HOW IT WAS! KUNSAN AIRBASE 35th & 80th Fighter Squadron Histories

• Heraldry and Notes on Selected Squadrons -- 35th Aerosquadron; 36th Aerosquadron; 80th Pursuit Squadron
  

• 8th Pursuit Group Activated -- 35th & 36th Pursuit Squadrons at Langley Field
  
• 8th Pursuit Group in World War II
  -- 80th Pursuit Squadron joins 8th PG; Aircobra; New Guinea; P-38 Lightning; Mindoro, Phillipines; Ie Shima, Ryuku Islands -- Narratives of Dino Cerruti
  
  • Aces of the 8th Fighter Group -- List and writeups on J.T. Robins, Dan Roberts, & George Welch
    
  
  
  
• 8th FBG at Ashiya, Japan (1946-1948) -- Narratives of Dino Cerutti
  
• 8th FBG at Itazuke, Japan (1948-1952) -- Transition to P-51D Mustang; Transition to F-80C Shooting Star; Creation of the 8th Fighter Wing (1948-1951)
  
  

• Overview of the First Days of the Korean War (1951) -- Bout One; First Days of War; List of 8th FW kills
  
• First Kill of the Korean War to 68th All-Weather Fighter Squadron -- Attached to 8th FW
  
• 8th Fighter Bomber Wing: From Pyongyang to Itazuke to Kimpo
  
  • 35th and 36th FBS F-51Ds Move to Tsuiki AB -- 8th FW splits; Formation of the "Hobo Squadron"; Narratives of John Glassford, Sr.
    
  • Pohang: "Hobo" Squadron Goes to Yonil Airfield -- Narratives of John Glassford, Sr.
    
    

  • Evacuation of Pohang -- Narratives of John Glassford, Sr.
    
  • Pusan Perimeter
    
  • Hobo Squadron Heads North -- Inchon Landing
    
  • Hobo Squadron Falls Back to Itazuke -- Chinese counterattack
    
  • 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing Returns to Kimpo -- Allies retake Seoul -- Narratives of John Glassford, Sr.
    
  
  
  
• 8th Fighter Bomber Wing History (1952-1955) -- Suwon AB, Korea
  
  • Move to Suwon (Aug 52)
    
  • Morale Building
    
  • Hobo Name Fades from Memory
    
  • Air Interdiction: The Name of the Game
    
  • Attack on Pyongyang (Jul 52) -- Article: "Hot Sky Over Pyonyang"
    
    

  • Training Mission -- Article
    
  • Major Charles Loring (Nov 52) -- Article: "Sacrifice at Sniper Ridge"
    
  • Bridges at Sinanju and Yongmidong (10-15 Jan 53)
    
  • Conversion to F-86F Sabre
    
    

  • 35th FBS "Black Panthers" -- Ken Creasy's narratives and photos: Korean Conflict Honors; After the Armistice; MiG kills (May 55); F-94B Night Fighters at Suwon;
    
    

  • Base Ops at K-13 (1954) -- Article: Night Flight
    
  
  
  
• 8th FBW at Itazuke, Japan -- Conversion to F-100
  
  
  • 8th FBW (1957-1961) -- TDY at Kunsan; Nuclear alert moves to Osan AB, Korea
    
  • 8th FBW (1963) -- Conversion to F-105 Thunderchief
  
  
  
  

• 8th TFW at George AFB, CA (1964) -- Conversion to F-4D Phantom II
  
  

• 8th TFW at Ubon RTAFB, Thailand (1965) -- Birth of the Wolfpack; MiG Kills; Operation Bolo; Robin Olds & Chappie James; 16th SOS; 13th TBS; Battle Damage; Crashes; Maintenance
  
  
  • 35th Fighter Squadron (Sep 74 - Present) "Pantons"
    
  • 80th Fighter Squadron (Sep 74 - Present) "Juvats"
  
  
  
• General Dynamics F16C/D (Sep 1981 - Present)
  

Willy's Web Award Willy's Web (NR) England

Superior Community Resource Award Nu-Horizon Design Studio (NR) Canada

Acknowledgement: Thanks to HQ PACAF History Office for its source materials. Another excellent site used to trace the history of the 8th Fighter Wing is 8FW Lineage. Also thanks to the The Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood for its excellent coverage of the Vietnam War years.

The Headhunters Homepage is an outstanding site by Col. Jay Riedl (ret.) for anyone associated with the 80th -- past or present. It relates the history of the 80th from its cattle-boat ride to Australia on the "Maui Scowie" through New Guinea combat in World War II through the Korean Conflict to the present. The website is filled with trivia from how the unit got its name the "Headhunters" in Port Moresby, New Guinea to how the "Juvat" tag came about by the tearing of patches. A must-see site for any Juvat. The unit tail color is yellow.

The OFFICIAL homepage for the 80th FS is 80FS Home Page located on the Kunsan AB Military Website. In my opinion, it is far better than this poor offering here. It is a superbly well-done site that should be visited by anyone interested in the 80th Fighter Squadron.

The following is abridged from the Juvat Fact Sheet on the Kunsan AB Website.

80th FS History: (Acknowledgement: This history excerpted from the 8TFW history and the Headhunters Homepage.)

The 80th Fighter Squadron flies the F-16 Fighting Falcon out of Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea, and is one of two fighter squadrons assigned to the 8th Fighter Wing.

Originally activated Jan. 6, 1942, as the 80th Pursuit Squadron at Mitchell Field, N.Y., the 80th has flown many aircraft during its operations. They include the P-39D, P-51, F-80, F-100, F-105 and F-4.

On being assigned to Australia in the summer of 1942, the 80th awaited the arrival of its P-39s being sent in from the United States in crates. The squadron's first combat mission was flow from Port Moresby, New Guinea, July 22, as the unit provided air cover for B-25s striking Japanese convoys off Burma. The 80th scored its first victory Aug. 26 when it engaged and destroyed six enemy aircraft, the first of more than 200 such victories during the war.

In January 1943, the squadron was re-equipped with higher performance Lockheed P-38 "Lightnings", which it operated for the rest of the war. The majority of the unit's activities consisted of light and medium bomber escort and ground support attacks. From its first combat base in New Guinea, the squadron moved through Borneo, the Celebes Islands, Netherlands, East Indies and the Philippines.

From Christmas 1943 to Christmas 1944, the 80th was busy providing aerial defense for landings in the Philippines. The squadron moved to Okinawa, Japan, Aug. 26, 1944, and flew its first mission against the Japanese mainland the following day. On Aug.12, 1945, the 80th flew its final combat mission in World War II.

During the course of the war, the squadron accounted for 225 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air -- the second highest in the theater -- receiving 10 battle honors and three Distinguished Unit Citations.

During the post-war period, the squadron moved to Itazuke Air Base, Japan, and converted from the P-38 "Lightning" to the P-51 "Mustang", then to the F-80 "Shooting Star". On June 26, 1950, one day after the North Korean forces invaded the Republic of Korea the 80th went into action because of its location at Itazuke. The 80th Fighter-Bomber Squadron was one of the first units to see combat in the Korean Conflict and became the first American unit to fly jet aircraft in combat. Dale Walker of Keokuk, Iowa wrote in the Korea War Project, "I was in 80th Fighter Bomber Squadron (Headhunters) June 1950 to Feb. 1952. ... We were at Itazuke Air Base, Fukuoka, Japan, when the war started. We flew missions out of there for a short time before going to Korea-K-l4 or Kimpo Air Base. Our Commanding Officer was one of the very first airmen killed in the War. He was Major Amos L. Sluder. I understand there is a Memorial Section in The Air Force Museum at Dayton,Ohio, honoring Major Sluder and the 80th Ftr Bmr Sq."

At the start of the conflict, the 8th Fighter-Bomber Wing initially consisted of only 2 squadrons: the 35th FBS (Pantons) and the 36th FBS (Flying Fiends). The 80th was assigned to the 8th FBW on Aug. 11, 1950. The squadron flew combat missions for the duration of the Korean Conflict with the 8th FBW and accounted for 17 enemy aircraft destroyed. Throughout the Korean Conflict, the 80th FBS primarily conducted air-to-ground operations, providing close air support for United Nations ground forces, and striking enemy resources such as supply centers and transportation assets.

As U.S. forces pressed the attack on North Korean forces on Dec. 1, 1950, the 8th FBW (and the 80th) moved to Pyongyang, North Korea. Then only days later on Dec. 9, the wing moved to K-14 (Kimpo Air Base), South Korea. In January 1951, it started flying full-time from Kimpo but also flew out of K-13 (Suwon) as well. However, the Chinese intervention and capture of Seoul in January 1951 forced it out of Kimpo and Suwon to K2 (Taegu). After the Chinese were pushed back in March 1951, the 80th returned to Suwon. (Go to Suwon history by A1C Vasquez to learn of this period.) From 1952-1954, the 35th was stationed at K-13 (Suwon Air Base). At Suwon the unit transitioned from the F-80Cs to the F86F fighter bombers during March 1953.

