Jump to content

Norwegian F-16 and Penguin


Recommended Posts

Thinking about doing the Kinetic F-16AM kit as a Penguin armed bird, but from what I understand the Norwegian F-16s only carried Penguin pre-MLU, while they were still F-16As.  Was wondering how to correctly de-MLU the kit.  My first thoughts are:

 

  • Use the plain upper nose panel instead of the one with the IFF bird slicers
  • Use a standard A IP instead of the C one with the two MFDs
  • No SNIPER pod on the intake
  • No LAU-129 rails or AIM-120.  Just the old 16S210 rails and AIM-9L/M
  • No PIDS pylon, just the standard mid-wing pylon
  • No ALQ-131 pod?
  • A/B style wheel hubs


Does that sound about right?  Am I missing anything?  TIA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

Smaller stabs?

On a Block 5 or 10, yes. 

On a Block 15, no as they came with the enlarged stabs.

The MLU upgrade on the 5/10 included the Block 15+ enlarged stab.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Norwegian F-16's where ordered in 2 batches;

The first comprises serials 78-0272-78-0307, whereby 78-0272 to 78-0299 where block 1/5/10, 78-0300 was a "hybrid" between block 10/15, while the second batch covering serials 80-3658 to 80-3693 were all block 15. Later 2 off attrition replacements - 87-0711 and 87-0712 was bougth, which was block 15 OCU

 

The block 1/5/10 were originally deliverd with tailplanes that was 15% smaller than the later block 15's, however all were changed to the same (large) type in the 90's, and subsequently all surviving aircraft where upgraded to Block 20 MLU, being renamed F-16AM/BM in the process. 


You can read more on the various blocks over on www.F-16.net 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

 

There seems to be o consensus that the MLU discontinued the provision for the Peguin mk.3. This is in fact incorrect. The reason why the Penguin was gradually phased out (after MLU was initiated) was due to that the political "climate" had changed and thus it was decided that the threat of a seaside invation of Norway was reduced considerably. The other problem was the VERY delicate nature of this incredible missile. Sensor fuzing, missile propellant and other electronical components were causing concern and required plenty of work. This gave us reliability concern and huge expenses.

 

Around 2000 I belive that a Neville Dawson (?) visited Rygge AFB in the winter, to document F-16 MLU training in RNoAF. During the photoshoot "Swede" flew F-16 AM 297 from 332 sqn (with full MLU markings as in Revells 1/72 kit), with "Evil" in the Tiger F-5A from 336 sqn. 297 had dolly config (dual tanks), 2 x Penguin, 2 x AIM-9M and 2 x AIM-120. All "cold"/ inert. There is a picture of 297 from this photoshoot on f-16.net. I belive Dawson wrote for a magazine called Combat Aviation. Lockheeds own magazine Code One was also in "tow" and an article featured there as well.

 

As for LAU-129, they were used for a short time prior to MLU. Mainly during Allied Force tin 1999 the RNoAF from our IRF flew with a mix of AIM-120A and AIM-9M, thus using LAU-129.

 

Check Six!

 

D-Ice

297_001.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Penguin was already nearing the end of the operational life, and following the MLU M3 update the Penguin wasn't supported software wise hence the missile was discontinued. But up until then the Penguin saw some/declining use. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One other question about the Norwegian MLUs.  They only have one flare/chaff dispenser on the underside of each rear fuselage chine, correct?  Not the three on one side and one on the other like on later Block C/Ds, right?  I’m aware of them carrying PIDS type pylons with additional dispensers.  TIA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with Norwegian MLU-upgraded F-16's, but rather the F-16A/B which only had one of each beneath the rear fuselage. This is also why the PIDS pylon was introduced, as the PIDS holds 3 chambers each for chaff or flares. 

The additional chaff/flare buckets beneath the fuselage was only introduced with 87-0218 which was the first FY87 F-16C built. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that’s what I thought.  What about scab plates?  Pictures of Norwegian F-16s over Afghanistan don’t show scab plates on the fuselage, but other pictures (I believe taken earlier) show the scab plates.  We’re they originally applied as part of the MLU and later deleted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a a scab plate immediately behind the single seat canopy hinge.  This was added early on - rrom 1985.  In 1989 scab plates on the wingroot were added to cure cracks in the wing structure.  The fuselage scab plates and "lawnmower blades" were much later as Niels mentions above.  When I built my own Penguin-equipped F-16, that would be time-placed in early 90s (the Penguin became operational in 1989), so both reinforcements were required.

 

Finished this model on the 6th June 2006:)  It was also published in Model Aircraft Monthly when Neil Robinson was the editor.

 

 

1998843060_48-F-16A(125).jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2022 at 4:28 AM, WouldbeIceman said:

Hi!

 

There seems to be o consensus that the MLU discontinued the provision for the Peguin mk.3. This is in fact incorrect. The reason why the Penguin was gradually phased out (after MLU was initiated) was due to that the political "climate" had changed and thus it was decided that the threat of a seaside invation of Norway was reduced considerably. The other problem was the VERY delicate nature of this incredible missile. Sensor fuzing, missile propellant and other electronical components were causing concern and required plenty of work. This gave us reliability concern and huge expenses.

 

Around 2000 I belive that a Neville Dawson (?) visited Rygge AFB in the winter, to document F-16 MLU training in RNoAF. During the photoshoot "Swede" flew F-16 AM 297 from 332 sqn (with full MLU markings as in Revells 1/72 kit), with "Evil" in the Tiger F-5A from 336 sqn. 297 had dolly config (dual tanks), 2 x Penguin, 2 x AIM-9M and 2 x AIM-120. All "cold"/ inert. There is a picture of 297 from this photoshoot on f-16.net. I belive Dawson wrote for a magazine called Combat Aviation. Lockheeds own magazine Code One was also in "tow" and an article featured there as well.

 

As for LAU-129, they were used for a short time prior to MLU. Mainly during Allied Force tin 1999 the RNoAF from our IRF flew with a mix of AIM-120A and AIM-9M, thus using LAU-129.

 

Check Six!

 

D-Ice

 

Thanks for this information, I would like to do a MLU with Penguin as a farewell mission plane/system in a F-16BM 

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...