F 16D Fighting Falcon!

duotiga83 SG

Originally posted by Viper52:

Thats neither a C or D in the pic, thats a F-16B. Easiest way to tell Viper versions apart are:

A - single seat, small vertical fin base with no blade antenna on fin base
B - twin seat, small vertical fin base with no blade antenna on fin base
C - single seat, large vertical fin base with blade antenna on fin base
D - twin seat, large vertical fin base with blade antenna on fin base

[b]ALL F-16s with the large dorsal spine are Ds.[/b]

rite Wink ....except for slight correction on the last part

ALL F-16s with the large dorsal spine are Ds.[/b]
That statement is true for the later version of F-16D (blk 52[RSAF], blk52+[Hellenic AF] and blk 60[UAEAF] )except for IDF/AF F-16D Block 40 which has dorsal spine also and USAF F-16D 'VISTA'.

F-16C AFTI is modified F-16C with dorsal spine also.

Cheers Wink

Viper52 SG

Originally posted by duotiga83:

rite ....except for slight correction on the last part

[b]ALL F-16s with the large dorsal spine are Ds.[/b]
That statement is true for the later version of F-16D (blk 52[RSAF], blk52+[Hellenic AF] and blk 60[UAEAF] )except for IDF/AF F-16D Block 40 which has dorsal spine also and USAF F-16D 'VISTA'.

F-16C AFTI is modified F-16C with dorsal spine also.

Cheers Wink [/b]

Another slight correction...the AFTI spine is different from the large F-16D spine, its much smaller.

duotiga83 SG

Originally posted by Viper52:

Another slight correction...the AFTI spine is different from the large F-16D spine, its much smaller.

thnkx for correction Mr. Green Cool

NathanG5 SG

if im not wrong..the RSAF insignia is the old..so its a old pic..
so its either A/B rite?

Viper52 SG

Yup its old. Its a old LMTAS (I think it was still General Dynamics then) publicity photo of the handover of Singapore's 8 A/Bs. I would date the original pic '88 or '89

IAF SG

Sorry! Careless typo! Embarassed I mean what's the phycial difference between a two-seater B and a two-seater D?

Joe Black SG

One other thing that you can spot for the difference between a B and a D Viper (in RSAF anyway) is to look at the back (Instructor) cockpit. The D Viper has a HUD repeater whereas a B viper does have one Smile

=-Noelle-= SG

Joe Black SG

Say, I've got some interesting questions and wonder who knows the answers (Viper52 perhaps Smile )?

Is the batch of Block 52+ Vipers that is about to be delievered has Low-Observable Asymmetric Nozzles installed on to the F100-229 engines?

Will RSAF refit the current Block 52 Vipers with LOAN too?

Another hypothetical questions I have got is that... would it be a wise decision if Singapore (perhaps partnering Israel and Thailand) persue the Multi-directional thrust-vectoring technology and retrofit the entire fleet with this. It will give all our Vipers an instant capability to deal with Su-30MKK on a 1 to 1 basis.

Eager to hear different comments from all you military nutlites !!! Smile

IAF SG

dude, this is really out of my depth. What does the LOAN do? Btw, can you explain why Thailand also?

gary1910 SG

Hey guys,
Any1 here noe what is the number of C & D versions of the 20 F-16s blk52+ that were ordered in year 2000?

duotiga83 SG

eh correction...2000 deliveries were not in Blk 52+ but Blk 52, often call Cj/Dj in USAF(they used this ver as SEAD role).

You can refer to here

Viper52 SG

Errr...Duotiga, Gary1910 is asking about the 20 ordered in 2000, not those delivered that year. Those 2000 orders have not been delivered yet.

Viper52 SG

Joe Black, your answers:

- no idea

- no idea

- while it sounds like an interesting and exciting proposal, I wonder about it's feasibility. Unless we band together (maybe with Taiwan as well?) and sponsor the project, it is almost certain the project will not go anywhere (US will want nothing of it as the USAF will view it as a threat to their F-35 program). Another issue is high risk vs low potential returns. The F-16 user air forces might also view it as a threat to their plans for buying JSF. IMO I wouldn't bother, get an interim type like RSAF and wait for the JSF.

duotiga83 SG

oh, i was misunderstood then Confused you are right on this

Joe Black SG

Originally posted by Viper52:
- while it sounds like an interesting and exciting proposal, I wonder about it's feasibility. Unless we band together (maybe with Taiwan as well?) and sponsor the project, it is almost certain the project will not go anywhere (US will want nothing of it as the USAF will view it as a threat to their F-35 program). Another issue is high risk vs low potential returns. The F-16 user air forces might also view it as a threat to their plans for buying JSF. IMO I wouldn't bother, get an interim type like RSAF and wait for the JSF.[/b]

Funny how the Americans are so scared that F-35 project might be terminated. It is more like that they find the Raptors too expensive that the JSF. Given that JSF has become an "internationalised" project, I don't think any sane GAO officer will write some stupid reports to cane it. However, the same cannot be said about the Raptors. My feeling is that the Raptors should only be purchased as silver bullets given that the attention now are on UCAV development.

Anyway, I keep finding that US has the bad habit of canning cheaper and near/immediate term benefit projects. They shouldn't have stopped the MATV and Multi-directional Thrust Vectoring projects. I'm sure that would have given the Vipers an equal level of playing field against the Sukhois by now. Just image, what a thrust vector Block 60 can do. I'm sure it will beat almost anything at dogfights.

I think the over reliance on BVR engagement is going to hurt USAF one day. They only starting to bridge the WVR gap that the Russians and the Israelis have created with the introduction of AIM-9X and JHMDS. I still believe that a thrust vectoring plane will still give any pilot an edge.

Viper52 SG

Despite the fact that JSF is an international project, the US is still the major provider of funds and research into the project. Should funding from the US side be cut, the whole program goes, no matter what the partners say.

Do not for a moment underestimate the politicians ability to cut programs. In a similar vein to the US not getting Block 60s so the USAF will claim to have a need for F-35s, consider:

- USMC electing out of SuperBug for F-35
- USAF opting out of Block 52+ and CFT-ed Vipers as they don't want to have long range Vipers (to back up their need for more and new tankers)

Defence funds for new projects is only that big in the US context, I can fully understand why the services want to cut off their noses in the short term for what they see as long term gain.

« Previous Page