27 hard points, more fuel capacity, better fuel economy because of wing surface. Just wow.. Wow ... the USAF passed up on it. The F-15E and F-16XL could have coexist.
Why when the F-15C and F-16 current version already fill the gaps for the F-35 and F-22? That was the reason we passed on them. Why make a gen 4.5 fighter when you have Gen 5 fighters coming and your Gen 4 fighters are still top compared to the world's Gen 4s?
@@dmitryhetman1509 Not at all. Multiple weapon systems are supported all over the place. Guys don't work on F-15s and F-16s at the same time. The XL is just another block of the F-16, not a big deal.
When I was a boy, my Dad was a flight simulator instructor at Langley , for the F-15a, in '74-'77. I remember the 'big wing' F-16 flying just overhead as we dove into the weeds of a field somewhere on base. We pretended it was trying to strafe us. It dove on us over and over. I think we were where we(us kids) weren't supposed to be, But! we were a key part in the development of both birds. At least that's how I remember it.
I remember as a kid in the late 80's being able to walk directly through wide open gates at Williamtown RAAF base and walk up to F-18s parked off the apron. When take-off and landings were happening, provided we didn't get *too* close to the tarmac, blind eyes were turned on two random kids strolling about in a Restricted Area to get a good view. Times have changed!
In the 80s and early 90s I worked at a base where we had a bunch of F-16s, C&D block. We called them “Fighting Falcons” and nobody ever called them Vipers, so props to you for a calling it the Fighting Falcon. Thank you.
Fighting Falcon is the official designation. Viper Pilots refer to it as the Viper. Like the Super Hornets are called Rhino. Same as Blackbird pilots call theirs Habu. Or the Huey, or the Thud, Jug, Spad, Spit, etc. Lets not get into NATO callsigns. Nobody is saying Sukhoi models, its Flanker, Flogger, Foxbat, Felon, Fishbed...
Simple: it wasn't as capable as the F-15E Strike Eagle. Remember, in 1975 when the F-15A was just starting to enter service, McDonnell-Douglas showed the growth potential of the F-15 with conformal fuel tanks and a lot of additional weapons hardpoints to turn the F-15 into a potent interdiction fighter. That growth potential became the basis of the F-15E. Interestingly, there is a proposal to build essentially a modernized version of the F-16XL but with the engine from the F-22A Raptor unveiled recently.
@@marcusmaddenov2451 I disagree. The F-16 did have some advantages but the extra engine and crewman were big deals. Remember that this was back in the day when the onboard computing was very rudimentary. A second man was a big help in strike missions. The F-15e also had a higher ceiling and similar range once it was fitting with conformal tanks.
I think, ultimately, the F-15 was just a more flexible and upgradable fighter than the F-16XL. The XL can do a few roles exceptionally well, but the F-15 can fulfill more roles without complaint.
It was a weird middle of the road plane that didn't fit properly into USAF procurement doctrine. The big advantage of the F-16 is that it's a maneuverable little multi-role fighter that didn't break the bank. The XL outperformed it in every way but was more expensive and the range and payload made it compete with the existing F-15 program that was still a step above within the "High-Low" doctrine. The XL on its best day was outshined by the larger, expensive multi-engine Eagle and it was dumb to have it compete against the Strike Eagle which was clearly supperior as the sucessor to the F-111. On paper the XL is closer to the F-18 Hornet but the USAF wasnt looking for a plane like that; it may have done well on the export market but General Dynamics wasnt interested in making two different kinds of F-16 and the Pentagin would never allow the "superior" version to be sold abroad while the USAF puttered around in basic C/D models. Meanwhile interest shifted away in the early 90s when the JSF program began and money was dumped into a new, super-expensive stealth multi-role fighter instead of a humble-but-capable F-16XL. I've seen some talk about the F-36 King Snake but for now that's just internet dreams.
The F36 is in that 'hmm, maybe this might be a good idea' stage because the Raptor was supposed to replace the Eagle, and the Lightning the Falcon, but the Lightning turned out to be way more pricey then planned for. That's the gist of it from what I understand.
Actually the Air Force did look at the F-18 in the form of the YF-17. It was the competitor to the F-16 prototype in the light fighter competition. The Air Force passed on it as they could buy more of the lighter F-16 at lower cost. The Navy chose the runner up for it's range, endurance, twin engines and multirole replacement for the F-4 and A-7 jets.
@@panzerabwerkanone exactly, the YF-17 and F-16XL sat above the standard F-16 and didn't fit very well into the Air Forces Hi-Lo doctrine under the F-16. For carrier operators a multi-engine multi role fighter with common parts made alot of sense for the Navy but not for the Air Force, vice versa for the F-16 being considered at any time for the Navy. Hell the Navy was closer to adopting an F-117 variant than any version of the F-16.
From a procurement point-of-view, the F-15E did make sense since hardly any of the airframe was going to change when compared to the baseline interceptor. The F-16XL had an amazing performance but was essentially an all-new platform despite being derived from the existing airframe. It still would have been a pretty awesome addition to the Air Force inventory.
Let’s just appreciate this badass project. There’s a lot of what if’s and people calling each other imbeciles here, but I’m just excited to see this footage. Great video Dark
I used to draw pictures and make "design modifications" of my own in my art to the F-16 XL when I was a kid. I don't recall how I even ended up seeing it, but it was my favorite proposed F-16 variant.
@@alexander1485 Well no, because the F-15 is a pretty awesome bird. But also as I said in my own comment, an unacknowledged part of defense procurement is maintaining the defense industrial base, and McDonnell Douglas at the time needed the work while General Dynamics was selling a LOT of F-16s on the world market.
They said no to this because the F-16 before the C model was a crap aircraft. I know cause my dad worked on them. He said never had a problem with the F-15 but the F-16 was problems after problems. That answers the why.
"Going toe-to-toe with the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle" is exactly why the Air Force said no to the F-16XL. Because at the time, F-15C/D production was winding down, while General Dynamics was selling hundreds of F-16s a month to every US ally looking to upgrade their old F-5 fleets. McDonnell Douglas needed the work; General Dynamics had their hands full.
That and like the video said. The F-15E was easier to produce, cheaper and ready. While the XL was still just a prototype. For once, the US actually has made a sensible decision
And... Y'know, the fact that the F-15E was cheaper, has All-Weather Strike capabilities, superior radar, and a 30% higher payload capacity, and is 400knots faster.
You have a pretty good system when the second place finisher develops a loyal following. Some choose to think the best plane didn't win, I prefer to feel lucky to have two great choices.
I just wish that in this case, the runner up hadn’t been summarily cast aside. I feel the C/D versions of the F-16 should have been built to the F-16XL design. In this case, there was no reason to not have both. It just had to be recognized that they’d fulfill different roles.
The problem with the XL was it’s maneuverability, the delta wing without either a separate tail or canards has some limitations. The f-15e was arguably the better way to go for a strike fighter. In some applications it certainly makes sense, but after the strike fighter program the Air Force was moving on to stealth.
@@yourlocalmilkman916 the F-15E Strike Eagle maintains the F-15 air-to-air capability It would not need a fighter escort Freeing up the fighters to something more important, making it more cost efficient
40 years later and thousands of actual combat missions… the F15 has a 104-to-0 air-to-air win ratio, and only 3 have been lost to ground fire/air artillery, and a SA-2 surface-to-air missile. One even returned to base and *landed* with a whole wing blown off. Its hard to imagine a better choice than the F15.
I think you're wearing rose-tinted glasses. The F15 was good when it was still cutting edge. So were the biplanes of WW1. That doesn't make them good today.
@@twizz420 In a world where most countries are still buying F-16s, Typhoons, and Gripens, the planes of the past still speak for themselves today. There's less than 200 F-22s and less than 800 F-35s, while there are tens of thousands of cheaper Gen-4 fighters still in service. I'd rather zerg rush with 3,000 shitty F-16s than break the bank with 10 F-22s. Those F-22s won't be Ace-Combating their way through future wars lmao
@@henryvagincourt4502 F-22's are already being retired Airforce annouced they are retiring 21 of them as apposed to relocating them must be a reason . F-35 sales contracts are being reduced and cut back by many countries and the US Airforce. Must be a reason. The F-15 is still a better more reliable option.
