So cool to see our old aircraft getting the modernized love they need. The F-15 now with the EX Eagle II, the F-16V now, can’t wait to see what our aviation has in store for the future

@anthonyj5298

Ай бұрын

Taiwan already flies them. There was a F16V demo cockpit about 6 years ago and the center pedestal was a big digital screen. I wonder if it has changed any.

Aerodynamic principles don't change; the F-16's design owns aerodynamics!

Five reasons why the **insert fighter jet name** is the best: 1) It's beautiful 2) It's beautiful 3) It's beautiful 4) It's beautiful 5) It's beautiful

@pistonburner6448

Ай бұрын

That's during peace time. Then when things get real it's considered the best if: 1) It wins 2) It wins 3) It wins 4) It wins 5) It wins

@jj4791

Ай бұрын

No jets are the best. The P-47 was the best. And it has a prop.

It should be called Bactrian Camel because it has two humps for storing liquids. 🤓

@Pincer88

Ай бұрын

😂

"I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes when it takes a man's life."

@PepperDog76

Ай бұрын

😆

That's wild. I just watched Mace speak at a conference yesterday. She was awesome!

I'm a Viper fan, but I don't see the resemblance between an F-16 and a Colonial Viper.

@nicolaeionescu6538

Ай бұрын

I think the comparison was between the inside of the two cockpits.

@rogerwilco5918

Ай бұрын

Meh... a little I guess..

@mp9070

Ай бұрын

It is an all electric and very futuristic single seat fighter when it came out and at the time Battlestar Galactica was a popular TV show.

@pistonburner6448

Ай бұрын

I'm a Viper turbofan.

@quantumuninstall

Ай бұрын

@@pistonburner6448 Atmospheric, I like it.

What you mentioned at the end regarding attrition is what worries me a bit about our air assets (and Navy...but that's a different story). The ability to rapidly replenish stocks for a lot of the inventory seems to be lacking.

@michaelmoses8745

Ай бұрын

That's honestly my main concern in a near peer conflict. The United States doesn't really have the industrial might to replace lost war material in a reasonable time frame. FFS it takes ten years or so to build a carrier and an F-35 takes 40,000 hours and can only be built at a rate of 2 a week or so in a single manufacturing plant. That's not really a wartime production rate.

@everypitchcounts4875

Ай бұрын

USA doesn't have many qualified skilled workers that is why everything takes so long to build

@eddgrs9193

Ай бұрын

The downside of democratic capitalism vs autocratic planned economy. In one system production must be profitable, in the other production must fill quotas.

New drinking game. Everytime Mover says Viper you have to do a shot. :)

@oldgoat142

Ай бұрын

I'd be unconscious quite quickly.

@jj4791

Ай бұрын

I was playing that with "mental health" and pot brownies. So I ended up in the psyche ward.

I'm holding-out for the variant that transforms from flight-mode to BattleMech mode like Robo-Tech............. Out-Nerd that............................

Have you guys been able to see the F-2 from Japan? The Viper-Zero.

That’s why the Hellenic Airforce 🇬🇷 opted for the following tactical fighter fleet mix. By 2030: 121 F-16V Blk 50/52 30 Rafale F3R 20-40 F-35A Blk 4

@constantinethecataphract5949

Ай бұрын

Comment got deleted

@max2008abhi

Ай бұрын

Turks got screwed

@constantinethecataphract5949

Ай бұрын

We need f-35C and Bs C because of short take off abilities and B for vstol.

Brothers: Not in favor of recycling the names of iconic aircraft. It’s P-47 Thunderbolt, not A-10 “Thunderbolt II.” And P-38 Lightning, not F-35 “Lightning II.” Whose ditzy idea was it to re-use great war bird’s names?

@michaelmoses8745

Ай бұрын

Probably marketing peeps.

@Caseytify

Ай бұрын

What about Corsair II and Phantom II?