Being a jet unit, it was forced to operate only from prepared runways limited its effectiveness during the initial days of the war. A paper entitled "THE US AIR FORCE IN KOREA: Problems that Hindered the Effectiveness of Air Power" by Maj Roger F. Kropf, USAF, states, "The Air Force was moving into the jet age in 1950. Unfortunately, there were no long, reinforced runways in Korea, and only four in Japan, to support the Air Force's new jet aircraft. Flying from Japan, the F-80 was at the edge of its range, had virtually no loiter time, and initially had no bomb racks to carry bombs and napalm. Typical ordnance consisted of .50-caliber guns and rockets. At one point, an entire squadron averaged only 441 pounds of bombs dropped per day over a 17-day period.69 Although modifications to the F-80 were rapidly made, the USAF still pulled hundreds of World War II-vintage F-51s out of mothballs for air-ground missions. F-51s and P-47s were both considered for the mission. ..."

"As the front moved early in the war, the older planes were flexible enough to use primitive runways reinforced with metal matting, while those jets that had moved from Japan to Korea were tied to a few large fields-with major consequences when they fell into enemy hands. For example, when Seoul fell again in January 1951, FEAF lost the large jet air bases at Kimpo and Suwon. In anticipation of a possible evacuation of Korea by all US forces, jets were also moved to Japan from Pusan, Taegu, and other bases. The F-86s were back in Japan, where they no longer had the range to provide air superiority and protect the Eighth Army from air attack. The only air power available for CAS and AI were F-51s, B-25s, and B-26s operating out of the primitive Korean airfields, thus greatly reducing FEAF capabilities."

Flying an F-80 Major Charles Loring of the 80th FBS sacrificed his life in action on 22 Nov. 1952 and received the Medal of Honor. His citation reads as follows:

A MUST SEE site for any Juvat is the Headhunters Homepage by Colonel Jay Riedel that deals with the 80th Fighter Squadron "Headhunters" (WWII to present). A superb site!!!

Col Jay E. Riedel
905 Arapaho Ct.
Columbus, GA 31904-1242
Email: JayBirdOne@mindspring.com

35TH FIGHTER SQUADRON:

The modern histories by the 8th FW often mentions the "Pantons" nickname when referring to the unit in World War II or the Korean Conflict. However, this is incorrect. According to Jim James who flew with the 36th FBS at K-13 (Suwon), the 35th Fighter Bomber Squadron was known as the "Black Panthers." (See 36th Flying Fiends Homepage.) He states, "The name Panton had to have been after 1953. The three squadrons went by their old World War II names: Black Panthers, Flying Fiends (Puking Pups), and Headhunters." In "A Ridge Too Far" by John Lee Burns, Col, USAF, Ret., it states, "The 35th TFS Black Panthers (F-4D) had been deployed TDY from Kunsan AB, Korea to SEA on 1 April 1972." Thus we know it was AFTER 1972 when the unit joined the 8th TFW that the "Panton" tag was adopted. It is assumed that the squadron wanted to distance itself from the racially divisive and militant "Black Panthers" of the "Black Power" movement in the 60s-70s.

The unit motto however, has a long history, though approved in 1980. According to Oscar Creasy of Fredericksburg, VA. the 35th's motto -- "First to Fight" -- was in use in Suwon, Korea from at least 1953 on.

The unit flew the same aircraft as the 80th FS, including F-105 "Thuds" in Vietnam. However, though the unit has an illustrious history (and is frequently mentioned in other unit histories), I cannot locate an official veteran's association homepage for this unit. Unit tail color is blue.

The following is abridged from the 35th Fact Sheet on the Kunsan AB Website. 35th FS History: The 35th Fighter Squadron flies the F-16 Fighting Falcon out of Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea, and is one of the two fighter squadrons assigned to the 8th Fighter Wing.

The 35th FS dates back to May 25, 1917, when the unit was activated as the 35th Provisional Aero Squadron. On June 12, 1917, it became the 35th Aero Squadron. The 35th was an aircraft maintenance squadron at the time and served in France from September 1917 to February 1919. It was at Camp Kelly, TX between June 12 - August 11, 1917; and between November 1917 - January 1919, it was assigned to the Third Aviation Instruction Center. (Etampes, France, 20 Sep 1917; Paris, France, 23 Sep 1917; Issoudun, France, Nov 1917; Clisson, France, 4 Jan 1919; St. Nazaire, France, 9-20 Feb 1919). Upon the unit's return to the United States after the armistice, it was involved in the massive American disarmament and demobilization March 19, 1919 at Garden City, New York.

It took 13 years before American defense officials realized the need for a strong air arm, and on March 24, 1932, the squadron was reconstituted and redesigned the 35th Pursuit Squadron at Langley Field, Virginia. Activated on June 25, 1932. For the next few years, the 35th flew the P-12, P-6, PB-2, A-17 and P-36 out of Langley Field, Va. On December 6, 1939, the unit was redesignated the 35th Pursuit Squadron (Fighter) and moved to Mitchell Field, N.Y., to fly the P-40 Warhawk. The unit became the 35th Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor) on 12 Mar 1941. It remained at Mitchell Field, NY from November 14, 1940 - January 26, 1942.

On May 15, 1942, it became the 35th Fighter Squadron. In March 1942, the newly-named 35th Fighter Squadron entered combat in the Pacific. It became the 35th Fighter Squadron, Two Engine, on 19 Feb 1944 and the 35th Fighter Squadron, Single Engine, on 8 Jan 1946. During World War II, its members flew a variety of aircraft, including the P-40 and the P-38 Lightning, and accounted for 124 kills. The unit was based in Australia, New Guinea, Leyte and le Shima. It first arrived at Brisbane, Australia on 6 Mar 1942 and then moved to Port Moresby, New Guinea on 26 Apr 1942. It relocated to Woodstock, Australia on 29 Jun 1942 and then to Townsville, Australia, 27 Jul 1942. It bounced back and forth between New Guinea and Australia for replenishment. (Milne Bay, New Guinea, 18 Sep 1942; Mareeba, Australia, 24 Feb 1943; Port Moresby, New Guinea, 10 May 1943; Finschhafen, New Guinea, 25 Dec 1943; Cape Gloucester, New Britain, 19 Feb 1944; Nadzab, New Guinea, 14 Mar 1944) However, once the Japanese had started to fall back in 1944, the unit island hopped to Owi, Schouten Islands, 1 Jul 1944 and Morotai, 4 Oct 1944. Then it was on to the Philippines at Dulag, Leyte, 5 Nov 1944 (operated from Morotai, 5-28 Nov 1944); San Jose, Mindoro, 20 Dec 1944) From there the unit moved to Okinawa at Ie Shima on 9 Aug 1945. At the end of the war, the 35th was moved to Fukuoka Air Base, Japan, and received P-51 Mustang aircraft. In Japan, it moved from base to base. (Fukuoka, Japan, c. 21 Nov 1945; Ashiya AB, Japan 20 May 1946; Itazuke AB, Japan, 5 Sep 1946; Ashiya AB, Japan, 15 Apr 1947; Miho AB, Japan, 10 Aug 1948; Itazuke AB, Japan, 16 Jun 1949; Tsuiki AB, Japan, 11 Aug 1950)

When the Korean Conflict began the unit was stationed at Itazuke Japan, the squadron (now redesignated as the 35th Fighter Bomber Squadron) entered combat. The squadron had converted to F-80C Shooting Stars, but still had some F-51 Mustangs that were used for tow-target duties. On January 1, 1950 it became the 35th Fighter Squadron, Jet, which was swiftly changed to 35th Fighter-Bomber Squadron on 20 Jan 1950.

During the first days of the war, the fighters were in Korea to only provide air-cover for the evacuation as the authority of General MacArthur only extended to the waters' edge of Korea. It was not until the 27th that the fighters from Japan could not attack. "USAF Opns in the Korean Conflict," 25 Jun-1 Nov 50, USAF Hist Study 71, pp. 5-6. states, "On 27 June the evacuation of American and other foreign nationals continued from Kimpo and Suwon Airfields at an increased pace. During the morning 3 North Korean planes fired on four American fighters covering the air evacuation and, in the ensuing engagement, the U.S. fighters shot down all 3 enemy planes near Inch'on. Later in the day, American fighter planes shot down 4 more North Korean YAK-3 planes in the Inch'on-Seoul area. During 27 June F-80 and F-82 planes of the 68th and 338th All-Weather Fighter Squadrons and the 35th Fighter-Bomber Squadron of the Fifth Air Force flew 163 sorties over Korea."

