Author Topic: Stealth F-16 (Read 510 times)

SunTracker · « **on:** March 17, 2004, 12:30:28 PM »

Tailless F-16 that is stealthy, as maneuverable as a regular F-16, AND does not suffer from AoA limits. It has been canceled due to the F-35.

http://www.f-16.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=63&page=1

History
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircaft Systems has proposed an improved version of the F-16, the F-16X, as the USAF's next multirole fighter. It would have a new wing based on that of the F-22 and no vertical tail. It would have twice the range of the F/A-18E/F at two thirds of the cost.

Interim improvements leading up to the F-16X could be introduced on F-16C/D Block 50 Plus aircraft, incorporating color cockpit displays, a terrain-referenced navigation system, synthetic aperture radar, and a passive missile warning system. Later Block 60 aircraft would have an internal LANTIRN system, APU and increased internal fuel in the dorsal spine.

The production of the F-16X would begin about 2010 if the program ever gets the go-ahead.

Artist impression of the tailless F-16. (LMTAS photo)
LMTAS has recently studied to turn NASA's F-16XL research aircraft into a tailless demonstrator, but there are no plans to conduct the modification due to lack of funding.

The study examined removing the vertical tail and providing directional control with a thrustvectoring engine and a new wing featuring all-moving wingtips and high-rate leading edge flaps. The new wing would have had more sweep and delta planform instead of the F-16XL cranked-arrow planform. As a lower-cost alternative the LMTAS engineers also studied keeping the F-16XL wing and modifying the ailerons.

The $250,000 six-months study started in the fall of 1995 as NASA was searching for experimental "X-plane" contenders in several categories, including high-performance fighters. The benefits would be a weight and drag reduction, and a lower, stealthier, radar cross-section, with agility that matched the standard Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter without angle of attack limits.

The F-16 would have been powered by the thrust-vectoring version of the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engine that is now being used in NASA's F-15 Active program. It has a modification of the conventional circular nozzle to achieve vectoring.

The F-16XL design's ailerons were modified by extending the tips 1-2 ft., and adding an outboard area forward of the hingeline.

Since LMTAS has been awarded the contract to develop the F-35 as the next multirole fighter of the USAF and a lot of it's allies, futher development of this version isn't expected anymore.

Chairboy · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2004, 01:16:26 PM »

This sounds very cool, but is it really an F-16? The F-18 Super Hornet is so different from the original Hornet that some question whether the naming was political/strategic, at first glance it looks kinda of like the same thing here.

I wonder what the development savings would have been over a completely new airframe.

Again, cool idea.

maslo · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2004, 02:48:19 PM »

hehe the only one problem with stealth planes is that they are stealth only for americans civil radars

LePaul · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2004, 04:05:55 PM »

Do recall that we didnt know about the F-117 until it was developed and in service for 6 years! (In service 1982, revealed 1988)

maslo · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2004, 04:15:05 PM »

sure and former Tamara radar system were able to detect them since 1985 ... our commie general probably refused to make dialog for NY times

SunTracker · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2004, 04:32:35 PM »

You guys do realise that the Stealth Bomber and Fighter dont just fly over enemy radar sites? They fly inbetween them, and they are truely effective when they do that.

Theres never been an F117 turned away from a target due to enemy air defense. Theres been 1 F117 shot down, but it had already dropped its bombs.

Glasses · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:58:48 PM »

I think esentially with the F-117's smaller RCS it decreases the range at which radar can effectively track and kill the Stealth's. I think it flies in between those holes amd goes to target.

majic · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2004, 10:05:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Glasses
I think esentially with the F-117's smaller RCS it decreases the range at which radar can effectively track and kill the Stealth's. I think it flies in between those holes amd goes to target.

Exactly. Imagine a bunch of interlocking circles representing radar coverage. Since the stealth is detected at a shorter range the circles get smaller and gaps (could) appear.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2004, 09:32:12 AM »

you realize they change their radar band even a little and they are visible again. stealth planes were a pork project.

they are pointless once they are a known factor. as they are easy to prepare for.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2004, 09:45:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
you realize they change their radar band even a little and they are visible again. stealth planes were a pork project.

they are pointless once they are a known factor. as they are easy to prepare for.

Allow me to translate:

USA sucks!!!!! USA sucks!!!

LePaul · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2004, 10:14:11 AM »

LOL Grun

Soulyss · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2004, 10:22:36 AM »

What I've never been able to understand is you'll hear "experts" talking about stealth technology and making statements like "this airplane has the radar return of a small bird" or somthing like that. My question is what radar operator isn't going to look at his scope and see a 700mph "bird" and not think anything is up.

Chairboy · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2004, 11:29:38 AM »

I've wondered the same thing. I think the answer lies in noise, namely, radar returns have a lot of kerfuffle and you might have thousands of returns the size of a bird moving anywhere from 1mph to 10,000mph in all directions. A normal 'squelch' of the console would get rid of those so only strong returns show up.

Again, I'm coming from the standpoint of theory, not experience, so if someone else knows better, please jump in.

With that said, if my assumption is correct, then the big advances in anti-stealth radar (or at least radar that can detect an F-117) will come not from power output or sensitivity, but instead will come from raw computing power that can track ALL of the interference and look for patterns. For example, if the radar (at high sensitivity) is showing millions of tiny returns, the computer might watch for consistent movement from a micro-return and highlight that whenever it sees it.