the f-15 being built jointly with the f-16?? that would have never worked, too many adjustments would have to be made and there would certainly be many issues with money.
the f-15 eagle programme dates from 1965 when the USAF issued its FX requirement for a long-range tactical air superiority fighter. at that time, the U.S was looking for speed. thats why two turbofans were needed (f100-p-220)
there is and never was a need to build the f-15 and f-16 jointly. if that were to happen, then those combined planes would have extremely good manuevrability (f-16) and a solid armament (f-15). the planes that match that category the closest would be su-37, f-22, and ef-2000.
I'm not the aviation expert, I was just thinking about it.
I didn't mean build the F-15,16 "jointly," I meant that they were both being built "regardless" at the same time (for different reasons).
However, the F-15 was being produced as an ASF, fine. While the single engine F-16 was the slower multi-role fighter. While we were selling a ton of F-16's, if we had kept up consistant research on the F-16 (with the goal being the "XL"), I think the F-16XL would have been flying already, with a lot more capability than the "concept" of many years ago had.
Today we have the F-18 for the Carriers. That would have been built regardless.
But the F-15E is "half being retired and half unsure" (I believe another block is being manufaactured). Meaning the F-22 isn't quite ready for prime time (at least not in our Decision Makers Minds-- Maybe Iran Campaign).
If the F-16XL were flying today, we'd have a bridge to the F-35 (which we still don't know which variants will actually be made, and for what cost). We woldn't need any more F-15s, unless there's a market for them. Some still want a 2 engine fighter and I'm sure if we wanted, we could give it enhanced multi-role capabilities with upgrades that make it comprable to the air-craft you mentioned. And at a much lower cost than those. With all of the F-16s produced/sold, an F-16XL "upgrade," would be the perfect replacement for all of those who have been flying the F-16 and keep that production line open. Again, a modified plane, close to those being sold today, but at a lower cost.
Until the F-22 (not for sale, most likely) and F-35 are being used, I think the F-15E and F-16XL would be bringing in significant extra income, as they would be highly competitive with the other planes being marketed. Especially, if the price on the F-15s were lowered.
I don't know, it just seems to me like we decided to "make sure we could show the need for an F-22." Which, until these days, fighting this war, we got what we wanted anyway.:unknown
From Globalsecurity.org (Maybe I just like the picstures at the bottom too much)
n the mid-1970’s the U.S. Air Force became interested in a fighter aircraft capable of “supercruise”—the ability to cruise supersonically without an afterburner while retaining respectable maneuver, takeoff, and landing characteristics. The supercruise requirement drove aircraft configurations to highly swept wing platforms. LMTAS appreciated the fact that the modular construction of the YF-16 allowed for relatively simple replacement of the outer wing panels and that a supercruiser demonstrator aircraft with a highly swept wing would undoubtedly attract considerable interest within the Air Force.
NASA Langley staff had developed a research program known as the Supersonic Cruise Integrated Fighter (SCIF) Program under the leadership of Roy V. Harris, Jr. As participants in previous national and NASA civil supersonic transport programs (SST), the Langley staff were leaders in the development of databases and design methods for efficient SST configurations. Several in-house supercruiser fighters were designed and tested across the speed ranges at Langley. Subsequent to the SCIF program, Langley joined several industry partners in cooperative, nonproprietary studies of supercruiser configurations.
In 1977 Langley and LMTAS agreed to a cooperative study to design a new cranked-arrow wing for the F-16 to permit supersonic cruise capability. Personnel from LMTAS worked alongside the NASA researchers under the direction of Charles M. Jackson at Langley during the studies. The project leader for supersonic design was David S. Miller. The results of the wind-tunnel and analytical studies indicated that a viable wing could be designed to satisfy the supersonic and transonic requirements. With these results, LMTAS initiated a company funded development of an F-16 derivative with supersonic cruise capability. Following the spirit of the previous wing design cooperative venture with NASA, a cooperative agreement was signed for mutual efforts on the new demonstrator, which was called the Supersonic Cruise and Maneuver Prototype (SCAMP).
Extensive tests for SCAMP took place in Langley facilities, including the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, the 7- by 10-Foot High-Speed Tunnel, the 16-Foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, the Full-Scale Tunnel, the DMS, the Spin Tunnel, and a helicopter drop model. During these tests, a team led by researcher Joseph L. Johnson, Jr. identified low-speed stability and control issues that required modifying the wing apex with a rounded planform. Research on the SCAMP configuration by Langley researchers identified numerous advanced concepts for improved performance, including the application of vortex flaps on the highly swept leading edge for improved low-speed and transonic performance, automatic spin prevention concepts, and optimized wings for supersonic cruise. The final configuration became known as the F-16XL (later designated the F-16E), which displayed an excellent combination of reduced supersonic wave drag, utilization of vortex lift for transonic and low-speed maneuvers, low structural weight, and good transonic performance. The F-16XL flutter envelope was cleared in the 16-Foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel by Charles L. Ruhlin without significant problems.
Two (a one-seat and a two-seat) F-16XL demonstrator aircraft were subsequently built and entered flight tests in mid-1982. In recognition of Langley’s many contributions to the F-16XL, LMTAS management sent letters of recognition to Langley and senior NASA management. Marilyn E. Ogburn of Johnson’s group was an invited participant at flight-test evaluations of the F-16XL at Edwards Air Force Base. The results of flight tests validated the accuracy of Langley wing design procedures, wind-tunnel predictions, and control system designs based on DMS tests. Unfortunately, the interest in supersonic cruise was replaced by an urgency to develop a dual role fighter with ground strike capability.
The F-16XL suffered the fate of many pioneering aircraft before their time. The F-16E dual role lost out in a flyoff against MDC's bigger and more capable F-15E Strike Eagle, thus ending all prospects for its eventual production. Although the relatively large wing of the F-16XL carried a significant amount of weapons, the Air Force ultimately selected the F-15E in 1983 for developmental funding and terminated interest in the F-16XL. Many observers attributed its demise to a political strategy played by the USAF, to prevent an older generation airframe derivative from being used by legislators as an excuse to kill off or postpone the ATF program. Equipped with Amraam, higher thrust engines and new radar, the F-16XL could cover a large part of the role envisaged for the ATF at substantially lower unit and program costs.