The Crimson Sky, John R. Brunning, pp. 5-7 expands upon the description above. It said:

The 35th was first stationed at Suwon AB, South Korea on 7 Oct 1950 and then it moved to Kimpo AB, South Korea on 26 Oct 1950. As U.S. forces pressed the attack on North Korean forces, the 8th FBW (and the 35th) moved to Pyongyang, North Korea on November 25, 1950. Then only days later on Dec. 3, 1950, the wing moved to K-14 (Kimpo Air Base), South Korea. It returned to Itazuke AB, Japan on 10 Dec 1950 because its F-80s could not fly from unprepared runways. In January 1951, it started flying again from Kimpo but also flew out of K-13 (Suwon) as well. However, the Chinese intervention and capture of Seoul in January 1951 forced it out of Kimpo and Suwon to K2 (Taegu). After the Chinese were pushed back in March 1951, the 35th returned to Kimpo on June 25, 1951, and on August 24, 1951, it started flying from Suwon AB, South Korea. (Go to Suwon history by A1C Vasquez to learn of this period.) From 1952-1954, the 35th was stationed at K-13 (Suwon Air Base). At Suwon the unit transitioned from the F-80Cs to the F86F fighter bombers during March 1953.

Ken Creasy of Fredericksburg, VA remembers those days in 1953. He wrote, "In late 1953 or early 1954 I returned to Korea to Suwon K-13 AFB with the 35th FTB Sqd. The 35th did several Bug-outs to different air base in Korea & Formosa , before we moved out to Itazuke Japan. On one of our Bug-out's I can't remember which Base K-8, K-9 or which base it was we were flying recon along the 38 Parallel & was engaged in a Dog fight with some MIG-15's in which we shoot down 1 or 2 I can't recall just how many . Our planes had the Blue strips on the tail , our sister squadrons the 36 & 80 had red & yellow strips on their tail." Ken later wrote that the "bug-outs" were just exercises to operate from another base...not a real evacuation. He also remembered that "The 4th Fighter Interceptor Sq was the outfit across the field from us there at K-13 , also we had a Sqd of F-94s the radar night intercepts on the same side of the field as we were , they flew night recon mission." The F-94s belonged to the 319th FIS -- a brave group of flyers flying an aircraft that at best was "inadequate" and prone to mid-air collisions due to its Hughes radar lock-on problem.

Being a jet unit, it was forced to operate only from prepared runways limited its effectiveness during the initial days of the war. A paper entitled "THE US AIR FORCE IN KOREA: Problems that Hindered the Effectiveness of Air Power" by Maj Roger F. Kropf, USAF, states, "The Air Force was moving into the jet age in 1950. Unfortunately, there were no long, reinforced runways in Korea, and only four in Japan, to support the Air Force's new jet aircraft. Flying from Japan, the F-80 was at the edge of its range, had virtually no loiter time, and initially had no bomb racks to carry bombs and napalm. Typical ordnance consisted of .50-caliber guns and rockets. At one point, an entire squadron averaged only 441 pounds of bombs dropped per day over a 17-day period.69 Although modifications to the F-80 were rapidly made, the USAF still pulled hundreds of World War II-vintage F-51s out of mothballs for air-ground missions. F-51s and P-47s were both considered for the mission."

"As the front moved early in the war, the older planes were flexible enough to use primitive runways reinforced with metal matting, while those jets that had moved from Japan to Korea were tied to a few large fields-with major consequences when they fell into enemy hands. For example, when Seoul fell again in January 1951, FEAF lost the large jet air bases at Kimpo and Suwon. In anticipation of a possible evacuation of Korea by all US forces, jets were also moved to Japan from Pusan, Taegu, and other bases. The F-86s were back in Japan, where they no longer had the range to provide air superiority and protect the Eighth Army from air attack. The only air power available for CAS and AI were F-51s, B-25s, and B-26s operating out of the primitive Korean airfields, thus greatly reducing FEAF capabilities."

When the Korean Conflict ended, the 35th moved back to its old home at Itazuke Air Base, Japan on 20th October 1954. In 1956, the squadron converted to F-100D/F Supersabres. On July 1, 1958 the unit became the 35th Tactical Fighter Squadron. In 1963, the squadron received F-105 Thunderchiefs to replace the F-100s and moved to Yokota Air Base, Japan in May 1964.

35th Tactical Fighter Squadron

A few months afterwards, the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing moved to the United States (to George AFB, California). Stationed at Yokota until 1971, the 35th Tactical Fighter Squadron served under several different parent units over the next few years, including the 6441st Tactical Fighter Wing and 41st Air Division, and finally the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing of Yokota AB.

In 1964, the 35th was deployed to Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand (24 Sep-20 Nov 64), as one of the first units to fight in Southeast Asia and later, to Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand (4 May-25 Jun 65 and 19 Oct-5 Nov 65). When the Pueblo incident occurred in January 1968, the 35th and the other squadrons of the 347th were deployed to the 347th TFW Det 1 at Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea. It would remain on alert here until 1970 when the tension decreased.

For a short time, the 35th was assigned to the 475th TFW Det 1 at Kunsan in preparation for the 3rd TFW arrival. On March 15, 1972, the 35th, now flying the F-4 Phantom, moved to its present location. When the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing arrived in May 72, it was absorbed into the unit. During its tenure with the 3rd TFW at Kunsan, the 35th TFS deployed to Vietnam and Thailand. The 35th TFS was deployed at DaNang AB, South Vietnam from 3 Apr-12 Jun 1972 (366th TFW) and Korat RTAFB, Thailand, 13 June-12 Oct 1972 (388th TFW).

From "A Ridge Too Far" by John Lee Burns, Col. USAF, he states, "The 35th TFS Black Panthers (F-4D) had been deployed TDY from Kunsan AB, Korea to SEA on 1 April 1972. (YES! Recall was Saturday at 0700 hours after a LONG HAPPY HOUR on APRIL FOOL'S DAY! That's a whole 'nuther story!). By the end of May, the squadron had moved from the 366th TFW DaNang AB, South Viet Nam to the 388th TFW Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. (Korat squadrons?) "

He continued, "The 35th was one of the most experienced F-4 squadrons in South East Asia ( SEA ). Although we had about 8 1Lt aircraft commanders, we had been training them for 6 months prior to deployment. The rest of the squadron averaged over 1800 hours of F-4 time and included 8 Fighter Weapons School graduates (LtCol Lyle Beckers, Maj Walt Bohan, and Captains Charlie Cox, Jim Beatty, Joe Moran, George Lippemeier, Will Mincey, and me). Our squadron commander was LtCol Lyle Beckers."

"Most of the Linebacker II missions the Korat wing had been flying were barrier cap, escort and hunter-killer ( F-4 'follow up' or 'buddy' bombers with the Korat F-105 Weasels ). The Wing DCO (Deputy Commander for Operations) Col Vojvodich wanted to get the Korat wing to be the main Strike Force on our share of the Alpha strikes into Route Package 6 ( the NE section of North Viet Nam, which includes Hanoi, Haiphong and other 'tourist' attractions ). Col Vojvodich also seemed to 'like' flying with the 'new guy' and 'more experienced' 35th on these missions."

The 35th TFS was eventually assigned to the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing on Sept. 16, 1974. In September 1981, the 35th and its sister squadron, the 80th Tactical Fighter Squadron, became the first two overseas units to convert to the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

The squadrons and wing dropped the word "tactical" from their titles during a reorganization Jan. 31, 1992 becoming the 35th Fighter Squadron.

---

An interesting Panton site is the Zone which is the beer-bar (Panton Hootch) at Kunsan for the Panton maintainers.

---

General Dynamics F-16C Fighting Falcon

Wolfpack F-16s (2001)
(U.S. Air Force Photo)
Click on photo to enlarge

The F-16C is an outstanding and highly maneuverable fighter that can also double as a ground attack aircraft. Its only weakness is its inability to operate from rough airstrips.

The US Airforce developed a ground attack version of the is agile fighter to replace the A-10. Capable of over the twice the speed of the lumbering Warthog, the F-16 is better equipped to fight in poor weather conditions and carries superior electronic countermeasures. But the F-16 can only operate from prepared runways, and is much less able to survive battle damage. Nevertheless, the F-16s good range and respectable weapon load make it a dangerous enemy.

F-16C Postflight at Kunsan

The first F-16C/D versions, designated as Block 25 aircraft, were delivered in July 1984. Block 30/32 aircraft followed in June 1986; Block 40/42 aircraft initially were delivered in December 1988; and Block 50/52 aircraft were first shipped in October 1991. Block 20 F-16s, specifically adapted to the lightweight air-superiority role, were first delivered in July 1996, and the proposed Block 60 aircraft could be delivered in mid-2002.