@randomguy9777 In an international coalition like NATO that's an easy number. Heck that number was easily surpassed in WWII. I was talking about how many planes exist in the world currently. Considering those cheap fighters have been exported to mostly allied countries with active air forces, so if any number of those countries joined a coalition force, that can easily 3k pilots. A quick google search says therr are 4,600 F-16s spread across 26 countries. I don't even need to check the other cheap planes lmao, F-16s already passed the vibe check
That's due to high speed physics sort of how all rifle bullets have a similar shape not caliber but the shape its what works so that's were it leads to I call it engineers darwinism
About 30 seconds into the video, a real F-16 made a fast low alt pass over my house with open window. Your special effects are impressive! I've always thought the F-16 was a highly capable and versatile platform which was also cost efficient. Sadly, in two years our ANG is scheduled to switch over to the F-35's.
On the bright side, the USAF is looking buying at a new 4.5+ Gen fighter to replace the F-16 in low to medium intensity roles…and it looks more and more likely they’re going to select the F-16V.
You sayed that Germany has had the F-16 in their servies... Not true... Pretty much every other country surrounding Germany has or still have them in their air forces... (Including my own country of Denmark) Otherwise really good video brother... Been a big fan of the show for awail now. Keep up the good work. From DK...
You guys have an excellent military. Worked with them (your Army and Marines) in Iraq. Salute! One of the only NATO countries that carries their weight and then some
Unfortunately it's always about the money. It wasn't just a case of the XL basically replacing entire planes, it was revising flight training, ground crew training, armament stores, etc. I'm surprised the Eurofighter wasn't compared here.
The Luftwaffe actually never used the F-16. The last American model in our Air Force was the F-4 which was replaced by the Typhoon. However our Tornados will be most likely replaced by F/A-18s Edit: we have chosen the F-35 over the Super Hornet
@@johnhickman106 the Gripen is a great aircraft for small militaries due to its cheap price and running costs combined with their versatility. However neither the Rafale nor the Gripen really have a place here as the Typhoon does everything they do just better. The main competition was between the F-35 and F/A-18. The military was preferring the F-35, however the politicians preferred the F/A-18 in order to not annoy France in perspective of the cooperation for the 6th Gen FCAS. I personally think the F-35 would have made easily the most sense, however the Super Hornet is a reliable and proven platform that will fit the role of the Tornado perfectly, especially with its variant for Electronic-Warfare.
That would have been one awesome Jet for the US inventory. An F-16 on steroids. Please do an episode on the F-14 Tomcat including the D model and the proposed Super Tomcat
dude WHAT?!?!?! this is the most badass plane ive never heard of! the f-16 is already my favorite new-ish generation fighters but now this just might be my absolute favorite. this thing is incredible
Former F-15C pilot take: They said no because of one engine, as you touched upon in the video. That's really the only reason why. Redundancy is golden in a warmachine, and 2 engines provides 2 AMADs (gearboxes) on either side of the jet and a more robust hydraulic system with an A/B system and 2 utility pumps instead of 1. If they stuffed the F-16XL with 2 engines like the Eurofighter it would have been a great jet.
Honest question here - If multiple engine designs are a priority, how does that explain the F16's adoption and worldwide popularity. The F35 is based around a single engine as well. Conceptually, I agree with your comment but it doesn't appear to line up with the reality of our current fighter inventory.
@@mattheard5704 its prefered to have 2 engines but not an absolute. 2 engines eould have ballooned the size of the f35. Im sure that would make stealth integration hella more difficult. And also with the VTOL cpabilities of certain versions, a 2 engine frame would be a nightmare from an engineering perspective
@@mattheard5704 the initial mission design of the F- 15 was air superiority ("not a pound for ground"). It's designed for high Altitude jinkin. That's why so much wing and control surface. Also, they needed both motors for the energy needed at those altitudes of diminishing air density and ambient oxygen. That's not the F-35s mission design. It's a multi-role air interdiction mission. It's like a harrier on steroids. F-16 same thing. As far as F-15 E model, it was a cost thing. Heard it's OK for the price. Also heard it's better in the turns when heavy.
It is interesting to notice that not only the f-16xl have doubled angle-of-attack in their wings, the other 2 aircraft previous existence off that design where the swedish ja35 Draken and the legendary ja37 Viggen, both superb occidental fighters on their own; my name is Cesar Pratt greetings from Argentina
Another good one. Your narrative resisted temptations to follow every tributary in the F16XL story, but did provide adequate explanation for why the F15e finally won the USAF contract. Essentially, easier to build, and easier to upgrade existing F15s. But "easier" isn't always the answer, particularly when decisive air engagements involve relatively few aircraft and a brief encounter. In that environment, performance of aircraft and weaponry hold the key.
I know enough to understand the basics of aircraft and thier aerodynamics although I'm not an expert per se, but it still boggles my mind to think of how a single engine, no matter the upgrade could push a beast of an aircraft like this with as much armament as it was carrying. Just blows my mind honestly. Overall beautiful aircraft though, would love to have seen one in person.
The F-16XL could make a return in the form of the F-36 Kingsnake. It's a proposed 4.5 Gen Advanced Fighter meant to replace the USAF fleet of F-16's (similar to the F-35's role, but at cheaper cost than the F-35). PilotPhotog has a video on it I think you'll like.
Doubtful. Do you think this surrender administration has interest in it? The hard left Congress? You are dreaming. This would be a great aircraft next to the F15 SE but fuggedaboudit.
The F-36 king snake doesn’t exist and if that low cost program were to go anywhere it wouldn’t look like that. The F-36 is a concept put together by designers of a magazine who wanted to guess what a low cost fighter would look like.
@@jaykingsun7093 your boy creepy joe completely botched it. he had the plan laid out in front of him and still couldnt get it right. takes a special kind of stupid to mess up a plan that simple.
When the XL first few in 1982 the Air Force was already seeking a stealthy fighter that flew like the F-15 but appeared on radar like the F-117, which led to the XF-22 / XF-23 competition of the late 1980s. The XL looked like a spotlight on radar screens and was considered merely old tech with more wing, which it was. We did benefit from it in flight testing, learning a new thing or two. If you look at the north end of Edwards AFB on Google Earth you can see it sitting out there, still with the wing glove on the left wing. I thing the imagery of Edwards is about 5 years old.
Years ago, I was sitting in Delta's gate at St. Louis, Lambert, where I watched a string of F-16s take off before Mac closed. They were freshly painted gray, and that was it, no numbers on them that I recall. I figured that they were on their way to be fitted out.
The F-16XL also lives on in the "Transformers" toy line. It was the jet form of Decepticon Needlenose. The original Needlenose toy was made in the late 1980s, and a new one is coming out this year.
I love this aircraft. The United States have created SO many incredible, innovative, formidable aircraft, and SO few of them have made it into service. It saddens me - especially not when we REALLY need them.
Takes time and money to achieve such proposal. For China is simply stole, Copy and go for cheaper solution. But in the long run will be outdated before it's final service.
Too bad we don't have 3 to 5 hundred F- 22s Got stupidly cancelled. Nice to have. You don't go to war with the army you wish you had , you go to war with the Army you've got.
F22 costs about $200 million each. The B2 costs about 1 BILLION each. And they can’t be sold to foreign countries because of technology transfer. And about 10-20% are destroyed from accidents. Do the math from a taxpayer’s perspective.
@@tonymanero5544 Well the Chinese get western technology transfer valued at %500billion annually, not by buying our tech, but by stealing it. STOP buying their goods!4
I dated a girl in LA who's uncle worked for a US fighter jet defense contractor. I don't remember if it was Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin. Anyway, I was blown away when he showed me his den. It was full of aircraft models, mostly military. A fighter I'd never seen before immediately caught my eye. When I asked him about it, it became obvious it was his pride and joy. Many of my questions like, "what's the top speed" were met with "that's classified" replies. What he did tell me was that it had a unique wing design incorporating a hybrid titanium through body section to conventional (aluminum?) structure. They developed a unique way of mating these disparate metals that had never been used before. The process was developed to strengthen the aircraft to take the added stress of its superior performance capabilities. He went on to describe how the fighter was engineered, and how it was superior in ~every way to the competing bids for production contracts. It was obvious he was really bitter this plane was not awarded the contract. When I asked him why on Earth the US military would choose another fighter over this design, his answer was ~"corruption". This led me to believe a lot of the arguments I've heard that personal profits, backroom deals, and individual bias are often placed above our collective national security in Washington are true.
Cheaper as the F-15E is just a F-15D two seat trainer made combat ready with air to ground sensors. It didn't need lots of new development work or major changes to the production line.
@Alfred Churchill to me it was so good they didnt want to share it with anyone like they already were with the regular f16. its like having an ace up your sleeve and saving it for another time when you absolutely must use it.
