F 16 Fuel Tank

F 16 Fuel Tank – An U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcon flies towards Rimini, Italy to join with the Italian air force in a training mission. U.S. Air Forces from the 510th Fighter Squadron, Aviano Air Base, Italy and Italian Air Forces from the 83rd Combat Search and Rescue Squadron, Rimini, Italy, participated in a 4-day training mission from Feb. 5 to Feb. 8, 2001. The mission involved U.S. F-16 aircrews locating and authenticating survivors and coordinate pickup with Italian rescue crews. F-16s were also tasked with escorting helicopters to protect them from air and ground threats. This is the first ever tasking of a full-time combat search and rescue mission for F-16s from the 510th Fighter Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Dave Ahlschwede)

USAF was then in the uncomfortable position of having a lightweight fighter design that could outmaneuver and outrange its pride and joy, the F-15 air superiority fighter. In real-world combat conditions, which meant Mach 1.2 or below, the F-16s held a significant edge over the F-15. To some extent this problem was solved by designating the F-16 as a “swing fighter” to do both air-to-air and air-to-ground, while the F-15 was to continue its aristocratic mission of pure air-to-air.

F 16 Fuel Tank

An F-16C Fighting Falcon assigned to the 85th Test Evaluation Squadron shoots an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM over testing ranges near Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., March 19, 2019. The AMRAAM is a modern beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile capable of all-weather day-and-night operations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joshua Hoskins)

VRML 3-D Model

F-16 Fighting Falcon
VRML by Soji Yamakawa

F-16 Fighting FalconThunderbirds
VRML by Soji Yamakawa

An F-16C Falcon fighter jet assigned to the 64th Aggressor Squadron, taxis prior to a Red Flag-Nellis 21-3 mission at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., Aug. 4, 2021. Aggressor pilots are highly skilled in U.S. and adversary tactics. They provide realism to U.S. and allied forces during training exercises. (U.S. Air Force photo by William R. Lewis)

When the General Dynamics design was chosen the other selectee on merit, Boeing was no doubt a bit miffed that its loss was caused by USAF changing the rules in mid-competition. But it did not protest the decision.

While Sidewinder’s range was limited to about three miles, the Mafia argued that air combat beyond that range was fantasy in any case. Some members of the Mafia even suggested that the ideal small fighter would have no radar at all, although this was a minority view.

What the Air Force needed, the Mafia argued, was a successor to the WWII P-51 Mustang and the Korean War F-86 Saber: an all-new small fighter that would be cheap enough to buy in large numbers. (The F-104 was not considered a predecessor aircraft because, while it had excellent climb and acceleration, its wings were too small, leaving it deficient in range and maneuverability.) The new fighter would have revolutionary maneuverability, transient performance, acceleration, and climb at the subsonic and transonic speeds at which air combat is actually fought. It would have a gun and its primary armament would be the infra-red guided Sidewinder missile that had proven highly effective in Vietnam.

Of the two surviving designs, now designated the General Dynamics YF-16 and the Northrop YF-17., the YF-17 was a relatively conventional design, to some extent an outgrowth of the F-5, while the YF-16 was an all-new design incorporating highly innovative technologies that in many respects reached beyond those of the more expensive F-15. These included –

An F-16 Fighting Falcon from the 36th Fighter Squadron at Osan Air Base, South Korea, lands here after a mission during Commando Sling 04-3. U.S. and Singaporean Airmen trained together using realistic dissimilar aircraft air-to-air combat tactics. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Val Gempis)

The F-16A, a single-seat model, first flew in December
1976. The first operational F-16A was delivered in January 1979 to the
388th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The F-16B, a
two-seat model, has tandem cockpits that are about the same size as
the one in the A model. Its bubble canopy extends to cover the second
cockpit. To make room for the second cockpit, the forward fuselage
fuel tank and avionics growth space were reduced. During training, the
forward cockpit is used by a student pilot with an instructor pilot in
the rear cockpit.

