US Navy F-16N

[MigBuster 2,884]

 

 

The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon is the western world’s most prolific fighter of the last 40 years.

Even if medium and long-range air-to-air missiles, such as the AIM-7 Sparrow and the AIM-120 AMRAAM,  have been integrated in the F-16 since 1986 for BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements, the Viper (the universal F-16’s nickname)was born in response to LWF (Light Weight Fighter) program, for a small and agile fighter: the U.S. Air Force needed a small, cheap, maneuverable airplane to flank the F-15 Eagle, its air superiority fighter, and face the small Soviet fighters, such as the MiG-21 in close combat.

 

Indeed the Viper can maneuver against any opponent, proving to be the ideal adversary (or “aggressor” in the Air Force jargon) aircraft for both U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy training programs. Arguably the best version of the Fighting Falcon having played the bandit role has been the F-16N.

Born in response to the need of the Navy to replace its aging fleets of A-4 Skyhawks and F-5 Tigers adversary fighters, the F-16N was a basic F-16C Block 30 with the General Electric F110-GE-100 engine.

 

The F-16N was typically equipped with the Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) pod on the starboard wingtip and to completely simulate adversaries, the ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) and the ALE-40 chaff/flare were also incorporated.

 

To save weight the internal cannon was removed and the aircraft could not carry air-to-air missiles, even though it retained the APG-66 radar from the F-16A/B models.

 

Twenty two single seat F-16Ns along with four two seat TF-16Ns were delivered in the late 1980s to the Navy and four units flew the jet: the VF-126 Bandits and the Fighter Weapons School both based at Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar, the VF-45 Blackbirds based at NAS Key West and the VF-43 Challengers based at NAS Oceana.

 

According to Rick Llinares & Chuck Lloyd book Adversary America’s Aggressor Fighter Squadrons, since the U.S. Navy didn’t own any Fulcrum or Flanker, the F-16N was the best fighter to replicate the then new fourth generation Russian fighters and finally F-14 and F/A-18 crews could fight against a real different aircraft. In particular, against the Tomcat, the nimble F-16N was a very challenging adversary, as by the video below

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately the F-16N began to experience the wear and tear due to the excessive g’s sustained during many aerial engagements and in 1994 the Navy decided to retire the type since the costly repair to keep the Viper flying couldn't be afforded. But even if as bandit the F-16N was replaced by the F-5 which was the fighter the Viper intended to replace, the F-16N still remains the best adversary fighter ever flown by the U.S. Navy.

The U.S. Navy Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, at NAS Fallon, Nevada, currently operates some F-16A in the aggressor role.

 

 

http://theaviationist.com/2015/03/26/f-16n-best-adversary/

Edited March 26, 2015 by MigBuster

[Nesher 628]

very interesting read and video.. thanks!

[Piglet_7 106]

Collected a few patches in the mid 90s then found a jacket in 2007.  

 

all at the cost of $130 AUD

 

[abuassad 5]

The F-14 mated to the CCCP=? 

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Does anyone have any actual information or imagery of the original concept for the carrier based F-16N? Whenever I've searched for it, all I get is info on the current USN F-16Ns above.

[Piglet_7 106]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0236.shtml

 

Navy F-16

[MigBuster 2,884]

Does anyone have any actual information or imagery of the original concept for the carrier based F-16N? Whenever I've searched for it, all I get is info on the current USN F-16Ns above.

 

 

A bit here also

 

In the meantime, some US Navy officers had been expressing interest in a low-cost alternative to the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, which was at that time experiencing severe teething troubles and suffering from a series of cost overruns. This program came to be known as VFAX. A stripped version of the Tomcat (named F-14X) had been proposed by Grumman, but had been summarily rejected by the Deputy Defense Secretary. In May 10, 1974 the House Armed Services Committee dictated that the VFAX would have to be a wholly new aircraft, but, apparently having forgotten the sorry experience with the F-111, they wanted the USAF and the Navy to purchase basically the same plane. However, the Navy (unlike the Air Force) wanted the VFAX to be capable of filling both air-to-air and ground-attack roles.