The 70,80 were a tuff time to develop an conventional airframe. I believe we were working on invisibility (stelth)at that time so..good aircraft tho . Mig 21 went from delta to conventional F16 is the other way around.
If I recall correctly, a big factor between the F-15E and F-16XL was the F-15's radar. It had a much more capable radar which could not physically fit into the F-16. I heard that the nose of the F-15 was dimensioned specifically to accommodate the radar unit, and rest of the design had to flow from that. I notice that all of the comparisons here are between the F-16 and the F-16 XL, not between the F-15E and the F-16XL. I think the F-15E could carry more ordinance and for longer ranges than the F-16XL.
For you readers out there, there's a book series called Wingman. Alternate history, Cold War turns into WWIII, and the Thunderbirds are activated. Main character ends up flying an F16XL. If you're cool with a bit of fantastical things like ESP then this is a good series for you. The series gets a bit weird in later books, but still worth the read.
3:31 "The men then conducted several theoretical studies about the ideal air frame & wing shape for over 2 years". Could have looked at a diagram of a SAAB J35 Draken & saved a year or 2.
"How did the Air Force say no to that?" Well I may have some experience in that particular field. The Air Force didn't say "no" to that plane. The politicians said "no" and here's why. Politicians, as we all know, don't have the peoples best interest in mind. They look at every situation and think "How can I use this to get re-elected?" The F-16XL wouldn't have been produced by the "right" company (the company within that particular politicians representation) and they couldn't turn around and say "See? I provided you with more jobs now you should re-elect me!" That's all it is in the end. A bunch of shit bag politicians more worried about their wallet than the people they "represent" or the country in which they live.
I could easily see some of the tech advancements and airframe tweaks making an unmanned light fighter bomber with stealth abilities by using what was learned with the experience the us has with building stealth airframes to tweak something like this into an unmanned cheaper 6th gen jet
The F-16 was an excellent fighter with an fantastic all-around visual thanks to it's bubble canopy! It is good to remember that Italy had in in service a total, 30 F-16A ADFs as well as 1 F-16B ADF and 3 F-16B block 5 & 10 was delivered and four additional was provided as spare parts. It was leased from US Airforce as a stopgap both to replace the obsolete F-104 and awaiting for the new Eurofighter Typhoon. The last Italian F-16 squadron was disbanded the May 23rd, 2012 much to the regret of the Italian pilots. Very interesting video regarding the F-16 XL that was supposed to be the new lightweight fighter with 50% improved capability compared to the standard F-16! Good job again 👍👍
Because a bomber variant of an air superiority fighter completely defeats the purpose of a light fighter. it would be like taking a F-22 and putting a shit ton of radar reflective features onto it because you changed your mind. Completely defeats the purpose of the aircraft
It would give the light fighter that enhanced capability IF needed. In the mean time you would have a light fighter with twice the range and more missiles than the older version with the added ability to super cruise. That sounds like a lot of bang for the buck.
It was basically a new aircraft and it was an attack and strike aircraft not a bomber. It's also what the USAF did with the F-15E take a pure air superiority fighter and make a strike/attack version only with less changes.
The XL just had a delta wing .. which was what we were getting away from having so many up to that point. .. they made the right choice and is still the best aircraft in most hemispheres.. the Viper kicks ass and takes names.
I learn something new every time I watch one of your videos. I thought I was a above average history buff, but I now digress my status. Never correct a fool he'll hate you for life correct a wise man and he'll thank you.
I always thought of the F-16 as the "cute little fighter that could". The one thing about it that I always had an issue with though, was the nerve shattering, high pitched scream of it's intake. I know it didn't affect everyone the same way but with me, it was like the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard sound. My whole spine would shiver when one would start up and taxi out beside me. :\
One thing you forgot to mention: the XL was beaten by the strike eagle also because the large surface area wings caused too much drag and bled too much speed while turning.
Yep they always seem to tend to not mention the major Achilles Heel of the XL version, maneuverability- or rather lack of, at least compared to the f15 and standard f16s.
@@John_Redcorn_ and the rough ride at low level, which was expected to be part of the mission profile for the ETF. Modern Air Combat and Fighter Missions by Bill Gunston address this. That's why the aircraft that we here in the West considered the gold standard for the interdiction/strike mission had VG wings (F-111, Tornado). Of course, the F-15E doesn't have the smoothest ride on the deck either.
During the 80's the USAF was flying everything from 'Nam era through the F-117. Combat capabilities aside, the DoD and USAF were having support issues from acquisition, cost and logistics. The F-16XL was different enough that it was another platform entirely, despite being born from the F-16A/B. As a direct example, I was Shaw AFB during the 80s and into the early 90s, we had F-16s, RF-4s, O-2s, T-37s, OV-10s, A-10s and CH-3s. During the Gulf war we also had to hold parts and spares for C-141s and C-5 from Charleston AFB as Shaw was a transfer point from Jackson Army base near Columbia. Not to mention the support supplied to McEntire ANG base which also had F-16s. It was crazy. BRAC in the 90s saw not only the closure and consolidation of many facilities, but the elimination of many platforms for just this reason. I had heard the Navy was suffering under the same issues and have to guess the Army and Marines as well.
Who knows, now that the USAF has started a new competition to replace the F-16 with a new F-16 and slash the number of F-35s down to a token force, the F-16XL may get dusted off, updated and put into the competition... albeit the F-21 (updated F-16 made for India) is already a likely candidate, just like how the USAF is looking at the F-15EX to replace its F-15Cs, and it's based on the F-15X (updated F-15 export version) and F-15QA (also updated F-15 built for Qatar). Let's face it, like the USAF general in charge of appropriations stated, the F-16 is the daily driver that you can take out and get the job done without breaking the bank vs the F-35 which is an exotic that costs several F-16s to buy a single airframe and then 3x-5x the hourly operational costs of the F-16.
@@TheBooban Google it, there's a bunch of articles in the defense, USAF and aviaton publications from earlier this year, but boils down to this: "...Gen. Brown also acknowledged the fact that leaning on the F-35 stealth fighter has caused excessive engine wear on the platform. Though improved maintenance schedules could be one solution to extending F-35 engine life, another option could simply be to fly the F-35 less often. “I want to moderate how much we’re using those [F-35] aircraft,” Gen. Brown explained. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays..."
He released a video last year comparing the f-22 raptor with it's rival yf-16 if I remember correctly. The f-22 raptor was chosen cause the makers were willing to show the air force that critical maneuver they both could pull off but the makers of the yf-16 didn't want to execute that same maneuver. Don't know why they didn't want to perform that maneuver but that is why the f-22 raptor went on to serve in the air force.
@Common Sense Realist yes, I knew I had something off. Thank you for reminding this old bird which planes had a very exciting face-off. The yf-23 truly was incredible, don't know why the air force didn't choose the obviously superior fighter jet.
@@ganjaman59650 yeah, if it's new it must be worthless corporate welfare. In my day we had fabric covered biplanes that we threw hand grenades out of and that worked fine. No, they passed on the XL for the mudhen (f-15e) which had a longer range, larger payload, 2 engines, faster, and better radar. If they were as corrupt as you claim they would have got both.
The late 60's and 70's/80's must have been a wild time. I can only imagine engineers snorting lines and saying, "fu*k it, if it doesn't work then I'll buy the next 8-ball." 🤣
One should remember that the US government never purchases the best or the most advanced equipment, they purchase the one offering the lowest bid or has greased the palm of the politicians with enough green to get their support.
You attitude is a little bit too prejudiced as most politicians look for the creation of the most jobs in their state as that is what will get them reelected.
Most combat aircraft have had a single engine. It's like the nonsense of why the USN didn't adopt the F-16 and went with the F-18 because it had two engines when in reality the USN didn't want to adopt a USAF aircraft. The USN had adopted both single jet engine attack and fighter's before the A-4 and A-7 for attack and the F-11 Tiger, F4D Skyray and F-8 Crusader for their most recent aircraft.
@@rayceeya8659 @Ray Ceeya perhaps, if you can land somewhere nice with or without the aircraft. Or you're injured on landing or ejection/landing, captured/killed by enemy if wartime, or just land in poor or inhospitable location like arctic, high altitude, poor terrain, desert, etc. I'd like to land on a beach in Cancun about now
@@Ushio01 flying over water you want an "extra" engine to get you home. More modern engines are built "better" so single engines have gotten more reliable.
