RDAF. Why F-16? - Avitop Forums

Avitop.com Forums

RDAF. Why F-16?
Royal Danish Airforce

Thread Starter: Anonymous
Started: 05-11-1999 12:14 AM
Replies: 12

Avitop Forums » Military Aviation » Royal Danish Airforce » RDAF. Why F-16?

Anonymous is not online. Last active: 7/17/2007 7:51:33 PM

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Rapier ***
Hi,

I've been wondering? When the RDAF purchased loads of F-16's, what other aircraft of the time did they consider?

All comments are welcome

Rapier

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Jens ***
The Aircraft under consideration were:
Saab Viggen
Mirage F1
Genral Dynamaics YF-16

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[The Aircraft under consideration were:
Saab Viggen
Mirage F1
Genral Dynamaics YF-16

]

Hi Jens,

Thanks for letting me know about other aircraft that the RDAF considered, there must have been something special about the f-16 which must have had an edge over the other aircraft in someway.

Thanks

Rapier

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Jens Skov ***

Hi Jens,

...there must have been something special about the f-16 which must have had an edge over the other aircraft in someway.

Thanks

Rapier]
There were many factors involved in the choice of a new fighter for the RdAF. Not at least political. The most important was not the aircraft, but where you could get the best "compensating ordres" that means orders placed in Denmark by the country selling the fighters. At last the choice fell on F-16, in a coopration between Holland, Belgium Denmark and Norway I believe, called "The weapon bargain of the century". this was in the mid/late seventies. There is much more to write about this, but I am not a historician this is just taken out og memory!

Best wishes Jens

NB.: If any of you out there are glider pilots: Good Thermals in the weekend (I myself stopped flying 10 yeaars ago).
(Glider pilots do it silently)

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by RUN ***
[There were many factors involved in the choice of a new fighter for the RdAF. Not at least political. The most important was not the aircraft, but where you could get the best "compensating ordres" that means orders placed in Denmark by the country selling the fighters. At last the choice fell on F-16, in a coopration between Holland, Belgium Denmark and Norway I believe, called "The weapon bargain of the century". this was in the mid/late seventies. There is much more to write about this, but I am not a historician this is just taken out og memory!

Best wishes Jens

NB.: If any of you out there are glider pilots: Good Thermals in the weekend (I myself stopped flying 10 yeaars ago).
(Glider pilots do it silently)]

History has shown though that we did make the right choise ;-)

I used to fly gliders before I joined the Airforce & it really is the best way of flying apart from flying a jet.
RUN

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Jens Skov ***
History has shown though that we did make the right choise ;-)

I think F-16 was the "pilots choice" from the beginning!

I used to fly gliders before I joined the Airforce & it really is the best way of flying apart from flying a jet.
RUN]

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Kim Nielsen ***
[History has shown though that we did make the right choise ;-)

I think F-16 was the "pilots choice" from the beginning!

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Might bee! But:

I have been doing some road racing during the last ten years.
Due to the tight pupolation in Denmark is motorcircuits always a controversial subject and the overall posssibility is only two, more or less useable, circuits.
A possible way to compensate for this lack of training and competition-facilities is to involve the runways and like of the different airbases. But for very long have all danish airstrips been ment for deploying of the F 16's, and while F 16's are so wounerable to any little item (stone or bolt/nut is the same in that matter!) on the runway, due to the placing of the engine inlet, It is impossible to be aloud to use this alternative, wich for instanse is very popular in the F 16 less Germany!

Where I tend to with this tale, is the strategic mis-design of the F 16 in this matter! the problem in general, is well known of both sides of a conflict - we have all seen Iraqui airbases been clusterbombed to make them unusable - and I find it for a major handicap of the F 16, that it demands an newly broomed surface to take-off from.

