MattP Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 This may be a foolish question, but why doesn't the USAF use CFT's on the F-16??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dsahling Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I wasn't a fighter pilot (sadly) or maintenance guy, they could probably give you the best answer. But I did used to be a CFI-I and if I could guess it would be a performance issue, more weight and drag? Or they just don't do the mission types that other places use them for, like israel?, increased loiter time? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DonSS3 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I'm guessing $$$$$$. CFTs have been proven in service for some years now, and if they could I'm sure the AF would use them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scotthldr Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 17 minutes ago, dsahling said: if I could guess it would be a performance issue, more weight and drag? From what I've heard the CFT's don't alter performance drastically if at all at all. The main reason behind them was to free up stations 4 and 6 in order to carry more stuff that goes "bang". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 21 minutes ago, dsahling said: I wasn't a fighter pilot (sadly) or maintenance guy, they could probably give you the best answer. But I did used to be a CFI-I and if I could guess it would be a performance issue, more weight and drag? Or they just don't do the mission types that other places use them for, like israel?, increased loiter time? Weight nor drag are the issue. They were designed with these factors in mind. In fact, they're better than the standard underwing fuel stores. It's simply a money issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AlienFrogModeller Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Not an expert by no means...I thought/read somewhere, that it had to be installed during the manufacture of the ac. Not able to be done as a major refit during long term depot level maint.. I have no reference to this, I can't remember where I read this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Correct, the USAF Vipers were buildt before the CFT solution was developed, and the USAF Block 50/52's aren't set up to receive these mod's without major rebuild. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hoops Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Probably the easiest answer is that all the USAF F-16s are significantly older, and were not built with the capability in place for the CFTs. The export customers that have them purchased new build F-16s with that capability "baked in." It would be a great deal of money, work, and effort to retrofit that capability to older aircraft, something that the foreign F-16 operators are also not doing. With enough money anything is possible, but with these aircraft, the cost/benefit analysis has determined it to not be worthwhile. Hoops Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantomdriver Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 newer lower Block units can be ordered with " add ons", .. spine avionics/ cft's etc... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dsahling Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 6 hours ago, ST0RM said: Weight nor drag are the issue. They were designed with these factors in mind. In fact, they're better than the standard underwing fuel stores. It's simply a money issue. Good point, my mistake on the drag been a while since I've flown😋 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I have to believe that these still add some weight and drag to the airframe. Otherwise, we truly have some miraculous engineering going on here. As such, maybe some users still feel that drop tanks are the preferred solution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DanW Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The down side of the CFTs is that they cannot be dropped in-flight nor the fuel dumped when you need less weight in dogfight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 You'd never take the time to dump fuel in a dogfight, so we can discard this. The whole point of the conformal fuel tanks - regardless of fighter type - is to have tanks that you don't have to drop when dogfighting. So no need to drop nor dump :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CF104 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, 11bee said: I have to believe that these still add some weight and drag to the airframe. Otherwise, we truly have some miraculous engineering going on here. As such, maybe some users still feel that drop tanks are the preferred solution. They do add weight and drag to the airframe. Just not as much weight and drag as traditional pylon gasbags. Cheers, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattP Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Thanks for everybody's input!!! I was going to pick up a set to add to a current build, but now I won't. Thanks again! MattP Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Niels said: The whole point of the conformal fuel tanks - regardless of fighter type - is to have tanks that you don't have to drop when dogfighting. So no need to drop nor dump :) The whole point of conformal tanks was to free up two more wing stations for weapons while maintaining the range added by underwing tanks. Production CFTs are only on blocks 50+, 52+ and 60, none of which are in the USAF inventory. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 4 hours ago, CF104 said: They do add weight and drag to the airframe. Just not as much weight and drag as traditional pylon gasbags. Cheers, John But on the flip side, if needed, externals can be jettisoned while CFT's aren't going anywhere. So if the pilot gets into a jam, he's stuck with an extra 1,000 pounds or so of sheet metal, plus the weight of any residual fuel that is left in the tanks. Current F-16's are already pretty heavy. CFT's only make things worse from a dogfighting standpoint. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alternative 4 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Surely the USAF's huge tanker fleet negates the need for CFT's. It seems more cost effective to buy 1 tanker that can refuel any place in the USAF, rather than spend the same money on adding extra tanks to the F-16. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Remember CFTs are primarily (not exclusively) used on two-seaters, which are primarily tasked with air-to-ground missions, not air-to-air. And yes, USAF tankers make the point moot for USAF CFTs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 No Habu2 - CFT's are used as much on single seat as dual seat. Just look at the Polish, Greek and UAE Vipers. CFT's are designed to have the least possible impact yet give the extra benefit of additional fuel. Just look at the F-15E - same principle there. http://defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scotthldr Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 The CFT's have nothing to do with increased fuel load therefore greater range during combat ops. A F-16 fitted with CFT's, underwing tanks, and a full loadout of weapons will not get off the ground. The only time you'll see both CFT's and underwing tanks carried together is when the a/c is in a long distance transit. With CFT's fitted you're carrying an additional 160 gal of fuel over a pair of standard 370 gal drop tanks. The most common CFT config is with the 300 gal Centreline tank fitted as well, which is carried to offer a better centre of gravity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 10 hours ago, Alternative 4 said: Surely the USAF's huge tanker fleet negates the need for CFT's. It seems more cost effective to buy 1 tanker that can refuel any place in the USAF, rather than spend the same money on adding extra tanks to the F-16. More than one country is spending a lot of money to take away our tanker advantage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Full weapons load is normally not used anyhow - weapons load is governed by distance to target, mission profile etc. This is why you will see the F-16 flying with ie 4xGBU-38 although it can carry much heavier loads. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
airmechaja Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 17 hours ago, habu2 said: Remember CFTs are primarily (not exclusively) used on two-seaters, which are primarily tasked with air-to-ground missions, not air-to-air. And yes, USAF tankers make the point moot for USAF CFTs. From what I have read, the tankers are the main point for the USAF not dealing with CFT's on Vipers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.