I remember when the F16 was responsible for a multitude of piolet deaths du to its fly by wire and someone installing screws to long that began to rub thru and short out wires...had a rough start.. but its a great cheap plane all things being equal.
wait so with the same engine as the regular f16 it achieved twice the flight performance by basically just changing the wing design?? I find that very hard to believe, guess ill look in to it more but if that is true then thats fkin nuts! this aircraft basically shows that my favourite modern fighter (the f-16) is such a terribly efficient design 😭. the xl looks pretty sick tho, gives me draken vibes.
“No provision for wingtip missiles”: Shows aircraft with wingtip missiles. Sounds about right. Also the whole point of the demonstrator originally was to cruise supersonically without afterburners…you danced around this but didn’t actually state it. Further the F-15E is an quite different aircraft than an F-15D-the engines, wings, avionics and conformal fuel tanks are different; the missions are different. Germany doesn’t fly the F-16. Lastly no aircraft were planned to be converted into F-15E or F-16XL; they were always going to be new builds. Afraid I can’t give you a like for this one.🙁
Main issue with the F16 XL was it had one engine compared to F15 with double engine limiting the F16 in terms of maneuverability capabilities compared to F15
There was another experimental version derived from the XL which added canards and an upgraded flight control computer. With the canards, the airplane was the first to do translations in the pitch and yaw planes without changing its radar image. Coupled with its already dominant 9G dogfighting ability, its ability to translate in the blink of an eye without changing the direction of flight was revolutionary. The Air Force had already restricted the F15 from dogfighting the original F16 in competitions because the F16’s 9G turn rate made short work of the F15 when it couldn’t turn the engagement into a foot race. With the canards and the bigger engine it would have smoked anything else for quite some time. Oh well. You can read about the canard version off you cam find a research library that kept their late 70s issues of the journal of the Test Pilot Association.
The online market is full of lucrativeness and passive incomes. I have profitable investment. Investing with the aid of an Expert got me a millionaire status.
Bitcoin investment is great unlike the stock market and other financial Bitcoin has no centralized Iocation since it's operates 24 hours a day in different parts of the world
I just want to add that I continue to be impressed with the quality of your videos and the depth of knowledge you put into them. My biggest regret is that I can only give you upvotes. Outstanding work!
27 hard points, more fuel capacity, better fuel economy because of wing surface. Just wow.. Wow ... the USAF passed up on it. The F-15E and F-16XL could have coexist.
Yes but it means teach people to use another aircraft, and make parts for it, it is not so easy.
Why when the F-15C and F-16 current version already fill the gaps for the F-35 and F-22? That was the reason we passed on them. Why make a gen 4.5 fighter when you have Gen 5 fighters coming and your Gen 4 fighters are still top compared to the world's Gen 4s?
@@Tigerheart01 more aircrafts - more complex logistics and training
I’ll guarantee there was big political influence in the decision. Politics and money always trump a better product.
@@dmitryhetman1509
Not at all. Multiple weapon systems are supported all over the place. Guys don't work on F-15s and F-16s at the same time. The XL is just another block of the F-16, not a big deal.
When I was a boy, my Dad was a flight simulator instructor at Langley , for the F-15a, in '74-'77. I remember the 'big wing' F-16 flying just overhead as we dove into the weeds of a field somewhere on base. We pretended it was trying to strafe us. It dove on us over and over. I think we were where we(us kids) weren't supposed to be, But! we were a key part in the development of both birds. At least that's how I remember it.
I remember as a kid in the late 80's being able to walk directly through wide open gates at Williamtown RAAF base and walk up to F-18s parked off the apron. When take-off and landings were happening, provided we didn't get *too* close to the tarmac, blind eyes were turned on two random kids strolling about in a Restricted Area to get a good view.
Times have changed!
@@tigerpjm how cool was that ?!? Dream
Glad you survived the "attack".
Great story.
Wow... America saying no to an eXtra Large version is wild! 😂
I would like this comment super sized, extra extra extra bacon. 🥓🥓🥓
lol
Mic drop.
Why?
Hardy harr
In the 80s and early 90s I worked at a base where we had a bunch of F-16s, C&D block. We called them “Fighting Falcons” and nobody ever called them Vipers, so props to you for a calling it the Fighting Falcon. Thank you.
Fighting Falcon is the official designation. Viper Pilots refer to it as the Viper. Like the Super Hornets are called Rhino. Same as Blackbird pilots call theirs Habu. Or the Huey, or the Thud, Jug, Spad, Spit, etc.
Lets not get into NATO callsigns. Nobody is saying Sukhoi models, its Flanker, Flogger, Foxbat, Felon, Fishbed...
Viper is what the pilots call the plane, so I respect that. Fighting Falcon is what nerds call it basically lol.
".. no Bob, see, we can't just shape it like Saab's Draken.. that won't sell."
🇩🇰 #TheRealF35 😎
Lol
Draken was a futuristic design in the 1950s made by Saab 🇸🇪👍🏻
@@petter5721 Saab makes good aircraft
@@petter5721 Swedish aircraft are underrated AF
Simple: it wasn't as capable as the F-15E Strike Eagle. Remember, in 1975 when the F-15A was just starting to enter service, McDonnell-Douglas showed the growth potential of the F-15 with conformal fuel tanks and a lot of additional weapons hardpoints to turn the F-15 into a potent interdiction fighter. That growth potential became the basis of the F-15E.
Interestingly, there is a proposal to build essentially a modernized version of the F-16XL but with the engine from the F-22A Raptor unveiled recently.
Wrong it was in fact much more capable, it did cost more. The AF cheaped out
@@marcusmaddenov2451 I think because it was a true interdiction aircraft, the USAF wanted a two-person crew and two engines.
@@marcusmaddenov2451 I disagree. The F-16 did have some advantages but the extra engine and crewman were big deals. Remember that this was back in the day when the onboard computing was very rudimentary. A second man was a big help in strike missions. The F-15e also had a higher ceiling and similar range once it was fitting with conformal tanks.
I think, ultimately, the F-15 was just a more flexible and upgradable fighter than the F-16XL. The XL can do a few roles exceptionally well, but the F-15 can fulfill more roles without complaint.
@@pills- Which F-15? There are two dedicated F-15s, so obviously your assertion is nonsense.
Huge missed opportunity. Love this plane. Didn’t know it was initially to replace another favorite of mine, the F-111.
It was a weird middle of the road plane that didn't fit properly into USAF procurement doctrine. The big advantage of the F-16 is that it's a maneuverable little multi-role fighter that didn't break the bank. The XL outperformed it in every way but was more expensive and the range and payload made it compete with the existing F-15 program that was still a step above within the "High-Low" doctrine. The XL on its best day was outshined by the larger, expensive multi-engine Eagle and it was dumb to have it compete against the Strike Eagle which was clearly supperior as the sucessor to the F-111.
On paper the XL is closer to the F-18 Hornet but the USAF wasnt looking for a plane like that; it may have done well on the export market but General Dynamics wasnt interested in making two different kinds of F-16 and the Pentagin would never allow the "superior" version to be sold abroad while the USAF puttered around in basic C/D models. Meanwhile interest shifted away in the early 90s when the JSF program began and money was dumped into a new, super-expensive stealth multi-role fighter instead of a humble-but-capable F-16XL. I've seen some talk about the F-36 King Snake but for now that's just internet dreams.
The F36 is in that 'hmm, maybe this might be a good idea' stage because the Raptor was supposed to replace the Eagle, and the Lightning the Falcon, but the Lightning turned out to be way more pricey then planned for. That's the gist of it from what I understand.
@Yukikazehalo the F-16 was built by General Dynamics not Lockheed.
Actually the Air Force did look at the F-18 in the form of the YF-17. It was the competitor to the F-16 prototype in the light fighter competition. The Air Force passed on it as they could buy more of the lighter F-16 at lower cost. The Navy chose the runner up for it's range, endurance, twin engines and multirole replacement for the F-4 and A-7 jets.
@@panzerabwerkanone exactly, the YF-17 and F-16XL sat above the standard F-16 and didn't fit very well into the Air Forces Hi-Lo doctrine under the F-16. For carrier operators a multi-engine multi role fighter with common parts made alot of sense for the Navy but not for the Air Force, vice versa for the F-16 being considered at any time for the Navy. Hell the Navy was closer to adopting an F-117 variant than any version of the F-16.
From a procurement point-of-view, the F-15E did make sense since hardly any of the airframe was going to change when compared to the baseline interceptor. The F-16XL had an amazing performance but was essentially an all-new platform despite being derived from the existing airframe. It still would have been a pretty awesome addition to the Air Force inventory.