Northrop argued that its twin-engine design added an essential safety factor, citing its experience with the small twin-engine F-5 fighter as an example. USAF did not find this persuasive, in part because a two engine plane with one engine out is useless in combat, and the probability of an engine failure was nominally twice as high with two engines as with one. The higher performance, better transient maneuverability, longer range, and lower cost of the YF-16 carried the day, and in 1976 the F-16 was chosen over the F-17.

An F-16 Fighting Falcon maneuvers into a refueling position after an air-combat maneuvering sortie over Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex June 18, 2021, in support of exercise RED FLAG-Alaska 21-2. Approximately 1,500 service members are expected to fly, maintain and support from more than 100 units during the exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Mario Calabro)

In January 1972, the Lightweight Fighter Program solicited design specifications from several American manufacturers. Participants were told to tailor their specifications toward the goal of developing a true air superiority lightweight fighter. General Dynamics and Northrop were asked to build prototypes, which could be evaluated with no promise of a follow-on production contract. These were to be strictly technology demonstrators. The two contractors were given creative freedom to build their own vision of a lightweight air superiority fighter, with only a limited number of specified performance goals. Northrop produced the twin-engine YF-17, using breakthrough aerodynamic technologies and two high-thrust engines. General Dynamics countered with the compact YF-16, built around a single F100 engine.

The LWF was to be about 20,000 pounds, or half the weight of the F-15, and was to stress low cost, small size, and very high performance at speed below Mach 1.6 and altitude below 40,000 feet. Two competing designs would be chosen for prototyping.

The F-16C and F-16D aircraft, which are the single- and
two-place counterparts to the F-16A/B, incorporate the latest cockpit
control and display technology. All F-16s delivered since November
1981 have built-in structural and wiring provisions and systems
architecture that permit expansion of the multirole flexibility to
perform precision strike, night attack and beyond-visual-range
interception missions. All active units and many Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve units have converted to the F-16C/D, which is
deployed in a number of Block variants.

Used as a fighter rather than as an interceptor in Vietnam, the F-4 was severely miscast. Against very inferior North Vietnamese pilots flying small, highly maneuverable MiG-21s, the air-to-air kill ratio sometimes dropped as low as 2 to 1, where it had been 13 to 1 in Korea. As the Vietnam War drew to a close, it was generally agreed that the F-4 had prohibitive deficiencies including:

Probably the F-16’s greatest asset during development was its unpopularity with the USAF establishment. Knowing that their airplane was in constant threat of cancellation, the General Dynamics designers were inspired to do everything possible and then some to maintain performance and prevent cost growth. For example, while the F-15 was about 25% titanium, titanium in the F-16 was limited to 2%. As another example, a fixed engine inlet was used to hold down cost, even though a variable inlet would have given better performance above Mach 1.5.

Two U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons assigned to the 121st Expeditionary Fighter Squadron fly over U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility during a mission in support of Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, July 17, 2021. CJTF-OIR enables its partners to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS in designated areas of Iraq and Syria, and sets conditions for follow-on operations to increase regional stability. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Taylor Crul)

The original F-15 had excellent pilot vision, including being able to see 360 degrees in the horizontal plane. It had strong high-speed maneuverability and a 20mm cannon. In addition to rectifying some of the F-4’s deficiencies, it could fly higher and faster than the F-4, and had dramatically better climb and acceleration.

Following the success of the small, highly maneuverable F-86 day fighter in the Korean War, US fighter design changed to emphasize maximum speed, altitude, and radar capability at the expense of maneuverability, pilot vision, and other attributes needed for close combat. This trend reached its extremity in the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, which was the principal fighter for both the US Air Force and Navy during the latter part of the Vietnam War.

The F-15, the Fighter Mafia objected, was even larger and more expensive than the F-4. Much of that money went into creating high maximum speed (Mach 2.5) and altitude (65,000 feet) and to serving as a launcher, under BVR conditions which couldn’t be used in real combat,. for the Sparrow missile which didn’t work While recognizing that the F-15 had phenomenal supersonic climb and maneuverability (it could sustain 6Gs at Mach 1.6), at such speeds it could not fight because its turn radius was so large that it could not keep the enemy in sight.

