The F-16 is in the news lately. Here is one loaded for bear.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose they can take off from a long and straight enough road. I've seen the Thunderbirds do relatively short takeoffs at air shows and they don't really need a lot of width. They would just need a road without overhead obstacles like trees of wires over the road surface.

There was a myth that the US Interstate Highway system was built with improvised aircraft use in mind.
Sweden uses highways and revetments to disperse its fighter force across the country. Fascinating logistics. They've done this since the 1950s. But the highways have to have traffic control, be clear of obstacles, be stressed for the weight of a fighter, and be swept for FOD.

The weight of even an F-16 isn't a small consideration. With a Max Takeoff weight of around 40,000 lbs, most of which is on two skinny main landing gear, it will stress a road surface to a much greater degree than an 80,000 lb truck distributing the weight over 18 much larger tires.

Most asphalt surfaces simply could not handle the concentrated weight of an F-16. Nor could they handle the heat of an airplane in Full AB.

Additionally, the Swedish airplanes were built for very short takeoff, and very short landings. Something for which the F-16 was not designed. Famously, the Saab Viggen even had a thrust reverser. Few fighters had one. They added weight, but short field performance was critical to the dispersal plan, so the Viggen had one. Even the Gripen was designed for short field performance.

Don't confuse air show performance demonstrations with how the airplane performs with a full combat load. The F-16 is not a short field airplane.

 
Sweden uses highways and revetments to disperse its fighter force across the country. Fascinating logistics. They've done this since the 1950s. But the highways have to have traffic control, be clear of obstacles, be stressed for the weight of a fighter, and be swept for FOD.

The weight of even an F-16 isn't a small consideration. With a Max Takeoff weight of around 40,000 lbs, most of which is on two skinny main landing gear, it will stress a road surface to a much greater degree than an 80,000 lb truck distributing the weight over 18 much larger tires.

Most asphalt surfaces simply could not handle the concentrated weight of an F-16. Nor could they handle the heat of an airplane in Full AB.

Additionally, the Swedish airplanes were built for very short takeoff, and very short landings. Something for which the F-16 was not designed. Famously, the Saab Viggen even had a thrust reverser. Few fighters had one. They added weight, but short field performance was critical to the dispersal plan, so the Viggen had one. Even the Gripen was designed for short field performance.

Don't confuse air show performance demonstrations with how the airplane performs with a full combat load. The F-16 is not a short field airplane.


I figured that any road surface for that use would probably be reinforced. I've heard that many civilian runways might not be suitable for certain military aircraft. However, I had heard of the Swedish plan. I think it's been discussed here several times.

But apparently there was a WWII-era backup plan for emergency airstrips in proximity to highways, but it was before the Interstate Highway System. But they would clearly look like airstrips and these days I would expect they would be targets.

I have no idea where the one-out-of-five claim originated. Perhaps it is giving too much credit to whoever originated this "fact" to suggest that it began with a misreading of history. Under a provision of the Defense Highway Act of 1941, the Army Air Force and the Public Roads Administration (PRA), now the Federal Highway Administration, operated a flight strip program. In a 1943 presentation to the American Association of State Highway Officials, Commissioner of Public Roads Thomas H. MacDonald explained how it worked.​
"A flight strip consists of one runway, laid down in the direction of the prevailing wind, and a shelter with telephone for the custodians at the site and for itinerant flyers in an emergency. Fuel storage facilities are not provided unless airplanes are based there permanently. Instead, oil companies will keep stocks of aviation gasoline at gas stations along the highway and truck it to the flight strip as it is needed."​
The flight strips were designed for easy access to public highways and to provide unmistakable landmarks that could be followed easily by a pilot. Flight strips varied in size. The smallest — 150 feet (46 meters) wide and 4,000 feet (1,220 meters) long with the length increased by 500 feet (152 meters) for each 1,000 feet (305 meters) of elevation — were designed for tactical aircraft such as medium bombers. A larger flight strip could accommodate heavy bombers such as the B-17 and B-24, while still larger strips were designed for heavier classes of aircraft.​
 
Last edited:
I suppose they can take off from a long and straight enough road. I've seen the Thunderbirds do relatively short takeoffs at air shows and they don't really need a lot of width. They would just need a road without overhead obstacles like trees of wires over the road surface.

There was a myth that the US Interstate Highway system was built with improvised aircraft use in mind.
They can take off from very short runway. Astro can probably say exact operational capability.
 
