XBradTC

By

XBradTC

·

The YF-16

As Boyd and the Fighter Mafia envisioned the Lightweight Fighter, the ideal was a very maneuverable jet armed with two Sidewinders and a gun.  It was to be equipped with a very simple radar, and have a very high fuel fraction (that is, the percentage of the gross weight made up of fuel, versus the…

As Boyd and the Fighter Mafia envisioned the Lightweight Fighter, the ideal was a very maneuverable jet armed with two Sidewinders and a gun.  It was to be equipped with a very simple radar, and have a very high fuel fraction (that is, the percentage of the gross weight made up of fuel, versus the weight of the airframe itself). They actually envisaged the plane not normally carrying any drop tanks during normal operations. The thinking was that the reduced drag would outweigh the benefits of extra fuel.

What the Fighter Mafia  had in mind was a jet that could go to Hanoi, and tangle with MiG-17s and MiG-21s.

What the Fighter Mafia didn’t quite grasp was that improvements in electronics, radars, and especially missiles meant that such a scenario was unlikely to repeat itself.

And what the Air Force really needed wasn’t a lightweight replacement for the F-4 in the fighter role, but rather a replacement for the F-4 and A-7 in the attack role.

In the end, the F-16 was considerable different than the YF-16, and has proven to be an extremely adaptable aircraft in the later production blocks.

Tags:

Responses to “The YF-16”

  1. George V

    What I remember of the F-16 (and the F-15 as well) is that they were designed and delivered pretty much on time and within budget. Certainly they were not years late and way over budget. I graduated from college and was commissioned in 1974 and so these planes were watched by us Navy guys as they would belong to those who would not be named.
    Where did we lose the management capability in the past 20 years to deliver an airframe within budget? I understand there are new technologies in the F-35 but I can’t believe it’s enough to cause all the overruns and delays.
    George V.

    Like

  2. George V

    Oops – correct previous post – Where did we lose management capability over the last 40 years…

    Like

  3. Casey

    Very simple, George. It’s the difference between evolutionary vs. revolutionary.
    Both the -15 and the -16 had new tech, but it was new tech that had been allowed to mature for a while during R&D, like fly by wire. One of the other differences was that the Air Force wanted simple air superiority planes to start with, although the planned day only, fair weather only design would be terribly limited.
    One of the several problems of the F-35 program is that the DoD tried to force a “one size fits all” solution on the various branches, ignoring the historical lesson of the F-111 project.
    Add to that the nearly-irresistible attraction of adding doodads on, and changes of mind by the buyer, it’s no surprise the F-35 is running behind.
    I’ll also note that the F-14 had issues in development, and the early F-16 was at one point limited to “dead stick” landing distances from base until the engine problems were cleared up.

    Like

Leave a comment