Caused by the Swedes idea of "total defence", including layout of puplic streets to suit as alternative airstrips, and shelters blown out of the mountains hidden out in the woods, is one of the other contenders in "the veapon bargain of the century" the Saab Viggen much more useable while constructed to STOL take-off's from very rough airstrips (even plain ground!!).
Though I love the F 16, I think that the wars and conflicts in the time in between "the european weapon-trade", have shown that the Saab Viggen might have been the better trade!???

The last argumentation in this case is that the Russians also are focusing on the danger of being grounded by bad airstrips. The late MIG's and Sukhoi's are able to shut the engine inlets and take air from a kind of grill-opening on the upper surface of the wings during take-off!
Again - What use do You have of a perfect plane, if it's grounded for any reason!!?

Kim Nielsen

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[

Might bee! But:

I have been doing some road racing during the last ten years.
Due to the tight pupolation in Denmark is motorcircuits always a controversial subject and the overall posssibility is only two, more or less useable, circuits.
A possible way to compensate for this lack of training and competition-facilities is to involve the runways and like of the different airbases. But for very long have all danish airstrips been ment for deploying of the F 16's, and while F 16's are so wounerable to any little item (stone or bolt/nut is the same in that matter!) on the runway, due to the placing of the engine inlet, It is impossible to be aloud to use this alternative, wich for instanse is very popular in the F 16 less Germany!

Where I tend to with this tale, is the strategic mis-design of the F 16 in this matter! the problem in general, is well known of both sides of a conflict - we have all seen Iraqui airbases been clusterbombed to make them unusable - and I find it for a major handicap of the F 16, that it demands an newly broomed surface to take-off from.

Caused by the Swedes idea of "total defence", including layout of puplic streets to suit as alternative airstrips, and shelters blown out of the mountains hidden out in the woods, is one of the other contenders in "the veapon bargain of the century" the Saab Viggen much more useable while constructed to STOL take-off's from very rough airstrips (even plain ground!!).
Though I love the F 16, I think that the wars and conflicts in the time in between "the european weapon-trade", have shown that the Saab Viggen might have been the better trade!???

The last argumentation in this case is that the Russians also are focusing on the danger of being grounded by bad airstrips. The late MIG's and Sukhoi's are able to shut the engine inlets and take air from a kind of grill-opening on the upper surface of the wings during take-off!
Again - What use do You have of a perfect plane, if it's grounded for any reason!!?

Kim Nielsen]

Hello Kim,

You have raised some good interesting points, but as well as being the pilots choice, I think it was a matter of cost when they also made their decision to use F-16's. The Saab Vigen would have cost to much to look after for the long term. The F-16 is good for running costs and comes at very good value for money.

I have seen some F-16's (very few) with a grill at the front of the intake to guard from foriegn objects flying into the engines and damaging the engine, but I have talked to RUN about this before and it seems that the RDAF dont use them. I will try to find a picture of these protective grill's to show what I mean.

Regards

Rapier

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:RDAF. Why F-16?

*** Posted by Kim Nielsen ***
[

Hello Kim,

[...............]
I have seen some F-16's (very few) with a grill at the front of the intake to guard from foriegn objects flying into the engines and damaging the engine, but I have talked to RUN about this before and it seems that the RDAF dont use them. I will try to find a picture of these protective grill's to show what I mean.

Regards

Rapier]

I've noticed Your coversation, but dont think that any grill woudt prevent objects with the size of a bolt or nut to be sucked into the engine, and its here the problem is.
I've talked with some baseguards, who told that during base inspection they had to get out of their car to check the tire treads for picked up stones, wich had to be disposed before crossing the landingstrip.

If You gets the chance to see a F 16 which is taxiing or starting in wet conditions, check out the whirlabout of water going into the engine inlet to be visualised of the suck downwards from the engine!

Kim

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Reply: F-16 Inlet

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[

I've noticed Your coversation, but dont think that any grill woudt prevent objects with the size of a bolt or nut to be sucked into the engine, and its here the problem is.
I've talked with some baseguards, who told that during base inspection they had to get out of their car to check the tire treads for picked up stones, wich had to be disposed before crossing the landingstrip.