At present, there are 19 military services using the F-16, including the U.S. Navy, plus another three countries--Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and New Zealand--that have selected the F-16, but not yet received their aircraft.

There have been 110 different versions of the F-16 built, plus one more that is in production, but has not yet been delivered. This is the Block 50/52 F-16C scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 1999.

Greetings from the Wolfpack:
Keith Ferris

New Block-40 F-16s Arrive:

Kunsan, Montana Guard team up to transfer fighters in March 2001

According to the release, the Block 40s gave the Wolf Pack the ability to fight day or night, in all weather. Block-40s added a Low Altitude Navigation Targeting Infrared Night (LANTIRN) system, which are intake-mounted pods that allow pilots to locate and mark enemy targets at day or night. Block-40s also give pilots precision targeting capability. LANTIRN systems consist of two pods, a Navigation Pod and a Targeting Pod. Navigation Pods use a forward-looking infrared system that allows the pilot to see targets in the pod's field of view, day or night. Targeting Pods allow the pilot to precisely designate a target using the pod's internal laser beam. After bomb release, a special guidance unit on the front of the weapon guides on the laser energy reflecting off of the target.

Nov 2000 Block 40 arrives: Taking the fight to the night

In addition to employing laser-guided munitions, Block-40s were equipped with an "Improved Data Modem." The IDM allowed the pilot to "station keep, or monitor the position of other IDM-equipped aircraft by displacing their relative position on a multi-function display in the cockpit. It also permits Air Liaison Officers assigned to the ground maneuver units to "data burst" real-time target information directly into the cockpit of inbound aircraft, thus allowing the pilot to remain heads-up while simultaneously reducing exposure time in the target area.

The article further stated that Kunsan's 35th and 80th FSs began using Night Vision Goggles.

The following is extracted from F-16.net: F-16C/D Block 40/42:

F-16C/D
Block 40/42

History

The next major production block (Block 40/42), sometimes known as the "Night Falcon" because of its enhanced night/all-weather capabilities, appeared in 1989. It was designated F-16CG/DG when the USAF wanted to call the LANTIRN capable Viper an F-16G, but Congress wouldn't approve a "new" aircraft, which was politically seen as a threat to the F-22. The first Block 40/42 F-16 rolled out of the Fort Worth facility in December 1988, and was delivered during the same month. Production ended temporarily in 1995, and will restart again in 1999 to build a 21-aircraft order for Egypt. Excluding a potential order from Bahrain, a total of 765 Block 40/42 aircraft will have been built by the end of the millennium.

New Technologies

Block 40/42 (also part of MSIP III) introduced the LANTIRN navigation and targeting pods and the associated holographic HUD, the GPS (Global Positioning System) navigation receiver, APG-68V(5) radar (with a 100+ hour Mean Time Between Failures or MTBF) and ALE-47 decoy launchers, digital flight controls (replacing the old analog ones), automatic terrain following, and a diffractive optics heads-up display. Also included were a new positive-pressure breathing system to improve G-tolerance for the pilot, full provisions for internal electronic countermeasures, an enhanced envelope gun sight, and a capability for bombing moving ground targets.

Structure

The configured engine bay has options for either the General Electric F110-GE-100 (Block 40) or the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 (Block 42), although the two engines are not routinely interchangeable. The airframe was provided with greater structural strength, which raised the 9G capability from 26,900 pounds to 28,500 pounds. Maximum take-off weight was increased to 42,300lbs (19,187kg).

The undercarriage legs were made longer in order to provide more adequate clearance for the two underfuselage LANTIRN pods, and were beefed up to handle the increased weight. The aircraft also has bulged landing gear doors to accommodate the larger wheels and tires, and the landing lights were moved to the nose gear doors.

Modifications & Armament

The Martin-Marietta LANTIRN (Low-Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infra-Red for Night) system consists of two separate pods, each mounted underneath the air intake. The AAQ-13 navigation pod is on the left, the AAQ-14 targeting pod is on the right. The navigation pod has terrain-following radar and FLIR, whereas the targeting pod has FLIR and a laser designator. The LANTIRN must interface with the flight controls, since the pod flies the airplane while in terrain-following mode.

The F-16C/D Block 40/42 aircraft were initially fitted with only the navigation pod, since the targeting pod was delayed by technical difficulties.

Provisions for the Texas Instruments (now part of Raytheon) AGM-88 HARM II were added in 1989. The precision weapons incorporated by the Block 40/42 include the GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-24 Paveway family of laser-guided bombs as well as the GBU-15 glide bomb. Some foreign versions of the aircraft can carry the AIM-7 Sparrow missile.

Sure Strike

In 1995, 38 F-16C/D Block 40 aircraft of USAFE's 31st Fighter Wing based at Aviano AB, Italy, were equipped with Sure Strike. This package consists of Night Vision Goggles (NVG) and an Improved Data Modem (IDM), giving the aircraft quick reaction capability for CAS missions over Bosnia.

The IDM (now standard on the Block 50/52 and MLU aircraft) allows the aircraft to receive latitude, longitude and elevation of a target direct from a FAC (Forward Air Controller) on the ground. The system then inputs the data into the weapon system computer and displays it as a waypoint on the HUD.

Made up entirely from off-the shelf components, it took just 13 weeks to field Sure Strike. The success of the program led to the USAF ordering that Sure Strike software is to be included in conjunction with a rapid release software update recently requested by USAF to improve the weapon-to-aircraft interface of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). This action ensures that Sure Strike capability will be included in the major software upgrade (Block 40 tape five) for the close air support update planned in June 1998.

Gold Strike

In July 1997, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to upgrade the Sure Strike system under a project called Gold Strike. Gold Strike basically adds two-way imagery transmission to Sure Strike, enabling the pilot to receive and transmit video images in the cockpit.

Software changes will be made within the core avionics computers to display the video images on the F-16's Multi-Function Display (MFD) and to transmit images from the LANTIRN targeting pod. Upon successful completion of the demonstration, the USAF has the option to incorporate this capability in the Sure Strike-modified Block 40 F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy.

"Taking the Fight North" is not a "Sunshine" Policy
(8FW Photo) (Click to Enlarge)

The following is excerpted from Baugher Site: Origin of F-16. Joe Baugher's sites are the most comprehensive and authoritative sites on American aircraft. Please go to the Baugher site for the full list of aircraft or Joe Baugher's homepage. For a full list of F-16 subjects and models/blocks go to F-16 Main Index of Subjects.

Origin of General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

Last revised April 1, 2000

The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is one of most significant fighters of the latter part of the 20th century. It was originally developed from a concept for an experimental lightweight fighter and has evolved into an all-weather fighter and precision attack aircraft. The F-16 has been manufactured on as many as five separate production lines, making it the largest fighter program in the Western world. Over 4000 F-16s have been built, with production still continuing.

As early as 1965, the USAF had begun concept formulation studies of new high-performance fighters. These included the F-X, a heavy interceptor/air-superiority fighter, and the lightweight Advanced Day Fighter (ADF). The F-X was to be in the 40,000-pound class and was to be equipped with advanced, sophisticated radars and armed with long-range, radar-guided air-to-air missiles. The ADF was to be in the 25,000-pound class and was to have a thrust-to-weight ratio and a wing loading that would better the performance of the MiG-21 by at least 25 percent. The general concept behind the ADF was much the same as the reasoning which had led after the Korean War to the Lockheed F-104A Starfighter.

The appearance of the Mach 2.8-capable MiG-25 Foxbat in 1967 frightened Defense Department analysts and prompted a redirection in USAF fighter plans, with high performance once again becoming the primary concern. The F-X concept was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, a twin-engined fighter with advanced avionics and long-range missiles. The ADF was temporarily shelved.

The ADF concept was kept alive by former fighter instructor Major John Boyd and Pierre Sprey, a civilian working in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis. They both disliked the F-X concept as it then existed, and preferred a much simpler design. In the late 1960s, they came up with a 25,000 pound design designated F-XX, which was to be a dedicated air superiority fighter with a high endurance, minimal electronics, and no long-range missiles. Later studies brought this weight down to 17,000 pounds. The concept met with much opposition within the Air Force hierarchy, since some considered it a threat to the existing F-X project. However, the Pentagon decided to continue the project at a low level just in case the F-X (i.e. F-15) program got delayed or encountered serious developmental difficulties.

In 1969, a Pentagon memorandum suggested that both the Air Force and the Navy adopt the F-XX as a substitute for the F-15 and F-14 respectively, since both these planes were becoming increasingly expensive. Both services vigorously resisted these moves, and both the F-14 and F-15 surged ahead.

