F-16 Conformal Fuel Tanks

So...

Usually I do not wish for anything, especialy on a module that is far from beeing done, but ED - While you are at it - Could you add conformal fuel tanks?

This has come up before and been soundly rejected for the usual technical reasons. I wouldn't hold my breath.

The usual technical reasons? Sounds like a pretty lame excuse.

US F-16s don't use them, and they're not bolt on/off. Same reason it doesn't have sparrow missiles : because they don't use them. If ''because they don't have them'' is lame, then yeah. That excuse.

Yes. Its lame. Because there are more than enough countrys using them, even on Block 50 - at least as far as i could find out. Just make it a DLC "pay for" Update like the new A-10 stuff and voila, there you go.

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

Are you that big a fan of microtransactions?

$5 for CFTs

$10 for AiM-120D

15 minute timer after you die while your crew ''fixes''

/sarcasm

It's irrelevant if ''some countries''. This is a USANG F-16.

Yes. Its lame. Because there are more than enough countrys using them, even on Block 50 - at least as far as i could find out. Just make it a DLC "pay for" Update like the new A-10 stuff and voila, there you go.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

And a lot of countries use FA-18C's with equipment we will never see in our FA-18C because the US never used it....same situation. Contact ED and offer them to pay for the development of a F-16xy from country z which corresponds with the F-16 version you like most.

Are you that big a fan of microtransactions?

 

$5 for CFTs

$10 for AiM-120D

15 minute timer after you die while your crew ''fixes''

/sarcasm

 

It's irrelevant if ''some countries''. This is a USANG F-16.

Well actually it's not. It's just a bog standard F-16. Let me quote from ED's Website:

"The F-16C is a single seat, single engine multirole fighter that was developed in the 1970s. More than 4,500 units were manufactured and are operated today by 26 countries [..]"

And why not pay for little extras? I mean, they charge people 6 bucks for a stupid navigation system. So why not charge 6 bucks for conformal fuel tanks? But anyway this is a different topic. :megalol:

Yes, that general remark applies to F-16s as a whole... regardless there's no such thing as a ''standard'' F-16, or any other aircraft. Thus the demarcation betwewn A, B, C, D, Block numbers, etc. They further vary by country.

The F-16C Block 50 we have is based on a specific variant... flown by the USANG.

Here is a good article of why US Air Force F-16's do no use CFT.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714

CFT have been cover extensively

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251958

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=123423

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229643

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=227363&page=25

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241934

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246138

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258903

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=261356

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264311

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4155304

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242224

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3918289&postcount=10

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241363

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3914423

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241152

CFT have been cover extensively

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251958

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=123423

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229643

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=227363&page=26

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241934

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246138

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258903

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=261356

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

The F-16C Block 50 we have is based on a specific variant... flown by the USANG.

And ACC, 20 FW Shaw AFB , South Carolina 55 FS, 77FS, 79FS

And PACAF, 35 FW Misawa AFB , Japan 13thFS, 14thFS

And USAFE, 52 FW Spangdahlem AFB , Germany 480FS. (Previously the 22ndFS and 23rdFS as well)

The Block 50 variant we have is not the most numerous at 365 airframes. However, since Block 50 and 52 differ only in engines Installed and all were upgraded to the same standard under the CCIP program. They are the predominate USAF variant at 702 aircraft

The 148 FW Duluth IAP , Minnesota and the 169 FW McEntire ANGB , South Carolina Are the only guard units flying Block 50/52s and only total 22 and 25 aircraft.

