershark would have been potentially possible. Likely both, with F-16s in small batches and F-20s in larger numbers due to the latter being a development of the F-5 and therefore enough familiarity would have sold the F-20 while securing small numbers of F-16s.
Honestly, what were people thinking?
@@soulsphere9242 The F-2 was a cooperative effort between GD/Lockheed and Mitsubishi and occurred after the XL's were built. The XL's only flew for about 12 months before being mothballed for the F-15E production. We at GD always felt the competition was stacked against us. This also went back to single engine versus two engine argument for fighter aircraft.
@@soulsphere9242 The F-2 came along about five to six years after the XL's. The XL's had a different flight control system than the F-2 (quad redundant versus 3 axis version). While the similarities between the two aircraft, F-16 Block 15 and the F-2's, they were made different enough so the export laws and military technology transfer laws would not have interfered with the Mitsubishi developed aircraft.
There have been recent images if the xL in testing.
You failed to mention that when NASA procured the F-16XL for research, they finally equipped it with the upgraded engines and "accidentally" achieved super-cruise without afterburners during testing. A thrust vectoring nozzle would have overcome the sustained turn radius issue. Plus, imagine if the F-16XL eventually received the same wing root blisters, avionics, and other capability upgrades that later F-16 varlets have received.
I've always thought that we MUST always have an extremely manueverable fighter with concentration on using super powerful armament whatever that might be. Thanks, Binkov!
Looks really similar to the saab draken
Yes
considering how little the price difference the price was compared to the basic f-16 (especially considering how much more capable it is) I highly doubt the f-16 export market would have suffered. the Netherlands for example were very interested in the variant until the us shut it down.
"I highly doubt the f-16 export market would have suffered."
Binkov's speculation is completely counter-intutive as the F-16 XL would have offered _impressive_ multi-role bombing capabilities, making inferior airframes for that role like the underperforming e.g. F-4 obsolete (phased out in Germany as late as 2013 - although that doesn't take into account that Cold War 'double containment' forbids German air superiority, a role given to the Dutch and Belgians...).
The F-15 is the superior airframe for US Airforce requirements, but not for a US Navy once it lacks an F-14 - or in regard to export markets that don't flaunt as much taxes as US Congress. If the F-16 XL can be produced for less than 30 million USD than it could have been brought down to less than 25 via international lobbying, resulting in entire additional squadrons...
With canards the turning radius and some lift ie shorter take off length issues could have been solved easily
Well ... with modern SDBs and JGAMs and improvements in engine efficiency as well as laminar flow tested on other F-16... it would have been indeed PUNISHING Ground Attack Aircraft.
Video suggestion: An overview of all current U.S fighter jets. I struggle with understanding the differences between the various planes and why there are so many different models in use. :)
The US often uses both single seat and double seat variants, as the double seat variants are used for training. I will not go into individual detail on the single/double seat variants. In chronological order.
F15c: Air superiority fighter. The F15c is not capable of striking ground targets, but was the foremost aircraft for air superiority until the introduction of the F22.
F16: Cheap to build, cheap to operate, built to export without spilling state secrets. Export lowers the price even further, as the research costs are spread out over a larger number of aircraft. The low price allows the US to operate a far larger fleet than if it only flew more expensive aircraft. The F16 is also multirole, allowing it to operate important strike missions that the F15c cannot.
Unfortunately, the F16 fleet is largely reaching the end of their operational lifespan and need to be replaced due to regular wear and tear, either by newly constructed F16s or another aircraft.
F15e: Multirole variant of the F15c. External fuel tanks and heavier frame (for carrying bombs). The F15e is more expensive than the F16, but is also more capable.
F18E: Multirole aircraft designed for carrier operations. The extra weight for the sturdier frame and heavier landing gear needed to operate on carriers reduces performance considerably. Thus why a separate aircraft is necessary even though it fills a similar role to the F16.
F22: The world's foremost air superiority fighter. It's untouchable in air to air combat, but is simply too expensive to fully replace the F15c. It has very limited ground strike capabilities in the form of 2x 1,000lb bounds. The aircraft will be retired in the 2030s to make way for larger numbers of the cheaper and more practical F35.
F18G: Electronic warfare variant of the F18. The F18G is designed to replace the older Corsair IIs in SEAD operations. It supports strike groups by disrupting enemy RADAR while said strike group attacks enemy SAM sites.
F35a: Remember how I said the F16s needed replacing? Well, that's where the F35a comes in. The F35a is meant to replace much of the aging F16c fleet in the form of a multirole stealth fighter. It's also the first stealth aircraft made for export, giving stealth capabilities to the US's most trusted allies.
In addition, the F35 is designed from the ground up for interconnectivity with other aircraft. Not only US aircraft, but also foreign aircraft that might be operating alongside the F35s. Aside from being a capable stealth air superiority aircraft and strike aircraft the F35 is capable of using its stealth and AESA RADAR to gather unparalleled information up close, and share that information with allied 4th gen fighters (improving their capabilities as well).
Future plans are for a series of long range missiles and bombs that can be launched from a safe distance by 4th gen fighters, and handed over to the F35s for terminal guidance into their final target.
F35b: The F35b was made for the US Marines and the Royal British Navy. With the UK being a large contributor to the development of the F35. The F35b has a powerful fan built into the frame of the aircraft, that allows it to make Short Takeoffs Or Vertical Landings (STOVL). This allows it to take off from much smaller helicopter carriers (US), or from British carriers which lack catapults.
The UK even made two new supercarriers with the new F35b in mind. The F35b will be replacing the older and much less capable harrier jump jets.
F35c: The carrier variant of the F35a. See previous comments about tougher frame and heavier landing gear being required.