Deputy Defense Secretary David A. Packard (who came in with the new Nixon Administration in 1969) was a strong advocate of returning to the concept of competitive prototyping as a way of containing the ever-increasing costs of new weapons systems. During the 1960s, under Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara, the Total Procurement Package philosophy had been adopted, in which an aircraft was committed to production even before the first example had flown and without any competitive flyoff against rival designs. This had led to such controversial aircraft as the Lockheed C-5A Galaxy and General Dynamics F-111, which had both encountered expensive and time-consuming developmental problems and extensive cost overruns. Under the new competitive prototyping philosophy, Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans drew up a set of ground rules in which the initial funding of a new weapons project would be relatively limited, with the initial performance goals and military specifications being kept to a minimum. By 1971, Boyd was working for the Air Force Prototype Study Group. He was able to push the concept at a time when the idea of competitive flyoffs was coming back into fashion.

A Light Weight Fighter (LWF) program came into being under Packard's watch. A Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued to the industry on January 16, 1971. The RFP called for a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds, and high maneuverability. No attempt would be made to equal the performance of the MiG-25 Foxbat, the emphasis being placed instead on the most-likely conditions of future air combat--altitudes of 30,000-40,000 feet and speeds of Mach 0.6 to Mach 1.6. Emphasis was to be on turn rate, acceleration, and range rather than on high speed. A small size was stressed, since the small size of MiG-17 and MiG-21 had made them difficult to detect visually during combat over North Vietnam. The RFP specified three main objectives. The aircraft should fully explore the advantages of emerging technologies, reduce the risk and uncertainties involved in full-scale development and production, and provide a variety of technological options to meet future military hardware needs.

In the meantime, with the selection of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle as winner of the F-X contract, General Dynamics engineers had been concentrating on studies of a LWF for daytime dogfighting, with only minimal air-to-air electronics being provided. These studies had all been performed under the company designation of Model 401.

Five manufacturers submitted proposals in response to the RFP--Boeing, Northrop, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought, and Lockheed. In March of 1972, the Air Staff concluded that the competing Boeing Model 908-909 was the first choice, with the General Dynamics Model 401 and the Northrop Model P-600 being rated as close seconds. The Vought V-1100 and Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer had been eliminated.

The Source Selection Authority, after further work, rated the General Dynamics and Northrop proposals ahead of the Boeing submission. The General Dynamics Model 401-16B and the Northrop P-600 were chosen for further development on April 13, 1972. Contracts for the two designs were awarded under the designation YF-16 and YF-17 respectively. Rather than the "X" (experimental) prefix being used, the "Y" (development) prefix was used in order to indicate that a mixture of off-the-shelf and experimental technologies were being used.

Two examples of each design were ordered by the USAF, and a flyoff of the two designs would be carried out against each other, although there was no assurance that any production of the winning candidate would actually be carried out. At the time, the Air Force was still very much committed to the F-15 fighter, and visualized the LWF program as more of a technology-demonstration project rather than a serious effort for a production aircraft. The "cost plus fixed fee" contracts covered the design, construction, and testing of two prototypes, plus a year of flight testing.

The YF-16 was designed and built at Fort Worth under the direction of William C. Dietz and Lyman C. Josephs, with Harry Hillaker as chief designer. The General Dynamics Model 401 had studied in models, mockups, and wind tunnel testing dozens of different configurations before the final configuration was chosen. No attempt was made to push individual technological advances to their limits, with proven systems and components being used in those areas where the development of new technology was not required. Components and detail assemblies were designed for ease of manufacture, using low-cost conventional materials where possible. In order to keep costs down, many of the components were designed to have commonality with existing or projected aircraft. However, new technology was to be used in those situations where it would have the greatest effect in meeting performance goals.

General Dynamics decided to use a single Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan for their proposal rather than a pair of low-bypass GE YJ101s, which were used by the competing Northrop design. The F100 was also the powerplant of the F-X (F-15) design, but Pratt & Whitney had to do some special design work to adapt it to a single-engined aircraft A single F100 was estimated to provide a substantially lower fuel demand than a pair of YJ101s, and studies revealed no significant attrition advantage for a twin-engine arrangement. The single-engined format made it possible to achieve a mission weight of 17,050 pounds, whereas a format powered by twin General Electric YJ101 engines would have had a mission weight of 21,470 pounds.

During the early design development of the F-16, General Dynamics had considered both single and twin vertical tails. Wind tunnel tests had showed that vortices produced by the forebody strake generally improved directional stability, but that certain strake shapes actually reduced stability at high angles of attack when twin tails were used. It was concluded that a twin-tail format would result in significantly greater development risks and that a single vertical tail would give satisfactory results provided that it was sufficiently tall.

The General Dynamics team also studied several different air intake configurations before settling on the final air intake located underneath the nose. The ventral location for the intake was chosen to minimize the sensitivity of airflow into the engine to high angles of attack. At a 20-degree AoA, the local flow direction to a ventral intake was only ten degrees below datum, as compared to 35 degrees in the case of side-mounted inlets. The design team had actually started with a chin-mounted Crusader-type intake, but it was gradually pushed further and further back to save weight until the process finally had to be halted to keep the intake ahead of the nosewheel. There are some disadvantages to such an air intake location--the mounting of the inlet underneath the fuselage is potentially dangerous to ground personnel and appears at first sight to invite foreign object damage (FOD) to the engine by the ingestion of stones and other runway debris into the intake. However, it avoids the gun gas ingestion problem, and since the nosewheel is further back, it avoids nosewheel-induced FOD. In order to save weight and complexity, the geometry of the intake was fixed, which limits the maximum speed of the F-16 to below Mach 2.

Four different wing planforms--straight, swept, variable, and delta--were reviewed. The variable-geometry wing was rejected because of its high weight and complexity. The delta wing had the advantage of low weight per unit of area and low wave drag, but was ultimately rejected because of its high drag-at-lift and trim drag penalties. A low-sweep, straight wing was finally chosen because it was thought to offer the best combination of good maneuverability, high acceleration, and maximum lift to ensure good altitude performance. The team chose a computer-controlled variable camber wing with leading-edge maneuvering flaps and trailing-edge flaperons which could match the camber of the wing to flight conditions, thus maximizing wing efficiency. The wing and main fuselage body were smoothly blended into each other in three dimensions, making it impossible to define where the wing ends and the fuselage begins. The blended wing-body, or lifting body effect is achieved by having a smooth fairing of the wing and fuselage rather than the conventional sharp intersection, providing improved lift at high angles of attack. The wing was fitted with smoothly-blended leading edge strakes. These strakes create vortices at high angles of attack which maintain the energy of the boundary layer air flowing over the inner section of the wing, delaying the stalling of the wing root and maintaining the directional stability. Since the wing was far too thin to accommodate landing gear members, the main undercarriage was fuselage-mounted, with the wheels retracting into under-fuselage wells. The wing is made predominantly of aluminum, with small amounts of steel, titanium and composite materials.

A "relaxed" static stability/fly-by-wire (RSS/FBW) control system was provided. A number of elements were added to aid the pilot in up to 9g combat. These included a side-stick console layout, an ejector seat tilted backwards by 30 degrees, and an all-round vision bubble canopy.

Although the LWF requirement specified only minimal electronics, the design team recognized that an operational aircraft would probably require a heavier and more bulky avionics package. The decision was made to size the aircraft to carry heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles plus an M61 cannon, but to make provisions to allow Sparrow radar-homing missiles to be carried at a later date should this be required.

The original specification had called for a load factor of 7.33 g while carrying 80 percent internal fuel. General Dynamics engineers decided to increase this figure to 9g at full internal fuel and to increase the service life of the airframe from 4000 hours to 8000 hours.

Recognizing that the YF-16 pilot would use externally-carried fuel on the outbound trip to the combat zone and then return on the internal fuel, the design team allocated internal fuel volume accordingly, reducing the airframe size and shaving 1470 pounds off the empty weight and reducing the loaded weight by 3300 pounds. By doing this, the turning rate could be increased by ten percent and acceleration by 30 percent.

Costs were reduced by using interchangeable left- and right-handed tailplanes and flaperons. Most of the undercarriage structure was also common to either side. Avionics were simple and armament consisted of one 20-mm M61A1 rotary cannon and two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles on the wingtips, plus stores on two external hardpoints underneath each wing.

The following is excerpted from Baugher Site: Structure of F-16.

Structure of F-16 Fighting Falcon

Last revised March 19, 2000

80 percent of the airframe structure of the F-16 is of conventional aluminum alloy, and about 60 percent of the structural parts are made from sheet metal. An attempt was made to minimize the amount of exotic material used in the construction of the F-16 in the interest of saving cost. About 8 percent is steel, composites are 3 percent and titanium is 1.5 percent.

The F-16 is built in 3 major subsections, nose, center and aft. In order to save money, the fuselage structure is fairly conventional in overall configuration, being based on conventional frames and longerons. The forward manufacturing breakpoint is just aft of the cockpit, while the second is forward of the vertical fin.

