Super F-16

To date progress on the Scamp is related to extensive wind tunnel testing at NASA Langley where scale models of the new-shape F-16 have undergone extensive testing. General Dynamics are in the process of offering to the USAF F-16 Systems Program Office at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, the Scamp though USAF have at the time of writing not actively pursued an RFP on this aircraft. It is expected that USAF analysis will take several months to complete.

General Dynamics believes that it could complete the actual flight test of the Scamp 15 months after USAF go-ahead is given. The test program would utilise two full-scale developments F-16As for modification and the total program would cost in the order of $40m in 1980 dollars. A portion of the test evaluation would centre around the Scamp being realistically tested in the Red Flag combat exercises where the newcomer would be pitted against the best USAF has to offer and a very realistic, though simulated, Soviet fighter threat.

The bolt-on wing allows for retention of 93 per cent of the fuselage airframe components and 91 per cent of its avionics subsystems. Propulsion would be supplied by the standard Series Ill Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-200 turbofan. In many ways the Scamp was born along with the YF-16 back in the early seventies when designers were busy at GD, Fort Worth planning the lightweight fighter that was to go on to win the USAF Lightweight Fighter Contest and the prestigious NATO forces order. From the outset, the standard model F-16A was designed around modular components, from avionics and control systems to actual airframe components.

Primarily, the Scamp differs from the F-16A in having new bolt-on wings and two fuselage plugs (a forward plug of 30in just aft of the cockpit and a 26in plug insert between the centre and aft fuselage sections) that provide a 52in stretch to the F-16A fuselage. This extra fuselage volume allows 56 square feet of additional avionics or fuel storage space or alternatively greater avionics or fuel payload capability in the two seat proficiency and all-weather penetration attack aircraft versions. In this latter role, the Scamp could vie for the upcoming USAF tactical low-level penetrator requirement.

Despite the fact that Scamp features a wing of 115 Percent greater area than that of the F-16A, supersonic wave drag is actually reduced by 1 7 per cent. Another drag eliminator is the new tail which is actually an all-moving horizontal stabiliser straight from the F-16A. This new tail (exF-16A elevator) produced 29 per cent less drag in wind tunnel tests while supersonic stability was enhanced by as much as 200 per cent. In addition to this, weight of the new fin is 921b down on that of the standard tailplane. Because the new “big wing” represented an increase in weight of 1,3501b in aluminium it was decided to form the actual wing skins from graphite epoxy composites. This reduced weight by 5741b.

What will the proposed Scamp mean to the TFF decision due to be handed down by Cabinet in October?

Obviously, at this eleventh-hour point in time, a decision will be made between the McDonnell Douglas F-18A or the General Dynamics F-16. I would tend to feel that if it is an affirmative decision in favour of the latter aircraft then the RAAF will await with anticipation the outcome of the official USAF report on the Scamp. From where I sit, if the Scamp is only half as good as it is said to be then it will still be superior in overall mission effectiveness to the current F-16A as operated by USAF and its European allies. If the Scamp is given a go-ahead to proceed as a test vehicle, and GD can complete the test program by mid-1982 then we may see a Scamp wearing RAAF roundels by 1985 or 1986 – barely a year later than current TFF timing allows.

The definition of “Scamp” in the dictionary offers the description of “a rogue or scoundrel” – certainly an apt name for an aircraft that could, at the final hour, throw the entire Tactical Fighter Force evaluation into total confusion. Indeed the outcome will be interesting.