They can take off from very short runway. Astro can probably say exact operational capability.

Earlier I commented that entry for the Pacific Coast Air Museum that claimed that Boeing made the F-16 and that they had to crate an F-16N to ship it there because it somehow couldn't land on their 6000 ft runway. That didn't sound right to me.

I do understand safety considerations though.
 
They can take off from very short runway. Astro can probably say exact operational capability.
Not with a combat load, they can’t.

Even in AB. It’s not going to be “Very short”. I’ve watched them take off, when I was flying formation on them. 3,000 + feet for normal takeoff. Up the weight considerably, and I think it’s going to be longer.

Before someone says, “it’s combat, they can take risks” yeah, but losing your fighter fleet to takeoff and landing accidents doesn’t help your long-term combat effectiveness.

They won’t be getting more of them. So, they have to be careful with them.
 
Last edited:
Not with a combat load, they can’t.

Even in AB. It’s not going to be “Very short”. I’ve watched them take off, when I was flying formation on them. 3,000 + feet for normal takeoff. Up the weight considerably, and I think it’s going to be longer.

Before someone says, “it’s combat, they can take risks” yeah, but losing your fighter fleet to takeoff and landing accidents doesn’t help your long-term combat effectiveness.

They won’t be getting more of them. So, they have to be careful with them.
They won’t be able to take off too heavy. They cannot do refueling, so ordinance package will be limited. Still, leap improvement over MIG29 with its short range and restrictive load/capability.
I am not sure they are utilizing anything shorter now anyway.
 
In many cases so heavy with ordinance they take off and need immediate refueling.
That is why they won’t have too much ordinance. They are operating MIG29 in air to ground role, and that airplane is severely limited in that role.
One thing it has to be understood, F16 or any other airplane, won’t be solution, but improvement.
This war is going to be resolved on the ground.
 
They are. But it will require a bit more attention. The biggest issue with that is that very clean roads etc. draw attention.
F16s are regularly practicing operations from two-lane roads etc.
On the other hand, they are small, which is also a big advantage.

very lightly built undercarriage too, so the roads need to be extremely smooth. Still don't see that becoming a sustainable mode of operation though.

I would say, based in Poland
 
very lightly built undercarriage too, so the roads need to be extremely smooth. Still don't see that becoming a sustainable mode of operation though.

I would say, based in Poland
You can’t base it in Poland.
Roads are fine.
Ukrainians understand what they are asking.
 
They can take off from very short runway. Astro can probably say exact operational capability.

^^^^
This just shows what the average person (non military fighter pilot) underestimates about the necessary requirements needed for the F-16.

Too many people watching Hollywood movies and think giving Ukraine a small fleet of F-16s is going to be a simple task and they can easily attack the enemy.

My oldest son was a crew chief on the F-16 at Homestead Air Reserve Base (1998-2002) and was telling me the amount of maintainers needed in a fighter squadron to keep a Falcon ready to go on short notice.

Example:
- The jet engine mechanics do not work on the fuel system
- The ejection seat mechanics do not work on survival equipment / helmet / mask / emergency radio
- Ordnance crew load bombs / rockets / missiles….. they do not uncrate and ‘build’ the Ordnance, that’s done by Munitions crews
- Electronic Warfare
- Avionics
- Laser targeting pod
- POL crews
- AGE crews

Etc…. Etc…. Etc….

edyvw,​

Iron Eagle movie is NOT how things work in the ‘real‘ USAF….
I am not trying to argue with you.


.
 
Last edited:
Having flown back seat in the airplane (F-16N, a stunt plane by comparison) a couple of times, on the wing of the airplane a hundred times, and watched it land, the takeoff is the easy part. Landing it, and getting it stopped, is the greater challenge on a short field.

The F-16 is a great airplane, but there are some limits. It doesn’t do everything well.

A great deal depends on what missions Ukraine intends for the airplane.

If it’s air to air, and it’s not carrying external fuel, then it can take off in a very short distance. But if it’s air to ground, and it’s got external tanks, it’s going to need some runway. If it doesn’t drop that ordinance on every mission, it’s gonna need a considerable runway to get stopped when it comes back heavy.

Marines practice on 4,000 foot steel mat runways. They can operate their F/A-18s from the steel mat. Bogue Field, NC is one example. But they have the option of using an arresting gear system. That 4,000 foot runway is a challenge for a fighter.

To lower the operational risk, the USAF typically employs their fighters from 8,000 foot or longer runways.