The wing planform of the F-16 is effectively that of a cropped delta with a 40-degree leading edge sweep. The wing has 4 percent thickness/chord ratio, and the aerofoil section is 64A204. The wing structure incorporates five spars and 11 ribs. Upper and lower wing skins are one-piece machined components. From left to right, the wing gradually blends with the fuselage, making it impossible to tell where the wing begins and the fuselage ends. This wing/body blending made it possible to increase the internal volume, enabling more fuel could be carried. In fact, 31 percent of the loaded weight of an F-16 is fuel, accounting for the long range of the Fighting Falcon. Gradually increasing the thickness of the wing in the region of the root resulted in a stiffer wing than would have been possible with a conventional design. In forward-to-aft planform, the wing leading edge blends smoothly with the fuselage by means of leading edge strakes. At high angles of attack, these strakes create vortices which maintain the energy of the boundary air layer flowing over the inner section of the wing. This delays wing root stalling and maintains directional stability at low speeds and high angles of attack. Vortex energy also provides a measure of forebody lift, reducing the need for drag-inducing tail trim. By keeping the inner-wing boundary layer energized, the strakes allowed the wing area to be kept smaller, saving about 500 pounds in weight.


General Dynamics Production Line
(General Dynamics Photo)

The wing trailing edges have a set of inboard "flaperons", which are combine the duties of flaps and ailerons. The flaperons operate as conventional ailerons for controlling the aircraft during conventional flight. During takeoffs and landings, they can be drooped by as much as 20 degrees, operating as flaps. The outboard trailing edge wing surfaces are fixed.

Wind tunnel tests demonstrated the need for leading edge flaps to improve lift and directional stability at high angles of attack. Leading edge maneuvering flaps and trailing edge flaperon can be moved at up to 35 degrees per second to shape the wing aerofoil to match aerodynamic conditions. The moving flaps reduce the drag, maintain lift at high angles of attack, improve directional stability and minimize buffeting. The use of lift-increasing maneuvering flaps allowed a smaller wing of reduced span to be used.

The wing is only 1.5 inches deep at the point where the leading edge flap actuator is installed, so the design of this component was a significant challenge. In the spring of 1982, actuator failures caused the USAF to ground all F-16s that had exceed 200 hours flight time for an inspection of the wing leading edge flap. A routine inspection had turned up excessive wear in the actuation mechanism which controls the position of the leading-edge maneuvering flap. More than 40 aircraft required repair.

During the early development of the F-16, both single- and twin-vertical tail formats had been studied. Wind tunnel tests showed that vortices produced by the forebody strake or LEX generally improved directional stability but that certain strake shapes actually reduced stability at high angles of attack when twin tails were fitted. Consequently, it was felt that the use of the twin-tail format involved significantly greater development risks, and a single vertical tail was adopted. The disadvantage is that the single vertical tail now has to be sufficiently tall.

The single vertical stabilizer has a multi-spar and multi-rib structure made from aluminum, but the skins are made of graphite epoxy. The two ventral fins underneath the fuselage are made of glass fibre. There is a runway arrester hook underneath the rear fuselage.

F-16C Test Flight
(General Dynamics Photo)

Aft of the wing, the fuselage blends smoothly in cross-section into a side-body fairing that extends all the way to the rear of the aircraft. The all-flying horizontal tailplane is attached to the rear of this side body fairing. The air brakes are mounted inboard of each horizontal stabilizer at the end of the side body fairing, one set on each side of the rear fuselage. The air brakes are of the split type, the upper and lower sections opening through a maximum angle of 60 degrees.

The wings are far too thin to accommodate the main undercarriage units, so they are attached to the main fuselage and retract forward into wells in the lower fuselage. The nose gear is located just aft of the intake, so that debris thrown up by the nosewheel will not be ingested into the intake. The steerable nose landing gear retracts aft and rotates through 90 degrees to lie flat underneath the intake duct.

The air intake is located underneath the fuselage, at a point just below the cockpit. The ventral location of the air intake subjects it to minimal airflow disturbance over a wide range of flight conditions and aircraft maneuvers, since the forward fuselage tends to shield the intake from the full effects of aircraft maneuvers, minimizing the effects of sudden changes in the angle of attack on airflow into the engine. At an angle of attack of 25 degrees, for example, the air flows into the intake at an angle of only ten degrees with respect to the aircraft's longitudinal axis. The lower edge of the intake lip is only 38 inches above the ground, but, surprisingly, FOD problems caused by the ingestion of runway debris into the engine have been relatively minor.

The intake is of fixed geometry type, which saves on complexity, weight, and cost. A fixed-geometry boundary-layer splitter plate separates the upper lip of the intake from the lower fuselage. There is a separation strut mounted inside the intake for additional tunnel rigidity.

F-16 being prepped for transfer to Wolfpack at Moody Aircraft already painted with Wolfpack "WP". With the inactivation of the 69th Fighter Squadron at Moody AFB, GA, resulting from the 347th redesignation to a Rescue Wing, the 8th FW was scheduled to receive some of the inactivated unit's F-16C/D aircraft.

In the interest of saving in cost, a number of parts are interchangeable between port and starboard. These include the horizontal tail surfaces, wing flaperons, 80 percent of the main landing gear components, and many of the actuator units.

The pilot's view from the cockpit of the F-16 is superlative, and is unmatched by just about any other fighter aircraft. The pilot sits underneath a clamshell-type canopy whose forward and center sections are made of a single piece of polycarbonate. The windshield arch normally fitted to the cockpit canopies of most jet fighters is absent on the F-16, offering the pilot an excellent forward view. Visibility covers a full 360 degrees in the horizontal and from 15 degrees down over the nose through the vertical and back to directly behind. The sideways view extends down to a depression angle of 40 degrees. The optical quality is high, and the curved surfaces offer minimal optical distortion.

The transparent part of the canopy is 0.5-inches thick, and was designed to resist the impact of a 4-pound bird at 350 knots. However, even if the canopy happens to fail under the impact of an especially large bird, the heads-up display is sufficiently robust to provide additional back-up protection for the pilot.

The elimination of the normal windshield arch improves the forward view, but this means that the entire transparency has to be as thick as the front portion, which is designed to survive birdstrikes. This imposes a substantial weight penalty. Another disadvantage is that the canopy must be jettisoned before the pilot can escape, since the polycarbonate transparency is too thick for him or her to eject through it.

The inside of the canopy is covered with a thin gold film which dissipates radar energy to reduce the radar cross section, especially from the front. A redundant safety lock ensures that the canopy cannot be inadvertently opened. The canopy is normally operated by electrical motors, but there is a manual crank as a backup.

The pilot sits on a McDonnell Douglas ACES II (Advanced Concept Ejection Seat) rocket-powered ejection seat equipped with a vectored-thrust pitch control system. It is capable of zero-zero performance, and is cleared for use up to a height of 50,000 feet and a speed of 600 knots. The seat is tilted backwards at an angle of 30 degrees, and the pilot's knees and legs are raised in order to provide some extra physiological tolerance to high-g maneuvers. However, it is debatable whether a 30-degree seat inclination really does increase the g-tolerance of the pilot. It certainly does make it more difficult for the pilot to turn his/her head to check the six.

The conventional joystick control column is replaced by a sidestick controller located on a cockpit console at the pilot's right hand. Left-handed pilots, however, appear to be able to use the sidestick without difficulty. The sidestick fitted to the first YF-16s did not move at all, operating strictly on the amount of force applied by the pilot to determine the desired pitch or roll rate. On production aircraft, it was found suitable to introduce some artificial "feel" into the system, and the sidestick now moves up to 3/16 of an inch aft, 3/32 of an inch left and right, and less than a hundredth of an inch forward (since pilots under negative g tend to give more forward stick than needed).

F-16C Armament Demo Flight
(General Dynamics Photo)
(Click on photo to enlarge)

Under the Multinational Staged Improvement Plan (MSIP) approved in February 1981, a series of improvements were developed for the F-16. Among these were modifications of the structure and wiring of the wings to carry the AMRAAM, the provision of hardpoints on the intake sides to carry the LANTIRN electro-optical system.

A new horizontal tailplane of increased area was introduced under Engineering Change Proposal 426. It provides greater control forces needed to cope with heavier munitions loads. The revised tail was easier and less expensive to produce.

The vertical fin can be modified to allow the fitting of a braking parachute if the customer so desires. Norwegian F-16s were all fitted with this feature, since Norway has many short airfields which are often covered with ice and snow, making the use of wheel brakes impractical.