@Glen.Danielsen

Ай бұрын

@@Caseytify Yes!

@jj4791

Ай бұрын

Lightning II Is not only for P-38 but also English-Electric/BAE. The Brits were the 2nd largest contributor to the F-35 program. And a primary customer for the aircraft. The appropriate name is F-135 Thunderchief II. Or: Thud II. Aardvark II.

Mover, what Blocks of F-16s did you fly, and did you have a favorite? And thoughts on the F-16XL? Even though it lost out to the Mudhen it was a cool looking variant, though I’d imagine its handling would be drastically different from any others.

@cdyjv118

Ай бұрын

The XL wasnt a fighter, more like a striker like the F-111. Could carry lots of ordnance but was a pig in BFM

AESA requires a lot more computing power, probably more high freq. output power thus more cooling equipment...I think...

Any info on the upgrade ability of the platform? With all the 5 gen features they also would need fast upgrade cycles. Or is it a one off and will need an MLU to upgrade? Thinking of platforms like Gripen E with 5 gen features but designed for constant upgrade ability. F16 has always been one of my favourites.

I’m thinking they’re going to produce the Viper way up until the “Z” model, just like the Cobra attack helicopter.

There's ballast installed with the AESA package

I have always loved the F-16 since I was a kid in the 70s and 80s. I know the conformal tanks are a very useful upgrade, but man I hate the way they spoil beautiful lines.

What about the XL? What kind of limitations did it have vs. the accepted and deployed variants?

@cdyjv118

Ай бұрын

XL was basically a lighter F-111, a decent striker with tons of gas but a pig in BFM

Did he fly FA-18 super hornet block 3 ?

If the APG-83 is lighter than previous radars, then it will be supplemented with ballast to preserve the jet's CG, or so I would imagine. Start messing with the CG and you may have to recalibrate other things. The simpler approach is to maintain the same CG, right?

@CWLemoine

Ай бұрын

Yeah, that's what they did with the Eagle I think.

@pistonburner6448

Ай бұрын

Or you move some module from the rear to the nose in order to maintain CG without adding weight. (Some module which is easy to move.) That's sometimes done in automotive applications: just move the battery from one end to the other to compensate for differences in the weight of one engine version to the other.

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

AESAs are much heavier than MSAs due to the TRM density and the back-end of each TRM, which makes the antennae array itself much heavier. MSA antennae are really light because they have to be mechanically-gimbaled repeatedly as part of their normal scan scheduling.

@appa609

Ай бұрын

​@@CWLemoine I heard somewhere they took advantage of the new FCS to move the F-15EX CG slightly aft and reduce trim drag. The F-16 was already optimized that way so I doubt they got much improvement.

@CWLemoine

Ай бұрын

@@appa609 I don't know. But that is interesting. The F-16 gained weight with the Block 40/50. The 30s had a lighter nose, which was better for BFM. I wonder if going AESA helped go back to more of what the 30 could do with nose authority.

Because it is built in South Carolina about 10 miles from where I am sitting right now.

Good on Gonky letting the Fighting Falcon pilots have their moment in this video. 😂

0:15 look at his eyebrow haha

Check out the F-21 concept

I wonder why LM never tried to give it a go to make the Viper stealthier beyond the divertless supersonic intake (DSI) and Have Glass RAM coating LM and the USAF experimented with. Would love to see a V-tailed 5th gen version of her.

@cdyjv118

Ай бұрын

Money

@corvuscorax-kp4sg

Ай бұрын

having backwards compatible upgrades help you in the long run; to keep the cost down and make older aircrafts more future-proof.

F16 platform never get old and still best aircraft ever.

6th reason is it also comes with a Martin-Baker ejection seat.. ;)

What happened to “Fighting Falcon” ?

a couple thousand drones with explosives just chucked up with preset waypoints or led by a human pilot usung a follow me type feature. the remote operator can switch to different "swarms" and lead them through complex paths then just hit repeat and they follow the bread crumbs

Was it inspired by the F-16i?