In August of 1974, the Congress took money intended for VFAX and diverted it to a new program known as Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF), and directed that this plane make maximum feasible use of the USAF's LWF/ACF technology and hardware. It would be basically a navalized LWF/ACF. However, most Navy officers were solidly committed to the F-14 and wanted nothing to do with either the VFAX or the NACF. Nevertheless, Congress was insistent, and in September of 1974, the Navy announced that it would select a single contractor to begin engineering development of the NACF and requested bids from the industry. In response to this request, on September 27, 1974, General Dynamics announced that they would be teaming with Ling-Temco-Vought (also located in Dallas/Fort Worth) to propose a NACF design based on the YF-16. The navalized YF-16 was to have BVR radar, which was not part of the original planning for a USAF F-16. If both the Air Force and the Navy picked the YF-16, General Dynamics would be the prime contractor for the Air Force and LTV would be prime contractor for the Navy. However, in retrospect, since both contractors were located in the same state, there was little likelihood of receiving a contract.

 

In the meantime, the F-16 still remained one of the contenders for the NACF order. One proposal from General Dynamics was for a single-seat naval fighter based on the two-seat F-16B but with the space ordinarily occupied by the rear seat being used for increased avionics or fuel. On May 2nd, 1975, the Navy announced that they had decided not to buy the navalized F-16, but opted instead for an aircraft developed from the YF-17, which was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet.

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article25.html

[JediMaster 451]

I never realized the F-16N's lasted less than 10 years. I knew they took a heavier beating, but that's a LOT faster wear.

[MigBuster 2,884]

I never realized the F-16N's lasted less than 10 years. I knew they took a heavier beating, but that's a LOT faster wear.

 

 

Comment from John Williams on F-16 net

 

Long story there, I'll try to be as brief as possible. The design mission usage of the F-16A/B was 55% air to air, 45% air to ground, but the F-16N was used almost 100% air to air in aggressor training. Some parts of the airplane had an easier time of that (weapon hardpoints, for example), but some parts had a more severe experience of high g events. The N airplanes were delivered with titanium wing attach brackets in place of aluminum brackets on the A/B. The Navy would not pay for a full analysis and durability test of those parts, since they were easily inspected. Bad idea, as the brackets started cracking at a relative young age.

 

But there is more to the story. USAF uses a structural technology called fracture mechanics to track crack growth and allows airplanes to keep flying with cracks so long as the cracks remain within specified lengths. The Navy, being old fashioned and ultra conservative still used fatigue crack rules which say that any crack is reason for grounding. Because fatigue analysis and test is much more primitive than fracture mechanics, it requires a more conservative approach. So if USAF had those same F-16N airplanes, they would not have grounded them.

[Viggen 643]

Interesting read.

 

I can see why the Navy uses the older method for carrier aircraft, but not for all of their inventory.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Makes a lot more sense having read that, never could quite figure out how the USN wore them out so damned fast.

 

Craig

[+Typhoid 231]

 

Comment from John Williams on F-16 net

 

Long story there, I'll try to be as brief as possible. The design mission usage of the F-16A/B was 55% air to air, 45% air to ground, but the F-16N was used almost 100% air to air in aggressor training. Some parts of the airplane had an easier time of that (weapon hardpoints, for example), but some parts had a more severe experience of high g events. The N airplanes were delivered with titanium wing attach brackets in place of aluminum brackets on the A/B. The Navy would not pay for a full analysis and durability test of those parts, since they were easily inspected. Bad idea, as the brackets started cracking at a relative young age.

 

But there is more to the story. USAF uses a structural technology called fracture mechanics to track crack growth and allows airplanes to keep flying with cracks so long as the cracks remain within specified lengths. The Navy, being old fashioned and ultra conservative still used fatigue crack rules which say that any crack is reason for grounding. Because fatigue analysis and test is much more primitive than fracture mechanics, it requires a more conservative approach. So if USAF had those same F-16N airplanes, they would not have grounded them.

 

 

of course, the USAF also flew their F-15's until one of them broke up in flight!!

[FastCargo 412]

of course, the USAF also flew their F-15's until one of them broke up in flight!!

 

Well, no science is perfect...:).

 

FC