Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "" video.

  1. F-16XL's larger wings also reduce acceleration. Good acceleration is important after executing a hard instantaneous turn.
    6
  2. F-16XL would have slower acceleration after an instantaneous turn.
    5
  3.  @JoseFernandez-wu8pj  F-16C Block 30 can be upgraded into F-16V Block 70 which involves avionics (radar, EW suit, signal processor units) and structural (service hours increase) upgrades. Unlike F-15A/B/C/D/E, F16's FCS is already digital and control surface actuators are computer controlled. F-15 varaints like F15-SA and F15EX has digital FCS i.e. control surface actuators are computer controlled.
    2
  4.  @practicalthinker5545  Super Hornet F/A-18E Block 2 still has less range than F-35A. F/A-18E Block 3 needs Conformal Fuel Tanks to close the gap with F-35A Block 3F's combat range.
    2
  5.  @mikebridges20  F-16C/D loaded external tanks were rated for 7G.
    2
  6. F-15 with updated GE engines and digital FCS (with high AoA improvements) has resulted in F-15EX Eagle II that can replace F-15C Eagle. The F-16C airframe can't scale like the F-15 airframe.
    2
  7.  @mikebridges20  The infamous F-16D vs F-35A (unit AF-02, work-in-progress F-35A pre-Block 2B reached 6.5g, completed Block 2B/3i has 7g) in Q1 2015 has revealed F-16D with external tanks has 7G. PS; The Dutch have revealed F-35A has improved from being a loser against F-16 with external fuel tanks to winning against clean F-16 (via F-35A Block 3F).
    2
  8.  @patrickchase5614  F-16 doesn't have F-15's horizontal tail design that extends beyond engine nozzels to improve pitch control with high AoA. F-15's horizontal tail design is still common with high AoA capable F-22A, F-35A/B/C, F/A-18A/B/C/D, and F/A-18E/F. The canted vertical tail improves rear lift and yaw control during high AoA. Silent Eagle's canted tails provide rear lift to the aircraft and reduce ballast usage, while increasing the range by 75 to 100 nautical miles. Canted tails also provide lower RCS.
    2
  9.  @donkoh5738  F-16XL wouldn't have solved SEAD missions with advanced SAMs. F-16C Block 50 (GE engine) can supercruise. The F110-GE-100 produces more thrust in MIL power than the F100-PW-220 and the F110-GE-129 more than the F100-PW-229.
    1
  10.  @johngoscinski1995  My comments are based on F-16's real designer i.e. Harry Hillaker. A statement from the real F-16 designer on a larger wing area http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37 F-16 Designer Harry Hillaker Harry Hillaker's statement on low wing loading and wing size... _For example, the drag coefficient of an F-16 is about the same as that of an F-4. However, the F-16 has about one-third the drag of an F-4 in level flight. At angle of attack, it is about one-fifteenth We knew that we wanted low wing loading and high thrust loading. But we also knew that low wing loading means more weight and more drag Critics like Pierre Sprey's argument on low wing loading are insufficient. Pierre Sprey didn't tell you the larger wings introduce higher drag. Pierre Sprey did NOT design F-16! The trick with F-16's design is to have medium wing loading, smallish wings, and lower wing loading during an angle of attack turn with vortex lift. F-16 has a blended body-wing design to generate extra lift from the body. For vortex lift generation, F-16 was designed with low drag at an angle of attack, hence smaller wings.
    1
  11.  @JoseFernandez-wu8pj  Japan's Mitsubishi F-2 has a low RCS (radar cross-section) full composite wings design which differs from the normal F-16C. R&D cost was spread across over low unit numbers. Mitsubishi F-2's avionics are similar to F-16E Block 60 e.g. AESA radar. Japan's F-15J is being upgraded to F15-JSI with AESA radar-related avionics. The major difference between F-15-JSI vs F-15EX is with the digital FCS that enables F-15X's high angle of attack features. USAF's F-15E-0 and F-15E-1 build don't have F-15EX's digital FCS high angle of attack features. Japan's Mitsubishi F-35A has a higher per-unit cost when compared to Lockheed-(TX, USA)'s and Leonardo-(Italy, EU)'s F-35A builds. Lockheed-(TX, USA)'s F-35A Lot 14 build = about $79 million per unit. Mitsubishi F-35A build = about $85 million per unit.
