F-16 and (Mitsubushi) F2

[jcf]

Free 488 page F-16XL book from NASA. MOBI, EPUB and PDF formats.
Elegance in Flight: F-16XL

[kerick]

That looks fantastic!

[tahsin]

I see nobody is asking THE question. Yes, it predates the TV series. Yes, it inspires the Colonial Viper. No, such pilots flying the F-16 were to be called Viperriders, not Viperdrivers.


It happens because of this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/dlgy5u/vought_v526_selected_configuration

And that happens because in 1974 there are some views that Forth Worth should stage an hostile takeover of Dallas to ensure a full challenge against Northrop's Cobra that might really do well in the export market. That would end up in a courtroom and if you check the Secret Projects forum you might or might not see the Vought efforts to replace the F-105 after the A-7D entering the service to replace the F-100. In the 1960s.  Even if the GAU-8 could never be as optimized as the A-10 installation.

[Weaver]

Fascinating thread about how the USAF offered the UK 40 F-16A/Bs in 1995 and why the UK turned them down.
Excellent case study in why a cheap "sticker price" isn't the whole story.
There's obvious support for a whiff here if the decision had gone the other way for some reason.

This was posted on Twitter ("X" ) by "Sir Humphrey" @pinstripedline who is really worth a follow. He turns up some excellent research in the archives.
His post is here, but I'll cross-post the whole thread for those who aren't on Twitter: https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/2028917867538751900?s=20

In 1995 the US offered to lease the RAF the F16 jet to replace the Tornado F3 in the Air Defence role. This
offer was quickly rejected by the MOD, for reasons that make fascinating reading. Thread on why 'leasing
American' can be more expensive than 'buying British'.

The Tornado F3 entered service in the 1980s, intended to provide long range air defence. It was well
designed for its task - namely to be a missile carrier to shoot down incoming Soviet bombers / MPA over
the Atlantic, and not as a dogfighter in Germany.

The F3 was dogged by challenges and in the post Cold War world, was not the ideal jet for facing the very
different environment for air defence operations. An upgrade was badly needed pending the Eurofighter's
arrival, but was this the right option?

In mid 1995 the US offered to provide 40 F16 jets on lease to the UK to modernise the RAF Fast Jet force.
This offer appeared tempting as a way of saving money, but also modernising interceptors at a time when
the budget was really under pressure.

The MOD analysed the deal.




Superficially attractive, problems soon emerged. For starters the US wasn't offering the then production
standard F16C jet, but instead stocks of the much older A/B variant, that had been out of production for
over a decade. This was not a new jet!

A full refurbishment was needed that would require new engines, fatigue extension, computers and radars
to bring it up to the standard of the planned F3 upgrade. This would be timely and cost a lot of money to deliver.




The RAF would receive the first A/B model jets in 1998, but the first upgraded aircraft wouldn't be in service
until at least 2001. This would mean operating a substandard older jet for far longer than needed and with
less capability than the F3 provided.




Crew was a major issue. 63  experienced pilots would be needed to operate the F16. It would leave the F3 fleet
with just 28 combat ready pilots and 27 in training, effectively making the fleet unsustainable for operations
or combat duties.




The blunt assessment was that introducing F16 into service would result in the loss of all UK air defence capability
beyond QRA for up to 2 years. This would have a damaging impact on the ability of the UK to mount expeditionary
or NATO operations.




The costs were also greater than the F3 SLEP - potentially as much as £500m more. A big challenge was the lack
of AAR refuelling tankers, meaning the UK would need to buy a fleet of US KC10 aircraft to support the F16 force
- increasing costs by over £1bn.




By contrast the F3 upgrade could be accelerated and provide aircraft ready before 2001, and potentially at lower
cost than the F16 alternative - solving the problem for less money.




The full costings were impressive. The 40 airframes were offered at only £296m - but the UK would incur £281m in
startup costs and £20m in ASRAAM integration work.




Add in wider support costs and suddenly the F16 upgrade emerged at costing over £423m more than upgrading
the F3, and at the cost of a lower overall level of capability than the RAF already had for several years to come.




The tanker option, which would require 9 KC10 tankers made it eye wateringly more expensive - at over £1bn
morecompared to upgrading the F3.




Overall it was an easy recommendation for the MOD to make to Ministers not to lease the F16, which no other
country had done, and where the material state and unknown costs would make this a risky business.

There ended the short story of the RAF nearly operating the F16 jet.

[PR19_Kit]

Fascinating reading H, thanks for posting it. At least some parts of the MoD were spending our money sensibly, the F3 was by far the best buy. 

Of course I'm already thinking of Whiffing a 216 Sqdn. Tri-Star (I find I have FIVE Tri-Star kits of various sorts in The Loft....) with a boom hanging out the back. Trying to keep the nozzle out of the exhaust from the #2 engine could be a bit of a problem............. 

[Charlie_c67]

Very interesting! Also shows why we need to employ people who have worked in/truly understand the armed forces rather than listen to all the armchair generals.

[Weaver]

Fascinating reading H, thanks for posting it. At least some parts of the MoD were spending our money sensibly, the F3 was by far the best buy. 

Chris Gibson's book Battle Flight goes into the original F3 decision in some detail and it's a fascinating read. One thing it hammers home is that, when you're looking at these decisions in hindsight, you have to remember that people can only make decisions with the information they have at the time, which may be incomplete or proved wrong by subsequent events.

When they were considering what aircraft to buy for the RAF 'patrol interceptor' requirement, the F-15 was new, a single-seater only (which the RAF definitely didn't want), and was suffering significant engine problems. An F-15B to RAF requirements would need a whole, new, RAF-specific rear cockpit, and the RAF was unimpressed with the radar's ECCM performance. They didn't know at the time whether those engine issues would sink it or not. They also didn't know if production would be halted before the UK had funds for a fighter in the mid 1980s in favour of the F-16: the Fighter Mafia were certainly telling them that.

F-4 production was scheduled to end in 1979 at the time, so buying more would mean either paying McDD to keep the line open or buying the whole line: big investments in an aging platform either way.

The F-14 was also having engine troubles at the time, and being threatened with production shutdown before the UK was ready. With Phoenix AAMs, training to RAF standards (one live missile shot per crew per year) would be horribly expensive, but without them, the airframe was over-spec and over-price for the capability offered.

The F-16 at the time didn't remotely meet the requirement: single seat, short-range radar and no BVR missiles.

The French ACF programme was complete 'paper plane' at the time, which never in fact got built.

Anything American that used flying-boom refuelling exclusively would need a whole new, expensive tanker fleet.
Anything short-ranged would need a larger, expensive tanker fleet.

The Tornado ADV (F3) was the most expensive choice per airframe but compared to the other choices, it needed fewer airframes and/or fewer expensive tankers to do the job. It also meant jobs for British workers and work for a British factory, since all the ADV mods were exclusively to British-made components of the Tornado IDS. Some people claim that that shouldn't be a factor and we should just buy the best from anywhere ('anywhere' inevitably being the USA...). I strongly disagree: defending your country while simultaneously running it's economy down and making it critically dependent on outside sources is like shooting yourself in the foot to scare a burglar away with the bang.

[kerick]

You're exactly right. Too many arm chair quarterbacks trying to revise history.