Let’s just appreciate this badass project. There’s a lot of what if’s and people calling each other imbeciles here, but I’m just excited to see this footage. Great video Dark
I used to draw pictures and make "design modifications" of my own in my art to the F-16 XL when I was a kid. I don't recall how I even ended up seeing it, but it was my favorite proposed F-16 variant.
In an alternative universe: F-15E - How did the Air Force say No to this Beast?
the airforce will never say NO to any F15 modification...
@@alexander1485 Well no, because the F-15 is a pretty awesome bird.
But also as I said in my own comment, an unacknowledged part of defense procurement is maintaining the defense industrial base, and McDonnell Douglas at the time needed the work while General Dynamics was selling a LOT of F-16s on the world market.
in another alternate universe, nobodys asking why the yf-22 was never selected. theyre all too happy to have the F-23.
They said no to this because the F-16 before the C model was a crap aircraft. I know cause my dad worked on them. He said never had a problem with the F-15 but the F-16 was problems after problems. That answers the why.
as soon as I saw the F-15E I thought "well that answers the question in the video title"
Man seriously the amount of videos you release makes me look like mustard lol!
Because he modified other people's voices
Stop slacking off then.
@@dangerouseducation40 no? Lol, he has two other narrators as well. Are you high?
I love mustard
@@rokahna7847 do you really think he speaks at 2x normal speed? Fucking tool.
"Going toe-to-toe with the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle" is exactly why the Air Force said no to the F-16XL. Because at the time, F-15C/D production was winding down, while General Dynamics was selling hundreds of F-16s a month to every US ally looking to upgrade their old F-5 fleets. McDonnell Douglas needed the work; General Dynamics had their hands full.
That and like the video said. The F-15E was easier to produce, cheaper and ready. While the XL was still just a prototype.
For once, the US actually has made a sensible decision
@@TheKenji2221 Plus the F-16 turned out to be quite a fine light strike aircraft in its own right, so not sure the upgrade was needed for it. ;)
And... Y'know, the fact that the F-15E was cheaper, has All-Weather Strike capabilities, superior radar, and a 30% higher payload capacity, and is 400knots faster.
@@katherineberger6329 My IBM 8086 based PC worked just fine. It had 640kb and kicked ass over the Commodore 64. Ummmm...yeah!
@@doogleticker5183 waht
You have a pretty good system when the second place finisher develops a loyal following. Some choose to think the best plane didn't win, I prefer to feel lucky to have two great choices.
its a shame they didnt do the same with the YF-23
I just wish that in this case, the runner up hadn’t been summarily cast aside. I feel the C/D versions of the F-16 should have been built to the F-16XL design. In this case, there was no reason to not have both. It just had to be recognized that they’d fulfill different roles.
@@Vaioplayer88 why would the military go with two expensive programs? There would have been no benefit.
Yeah while sharing many of the same spare parts for engines etc
The XL reminds me of the SAAB Draken wich was (is) a beautiful Swedish fighter that SAAB constructed in the 1950's but the XL is larger.
fun fact, the test pilots of the XL where sent to sweeden to fly the draken for this very reason if memory serves.
The problem with the XL was it’s maneuverability, the delta wing without either a separate tail or canards has some limitations. The f-15e was arguably the better way to go for a strike fighter. In some applications it certainly makes sense, but after the strike fighter program the Air Force was moving on to stealth.
What about the cost of thr xl compared to the f16?
@@yourlocalmilkman916 the F-15E Strike Eagle maintains the F-15 air-to-air capability
It would not need a fighter escort
Freeing up the fighters to something more important, making it more cost efficient
@@jamesricker3997 wouldnt technically the f16xl can do the same?
In the future, babies will be born with no voice box, they will also speak with a computer voice :)
@@trvman1 how does that relate to this conversation.
i remember even toys and models of this (C) variant were already out on the street in the 80s
Micro machines
@@ROOSTER333 rigghhttt!! I remember those Aero packs that came with like 7 or 8 planes!! Those were awesome. God the 20th was so good...
@@VeiLofCognition man I had to do chores for a month for the desert storm pack. Nastalgia
I still have my Airfix F-16XL 1/48 model, I put on leftover Royal Netherlands Airforce decal on it---
I personally think it looks badass
@@ROOSTER333 i had that set
I was born in 1974, so I had several toy plane sculpts of this f16XL. Such good memories
40 years later and thousands of actual combat missions… the F15 has a 104-to-0 air-to-air win ratio, and only 3 have been lost to ground fire/air artillery, and a SA-2 surface-to-air missile. One even returned to base and *landed* with a whole wing blown off.
Its hard to imagine a better choice than the F15.
I think you're wearing rose-tinted glasses. The F15 was good when it was still cutting edge. So were the biplanes of WW1. That doesn't make them good today.
@@twizz420 + Well, along came the F-22 and F-35. But the USAF are now buying the F-15EX, so I guess it does make them good today mucker.
@@twizz420 In a world where most countries are still buying F-16s, Typhoons, and Gripens, the planes of the past still speak for themselves today.
There's less than 200 F-22s and less than 800 F-35s, while there are tens of thousands of cheaper Gen-4 fighters still in service. I'd rather zerg rush with 3,000 shitty F-16s than break the bank with 10 F-22s. Those F-22s won't be Ace-Combating their way through future wars lmao
@@henryvagincourt4502 F-22's are already being retired Airforce annouced they are retiring 21 of them as apposed to relocating them must be a reason . F-35 sales contracts are being reduced and cut back by many countries and the US Airforce. Must be a reason. The F-15 is still a better more reliable option.
@randomguy9777 In an international coalition like NATO that's an easy number. Heck that number was easily surpassed in WWII.
I was talking about how many planes exist in the world currently. Considering those cheap fighters have been exported to mostly allied countries with active air forces, so if any number of those countries joined a coalition force, that can easily 3k pilots.
A quick google search says therr are 4,600 F-16s spread across 26 countries. I don't even need to check the other cheap planes lmao, F-16s already passed the vibe check
That wing shape really remind me of fighters from Saab, Draken, Viggen.
That’s the only major double delta design that’s memorable.
Delta + canard appears to be just better.
That's due to high speed physics sort of how all rifle bullets have a similar shape not caliber but the shape its what works so that's were it leads to I call it engineers darwinism
It looks like a draken. They did just put an F16 cockpit on it haha
@@Justanotherconsumer There's also the Dassault Mirage III
"I'll order an F-16, uummm eagle"
"Would you like to super size that?"
"Uuuuummmm sure! "
To be entirely pedantic, the eagle was the f-15. Or is this a woosh moment?
I play Ace Combat sometimes and they have this on there… love it 😂
If you buy it.
Ace Combat 5/6 had it for free.
@@Krystalmyth it's the first plane you fly in the first 3 missions in 7
Whoops misread this disregard
Dcs is better
About 30 seconds into the video, a real F-16 made a fast low alt pass over my house with open window. Your special effects are impressive! I've always thought the F-16 was a highly capable and versatile platform which was also cost efficient. Sadly, in two years our ANG is scheduled to switch over to the F-35's.
On the bright side, the USAF is looking buying at a new 4.5+ Gen fighter to replace the F-16 in low to medium intensity roles…and it looks more and more likely they’re going to select the F-16V.
So you're saying they'll be selling F-16's cheap?
I love the F-16, it is a beautiful aircraft. The XL is even more so.
This thing was an absolute monster, unbelievably flexible in terms of capabilities.
You sayed that Germany has had the F-16 in their servies...
Not true... Pretty much every other country surrounding Germany has or still have them in their air forces... (Including my own country of Denmark)
Otherwise really good video brother...
Been a big fan of the show for awail now.
Keep up the good work.
From DK...
He did confuse the Belgian for the German flag.
You guys have an excellent military. Worked with them (your Army and Marines) in Iraq. Salute! One of the only NATO countries that carries their weight and then some
Good to hear from Denmark. Hope that you're all doing well!
@@bubi352 well it was german twice, maybe he had an old map (just kidding)
I wanted to say this, we never used it as we switched from the F-4 to the Typhoon.
Money, it's almost always about the money. Either project cost or who's getting bribed.
Project cost. The XL wasn't just a mod, the airframe had to be extended, so basically a brand new plane.
no
also the redundancy
Unfortunately it's always about the money. It wasn't just a case of the XL basically replacing entire planes, it was revising flight training, ground crew training, armament stores, etc. I'm surprised the Eurofighter wasn't compared here.