If You gets the chance to see a F 16 which is taxiing or starting in wet conditions, check out the whirlabout of water going into the engine inlet to be visualised of the suck downwards from the engine!

Kim]

Hi Kim,

I understand what you are saying and you are right maybe the air inlet does suck up all the bits off the runway. Personally I would like to see the state of the engine after something like this has happened but I think the grill's that are used on some F-16's do try to minimise this. Could this be some kind of design fault with the F-16? I guess the ground crew's have got their work cut out for them if they have to keep sweeping up the runways frequently. I read somewhere that an F-16 squadron had been grounded because of a problem like this. They were grounded because an F-16 pilot went missing shortly after take off and they only found the wreckege of the plane, no pilot as they could not see if he ejected it was smashed up that bad. On inspection of the engine fragments they discovered that the turbo fans had strange chip marks on them caused by some kind of projectile being forced into the engine, so you could be right. What I cant understand though is if it is a problem why has'nt it been solved?

Regards

Rapier

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:Reply: F-16 Inlet

*** Posted by Kim Nielsen ***
[

I've noticed Your coversation, but dont think that any grill woudt prevent objects with the size of a bolt or nut to be sucked into the engine, and its here the problem is.
I've talked with some baseguards, who told that during base inspection they had to get out of their car to check the tire treads for picked up stones, wich had to be disposed before crossing the landingstrip.

If You gets the chance to see a F 16 which is taxiing or starting in wet conditions, check out the whirlabout of water going into the engine inlet to be visualised of the suck downwards from the engine!

Kim

Hi Kim,

I understand what you are saying and you are right maybe the air inlet does suck up all the bits off the runway.

........I guess the ground crew's have got their work cut out for them if they have to keep sweeping up the runways frequently

.........What I cant understand though is if it is a problem why has'nt it been solved?

Regards

Rapier]

xxxxxxx

A freind of mine was once working on a factory, wich in fact was very busy and earned good money on large rotating brooms/sweepers (?) for the RDAF! It might have been in connection with the, at then, newly buyed F 16's!?

Solve the problem at this point? Isnt it a little late to replace the inlet beyond the cockpithood? :-)
Beside, i've noticed that the Delta winged so called F 16 XL, still has the inlet flaced underneath the body in front of the wing!

Kim

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:Reply: F-16 Inlet

*** Posted by Rapier ***
Hi Kim,

Considering what you have mentioned about the F-16's inlet it would be too late to start designing and redirecting the air from a different area, you may as well design a new aircraft and start from scratch. Personally I dont think it's too much of a problem it the runways are kept nice and clean as they should be, but you said something interesting about the runways being damaged and how would the F-16 cope with this because it is not really a short take off aircraft. You also mentioned that the F-16XL has the same inlet configuration, why has this not been redesigned? Interesting questions kim, but we will have to ask the designers of the aircraft to get the proper answers. Another point I would like to mention is that the F-16 has had it's problems with the air inlet being underneath the aircraft, for instance, the engine has been known to flame out at fairly high altitudes while in the middle stage afterburner while pulling high G's but it can be solved.

Rapier

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Anonymous

Top 10 Posts

Joined on 08-17-2002
Posts 1,543

Re:Reply: F-16 Inlet

*** Posted by run ***
Just a few comments

The f16 is ofcourse very sensitive to FOD, but an airstrike against an airfield would require some kind of clean-up no matter what kind of aeroplane you have.

The idea about operating from hiway strips etc. is excellent. But you should also kbow that it is difficult to destroy an airfield to the point where you can't operate with an f16 anymore.

RUN

The Anonymous account was just used to import messages from our old Forum. Anonymous posts are no longer an option ;)

Page 1 of 1 (13 items)

Avitop Forums » Military Aviation » Royal Danish Airforce » RDAF. Why F-16?