Block-40 weighs as much as Block-50 while having worse TWR, its one of the worst F-16 when it comes to dogfight performance.
Block-30 considered to best in that class.
1 Like
Yeah, the Block 40 would be basically a different BR CAS option with some interesting munitions and stuff similar to what we have/used to have on the Block 50 (+ some new ones) while the Block 30 would be more Air-to-Air focused like the ADF and could be considered an upgrade in that aspect but could do air to ground if needed just like I said
Both the Block 30 and 40 would bridge the gap from the A models to the Block 50 and 52 which are typically considered the quintessential variants of the F-16 (at least in US service)
Belgian F-16AMs spotted at Kleine Brogel with LAU-131 launchers this week
But speculated they are testing the Belgian FZ275 LGR instead of the typical US AGR-20 APKWS-II
As shown in the last image, a second F-16 was equipped with the Sniper designation pod for the tests
3 Likes
Would make sense considering issues with continued US supply, and preferring a European option for investment going forward.
The USA tech tree lack other F-16C (battle rating 13.0 ~ 13.7 if F-16C Blk 50 receive AIM-9X & increase to 14.3) between F-16 early group and F-16C Blk 50
1 Like
schematics of F-16XL’s weapons configurations via the USAF Materiel Command’s Illustrated History.
Full book available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230830042440/https://wss.apan.org/public/AFMC-History-Office/Shared%20Documents/F-16XL%20Book_Final-web%20(1).pdf
5 Likes
this thing looks so weird with Mavericks…
3 Likes
Correction:
First two images were misleading and have been deleted, as they were just proposals.
damn shame it can’t carry more than 4 amraams.
4 Likes
And no 9Ms.
But, at least it can carry x4 AMRAAMs, x2 9Ls, and x6 Mavericks at the same time. So it maybe good at CAS.
Nothing on GBUs, despite having a FLIR pod.
It maybe good at dogfighting though since it’s got a bigger wing but also comes with the 129 engine. And it could supercruise with the 110s due to a bigger inlet, so I assume it’d only be faster with the 129.
2 Likes
maybe?
this one shows 6 amraams and 2 9ls
4 Likes
All the pictures in the book, and this statement says they were carried conformal to the engine.
I’ll keep looking to see if it can carry more.
2 Likes
I’m not sure.
It seems like it was only intended to carry the AMRAAMs in the conformal indents around the fuselage.
I can’t find any photos in the book of AMRAAMs being carried on pylons 16 & 2.
I assume this “Test Store” is just something they planned for? But this weapons legend seems far more accurate.
1 Like
I dont think that means it can only carry 4 amraams
just that the requirement was that it had 45 percent more combat range than the F16A while carrying 4 amraams and 2 sidewinders
I dont mean it can carry more either, just that statement doesnt confirm a limit of 4
I think I’ve figured it out with this book.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150724012412/https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf
The “Test Stores Loadings” refers to Wind Tunnel Testing. (Note the AMRAAM tested on wingtip)
However, in reality it seems to have only carried 4 AMRAAMs.
2 Likes
I dunno, it’s kinda got a neat aesthetic with the six mavs at the leading edge of the wing.
I kinda like it.
1 Like
Fuck no.
2 Likes
??
I was just saying it would be interesting. Not that they should add it.
It wouldn’t be considering Japan didn’t tested nor participated in any development phase.
We don’t need another AJ situation.