No it's always about who's getting bribed . Cost is always secondary to that.
Wait, they said NO to the most interesting Ace Combat 7 DLC plane!?
Where all the Wizard Squadron fans at?
We’re apparently getting yet another dlc. They only announced one plane so far though. I think it’s a modern F/A 18 Super Hornet variant.
My dad worked at Boeing for 47 years and until the day he passed in January 2017, if you asked him the best fighter of all time he'd tell you the F-16
2 words, 1 movie... "Iron Eagle".
Your videos are legendary man.. Thank you for your work.
The Luftwaffe actually never used the F-16.
The last American model in our Air Force was the F-4 which was replaced by the Typhoon. However our Tornados will be most likely replaced by F/A-18s
Edit: we have chosen the F-35 over the Super Hornet
A lot of talk about the Rafael and Gripen too. Hungary replaced their MiG-29s with Gripens and it was a great move.
@@johnhickman106 the Gripen is a great aircraft for small militaries due to its cheap price and running costs combined with their versatility. However neither the Rafale nor the Gripen really have a place here as the Typhoon does everything they do just better. The main competition was between the F-35 and F/A-18. The military was preferring the F-35, however the politicians preferred the F/A-18 in order to not annoy France in perspective of the cooperation for the 6th Gen FCAS. I personally think the F-35 would have made easily the most sense, however the Super Hornet is a reliable and proven platform that will fit the role of the Tornado perfectly, especially with its variant for Electronic-Warfare.
@@DefinitelyNotEmma I'm not arguing capes or which bird will win, just what is on the table for possible appropriation.
@@johnhickman106 and I'm just saying that neither the Rafale nor Gripen will ever enter service in the Luftwaffe for the reasons I listed ^^
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Time will tell. Like politicians making decisions have ever gone wrong.
Imagine this beast with thrust vectoring…….
I think the Kingsnake version has the F22 engine in it.
What for? Thrust vectoring is just added weight and complexity for little gain.
@@dat581 But it would look REALLY cool
@@hollowvoices1268 That's realy dumb..
@@dat581 BUT IT'D BE SOOOO COOOOOOOL
That would have been one awesome Jet for the US inventory. An F-16 on steroids.
Please do an episode on the F-14 Tomcat including the D model and the proposed Super Tomcat
There was a super tomcat proposal? O.o
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Yes. Impressive too. Extended wing root for more AOA, and full avionics upgrade.
They also made an F15 with thrust vectoring.
@@v4skunk739 And forward canards that were basically legacy Hornet horizontal stabilizers.
no
I used to want to be a f 16 pilot growing up. Thanks for the videos as always great footage and commentary.
dude WHAT?!?!?! this is the most badass plane ive never heard of! the f-16 is already my favorite new-ish generation fighters but now this just might be my absolute favorite. this thing is incredible
Look up the F-21. It's a baby Raptor based on the F-16.
Former F-15C pilot take: They said no because of one engine, as you touched upon in the video. That's really the only reason why. Redundancy is golden in a warmachine, and 2 engines provides 2 AMADs (gearboxes) on either side of the jet and a more robust hydraulic system with an A/B system and 2 utility pumps instead of 1. If they stuffed the F-16XL with 2 engines like the Eurofighter it would have been a great jet.
Honest question here - If multiple engine designs are a priority, how does that explain the F16's adoption and worldwide popularity. The F35 is based around a single engine as well. Conceptually, I agree with your comment but it doesn't appear to line up with the reality of our current fighter inventory.
@@mattheard5704 its prefered to have 2 engines but not an absolute. 2 engines eould have ballooned the size of the f35. Im sure that would make stealth integration hella more difficult. And also with the VTOL cpabilities of certain versions, a 2 engine frame would be a nightmare from an engineering perspective
Especially when your using a motor prone to stagnation.
Those Pratt motors stagged a lot.
Imagine only having one.
(Kadena 85 - 89 )
@@mattheard5704 the initial mission design of the F- 15 was air superiority ("not a pound for ground"). It's designed for high Altitude jinkin. That's why so much wing and control surface. Also, they needed both motors for the energy needed at those altitudes of diminishing air density and ambient oxygen.
That's not the F-35s mission design. It's a multi-role air interdiction mission. It's like a harrier on steroids.
F-16 same thing.
As far as F-15 E model, it was a cost thing. Heard it's OK for the price. Also heard it's better in the turns when heavy.
It is interesting to notice that not only the f-16xl have doubled angle-of-attack in their wings, the other 2 aircraft previous existence off that design where the swedish ja35 Draken and the legendary ja37 Viggen, both superb occidental fighters on their own; my name is Cesar Pratt greetings from Argentina
That Delta wing reminds me of the Saab J35 Draken and it's double Delta wing!
More like J37 Viggen to me, without the canards. The canards would maybe have saved there flight problems.
Another good one. Your narrative resisted temptations to follow every tributary in the F16XL story, but did provide adequate explanation for why the F15e finally won the USAF contract. Essentially, easier to build, and easier to upgrade existing F15s.
But "easier" isn't always the answer, particularly when decisive air engagements involve relatively few aircraft and a brief encounter. In that environment, performance of aircraft and weaponry hold the key.
I know enough to understand the basics of aircraft and thier aerodynamics although I'm not an expert per se, but it still boggles my mind to think of how a single engine, no matter the upgrade could push a beast of an aircraft like this with as much armament as it was carrying. Just blows my mind honestly. Overall beautiful aircraft though, would love to have seen one in person.
The F-16XL could make a return in the form of the F-36 Kingsnake. It's a proposed 4.5 Gen Advanced Fighter meant to replace the USAF fleet of F-16's (similar to the F-35's role, but at cheaper cost than the F-35). PilotPhotog has a video on it I think you'll like.
Doubtful. Do you think this surrender administration has interest in it? The hard left Congress? You are dreaming. This would be a great aircraft next to the F15 SE but fuggedaboudit.
The F-36 king snake doesn’t exist and if that low cost program were to go anywhere it wouldn’t look like that.
The F-36 is a concept put together by designers of a magazine who wanted to guess what a low cost fighter would look like.
@@us1fedvet if you're talking about pulling out from Afganistan, your boy Trumpster signed off on that.
@@jaykingsun7093 your boy creepy joe completely botched it. he had the plan laid out in front of him and still couldnt get it right. takes a special kind of stupid to mess up a plan that simple.
@@us1fedvet
Since when were centrists 'hard left'? You've drank too much of the reichwing Kool-Aid.
When the XL first few in 1982 the Air Force was already seeking a stealthy fighter that flew like the F-15 but appeared on radar like the F-117, which led to the XF-22 / XF-23 competition of the late 1980s. The XL looked like a spotlight on radar screens and was considered merely old tech with more wing, which it was. We did benefit from it in flight testing, learning a new thing or two.
If you look at the north end of Edwards AFB on Google Earth you can see it sitting out there, still with the wing glove on the left wing. I thing the imagery of Edwards is about 5 years old.
a movie about the "De Havilland Mosquito" would be great!, once its one of the most influential and decisive WWII aeroplanes.
Love this channel! Changed my mind on history! Thanks for giving something I love! More knowledge!!!
Years ago, I was sitting in Delta's gate at St. Louis, Lambert, where I watched a string of F-16s take off before Mac closed. They were freshly painted gray, and that was it, no numbers on them that I recall. I figured that they were on their way to be fitted out.
They tried this with the F/B-22 as well. I love both this and the F/B-22. At least they live on in ace combat with the YF-23
The F-16XL also lives on in the "Transformers" toy line. It was the jet form of Decepticon Needlenose. The original Needlenose toy was made in the late 1980s, and a new one is coming out this year.
America:" Yes to extra large soft drinks."
Also America:" No to an extra large F-16"
BIG GULP !!!!
I love this aircraft. The United States have created SO many incredible, innovative, formidable aircraft, and SO few of them have made it into service. It saddens me - especially not when we REALLY need them.
Takes time and money to achieve such proposal.
For China is simply stole, Copy and go for cheaper solution. But in the long run will be outdated before it's final service.
Too bad we don't have 3 to 5 hundred F- 22s Got stupidly cancelled. Nice to have. You don't go to war with the army you wish you had , you go to war with the Army you've got.
F22 costs about $200 million each. The B2 costs about 1 BILLION each. And they can’t be sold to foreign countries because of technology transfer. And about 10-20% are destroyed from accidents. Do the math from a taxpayer’s perspective.