Can we get the XL- double delta wing?

@stupidburp

Ай бұрын

F2 is a big wing F-16 with light weight materials.

@Milesobrian

Ай бұрын

@@stupidburp do you mean the Japanese Mitsubishi f2?

@stupidburp

Ай бұрын

Yes. F2 was also the first active service fighter to have an AESA radar. It is out of production now but still a good fighter.

@Milesobrian

Ай бұрын

@stupidburp I'm thinking XL since it's range doesn't require conformal tanks. And it's payload is almost double.

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

F-16XL acceleration and take-off distance were major problems. Thrust-to-weight was like a 1960s jet, not a normal F-16 rocket ship. You would need to make all the bulkheads out of CF, CF skin, and install a beast of a motor to get the F-16XL where it needs to be with take-off, climb rate, and acceleration. That engine and manufacturing methods didn’t exist at the time, but were in development. The real problem is RCS, which we already identified in the 1970s and decided to go with Stealth VLO for all future designs for TACAIR. A-12 really threw a wrench in that plan by not having the manufacturing methods consistent enough for populating the internal cavities, so that program was cancelled instead of fixed. USAF at least went forward with all-VLO force, which SECDEF Gates and Shanahan seized from the jaws of victory and saddled us with the current mix looking backwards instead of forward.

Are we buying any or just exporting?

@anthonyj5298

Ай бұрын

Both.

The problem is that significantly upgraded electronics are expensive, and since they produce 12 low rates a year, they cost over $130 million. Upgrading from block52 to viper specifications is also getting more expensive...

@pistonburner6448

Ай бұрын

I think it's useful to clarify what is meant by "expensive". The electronics themselves are not expensive. It's the cost to develop the tech. So either you save money and don't develop the new electronics at all, or you develop the new electronics and then you might as well update all the aircraft it makes sense to upgrade (all you're going to use, and all you need to for training).

@gnarl12

Ай бұрын

Inflation and labor shortages

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

The initial CCIP 1 overhauls were more expensive than an entire Block 15 Viper from 1981-1983. Once you account CCIP 1, CCIP 2, and PoBIT, a Block 40 or 50 that goes through those is approaching twice the price of an F-35A. But we’re capitalizing on existing airframes that were already built to keep them relevant for any Vipers that will be or are forward-deployed in USAFE and PACAF, while Block 30s and older 40/42s stay Stateside awaiting conversion into QF-16Cs or headed to the boneyard.

Mace looks just like my favourite golfer, Grace Charis. Maybe sisters ??? ❤

Just like with the F-15EX, almost all those extra structural hours are likely a result of differences in accounting and limiting critical loads with fcs tweaks. The physical structure is barely changed. We'll find out in 40 years whether it's legit or Boeing/LMT were playing fast and loose to make a sales pitch

@electricaviationchannelvid7863

Ай бұрын

Todays mission profiles has changed...no chance of dogfight since you have high off boresight missiles, no low level interdiction , smarter fly by wire envelope protection with heavy loads...all these used to be hard on airframe and pilot...

@stupidburp

Ай бұрын

F-15EX is rated for higher g loads and a much broader and more aggressive set of handling conditions. Seems like it is more than just software but I am sure that helps.

Put all those goodies on an F-16XL with an F110-132.

Isn't the F-16E/F aka Block 60 actually better than the F-16V/Block 70 since it has a more powerful engine, larger radar, and IRST, among others

@0cu0

Ай бұрын

You are right. The F-16E/F has a more powerful engine. But a brand new F-16V should have the same radar performance (not scaled down to fit to older airframes) as the F-16E

@vmpgsc

Ай бұрын

Yep, that F110-GE-132 is a monster.