I just don’t see anyone operating the airplane out of much less than 8,000 feet. Maybe 6,000. Like I said, it may be war, but they need to minimize the risk in ground operations, they’re taking enough risks in the air. Attrition from takeoff and landing mishaps would wipe out this fighter fleet in short order, with no replacement airframes in sight.

As was pointed out, airborne refueling (which requires a boom system, unique to the USAF) would allow much great flexibility in deployment and payload. NATO and the USN/USMC use a drogue system, so most NATO nations can not help with refueling, and we are not giving the Ukraine Air Force KC-135s. I doubt Italy wants to share its couple of Tankers, which have a boom, for political and logistics reasons.

So, inflight refueling is not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
^^^^
This just shows what the average person (non military fighter pilot) underestimates about the necessary requirements needed for the F-16.

Too many people watching Hollywood movies and think giving Ukraine a small fleet of F-16s is going to be a simple task and they can easily attack the enemy.

My oldest son was a crew chief on the F-16 at Homestead Air Reserve Base (1998-2002) and was telling me the amount of maintainers needed in a fighter squadron to keep a Falcon ready to go on short notice.

Example:
- The jet engine mechanics do not work on the fuel system
- The ejection seat mechanics do not work on survival equipment / helmet / mask / emergency radio
- Ordnance crew load bombs / rockets / missiles….. they do not uncrate and ‘build’ the Ordnance, that’s done by Munitions crews
- Electronic Warfare
- Avionics
- Laser targeting pod
- POL crews
- AGE crews

Etc…. Etc…. Etc….

edyvw,​

Iron Eagle movie is NOT how things work in the ‘real‘ USAF….
I am not trying to argue with you.


.
Do you actually know what edyvw does or what he did?
Lockheed-Martin people were in Ukraine last year.
What do you think Ukrainians are? Bunch of sheep herders? Your assumptions are at best uninformed.
 
Having flown back seat in the airplane (F-16N, a stunt plane by comparison) a couple of times, on the wing of the airplane a hundred times, and watched it land, the takeoff is the easy part. Landing it, and getting it stopped, is the greater challenge on a short field.

The F-16 is a great airplane, but there are some limits. It doesn’t do everything well.

A great deal depends on what missions Ukraine intends for the airplane.

If it’s air to air, and it’s not carrying external fuel, then it can take off in a very short distance. But if it’s air to ground, and it’s got external tanks, it’s going to need some runway. If it doesn’t drop that ordinance on every mission, it’s gonna need a considerable runway to get stopped when it comes back heavy.

Marines practice on 4,000 foot steel mat runways. They can operate their F/A-18s from the steel mat. Bogue Field, NC is one example. But they have the option of using an arresting gear system. That 4,000 foot runway is a challenge for a fighter.

To lower the operational risk, the USAF typically employs their fighters from 8,000 foot or longer runways.

I just don’t see anyone operating the airplane out of much less than 8,000 feet. Maybe 6,000. Like I said, it may be war, but they need to minimize the risk in ground operations, they’re taking enough risks in the air. Attrition from takeoff and landing mishaps would wipe out this fighter fleet in short order, with no replacement airframes in sight.

As was pointed out, airborne refueling (which requires a boom system, unique to the USAF) would allow much great flexibility in deployment and payload. NATO and the USN/USMC use a drogue system, so most NATO nations can not help with refueling, and we are not giving the Ukraine Air Force KC-135s. I doubt Italy wants to share its couple of Tankers, which have a boom, for political and logistics reasons.

So, inflight refueling is not going to happen.
1. Refueling won't happen not only bcs. no one will give them tankers, but bcs. Russians have a say in what and when they will be refueled. Refueling over Poland? Not sure that would politically work. Perhaps. It is pushing the involvement envelope.
2. Lockheed-Martin folks were there last year inspecting "facilities" they would operate from. Patriots might put regular airfields in the West UKR into the game.
3. It will allow them to integrate various Western systems better or integrate them in the first place. While integrating HARM etc. on MIG-29 is an achievement, it has limits. Plus, the platform is horrible in air-to-ground operations with very short range, so F16 is a dramatic improvement, external tanks or not. In addition, most MIG29's they operate are old, spare parts are BIG issues, and the frame has a very limited life span. Polish MIG29s are well maintained, and Poland can and will do everything to provide parts, but in the end that has limits too considering it is a Russian airplane. So replacement must happen!
4. It will limit what Russians can do. It will push them further back and allow UKR to execute effectively certain strategic ground operations easier and more effectively.
5. It limits what the Russian air force can do. Radars etc. You know this much better than I do.