In any case, the Air Force establishment wanted no part of a new small fighter, with or without radar. It was regarded as a threat to the F-15, which was USAF’s highest priority program. But the Fighter Mafia gained considerable resonance in Congress and within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In 1971 Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard began a Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program to explore the concept.

The F-4 was originally designed as an interceptor for defense of the fleet against air attack – a mission neither it nor any other jet has ever executed, because no US fleet has come under air attack since the beginning of the jet age. Be that as it may, the F-4 interceptor was designed to meet the fleet defense mission by using rapid climb to high altitude, high supersonic speed, and radar-guided missiles to shoot down threat aircraft at long distance.

Industry recognized, correctly, that regardless of USAF hostility, LWF variants had great potential for profitable foreign military sales, including replacing the F-104. Single-engine designs were put forward by Boeing, General Dynamics, LTV, Northrop, and Rockwell. Northrop also proposed on a twin-engine design, in effect using Air Force money to develop a replacement for its F-5 export fighter.

But midway through this stage of the competition, some potential foreign buyers expressed concern over buying a new single-engine fighter. The previous single-engine supersonic export fighter, the F-104, had a troublesome safety record that some buyers were disinclined to repeat.

Lt. Col. Mike Cosby, 177th Fighter Wing commander, flies an F-16C block 25 aircraft from here to Atlantic City International Airport, N.J. The wing participated in Combat Archer training at Tyndall AFB, Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Don Taggart)

The F-16 has been, by any standard, a success. USAF has used it heavily and successfully for air-to-ground in the 1991 Gulf war and all subsequent conflicts. The Israeli Air Force has also had great success with it.

A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon flies over Afghanistan, March 17, 2020. The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft that delivers war- winning airpower to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Matthew Lotz)

The competing Northrop YF-17 design was somewhat larger than the YF-16, and used two smaller pure jet engines. At the price of reduced range and persistence, the YF-17 avoided the main problem of the YF-16’s turbofan: the inertia of the large fan required too long – in some cases six seconds – to spool up from idle to full power. In other respects, the YF-17 progressed better than expected, given its initial last place position.

These various sacrifices were rationalized by the belief that visual dogfighting was obsolete, and that in the supersonic age, air combat would be fought beyond visual range (BVR) using radar-guided missiles. This concept failed in Vietnam for two reasons: First, radar could detect and track aircraft but not identify them. Operating beyond visual range created an unacceptable risk of shooting down one’s own aircraft. Pilots were therefore required to close to visually identify the target before shooting; this eliminated the theoretical range advantage of radar-guided missiles. Second, the performance of the Sparrow radar-guided missile in Vietnam was poor, generally yielding less than 10% kill per shot.

In view of the challenges inherent in operating F-16s to 8,000 flight hours, together with the moderate risk involved in JSF integration, the Department has established a program to earmark by FY 2000 some 200 older, Block 15 F-16 fighter aircraft in inactive storage for potential reactivation. The purpose of this program is to provide a basis for constituting two combat wings more quickly than would be possible through new production. This force could offset aircraft withdrawn for unanticipated structural repairs or compensate for delays in the JSF program. Reactivating older F-16s is not a preferred course of action, but represents a relatively low-cost hedge against such occurrences.

Nevertheless, an informal but influential group called the “Fighter Mafia” objected to the F-15 as moving in the wrong direction. (The most prominent Fighter Mafia spokesmen were systems analyst Pierre Sprey, test pilot Charles E. Meyers, and legendary fighter pilot John Boyd.)

f 16 external fuel tank, fuel capacity of f 16, f 16 conformal fuel tanks, f16 fuel tanks, f 16 fuel capacity gallons, f 16 centerline fuel tank, f 16 fuel range, f 16 cft