The F-16A/B employed an all-electronic fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system instead of the traditional hydromechanical systems with linkages and cables. The system is a four-channel analog system, the F-16A/B having been designed too early to accommodate the quadruplexed digital system that was provided on the Space Shuttle and on the F/A-18 Hornet. The FBW system makes it possible for the F-16 to fly safely with its center of gravity behind the center of pressure, thus providing the aircraft with an inherent instability that makes it highly responsive to the controls and to use relatively modest amounts of tail deflection during high-g maneuvers. The use of relaxed stability enabled a smaller tail to be used, since less force was needed to alter aircraft attitude. The General Dynamics team was the first to take the bold step of eliminating mechanical backups to the FBW system, trusting the aircraft completely to electronics.

Experience with a triplex digital system on the AFTI/F-16 gave GD the confidence to abandon the proven analog FBW system of the earlier Fighting Falcon and adopt the quadruplex digital FBW system for the Block 25 and beyond F-16C/D.

An inflight refuelling socket is mounted on the top of the fuselage just ahead of the fin leading edge. It is normally covered by an inward-hinged door when not in use. The receptacle can accommodate the rigid boom used by USAF aerial tankers, or it can have a probe fixed into it for use with drogues.

The following is excerpted from Baugher Site: Engine of F-16.

Engines for the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

Last revised March 19, 2000

The development of the Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan began in August of 1968 when the USAF awarded contracts to both P & W and General Electric for the development of engines to be used in the projected F-X fighter, which was later to emerge as the F-15 Eagle.

In 1970, Pratt and Whitney was declared the winner of the competition and was awarded the contract for the engine for the F-15. The engine was to be designated F100. Two versions of the engine were planned, the F100 for the USAF and the F401 for the Navy. The latter engine was intended for later models of the F-14 Tomcat, but was cancelled when the size of the planned Tomcat fleet was cut back in an economy move.

The F100 is an axial-flow turbofan with a bypass ratio of 0.7:1. There are two shafts, one shaft carrying a three-stage fan driven by a two-stage turbine, the other shaft carrying the 10-stage main compressor and its two-stage turbine. For the F100-PW-200 version, normal dry thrust is 12,420 pounds, rising to a maximum thrust of 14,670 pounds at full military power. Maximum afterburning thrust is 23,830 pounds.

The F100 engine was first tried in service with the F-15 Eagle. The Air Force had hoped that the F100 engine would be a mature and reliable powerplant by the time that the F-16 was ready to enter service. However, there were a protracted series of teething troubles with the F100 powerplants of the F-15, compounded by labor problems at two of the major subcontractors. Initially, the Air Force had grossly underestimated the number of engine powercycles per sortie, since they had not realized how much the F-15 Eagle's maneuvering capabilities would result in abrupt changes in throttle setting. This caused unexpectedly high wear and tear on the engine, resulting in frequent failures of key engine components such as first-stage turbine blades. Most of these problems could be corrected by more careful maintenance and closer attention to quality control during manufacturing of engine components. Nevertheless, by the end of 1979, the Air Force was being forced to accept engineless F-15 airframes until the problems could be cleared up.

However, the most serious problem with the F100 in the F-15 was with stagnation stalling. Since the compressor blades of a jet engine are airfoil sections, they can stall if the angle at which the airflow strikes them exceeds a critical value, cutting off airflow into the combustion chamber which results in a sudden loss of thrust. Such an event is called a stagnation stall. Stagnation stalls most often occurred during high angle-of-attack maneuvers, and they usually resulted in abrupt interruptions of the flow of air through the compressor. This caused the engine core to lose speed, and the turbine to overheat. If this condition was not quickly corrected, damage to the turbine could take place or a fire could occur.

F-16 engine having AB blowout in hush house. (1984) (Courtesy Matt McNew) Click on photo to enlarge

Matt McNew and Vern Dickamore in the jet engine shop. (1984) (Courtesy Matt McNew) Click on photo to enlarge

Some stagnation stalls were caused by "hard" afterburner starts, which were mini-explosions that took place inside the afterburner when it was lit up. These could be caused either by the afterburner failing to light up when commanded to do so by the pilot or by the afterburner actually going out. In either case, large amounts of unburnt fuel got sprayed into the aft end of the jetpipe, which were explosively ignited by the hot gases coming from the engine core. The pressure wave from the explosion then propagated forward through the duct to the fan, causing the fan to stall and sometimes even causing the forward compressor stage to stall as well. These types of stagnation stalls usually occurred at high altitudes and at high Mach numbers.

Normal recovery technique from stagnation stalls was for the pilot to shut the engine down and allow it to spool down. A restart attempt could be made as soon as the turbine temperature dropped to an acceptable level.

When it first flew, the YF-16 seemed to be almost free of the stagnation stall problems which had bedeviled the F-15. However, while flying with an early model of the F100 engine, one of the YF-16s did experience a stagnation stall, although it occurred outside the normal performance envelope of the aircraft. Three other incidents later occurred, all of them at high angles of attack during low speed flights at high altitude. The first such incident in a production F-16 occurred with a Belgian aircraft flying near the limits of its performance envelope. Fortunately, the pilot was able to get his engine restarted and land safely. The F-16 was fitted with a jet-fuel starter, and from a height of 35,000 feet the pilot would have enough time to attempt at least three unassisted starts using ram air.

When the F100 engine control system was originally designed, Pratt & Whitney engineers had allowed for the possibility that the ingestion of missile exhaust might stall the engine. A "rocket-fire" facility was designed into the controls to prevent this from happening. When missiles were fired, an electronic signal was sent to the unified fuel control system which supplied fuel to the engine core and to the afterburner. This signal commanded the angle of the variable stator blades in the engine to be altered to avoid a stall, while the fuel flow to the engine was momentarily reduced and the afterburner exhaust was increased in area to reduce the magnitude of any pressure pulse in the afterburner. Tests had shown that this "rocket-fire" facility was not needed for its primary purpose of preventing missile exhaust stalls, but it turned out to be handy in preventing stagnation stalls. Engine shaft speed, turbine temperature, and the angle of the compressor stator blades are continuously monitored by a digital electronic engine control unit which fine-tunes the engine throughout flight to ensure optimal performance. By monitoring and comparing spool speeds and fan exhaust temperature, the unit is able to sense that a stagnation stall is about to occur and send a dummy "rocket-fire" signal to the fuel control system to initiate the anti-stall measures described above. At the same time, the fuel control system reduces the afterburner setting to help reduce the pressure within the jetpipe.

The afterburner-induced stalls were addressed by a different mechanism. In an attempt to prevent pulses from coming forward through the fan duct, a "proximate splitter" was developed. This is a forward extension of the internal casing which splits the incoming air from the compressor fan and passes some of this air into the core and diverts the rest down the fan duct and into the afterburner. By closing the gap between the front end of this casing and the rear of the fan to just under half an inch, the designers reduced the size of the path by which high-pressure pulses from the burner had been reaching the core. Engines fitted with the proximate splitter were tested in the F-15, but this feature was not introduced on the F-15 production line, since the loss of a single engine was less hazardous in a twin-engined aircraft like the Eagle. However, this feature was adopted for the single-engined F-16.

These engine fixes produced a dramatic improvement in reliability. Engines fitted to the F-16 fleet (and incorporating the proximate splitter) had only 0.15 stagnation stalls per 1000 hours of flying time, much better than the F-15 fleet.

F-16 on trimpad. (1984) (Courtesy Matt McNew) Click on photo to enlarge

Wolfpack F-16 recovery at Pusan. (1984) (Courtesy Matt McNew) Click on photo to enlarge

In recent years, the USAF became interested in acquiring an alternative engine for the F-16, partly in a desire to set up a competitive process between rival manufacturers in an attempt to keep costs down, as well as to develop a second source of engines in case one of the suppliers ran into problems. In search of a source for an alternate engine for the F-16 and for the Navy's F-14 Tomcat, in 1984 the Department of Defense awarded General Electric a contract to build a small number of F101 Derivative Fighter Engines (DFE) for flight test. The DFE was based on the F101 used in the B-1 but incorporated components derived from the F404 engine used in the F/A-18. The Navy decided to adopt the DFE as a replacement for the Tomcat's TF30 turbofan, but the USAF announced that they were going to split future engine purchases between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. GE was given a contract for full-scale development of its new engine, which was to be designated F110.

The General Electric F110 is similar in size to the Pratt & Whitney F100. The F110 has a three-stage fan leading to a nine-stage compressor, the first three stages of which are variable. The bypass ratio is 0.87 to 1. The annular combustion chamber is designed for smokeless operation, and has 20 dual-cone fuel injectors and swirling-cup vaporizers. The single-stage HP turbine is designed to cope with inlet temperatures as high as 2500 degrees F (1370 C). Blades are individually replaceable without rotor disassembly. An uncooled two-stage LP turbine leads to a fully-modulated afterburner. When afterburning is demanded, fuel is injected into both the fan and core flows, which mix prior to combustion.