But as I said, war will be won on the ground.

Here is the thing, a political solution to the conflict cannot happen if UKR does not achieve some kind of balance of power. Russians do not have an incentive to cut any deal unless they think they might lose a lot, and then saving something is the only option for them too. F16's, M1, etc. are all part of that strategic game.
 
Having flown back seat in the airplane (F-16N, a stunt plane by comparison) a couple of times, on the wing of the airplane a hundred times, and watched it land, the takeoff is the easy part. Landing it, and getting it stopped, is the greater challenge on a short field.

The F-16 is a great airplane, but there are some limits. It doesn’t do everything well.

A great deal depends on what missions Ukraine intends for the airplane.

If it’s air to air, and it’s not carrying external fuel, then it can take off in a very short distance. But if it’s air to ground, and it’s got external tanks, it’s going to need some runway. If it doesn’t drop that ordinance on every mission, it’s gonna need a considerable runway to get stopped when it comes back heavy.

Marines practice on 4,000 foot steel mat runways. They can operate their F/A-18s from the steel mat. Bogue Field, NC is one example. But they have the option of using an arresting gear system. That 4,000 foot runway is a challenge for a fighter.

To lower the operational risk, the USAF typically employs their fighters from 8,000 foot or longer runways.

I just don’t see anyone operating the airplane out of much less than 8,000 feet. Maybe 6,000. Like I said, it may be war, but they need to minimize the risk in ground operations, they’re taking enough risks in the air. Attrition from takeoff and landing mishaps would wipe out this fighter fleet in short order, with no replacement airframes in sight.

As was pointed out, airborne refueling (which requires a boom system, unique to the USAF) would allow much great flexibility in deployment and payload. NATO and the USN/USMC use a drogue system, so most NATO nations can not help with refueling, and we are not giving the Ukraine Air Force KC-135s. I doubt Italy wants to share its couple of Tankers, which have a boom, for political and logistics reasons.

So, inflight refueling is not going to happen.
How do you think the F-16 will be used in Ukraine? What kind of missions? Where will they be based?
I see Ukraine has a decent amount of international airports in the western half of the country and they are at least 6000' usually?
 
How do you think the F-16 will be used in Ukraine? What kind of missions? Where will they be based?
I see Ukraine has a decent amount of international airports in the western half of the country and they are at least 6000' usually?
They have numerous military installations capable to handle anything possible. Whether they can use it depends on SAM capabilities. Patriots drastically changed defense around Kiev. They would need more batteries as F16’s will be scattered in numerous locations.
There is ongoing attempt to modify S300 launchers to operate western missiles.
 
How do you think the F-16 will be used in Ukraine? What kind of missions? Where will they be based?
I see Ukraine has a decent amount of international airports in the western half of the country and they are at least 6000' usually?
I honestly don't know how they plan to use it.

Were I planning, the first priority would be to establish and maintain air superiority over their advancing troops. Keep the Russian AF off them. Deny the Russian defenders air support.

Next priority would be Close Air Support (CAS). Give your troops an edge when they're in contact with the enemy.

Next would be air interdiction - interrupt the Russian supply lines. Starve their front line troops of ammo, fuel, food, everything.

But first would be air superiority. That enables all the other missions.
 
I don't know a great deal about jet engine oil - because changing, or even checking, it wasn't my area of exertise, but jet engines generally hold several gallons of oil, with several scavenge pumps, and a sump that feeds a pressure pump. They have an oil cooler to regulate temperature. Usually a fuel/oil intercooler.

The nature of jet engines keeps the oil clean. There is very little (or no) combustion blow by into the oil. It's pure synthetic. Mil-23699 was the standard for Navy jets back when I flew them, and it was common across most jet engine types. The change interval was several hundred hours of operation - given the average speed of a jet, that's well over 100,000 miles... :cool:

I should add that some consumption is normal. A quart every couple of hours. They had to be checked and topped off every flight. A long mission (8 hours was my personal record) would result in the engine needing some top off oil. But the pressure and temperature were fine the entire flight. On the TF-30 engine in the F-14A, the oil hot light came on at 316F and went off at 256F. Funny that I still recall that parameter...
flying for eight hours.....glad I can't do it. heart medicine and a enlarged prostate make me have to pee way to much for a eight hour shift.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top