@@Dubanx Incredible! Thank you for sharing!! :D Makes much more sense to me now!
F-15C(Eagle): a plane entirely focused around air superiority. It has better range, speed and air-to-air capability than all other 4th-gens in US service today. It was the replacement for the USAF’s F-4E, without any of the air-to-ground capabilities of the F-4E.
F-15E(Strike Eagle): a variant of the F-15 that was upgraded to have ground strike capabilities. It is a little heavier than the F-15C and a bit more expensive to fly.
F-15SE(Silent Eagle): a proposed variant of the F-15 that was modified to have a reduced RCS through various modifications and Radar Absorbent Material(RAM).
F-15EX(Eagle II): an in-development variant of the F-15 that will combine and improve the A2A and A2G capabilities of the F-15C and F-15E, making it the most powerful 4.5-gen aircraft ever built.
F-22A(Raptor): The 5th-gen replacement for the F-15C. It has stealth, supercruise, supermaneuverability and better radar than the F-15C. It’s role is air superiority, with negligible ground strike capability. Full-production was halted due to costs and lack of multirole capability. Currently the best 5th-gen air superiority fighter and the only one to have been tested in the field.
F-16(Falcon, but more commonly referred to as “Viper”): a multirole aircraft that is cheaper than the F-15. Was designed to dogfight and dogfight, it did. Early F-16s were meant to be frontline fighters that would get low and dirty, entangling with enemy fighters and out maneuvering them. Therefore, they only carried short-range heat seeking missiles. Starting from the F-16 block 15, BVR capability was added, but still not as good as the F-15. Due to cheaper costs and multirole capabilities, it has enjoyed much success on the export market.
F-35A(Lightning II): the USAF variant of the F-35. The only multirole capable stealth aircraft in the world. It has the best sensors and electronics and will do whatever you need it to do. The only F-35 with an internal gun.
F-35B(Lightning II): Marine variant of the F-35 with STOVL capabilities.
F-35C(Lightning II): Navy variant of the F-35 with bigger, folding wings beefier landing gear and other modifications centered around carrier landing capabilities. Has better range due to increased wing area.
F/A-18E/F(Superhornet): a carrier based light multirole fighter. Has really good maneuverability.
AV-8B(Harrier): a USMC multirole fighter with VTOL capability. Only subsonic fighter in US inventory.
F-5F/N(Tiger II): a very light fighter used for training USAF, USN, and USMC against non-similar adversaries. The squadrons that are tasked with this role are known as aggressor squadrons. Other aggressor squadrons also use F-16s and F18s.
@@sharpstriker1559 Thank you!!
@@sharpstriker1559 To be fair, the harrier is more of an attack aircraft than a fighter. Its air to air capabilities are extremely limited.
I feel that you should have talked about the F36 proposal....
When this video first released, I just read an article hyping the XL up to high heavens how how much of a loss it was to not have it. Maybe the XL would have provided some unique advantages but honestly not as dramatic as that article put it. And honestly, The F-15 is one of the best US strike fighters ever produced period.
Does anyyone know where can I buy the Blinkov's plusie? I've searched for it and couldn't find it. did they stopped selling it?
I think it was a special offer item only available for a limited time. They might bring it back another time.
I think the J10 is probably the closest thing we have to a modern F16XL
Remove F-35C's rear ailevators, F-35C's large wings that extend near the engine nozzle is effectively diamond delta-wing aircraft.
F-35C's rear ailevators extending beyond the engine nozzle mostly duplicates thrust vector functions.
Lmao, cope harder Sinoboo
I think Israel and probably Japan and S.Korea would appreciate the XL/E/F models. Maybe Australia also so no F/A-18's for them. That said, Israel and S.Korea got F-15E variants anyway.
I'd like to know how they managed to balance the center of weight with so much of the lift shifted to the tail. Must of been completely different guts.
Maybe they balanced the center of the lift through a built-it angle of attack on the different portions of the wing, plus the body lift should not be discarded
Be interesting to compair the XL to the new confomal tank version...
Yeah it fair game to compare latest F-16 vs XL with how it trying more fuel with small wing and narrow airframe
8:00 Ok so does that mean in mostly bvr combat where cranking and mauvers don't need the same sustained turn rate, the f16xl would perform better?
Not necessarily. It's important to note that BVR missiles need to lead their targets to hit where the target WILL be, not where they are. Missile engines also only burn for around 10 seconds, glide for most of their range, and slow down with every turn. So aircraft in BVR maneuver back and forth so that the missile loses speed every time it turns to meet the new intersection point.
The faster the aircraft travels, the more the missile has to turn to meet the new intersection point. Having an aircraft that looses a lot of speed in turns means less lead is required from incoming missiles, and less energy is robbed from those missiles with every turn.
So sustained turn rate (highest turn rate the aircraft can sustain without loosing speed) is probably more important than instantaneous turn rate in BVR.
Would have decreased reliance on aerial refuelling on a lot of the campaigns of the 90s and the 2000s
The cranked-arrow wing.
F-15 Eagle 🦅 hands down 🙌
Strike Eagle for the WIN! My favorite combat aircraft.
@@cyberherbalist I remember hearing this story. Ziv Nedivi flew an F-15 with One Wing. And land it safely. It's a remarkable machine.
Not against every plane:
A dogfigth betwen a Mirage 2000 and an F-15 could be dangerous for the F-15
And a Rafale vs an F-15 will be a fair match.
An F-15 is a capable aircraft bu it show is age F-15 is a 46 years old airframe.
And it had 9 hardpoints , Rafale 13 navy or 14 air force.
It's a great aircraft but he goes to retirement.