@pistonburner6448

Ай бұрын

Did they have to install a catalytic converter or particulate filter on the new one to meet emissions requirements or something? 😅

@gnarl12

Ай бұрын

Slightly but it's probably more expensive

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

Some of the architecture is superior on the F-16E/F for LO and sensors, as well as the obvious propulsion kick in the pants needed to haul the increased take-off weights. The E/F noses don’t have a perpendicular Radar bulkhead if you look at them from the side, so Radar energy is resonated upwards and away from the emitter, unlike legacy fighters. It was done to reduce the frontal RCS. Block 60 is what you get when you get the Pentagon out of the way and let the contractors and customers actually spec out a great aircraft. They were over $200 million each though, fully-funded by UAE.

What is better: 180 super expensive F22 Raptors or 4500 much less expensive F16 Falcon?

I worked on the F-16E’s when the UAE had a dozen of them stationed at Tucson Air National Guard. We could remove all the conformal tanks and fuselage attaching points in less than an hour. A clean F-16E with the F110-132 engine was a Viper on steroids!

@corvuscorax-kp4sg

Ай бұрын

I always wondered how they would perform against other blocks (block 50-52 mainly and maybe block 30 since it was one of the best if not the best in bfm) in dogfights without those conformal tanks.

Which one is better F-16-70 vs Grippen E

@leifiseland1218

Ай бұрын

Gripen E.

@Migthunder

Ай бұрын

Gripen E

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

F-16E/F and F-16V are vastly-superior to any Gripen, including the E. Gripen E isn’t even fully-developed yet, runs on old school Mil-1553B databuses. When I told a friend of mine that who does UAV avionics, he even laughed at Mil-1553B because they have something better. Gripen E is a lot of marketing hype among the avgeek press, who really don’t know what they’re looking at, especially the younger guys who have no foundation or history with any of these programs.

@stupidburp

Ай бұрын

I know that they use 5x 1553 on the C/D series. But I thought they upgraded the databus hardware for the E series?

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

@@stupidburp Last I saw was a call-out for 4x Mil-1553B databuses. US went to a newer bus set with fiber optics, then newer ones after that with even more ports and capacity. We're at least 2 generations of databus architecture and protocols ahead of Mil-1553B.

the AH1Z is the correct Viper , Twin engine fast jets are all superior, even an F-111 splashed one while evading and not using weapons. The Bell X-15 and the F-104/105 are maybe the exceptions

Reason number one: it's an F-16!

You’re up against Fifth Generation Fighters

Here's the 90M dollar question... Is the EX worth the extra maintenance, personnel and up front costs over the Block 70? I'm some clown that knowns nothing but a Viper with the conformal fuel tanks is still going to have less range than an EX without conformal tanks OR drop tanks carrying the same payload. Would a Viper with non-droppable tanks beat a clean EX in BFM? AMRAAM math alone would probably go to the mudhen.

@anthonyj5298

Ай бұрын

They aren't in competition. They complement each other. But I guess still a valid quesiton.

@stupidburp

Ай бұрын

Yes they are worth it. A better complement to the F-35 with opposite strengths. Perfectly suited for domestic air policing while also top of the heap for war time missile truck firepower. Operating costs are higher than for F-16 but still much lower than for F-35.

We all love the Fighting Falcon in all its forms, even if you call it the Viper. Fun fact: Falcons eat snakes.

A lot of people hate the tanks, but I think they're pretty cool. But with those, a full load-out, and all the other bumps... it doesn't look like it should be able to fly.

Falcon... Fighting falcon .

@CWLemoine

Ай бұрын

Nerd.

Why they didn't just go with the XL is beyond me. The benefits eclipse all the upgrades they're spending money on today.

@cdyjv118

Ай бұрын

Not really. The XL was basically a lighter F-111 with tons of gas but couldnt turn well at all. The Strike Eagle is a much better platform and better fighter for the cost

I still wouldn't want to fly over an actual hostile territory with only one engine.

Five reasons 1. V 2. I 3.P 4.E 5.R

5the gen fighter.......... the bravery of being out of range 🫡

@icin4d

Ай бұрын

That's the progression. They're basically missile trucks for network guidance.

