Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
SMSgt Mac,
Well, I had suggested that the transonic acceleration performance would be only moderately superior in the F-16 Block 60 working off the figures in your chart. If an F-16 with a 29,500 lb thrust engine at a drag index of 50 and weight of 36,000 lbs would be at parity with an F-35A, then it would stand to reason that an F-16 with a drag index of 50 and weight of 36,000 lbs but with a thrust of 32,500 lbs would be above parity. If only moderately so due to the issues you highlighted. But where I think you will see significant differences will be in sustained turn, rate of climb, and raw speed. With the Block 60 there are no extra pylons dragging you down from dropped fuel tanks or targeting pods. An F-16 Block 60 in an air to air configuration with 4 AMRAAMS should be able to significantly out-turn an out-climb an identically configured F-35 at essentially identical combat radiuses. And I think the comparison to the more modern model is apt as when F-16's were designed they were not intended to perform at long ranges or with add-on pods. They were designed for raw aerodynamic performance. Taking an aerodynamically degraded legacy F-16 as a point of comparison for an exceedingly modern new jet seems inappropriate. The Block 60 F-16's illustrate what is acheivable with this airframe when those additional capabilities for avionics, targeting, and extra fuel for long range engagements are built in from the start rather than tacked on afterwards as performance degrading afterthoughts.
Feb 25, 2015, 5:50:39 AM
Posted to The F-35 and the Infamous Transonic Acceleration ‘Spec’ Change: