Hacker News Reader

Comment by runarb | Hacker News Reader

Can you elaborate a little more on which aspects of the 40 year old F-16 design you think is better than the F-35? After looking on the Wikipedia page[0][1] it looks for me that the F-35 outperforms the F-16 in all aspects:

  |------------------------|-----------|----------|
  |                        | F-16      | F-35     |
  |------------------------|-----------|----------|
  | Maximum speed          | Mach 1.2  | Mach 1.6 |
  | Combat radius          | 550 km    | 1 080 km |
  | Dry thrust             | 76.3 kN   | 125 kN   |
  | Thrust w. afterburner  | 127 kN    | 191 kN   |
  | First flight           | 1974      | 2006     |
  |------------------------|-----------|----------|

0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_...

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...

View on HN

The F-16 has Mach 2+ top speed, the Mach 1.2 figure is "at sea level", so the F-35 is significantly outclassed there, not just by the F-16, but also by most potential adversaries.

One advantage that the F-35 does have is "super cruise", the ability to go supersonic without afterburners (F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon have the same ability). Other fighters are restricted to subsonic speeds except for short supersonic dashes.

Total thrust is not particularly interesting for a fighter's performance, thrust-to-weight ratio is, and the F-35 is quite a bit heavier. The F-16 has slightly better than 1:1 "loaded", with the F-35 only getting there by restricting it to 50% fuel.

I am not sure how exactly combat radius is calculated, but the combat radius of the F-16 is listed as half of that of the F-35 and to get decent thrust-to-weight you have to halve to F-35's fuel. Go figure.

One more thing to consider is that the combat radius appears to be with internal fuel only. The F-35 being a stealth design, it has been "optimized" for internal carriage of weapons and fuel, whereas with the F-16 you probably just add a drop-tank if you need more range.

A clean F-16 might have Mach 2 as its top speed, but not even close to that with bags and bombs.

You need to add weight, and wing loading area, and what G's the plane is rated at. These are key variables.

The F-16's max speed is far greater than Mach 1.2, I thought, or at least it used to be before they added on weight to the thing.

It's also well known that the designers optimized the F-16's ability to quickly lose/gain kinetic energy, what they call "dump and pump". This is hard to quantify.

Some of the "nextgen" fighter capabilities widely touted are "supercruising" (i.e. supersonic flight without afterburner) and thrust vectoring, i.e. changing directions quickly by nozzling engine thrust off center. Amusing, the original YF-16A prototype could supercruise, and execute a "buttonhook turn" maneuver, without the fancy 21st century engines.

Imagine what the F-22's P&W F119 engine could do in a modernized F-16 airframe....

The assumption with the F-35 seems to be that technology (better sensors & automation) will overcome performance & armament disparities. This is not a new assumption in the air superiority game, but I don't think history's been kind to it to this point.

You're right, history hasn't been kind. The F-4 going into service with only missiles an no internal cannon is a pretty good example. After all, the new missiles would overcome and air combat maneuvering was a thing of the past.

Actually, Boyd's breakthrough in allowing designers to quantify a plane's ability to gain and lose energy is pretty much what led to the F16 and F15 being so good at it. It's true that it doesn't boil down easily to a single number, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-Maneuverability_theory

Those aren't necessarily 1:1. Note that the combat radius of the F16 includes 4x1,000lb bombs.

Assuming the Falcon figure is for a fully-loaded plane, it wins on thrust-to-weight ratio.

Rate of climb on the F35 is classified, so can't be compared.

Range, thrust, and power to weight are just a few performance parameters.

It's somewhat more difficult to get accurate turn performance and acceleration information about the F-35. If I understand correctly (again, can't really find anything but conjecture for performance charts) while the F-35 has more sophisticated aerodynamic designs, the large cross-section looks to be a disadvantage in turn rates and acceleration (especially trans sonic).

This is contrary to what the test pilots and others bringing the aircraft to IOC have reported. Granted, test pilots work for the manufacturer and might be biased, but regular aviators who have flown the aircraft are confirming its excellent performance.

Not sure howthe "First Flight" statistic has anything to do with one out-performing the other...

The ability to field ten times as many planes at the same cost should probably figure in an evaluation...

F16 has good reputation. F35 does not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com