    1
  12.  @johngoscinski1995  From f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=5525&start=1335#wrapper From GTA4's post with OEM numbers, F-35A beating Eurofighter in acceleration. Critics like Pierre Sprey's argument on low wing loading are insufficient. Pierre Sprey didn't tell you the larger wings introduce higher drag which impacts acceleration.
    1
  13.  @johngoscinski1995  From thediplomat.com/2020/04/flankers-vs-gripens-what-happened-at-the-falcon-strike-2015-exercise/ The Su-27 on the other hand, benefits from greater engine thrust and better sustained kinematic performance/turn rate than Gripen-C. SU-27SK has a superior sustain turn when compared to Gripen C. From China's SU-27SK vs Thailand's Gripen C, the low wing loading argument means little when Gripen C's engine is weak.
    1
  14. With 43,000 lbf to future 45,000 lbf engine for 4.5 gen fighter, a new clean-sheet design will be required. F-16XL is NOT design for the common engines with F-35A Block 4.x and NGAD.
    1
  15.  @JoseFernandez-wu8pj  F-16C Block 50/52 are built-in higher unit numbers and its airframe's material composition is not much different from F-16C Block 30s.
    1
  16.  @practicalthinker5545  F-18 has a shorter range.
    1
  17.  @cliffordnelson8454  Against F-35A Block 3F, F-16A MLU needs to be clean to make dogfight interesting.
    1
  18.  @cliffordnelson8454  >And stealth only works if you have no external loads Stealth is not a cloaking device. F-35 with external bombs still has lower RCS when compared to F-16's equivalent. Stealth(very low RCS) reduces the enemy radar's effective detection/tracking/lock-on range and enhances digital frequency memory jammers, chuff, and towed drone effectiveness. F-35 didn't skip BAE's gen 4.5 active stealth jammer and towed drone.
    1
  19.  @cliffordnelson8454  President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has claimed that the military has destroyed at least six Armenian S-300 missile systems using Turkish and Israeli combat drones. “Modern methods of warfare are different from those of the 90s. Unmanned aircraft is an important factor in our combat capability, especially in such fortified areas…. Both Turkish Israeli drones helped us a lot. We have destroyed at least S-300 air defense systems using them,” Aliyev said during an interview with the General Director of the Interfax-Azerbaijan agency Anar Azizov. Armenian Defense Ministry also claimed that one of its jets had been shot down by a Turkish F-16C. Turkey's drones are sent to Ukraine.
    1
  20.  @cliffordnelson8454  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAYlQpfaECI THE F-35 PENETRATED RUSSIAN AIR DEFENSES UNDETECTED
    1
  21.  @cliffordnelson8454  >F-15 is aerodynamically very old F-15 still has a body lift design with high AOA (horizontal stabilizer placed after engine nozzles) when enabled by digital FCS.
    1
  22.  @cliffordnelson8454  Gripen C was beaten by China's SU-27SK in sustain turn rates. Gripen's engine is weak for the wing area and related lift drag. Gripen's Angle of Attack capability is inferior to classic Hornets, let alone F-35's. Gripen's AoA limit is about 28 degrees that's is slightly higher than F-16C. Rafale's AoA limit is 29 degrees. Classic Hornets has 45 degrees AoA. F-35A has 50 degrees AoA under software limit, without software limit, it was able to sustain 70 degrees and 110 degrees momentary AoA. F-16 Vista with TVC can sustain 90 degrees AoA. Finland purchased F-35A Block 4.
    1
  23.  @cliffordnelson8454  Clean F-16C with Glass V RAM coating is not a stealth aircraft. Clean F-16 is not a combat fighter, hence it a useless configuration.
    1
  24.  @cliffordnelson8454  AGM-158C LRASM is a stealth missile. Don't assume external missiles doesn't have very low RCS treatment.
    1
  25.  @cliffordnelson8454  >Do you know anything about stealth Yes. Stealth is not a cloaking device. Modern stealth as in Very Low Observation (VLO) rated radar cross-section (RCS) context reduces the enemy radar's effective detection/tracking/lock-on ranges. A stealth aircraft's RCS with external weapons is still lower than non-VLO aircraft with the same external weapons load.