@@tonymanero5544 Who was talking about F-22s or B-1s? I was talking about F-16XLs or, more specifically, the F-36 Kingsnake version.
@@tonymanero5544 Well the Chinese get western technology transfer valued at %500billion annually, not by buying our tech, but by stealing it.
STOP buying their goods!4
I dated a girl in LA who's uncle worked for a US fighter jet defense contractor. I don't remember if it was Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin. Anyway, I was blown away when he showed me his den. It was full of aircraft models, mostly military. A fighter I'd never seen before immediately caught my eye. When I asked him about it, it became obvious it was his pride and joy. Many of my questions like, "what's the top speed" were met with "that's classified" replies. What he did tell me was that it had a unique wing design incorporating a hybrid titanium through body section to conventional (aluminum?) structure. They developed a unique way of mating these disparate metals that had never been used before. The process was developed to strengthen the aircraft to take the added stress of its superior performance capabilities.
He went on to describe how the fighter was engineered, and how it was superior in ~every way to the competing bids for production contracts. It was obvious he was really bitter this plane was not awarded the contract. When I asked him why on Earth the US military would choose another fighter over this design, his answer was ~"corruption". This led me to believe a lot of the arguments I've heard that personal profits, backroom deals, and individual bias are often placed above our collective national security in Washington are true.
Remember the F16 XL?
It came back!!, as F-36 King Snake!
The F15E was the superior platform, that's how.
Cheaper as the F-15E is just a F-15D two seat trainer made combat ready with air to ground sensors.
It didn't need lots of new development work or major changes to the production line.
Why not apply the wing theory to the f15
@Alfred Churchill to me it was so good they didnt want to share it with anyone like they already were with the regular f16. its like having an ace up your sleeve and saving it for another time when you absolutely must use it.
@Alfred Churchill cost: shares commonality with parts with other F15's. 2 engines, range, etc.
@@edisontrent5244 it would probably turn the plane into a pig like the SU-57 because of its dual engines plus a delta wing
The 70,80 were a tuff time to develop an conventional airframe. I believe we were working on invisibility (stelth)at that time so..good aircraft tho .
Mig 21 went from delta to conventional
F16 is the other way around.
Jeez, quit the keyboard fighting. You two remind me of two minions slapping away at each other.
If I recall correctly, a big factor between the F-15E and F-16XL was the F-15's radar. It had a much more capable radar which could not physically fit into the F-16. I heard that the nose of the F-15 was dimensioned specifically to accommodate the radar unit, and rest of the design had to flow from that. I notice that all of the comparisons here are between the F-16 and the F-16 XL, not between the F-15E and the F-16XL. I think the F-15E could carry more ordinance and for longer ranges than the F-16XL.
My dad worked on the XL program. I remember being a kid and getting to see it in the hangar at Edwards.
For you readers out there, there's a book series called Wingman. Alternate history, Cold War turns into WWIII, and the Thunderbirds are activated. Main character ends up flying an F16XL. If you're cool with a bit of fantastical things like ESP then this is a good series for you. The series gets a bit weird in later books, but still worth the read.
3:31 "The men then conducted several theoretical studies about the ideal air frame & wing shape for over 2 years".
Could have looked at a diagram of a SAAB J35 Draken & saved a year or 2.
"How did the Air Force say no to that?" Well I may have some experience in that particular field. The Air Force didn't say "no" to that plane. The politicians said "no" and here's why. Politicians, as we all know, don't have the peoples best interest in mind. They look at every situation and think "How can I use this to get re-elected?" The F-16XL wouldn't have been produced by the "right" company (the company within that particular politicians representation) and they couldn't turn around and say "See? I provided you with more jobs now you should re-elect me!" That's all it is in the end. A bunch of shit bag politicians more worried about their wallet than the people they "represent" or the country in which they live.
No it was just worse at the role than the F-15E.
I could easily see some of the tech advancements and airframe tweaks making an unmanned light fighter bomber with stealth abilities by using what was learned with the experience the us has with building stealth airframes to tweak something like this into an unmanned cheaper 6th gen jet
I hear you. Unmanned converts need to be brought in alot sooner. As long as they cant be hacked anyway; or even EMP proof.
The F-16 was an excellent fighter with an fantastic all-around visual thanks to it's bubble canopy! It is good to remember that Italy had in in service a total, 30 F-16A ADFs as well as 1 F-16B ADF and 3 F-16B block 5 & 10 was delivered and four additional was provided as spare parts. It was leased from US Airforce as a stopgap both to replace the obsolete F-104 and awaiting for the new Eurofighter Typhoon. The last Italian F-16 squadron was disbanded the May 23rd, 2012 much to the regret of the Italian pilots. Very interesting video regarding the F-16 XL that was supposed to be the new lightweight fighter with 50% improved capability compared to the standard F-16! Good job again 👍👍
F-16 XL F-20 Tigershark and F-23 black widow Amazing fighters that did not see the way of production "injustice"
Because a bomber variant of an air superiority fighter completely defeats the purpose of a light fighter. it would be like taking a F-22 and putting a shit ton of radar reflective features onto it because you changed your mind. Completely defeats the purpose of the aircraft
It would give the light fighter that enhanced capability IF needed. In the mean time you would have a light fighter with twice the range and more missiles than the older version with the added ability to super cruise. That sounds like a lot of bang for the buck.
No, the F16 is already a multi-role fighter so the XL wouldn't even be that much different, it just has bigger wings with more hard points
It was basically a new aircraft and it was an attack and strike aircraft not a bomber. It's also what the USAF did with the F-15E take a pure air superiority fighter and make a strike/attack version only with less changes.
The XL just had a delta wing .. which was what we were getting away from having so many up to that point. .. they made the right choice and is still the best aircraft in most hemispheres.. the Viper kicks ass and takes names.
F-16s the AK's of the sky
Not really .
The fly by wire system alone negates your comment.
I learn something new every time I watch one of your videos. I thought I was a above average history buff, but I now digress my status. Never correct a fool he'll hate you for life correct a wise man and he'll thank you.
I always thought of the F-16 as the "cute little fighter that could". The one thing about it that I always had an issue with though, was the nerve shattering, high pitched scream of it's intake.
I know it didn't affect everyone the same way but with me, it was like the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard sound. My whole spine would shiver when one would start up and taxi out beside me. :\
1:15 Germany?? F-16 in Germany? Sure?
Only the US ones are stationed in Germany. But Luftwaffe does NOT have any F-16
German Air Force never got the F16. They stuck to the F104 and F4 until the Eurofighter (with a Short episode using the Mig29 they got from the GDR)
100% not ^^
If not the F-16, then they got the Mig-29 in the 90s
@@greateraviationgl91 From eastern germany after the reunion but what in the world has that to do with the F-16 that we never had????
Wrote it above already, he confused the Belgian for the German flag
One thing you forgot to mention: the XL was beaten by the strike eagle also because the large surface area wings caused too much drag and bled too much speed while turning.
Yep they always seem to tend to not mention the major Achilles Heel of the XL version, maneuverability- or rather lack of, at least compared to the f15 and standard f16s.
@@catman4644 thats the main issue with delta wing designs: they bleed energy quickly and arent the best in slow speed maneuverability
@@John_Redcorn_ and the rough ride at low level, which was expected to be part of the mission profile for the ETF. Modern Air Combat and Fighter Missions by Bill Gunston address this. That's why the aircraft that we here in the West considered the gold standard for the interdiction/strike mission had VG wings (F-111, Tornado). Of course, the F-15E doesn't have the smoothest ride on the deck either.
The Tailban said keep it
This channel is absolutely excellent.
During the 80's the USAF was flying everything from 'Nam era through the F-117. Combat capabilities aside, the DoD and USAF were having support issues from acquisition, cost and logistics. The F-16XL was different enough that it was another platform entirely, despite being born from the F-16A/B. As a direct example, I was Shaw AFB during the 80s and into the early 90s, we had F-16s, RF-4s, O-2s, T-37s, OV-10s, A-10s and CH-3s. During the Gulf war we also had to hold parts and spares for C-141s and C-5 from Charleston AFB as Shaw was a transfer point from Jackson Army base near Columbia. Not to mention the support supplied to McEntire ANG base which also had F-16s. It was crazy. BRAC in the 90s saw not only the closure and consolidation of many facilities, but the elimination of many platforms for just this reason. I had heard the Navy was suffering under the same issues and have to guess the Army and Marines as well.
