What if the F-16 Falcon lost in the contract bid of 1974?

HelloLegend · Dec 9, 2006

In OTL, Congress picked F-16 for the Air Force, and YF-17 (remodeled to F-18) for the Navy, because Navy needed a double engine, folding wing aircraft, whereas the Air Force picked the F-16 for versatility.

What if Congress had decided against the Falcon, period. And gave both the Air Force and Navy, the F-18 Hornet, then later the F-18 Super Hornet E/F models (aka Rhinos)?

Amerigo Vespucci · Dec 9, 2006

The cost savings per unit could result in an early adaptation of the JSF idea under a different name.

BanebladeVX2 · Dec 9, 2006

F-20 Tigershark would have taken its place since it was a direct competitor to F-16.

Archangel Michael · Dec 9, 2006

The F-20 was intended more for foreign markets due to the fact that the U.S. refused to allow GE to export the F-16.

Does anybody know why the F-16 was picked over the FY-17?

Matt · Dec 9, 2006

Amerigo Vespucci said:
The cost savings per unit could result in an early adaptation of the JSF idea under a different name.

Not quite. Despite the outward family resemblance of the F/A-18 and the YF-17, they're considerably different aircraft. The Hornet has not only considerable stregthening of the airframe and undercarriage(standard for Naval aviation), but is a complete resign, merely based around the same design principals and concepts. The YF-17 has more in common with it's grandpappy, the F-5, then anything. The Navy, while encourages to pick an aircraft from the contenders in the LWF competition, weren't bound to design requirements of the LWF.

In the long term, winning the LWF would be very, very good for Northrup. The contracts the GE got with NATO and US Friendly allies would all presumably goto them, either in the form of the F-17, or the F-20.

Romulus Augustulus · Dec 9, 2006

Archangel Michael said:
The F-20 was intended more for foreign markets due to the fact that the U.S. refused to allow GE to export the F-16.

Does anybody know why the F-16 was picked over the FY-17?

Not the F-16 per se; it was the engine, a Pratt & Whitney F100. Originally a version of the F-16 known as the F-16/79, equipped with a GE J79, was intended for export, I believe due to President Jimmy Carter's belief that he could reduce arms proliferation by only selling shitty downgraded versions of weapons, but eventually they ended up exporting F-16s with the F-100. I don't think anyone wanted the F-16/79.

And the F-16 is manufactured by General Dynamics, which would be GD, not GE, which would be General Electric.

Apologies for the pedantry.

Archangel Michael · Dec 9, 2006

Romulus Augustulus said:
And the F-16 is manufactured by General Dynamics, which would be GD, not GE, which would be General Electric.

Apologies for the pedantry.

I knew it was G-something.

Tizoc · Dec 10, 2006

Does anybody remember that YF-17, unlike F-18, had one engine?

Anyway, with F-17 instead of F-16 as main fighter for USAF it might end European NATO countries adopting as main-line fighter Mirage F1 or SAAB JA 37 Viggen...

Landshark · Dec 10, 2006

Tizoc said:
Does anybody remember that YF-17, unlike F-18, had one engine?

The YF-17 had two engines:

Link

Anyway, with F-17 instead of F-16 as main fighter for USAF it might end European NATO countries adopting as main-line fighter Mirage F1 or SAAB JA 37 Viggen...

Why?

The French and the Swedes already had the Mirage and Viggen in service by the time the F-16 was ready and both were offered as competitors to the F-16 without much success.

HelloLegend · Dec 10, 2006

The YF-17 is a prequel to the F-18, yes it had two engines, and it was chosen to be the Navy's new fighter.

Tizoc · Dec 12, 2006

Landshark said:
The YF-17 had two engines:

Okay, my mistake.

Landshark said:
Tizoc said:

Anyway, with F-17 instead of F-16 as main fighter for USAF it might end European NATO countries adopting as main-line fighter Mirage F1 or SAAB JA 37 Viggen...

Click to expand...

Why?

The French and the Swedes already had the Mirage and Viggen in service by the time the F-16 was ready and both were offered as competitors to the F-16 without much success.

So? That F-16 was chosen as main fighter by most European NATO countries in OTL, it doesn't mean in ATL they'd choose F-17. Besides in case of Viggen part of its failure was the fact that its engine is a licensed, if modified, Pratt & Whitney JT8D-22 - and Swedes were forbidded to sell aircraft with this engine to countries where US-made aircraft were proposed

Landshark · Dec 12, 2006

Tizoc said:
So? That F-16 was chosen as main fighter by most European NATO countries in OTL, it doesn't mean in ATL they'd choose F-17. Besides in case of Viggen part of its failure was the fact that its engine is a licensed, if modified, Pratt & Whitney JT8D-22 - and Swedes were forbidded to sell aircraft with this engine to countries where US-made aircraft were proposed

Ah. Misscomunication.

When you said:

Tizoc said:
Anyway, with F-17 instead of F-16 as main fighter for USAF it might end European NATO countries adopting as main-line fighter Mirage F1 or SAAB JA 37 Viggen...

I took "end" to mean "end any chances" of the European countries adopting the Mirage and Viggen, instead going on mass for the F-17.

Ward · Dec 12, 2006

HelloLegend said:
In OTL, Congress picked F-16 for the Air Force, and YF-17 (remodeled to F-18) for the Navy, because Navy needed a double engine, folding wing aircraft, whereas the Air Force picked the F-16 for versatility.

What if Congress had decided against the Falcon, period. And gave both the Air Force and Navy, the F-18 Hornet, then later the F-18 Super Hornet E/F models (aka Rhinos)?

Rember there was also an Up dated F-8 also.

Romulus Augustulus · Dec 12, 2006

Why would the USAF pick the YF-17? From what I've read, the YF-16 was a little faster and it shared an engine with the F-15, which would have had logistical advantages. But the YF-16 had only a single engine and narrow landing gear, and would have been a poor choice for carrier operations.

Anyway, though, what's the likelihood of the YF-17 actually winning the competition?

Cockroach · Dec 12, 2006

Rember there was also an Up dated F-8 also.

The Crusader III was well and truely dead and buried by this stage (it was an F-4 competitor...) and IIRC the various F-8 upgrade proposals ('twosader', 'Speyed'* etc.) are also getting on in age...

*fitted with the Rolls-Royce Spey jet engine... not castracted...

HelloLegend · Dec 12, 2006

Romulus Augustulus said:
Why would the USAF pick the YF-17? From what I've read, the YF-16 was a little faster and it shared an engine with the F-15, which would have had logistical advantages. But the YF-16 had only a single engine and narrow landing gear, and would have been a poor choice for carrier operations.

Anyway, though, what's the likelihood of the YF-17 actually winning the competition?

In real life Congress split the difference... and went with both the F-16 and the YF-17 (F-18).

Romulus Augustulus · Dec 12, 2006

HelloLegend said:
In real life Congress split the difference... and went with both the F-16 and the YF-17 (F-18).

I know, but what would the chance be of the YF-17 being built both for the USAF and the USN?

Probably not too likely, I don't think.

More interesting? Lockheed CL-1200 somehow wins. Yeah.

Mark AH · Dec 16, 2006

Romulus Augustulus said:
I know, but what would the chance be of the YF-17 being built both for the USAF and the USN?

Probably not too likely, I don't think.

With the F-111 in the mind at that time it wasn’t possible but an interesting question about the F-16 if it cancelled by the USAF would be: what would have other armed forces have done? Because in many European countries it was a close call. I think it we would have seen a totally different arms industry today. The European industry would be much stronger and probably the JSF program would be non-existing.