    1
  26.  @cliffordnelson8454  Lockheed already has a J-20 like design during the JAST program. Lockheed created two near full-size prototypes from Lockheed Skunkworks vs Lockheed Fortworth. Fortworth's X35 won the internal company competition. JAST's X35 design was then reused in the JSF competition. Australia's RAAF/ Boeing Loyal Wingman design was based on McDonnell Douglas/Northrop Grumman's JAST entry. Boeing owns McDonnell Douglas IP.
    1
  27.  @cliffordnelson8454  Unlike other external missiles, AGM-158C LRASM's still follows stealth shaping design.
    1
  28.  @cliffordnelson8454  Based on your statements, you are ignorant of Lockheed Martin's projects.
    1
  29.  @cliffordnelson8454  In Thailand's Gripen C and China's SU-27SK war game, Gripen C's lower RCS was one of its advantages that was negated by J-10C (with AESA radar). For the Netherlands, F-35A Block 3F was able to use its BAE-designed active stealth (digital jammer) to cover the blue team's F16A MLUs against the red team's F-16A MLUs. Against BAE's active stealth (digital jammer), F-16C Block 40/50 level avionics are obsolete. Again, Stealth is not a cloaking device. US's stealth definition is based on the Very Low Observation (VLO) category relative to the Low Observation (LO).
    1
  30. ​ @cliffordnelson8454  >And the F-16 does not come close to planes like the Grippen with its canards. F-16A/C has 25 degrees AoA limit. Beyond 25 degrees, F-16 is out of control. Gripen has 28 degrees AoA limit. Rafale has 29 degrees AoA limit. F/A-18A Hornet has 45 degrees AoA limit. Super Hornet F/A-18E and some classic F/A-18C Hornets have higher AoA. Finish and Swiss F-18C variants can exceed the 45 degrees AoA limit. F-35A Block 3F has 50 degrees AoA software limit. Without software limit, F-35A can sustain 70 degrees AoA i.e. it can deliver most of F-16 VISTA with thrust vector control's 90 degrees sustain AoA. In terms of dogfight doctrine, Hornet operators can easily upgrade to F-35A Block 3F's "Hornet with a turbo" (Dutch claim at F-35A Block 3i, 2016).
    1
  31.  @cliffordnelson8454  F-15 with digital FCS can reach high AoA since its tail horizontal stabilizers design is similar to F/A-18's, F-22A's, and F-35A/B/C i.e. horizontal stabilizers are placed after the engine nozzles. F-15 lacking the twin canted vertical tails do not have improvements for yaw or hammerhead maneuvering. F-15 has a body lift design that was demonstrated with a single wing F-15 incident. At empty weight, F-35A's wing loading is based on F-16C Block 50's. There's a 1.5X scale design factor for F-16C to F-35A. F-16XL's larger wing degrades acceleration that is important for exiting an instantaneous turn. SU-27SK beats Gripen C in sustain turn rates despite Gripen C's low wing loading. Gripen C's weak engines don't maximize its low wing loading. Harry Hillaker's statement on low wing loading and wing size... _For example, the drag coefficient of an F-16 is about the same as that of an F-4. However, the F-16 has about one-third the drag of an F-4 in level flight. At angle of attack, it is about one-fifteenth We knew that we wanted low wing loading and high thrust loading. But we also knew that low wing loading means more weight and more drag Critics like Pierre Sprey's argument on low wing loading are insufficient. Larger wings generate higher lift drag.
    1
  32.  @cliffordnelson8454  For the Gripen design, it would need to be redesigned for large diameter engines e.g. UK BAE's Tempest with twin 43k lbf engines. UK RR has a fighter engine design that is competitive against PW F-135's thrust. Saab has joined the Team Tempest. USAF NGAD has at least twin F-135 +43k lbf class engines. Once the engine design with a practical thrust target is established, a fighter aircraft design can be designed around it.
    1
  33.  @mikebridges20  For Rafale The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity
    1
  34.  @mikebridges20  You stated "Tanks might be".
    1