The 16 was meant to be a disposable throw away jet. It's outlasted its air frame hrs life span twice over.
When it comes to defense contracts, you can't win them all.
Who knows, now that the USAF has started a new competition to replace the F-16 with a new F-16 and slash the number of F-35s down to a token force, the F-16XL may get dusted off, updated and put into the competition... albeit the F-21 (updated F-16 made for India) is already a likely candidate, just like how the USAF is looking at the F-15EX to replace its F-15Cs, and it's based on the F-15X (updated F-15 export version) and F-15QA (also updated F-15 built for Qatar).
Let's face it, like the USAF general in charge of appropriations stated, the F-16 is the daily driver that you can take out and get the job done without breaking the bank vs the F-35 which is an exotic that costs several F-16s to buy a single airframe and then 3x-5x the hourly operational costs of the F-16.
What new competition to replace the F-16?
@@TheBooban Google it, there's a bunch of articles in the defense, USAF and aviaton publications from earlier this year, but boils down to this:
"...Gen. Brown also acknowledged the fact that leaning on the F-35 stealth fighter has caused excessive engine wear on the platform. Though improved maintenance schedules could be one solution to extending F-35 engine life, another option could simply be to fly the F-35 less often. “I want to moderate how much we’re using those [F-35] aircraft,” Gen. Brown explained. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays..."
@@benclark3621 wasnt the f35 debacle under the obama administration?
@@_AndromedaGalaxy_ Not going there lol, politics and religion are things you don't bring into first dates or the interwebz lmao.
It can only go badly
no, manned fighters after the F-35 are not being purchased by the USA
Another absolutely excellent video. Factual, well presented, brilliant. As are all the videos Dark Skies and their other channels produce. Well done!
always great videos ! this channel rocks
Hey you should do a video on the YF-17 and the YF-16 and how the YF-17 became reincarnated as the F-18 not unless it's already been done?
He released a video last year comparing the f-22 raptor with it's rival yf-16 if I remember correctly. The f-22 raptor was chosen cause the makers were willing to show the air force that critical maneuver they both could pull off but the makers of the yf-16 didn't want to execute that same maneuver. Don't know why they didn't want to perform that maneuver but that is why the f-22 raptor went on to serve in the air force.
I wasn't referencing to the F-22 or the f-23 the yf-17got reincarnated into the f-18
@Common Sense Realist yes, I knew I had something off. Thank you for reminding this old bird which planes had a very exciting face-off. The yf-23 truly was incredible, don't know why the air force didn't choose the obviously superior fighter jet.
The answer was simple, there was a bigger beast called the F-15 Strike Eagle
I'm guessing money and the other versions are good enough.
You mean it was not expensive enough i assume, us military is run by corrupt pos.
@@ganjaman59650 yeah, if it's new it must be worthless corporate welfare. In my day we had fabric covered biplanes that we threw hand grenades out of and that worked fine.
No, they passed on the XL for the mudhen (f-15e) which had a longer range, larger payload, 2 engines, faster, and better radar.
If they were as corrupt as you claim they would have got both.
The late 60's and 70's/80's must have been a wild time. I can only imagine engineers snorting lines and saying, "fu*k it, if it doesn't work then I'll buy the next 8-ball." 🤣
one of my favorites. it's a shame it wasn't produced
Simple because the f-15e beat It which is ironic when you consider the f-15's original motto
Exactly what I was gonna say
And the motto was (is?)?
It would have been nice to have this and the F-15.
@@killdizzle I wonder what the 'Fighter Mafia' thinks of the F-15E Strike Eagle?
@@tantraman93 fuck what those guys think
The F-16 Draken
I wonder if somewhere there are SAAB engineers laughing?
One should remember that the US government never purchases the best or the most advanced equipment, they purchase the one offering the lowest bid or has greased the palm of the politicians with enough green to get their support.
You attitude is a little bit too prejudiced as most politicians look for the creation of the most jobs in their state as that is what will get them reelected.
I was a F16 C/D weapons loader. Idve loved to have worked on these things. Beautiful aircraft.
That was impressive.
I did not know about this one.
Thanks very much!
Also, single engine planes are "worrisome" as WHEN, not if the engine fails, the plane & pilot are fucked.
The plane is fucked, the pilot is fine.
Most combat aircraft have had a single engine. It's like the nonsense of why the USN didn't adopt the F-16 and went with the F-18 because it had two engines when in reality the USN didn't want to adopt a USAF aircraft.
The USN had adopted both single jet engine attack and fighter's before the A-4 and A-7 for attack and the F-11 Tiger, F4D Skyray and F-8 Crusader for their most recent aircraft.
@@rayceeya8659 @Ray Ceeya perhaps, if you can land somewhere nice with or without the aircraft.
Or you're injured on landing or ejection/landing, captured/killed by enemy if wartime, or just land in poor or inhospitable location like arctic, high altitude, poor terrain, desert, etc.
I'd like to land on a beach in Cancun about now
@@Ushio01 flying over water you want an "extra" engine to get you home.
More modern engines are built "better" so single engines have gotten more reliable.
@@Ushio01 Also every successful fighter aircraft during the Second World War.
I remember when the F16 was responsible for a multitude of piolet deaths du to its fly by wire and someone installing screws to long that began to rub thru and short out wires...had a rough start.. but its a great cheap plane all things being equal.
It was a padded room compared to the F-100A.
wait so with the same engine as the regular f16 it achieved twice the flight performance by basically just changing the wing design?? I find that very hard to believe, guess ill look in to it more but if that is true then thats fkin nuts! this aircraft basically shows that my favourite modern fighter (the f-16) is such a terribly efficient design 😭. the xl looks pretty sick tho, gives me draken vibes.
Twice the wing area means twice the lift and bigger wings plus the extensions to the fuselage means twice the fuel capacity.
Same way we didn’t have an IFF interrogator for decades to protect previous bad buys and future lucrative pipelines.
The F16- my favorite fighter of all time!
“No provision for wingtip missiles”: Shows aircraft with wingtip missiles. Sounds about right. Also the whole point of the demonstrator originally was to cruise supersonically without afterburners…you danced around this but didn’t actually state it. Further the F-15E is an quite different aircraft than an F-15D-the engines, wings, avionics and conformal fuel tanks are different; the missions are different. Germany doesn’t fly the F-16. Lastly no aircraft were planned to be converted into F-15E or F-16XL; they were always going to be new builds. Afraid I can’t give you a like for this one.🙁
Ok cool
There are rumers that America is working on a new 4.5 generation aircraft what I think is the new aircraft will have some technology from F16 xl
F15EX variant comin/out now
@@PackLeader115 I was about to reply the same thing but you beat me to it.
@@dominicsanchez2972 don't get me wrong id like to have both
Main issue with the F16 XL was it had one engine compared to F15 with double engine limiting the F16 in terms of maneuverability capabilities compared to F15
There was another experimental version derived from the XL which added canards
and an upgraded flight control computer.
With the canards, the airplane was the first
to do translations in the pitch and yaw planes
without changing its radar image. Coupled with its already dominant 9G dogfighting ability,
its ability to translate in the blink of
an eye without changing the direction of
flight was revolutionary. The Air Force
had already restricted the F15 from dogfighting
the original F16 in competitions because the
F16’s 9G turn rate made short work of
the F15 when it couldn’t turn the engagement into a foot race. With the canards and the bigger engine it would have smoked anything else for quite some time. Oh well. You can read about the canard version off you cam find a research library that kept their late 70s issues of the journal of the Test Pilot Association.
The USA paid for Israel to develop an advanced canard model. The Israelis traded the design to China for ballistic missile technology (China's J-10).
Thanks
*Who else is watching and reading comments at the same time CRYPTO investment is the future💯😊*
The online market is full of lucrativeness and passive incomes. I have profitable investment. Investing with the aid of an Expert got me a millionaire status.
Bitcoin investment is great unlike the stock market and other financial Bitcoin has no centralized Iocation since it's operates 24 hours a day in different parts of the world
Learning to make more money and extra income stream is the best part of it! 2020 wasn't really that bad at all.
Yes i have learnt a lot of things since last year and am looking forward to practice them
Yeah it is! Have recently started making $4000 a week from my Investment. That's my new extra income stream.
Imagine a world where the US chose their equipment based on performance insteed of politics LUL
I just want to add that I continue to be impressed with the quality of your videos and the depth of knowledge you put into them. My biggest regret is that I can only give you upvotes. Outstanding work!
I would have to say you do a great job of these aircraft reviews!
The Wingman!