With the F35 thread looking about over, I thought I'd start one on the aircraft it is supposed to replace, the F16. Being single engined like the F35, I wonder what others here think about its ability to replace the jack of all trades fighter/attack aircraft of the USAF.
One quick question first for Mace/Eagl/anyone else who knows - why do they mount the Aim120 on the outer wingtip pylon on the Falcon? The F18 Hornets we have here in Canada carry a very similar loadout for a2a as the USAF's F16, but our Amraam's are mounted on the nacel pylon's and the next inboard station, with the 2 Aim9x's being on the wingtip station, where they USED to be on the F16's. My guess is that the Aim120's would be loosed first in an A2A engagement, and having them gone first and the wingtip pylons being empty before a possible merge and knife fighting range must give some advantage in maneuverability or something. I'm interested to know what the real reason for this is. The F16's look kinda dorky IMO with that big long missile on that little itty bitty pylon, they look like they could fall off in a strong crosswind almost, and they are pointed at a really strange looking angle.
Also, regarding the F35/F16, they obviously have the same job, and there is a TON of information out there regarding how well or poorly the F35 will do replacing the Falcon. My big point in favor of the F35 is this - ammunition capacity.
The F16 from all the pictures I've searched seems to have a typical a2a loadout of 3 fuel tanks, 2 Aim120's on the wingtips, and a combination of another 4 missiles, either 4 more Aim120's or Aim9's for a total of SIX air to air missiles with the tanks. The F35 will be able to carry 2 or 4 external fuel tanks that are jetisonable as required for observability issues, in addition to EIGHT Aim120's and FOUR Aim9's carried internally. This is without ANY missiles mounted externally, which is apparently a possibility. So, the F35 will be able to easily carry at least double the amount of ammo as the current F16's do. Without getting into the issue of the external ordnance and how this may possibly compromise what the F35 is supposed to be all about (low observability/stealth), I feel this is a major MAJOR improvement and advantage over the F16. I've seen some loadout pictures of the F35 that have another 6 Aim120's and 4 Aim9's mounted externally with double ejection racks used for Aim120s. That's TWENTY TWO missiles. I'm not sure if the plane can even lift that much weight and if it is just one of those renditions you see of fighters all the time, but it makes me smile to think that our adversaries may end up fighting us facing that much ammo in the magazine. Even the 12 missiles in the standard internal loadout of the F35 is very VERY impressive, more so when you consider they aren't hanging out there to give off radar returns, like on the Eurofighter for example.
Another thing I've wondered, has the ability to carry fuel tanks in those internal "stealth" bays been explored? If 2 large tanks could be carried internally, one in each bay, with say 2 aim9s or 3 small diameter bombs on the little internal pylons, this would give the F35 a LOT of extra range, albeit with only a light loadout. It would be of good use IMO though for those special one off type of missions, say chopping down enemy surveillance aircraft, or other high value targets where you only need a lot of fuel/range and one or two shots of the type of ordnance required for the mission, then return quickly to friendly skies.
I realize that the F22 and the F15C's while they are still around, and the F18E/F to some extent are the aircraft that US forces will look to for air to air combat for the foreseeable future, and that the F35 is likely going to focus on air to ground types of missions, but if the F35 is truly going to replace the F16, a2a is going to still be quite important. Take for example the Korean theater, where it's mainly F16s on station to accomplish ALL USAF missions for the first days or week of a possible war until reinforcements dedicated to air to air would arrive. The F35 in place of the Falcon would be faced with fighting Mig29's and god knows what else old Kim Jun Flat Face would be throwing at the south. The fact that the F35 would have a ton of missiles on board, double what the F16s would have had, could be a major advantage in the initial part of an air war.
Also, what is the consensus so far regarding the F35's ability to fight at close range? Having great superduper new passive and active sensors and 95% lethal weapons like the various Aim120 variants and the Aim9X with helmet mounted aiming devices is great, but how would it do once all the missiles are expended and the possibility of having to fight it's way home through swarms of crappy little Mig21's et al with only the gun or short range missiles becomes a reality? On paper the F35 looks like a < 1 to 1 ratio for thrust, dissimilar to the F16, but has any of our Aces High pilots a la Mace/Eagl heard tell of how its roll/turn rates and acceleration compares to current fighters, particularly the F16 that it is to replace? It seems to me kind of spooky that such an advanced fighter would have 43000lbs of thrust (an incredible amount for one engine I grant), but a loaded take off weight of near 50,000lbs. I realize that the F35 carries nearly 20k pounds of gas internally, so if half of that was burned off by the time hostilities commenced, I guess the thrust to weight ration would be approaching something close to over 1 to 1.
This F35 aircraft is going to be SO important for the Western powers, and I truly hope that it lives up to expectations. Here in Canada we are signed on to purchase at least 65 of the A models, and there is talk in the Department of Defense for going on the line for another 50, likely of the "B" variant, which will allow most of our A's to focus on Norad air defense, as well as give us a limited ability to operate the "b"'s off of some of the 35 new Warships that our DOD has contracted local companies to construct over the next 10 years or so. I know it doesn't sound like a lot, 65 fighters, barely a Russian/Soviet Regiment of fighters, and 50 close air support jobies only a possibility, especially when you consider that the powers that be project over 2500 to be constructed. There are a dozen other countries though just like Canada in terms of defense needs - Japan, Korea, all the European countries that are F35 Partners - the procurement of this little jet is going to be a real political hot potato for quite a while. A last thought, a HUGELY important issue, is the fact that a lot of allied countries will now have a brand new state of the art STANDARDIZED weapons system, something that will of critical import should the world end up in a large conflict in the future.