70 > 72, GE FTW.

No ammunition problem in ph, funds goes to pocket Corruption ???

Great fighter. The yardstick that others measure by and still highly capable but not the best any more. Sorry.

I’ll always prefer “Falcon”.

As good as the V model is with all it's modern tech.. It has still put in the pounds and it's raw flight performance and manoverablity will never match the A models. I'm a Viper fanatic & the reason I love the jet so much is because it's a hot rod. The V probably throws that out the window. It's now a bomb truck loaded with tech and no raw flight performance.

@0cu0

Ай бұрын

Not quite the A Model but the Turks upgrade their Block 30s with modern avionics (AESA, Helmet Display etc) and structural improvements. Having the lighter nose of the early vipers, the GE F110 and the mentioned upgrades could be interesting mix.

Fighting Falcon and can't change my mind. Just like the Thunderbolt II and Lightening II. I give respect to the guys that actually designed the aircraft and gave them a name. The F-16 has it's charm. Not really a fan of it but I respect what it can do in a merge. This new version though? Definitely not a fan. What did they do to it? What is with those ugly ass protrusions above the wingroots? Why are they trying to make this thing into something else? Just let it do what it was designed to do. Stop trying to force it to become something else.

Did you hear Putin saying to the oil refineries owners " we can't protect you. You need your own private defense" Maybe they will want to buy some F16......😂

The two seat viper with CFT’s look horrendously ugly

It's literally the fighter we sell to allies we don't trust enough to offer the F-35. The only advantage over it is cost.

Guys, it dosn't look sleek and fast anymore, it looks bloated.

Gripen E is better hehe

@thh4584

Ай бұрын

Even the C&D's with the new MS20 upgrade are formidable.

@gnarl12

Ай бұрын

Smaller, shorter range, more expensive 😜

@yvesdulac1871

Ай бұрын

Gripen E is so underpowered. It will not have the kinematics to max perform missiles and to evade from enemy missiles.

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

I don’t think there’s a single metric where Gripen E compares well against an F-16CM+ PoBIT Viper with AESA, let alone Block 60 and 70 Vipers. Payload, range, climb rate, weapons suite, lethality, survivability, avionics architecture, DFLCS maturity, etc. Gripen E still uses Mil-1553B databuses and isn’t even developed yet, 17 years after Gripen NG was announced. Only thing better is the nose landing gear, which is more rugged.

Bs. They have not met their match yet. Wait till S 300, S 350, S 400 and S 500

F16 is a Beast we love F16 and Pakistan air force pilot's has best skills and experience on F16 in the world

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

Not even close. USAF, Israelis, Norwegians, Belgians, Dutch, and Danes have the best skills and experience in Vipers.

@MNawaz-ge6uy

Ай бұрын

@@LRRPFco52 not like Pakistan Pakistani pilots has best skills and experience on F16

@pistonburner6448

Ай бұрын

Pakistani pilots can't even keep normal passenger aircraft in the air, like seen from Pakistan Airlines flight 8303 and overall the massive fraud uncovered among Pakistani pilots, with your airlines being blacklisted from flying in most countries!

@LRRPFco52

Ай бұрын

@@MNawaz-ge6uy My bad. You must be right. Pakistan probably accounted for most of the 88 A2A kills and A2G tonnage F-16s have dropped in strike roles over the past 45 years. The Israelis are looking like top dog in the A2A space with F-16s with at least 53 A2A kills. USAF is without peer in strike mission sorties and tonnage dropped on-target.

Facts prove that Toyota jeep is better🖕

Everything American is the best until it shows up in Ukraine and then all the marketing and PR falls apart

are you guys on a promise? You both had a shave.

Can we add some perdix micro drones to the F-16V

This may be an unpopular opinion but I think the CFTs make the F-16 look a bit ugly from the front.