All F110s ordered by the USAF were for the F-16 fleet, with the F-15 retaining the F100. The choice of engines for the Fighting Falcon began with the Fiscal Year 1985 Block 30 F-16C/Ds. About 75 percent of the F-16s purchased from that time on by the USAF were powered by the GE engine, with the remainder being powered by the P & W engine. However, it is not intended that individual units operate with F-16s powered by two different engine types, since that would create a spare parts and logistics nightmare. The choice of engines for the F-16 is made at the Wing level.

In an attempt to address some of the reliability problems of its engine, Pratt & Whitney developed the -220 model of its F100 turbofan. It has the same thrust as the -200, but is much more reliable, having improvements which radically lowered the number of. unscheduled engine shutdowns. Many older -200 engines were rebuilt to the -220E standard, becoming directly interchangeable with new-build -220 engines.

In an attempt to make the F100 more competitive with the General Electric F110, Pratt & Whitney introduced the more powerful F100-PW-229 version in the early 1990s. This engine is rated at 29,100 pounds of thrust with full afterburner. It has a higher fan airflow and pressure ratio, a higher-airflow compressor with an extra stage, a new float-wall combustor, higher turbine temperatures, and a redesigned afterburner. It has about 22 percent more thrust than previous F100 models. The first F-16s powered by the -229 engines began to be delivered in 1992. However, the degree of mechanical changes introduced in the -229 make it impractical to rebuild -200 or -220E engines to -229 standards.

On the export market, the higher thrust of the F110 made it the engine of choice through the mid to late 1980s. The more powerful F100-PW-229 finally gave P&W the chance of re-entering the export market. In 1991, South Korea chose the F100-PW-229 for its license-built F-16s, maintaining engine commonality with F-16Cs and Ds that were purchased earlier from the USA.

The F100-PW-200+ is intended for foreign air forces which operate significant numbers of F-16s that are powered by -200 and -220E engines, but which are denied access to the more powerful -229. It combines the core of the -220 with the fan, nozzle, and digital control system of the -229. It develops around 27,000 pounds of thrust with afterburning.

The following is excerpted from Baugher Site: Electronics of F-16.

Electronics of F-16 Fighting Falcon

Last revised March 19, 2000

The primary target detection sensor of the F-16A/B is the Westinghouse AN/APG-66 pulsed-Doppler radar. Pulse-Dopper radars operate by measuring the frequency shift that is created by target velocity in order to discriminate between a genuine aircraft and ground clutter. The APG-66 has a medium pulse repetition frequency or PRF for short (typically 10 to 15 kHz). It operates in the I/J band and has a flat-plate planar array antenna. Sixteen operating frequencies are available within the I/J band, and the pilot can select between any four of them.

The APG-66 reduces the radar data to digital form and presents the pilot with a synthetically-generated image made up of a set of predefined symbols. The display is free from clutter and is much easier to read than previous displays, but the ability to discriminate between real and false targets depends entirely on the quality of the software used to control the signal processing equipment.

Radar operating modes may be selected by the pilot by using either the throttle, the sidestick controller, or knobs on the radar control panel. The primary air-to-air search mode is Downlook, which provides clutter-free indication of low- flying targets. Fighter-sized aircraft can be detected at ranges of up to 35 miles. In the Uplook mode, there is no need for the filtering out of spurious responses from the ground, and the pilot can detect targets at ranges of up to 50 miles.

Cockpit (Simulator)

Four modes are available for air-to-air combat. In the Dogfight mode, the radar automatically scans a 20-degree by 20-degree field in the forward direction. If the pilot can see the the target in his HUD, and the range is less than ten miles, the radar will automatically lock on. If high-g maneuvers are to be carried out, the area to be searched can be altered to a 40-degree by 10-degree pattern. If multiple targets are present, the pilot can press the Designate button on his sidestick controller. The radar will then operate in a slim narrow-beam mode, and by maneuvering his aircraft, the pilot can place the beam onto the required target. When he releases the designate button, the radar will acquire and track the chosen target. A Slewable air-combat mode can be used to allow the scan pattern to be moved in anticipation of target maneuvers.

Seven different modes are available for air-to-surface attacks. The first of these is Air-to-Ground Ranging, which is automatically selected during continuously-computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss attacks. CCIP attacks use a ground mapping mode, which gives a plan position indicator display at 10, 20, 40, or 80 nm range, and scan widths of plus or minus 10, 30 , or 60 degrees. There are dedicated sea-surface search modes, which are designed to eliminate the clutter caused by spurious reflections from ocean waves. There is a Beacon mode which can be used in conjunction with ground-located radar beacons to take navigational fixes or to carry out offset weapons delivery. In the air-to-air role, this mode is used by the radar to locate flight refuelling tankers by interrogating their beacons. There is a Freeze mode in which the radar carries out a quick scan, and the image is held on the display while the radar transmitter is shut off. A moving symbol on the display continues to simulate aircraft motion. There is a special Doppler beam sharpened mode which is capable of achieving a higher definition of ground features. This mode relies on the processing of Doppler shift information, and is available only at angles between 15 degrees and 60 degrees off the aircraft's velocity vector. If the aircraft should happen to bring the area being viewed to within 15 degrees of the aircraft's centerline, the radar will automatically switch to the normal ground mapping mode.

Cockpit (Actual)
(Click on photo to enlarge)

Integration of the F-16 avionics makes extensive use of the MIL-STD-1553 databus.

In 1980, Westinghouse was awarded a contract to develop a programmable signal processor and a dual mode transmitter for the APG-66. The dual-mode transmitter would use low PRFs for air-to-ground work, and medium to high PRFs for air-to-air combat. These modifications were intended to match the performance to the AMRAAM missile and to improve the air-to-ground capability.

All F-16C and D aircraft carry the improved Hughes APG-68 radar with new dual-mode traveling wave tube technology to provide low, medium, and high PRFs. A Programmable Signal Processor (PSP) is fitted which is based on VHSIC technology. The APG-68 has a longer range and can handle radar-guided missiles at BVR, including the AIM-120A AMRAAM "fire-and-forget" missile. The improved data processing capability of the APG-68 enables the set to operate in a track-while-scan mode, which makes it possible to follow multiple targets at the same time and rank them in order of priority. Higher-resolution mapping modes are also available. A raid cluster resolution mode is available with the APG-68 which allows the pilot to distinguish between the individual aircraft flying in a tight formation at long range. The set also has an ACM (air combat maneuvering) mode which allows the radar to follow hard-maneuvering targets at short ranges.

Data from the radar and navigation systems are displayed to the pilot on either a heads-up or heads-down displays. The HUD is built by Marconi Avionics (now known as GEC Avionics). Marconi was a pioneer in the development of HUD technology, and built the first HUD to enter service on a production aircraft, applied to the Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer in 1960. If the canopy happens to be shattered by the impact of a particularly large bird, the HUD is robust enough to act as a temporary windshield to protect the pilot. The field of view of the HUD of the F-16A/B is 15.5 degrees in azimuth and 9 degrees in elevation. In the LANTIRN-equipped later models of the F-16C or D, the field of view of the HUD is 30 by 20 degrees.

The basic communications installations in the F-16A and B consists of Collins ARC-186 VHF AM/FM and Magnavox ARC-164 UHF tranceivers, a Magnavox KY-58 secure voice system, and an interference blanker by Novatronics. Between 1984 and 1986, the USAF F-16 force was equipped with the JTIDS jam-resistant command, control, and communication system.

The basic radar warning system (RWR) carried by the F-16 is the Itek ALR-69. It was based on the earlier ALR-46. It has five general purpose surveillance receivers plus a sixth frequency-selective receiver. The USAF has been reluctant to export the ALR-69 to foreign air forces. The ALR-74 is scheduled to replace the ALR-69. The F-16C/D Block 50/52 carries the Loral ALR-56M radar warning receiver.

The F-16 can carry the ALQ-119 or the more modern Westinghouse ALQ-131 electronic countermeasures pod on the fuselage centerline point. The Westinghouse ALQ-131 is a 573-pound modular pod-mounted system capable of coping with a wide range of threats. By selecting individual modules for inclusion in the pod, the user can configure the pod to handle threats spread over one to five frequency bands. Modules are available to cope with all frequencies used by current anti-aircraft missile systems, and both noise and deception-jamming modes are available. The pod has its own digital computer which can be reprogrammed on the flightline before takeoff to match the threat to be encountered on the mission.

SSgt Rhett Engstrum with Aim9 Combat Sling (Oct 99) (Air Force Photo)

The following is excerpted from Baugher Site: Armament for F-16.

Armament of General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

Last revised March 19, 2000

There are two primary components to the defensive a