The other thing to consider is Block 40/43 aircraft were also upgraded during CCIP. there are a few differences but the intention was to bring the newest F-16s up to a common standard of equipment and capabilities.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1706.html

And ACC, 20 FW Shaw AFB , South Carolina 55 FS, 77FS, 79FS

 

And PACAF, 35 FW Misawa AFB , Japan 13thFS, 14thFS

 

And USAFE, 52 FW Spangdahlem AFB , Germany 480FS. (Previously the 22ndFS and 23rdFS as well)

 

The Block 50 variant we have is not the most numerous at 365 airframes. However, since Block 50 and 52 differ only in engines Installed and all were upgraded to the same standard under the CCIP program. They are the predominate USAF variant at 702 aircraft

 

The 148 FW Duluth IAP , Minnesota and the 169 FW McEntire ANGB , South Carolina Are the only guard units flying Block 50/52s and only total 22 and 25 aircraft.

 

The other thing to consider is Block 40/43 aircraft were also upgraded during CCIP. there are a few differences but the intention was to bring the newest F-16s up to a common standard of equipment and capabilities.

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1706.html

Uhhuh, that's fine and dandy, good info. The specific airframe referenced, as I understand, belongs to the USANG, which is the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Poles put CFTs on theirs, or if they're ''otherwise identical'' as the airframe referenced is a US plane.

The F-16 Block 50s assigned to Duluth are exactly the same as F-16 Block 50s assigned to Shaw. That was the point of the CCIP program. Standardization.

Yes, that general remark applies to F-16s as a whole... regardless there's no such thing as a ''standard'' F-16, or any other aircraft. Thus the demarcation betwewn A, B, C, D, Block numbers, etc. They further vary by country.

 

The F-16C Block 50 we have is based on a specific variant... flown by the USANG.

This comment is incorrect. There is no specific variant of Block 50 Flown by the ANG. A Block 50 modified by CCIP and assigned to Spangdhalem is in fact the same as one assigned to Duluth.

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/4406/

It DOESN'T MATTER if the ANG fly a unique variant from other USAF units or if most of them are the same... the point was

#1 the F-16 we have is a specific US variant, not a Polish one, or an Israeli one, or a whatever one

#2 (tertiary) It has been repeatedly stated the specific airframe used as the reference when ED was creating the Viper module was from the USANG. Whether it is somehow ''different'' from OTHER US F-16s in common current service is beside the point, it IS different from the DOZENS OF VARIANTS that have existed over the last 50 years. It is SPECIFIC.

#3 Building off of #2, again there is no such thing as a ''standard'' or ''run of the mill'' F-16. There are primary models (A, B, C, D) and Blocks and then further subdivisions based on country of service. What's ''standard'' in one country may not be in another, ie ''no such thing'' as it varies by model, block, country, and year of service. A ''standard'' F-16 in 1980 in the USAF is very different from a ''standard'' F-16 in Saudi Arabian service in 2020.

This isn't a win/lose thing, and I don't know how else I can explain to overcome this communication issue we're having. If you still miss my point, I give up =)

Also if I recall, the only variants of F-16 that fly with CFT are the Block 50/52 Plus, the F-16E Block 60/62, and the upcoming F-16V Block 70/72.

The US received their last F-16C Block 50/52 variants back in the late 90s. So unless the US orders new F-16 variants of if ED eventually plans on adding the Block 50 Plus, we will be stuck with the standard slick F-16.

Aside from newer avionics and the APG-68V9 Radar, it should not be too hard to create a new Block 50 Plus viper. Though that would make the Block 50 Viper redundant since its got a superior radar and CFT add-on for more range.

And yes I have read the article on why the USAF do not use CFT on their F-16, and it drips with arrogance to believe that they can make do with just their massive fleet of unarmed tankers.

Sorry. Your original comment was

The F-16C Block 50 we have is based on a specific variant... flown by the USANG.

Perhaps this comment is misleading perhaps because of the punctuation you used. Yes the F-16C Block 50 we have is based on a specific variant. That variant is flown by the USANG. Air Combat Command, Pacific Air Forces AND United States Air Forces Europe. It is not a unique varient used specificcly by the USANG as your comment implies.

#3 Building off of #2, again there is no such thing as a ''standard'' or ''run of the mill'' F-16.

Yes...there is. That was the entire point of the CCIP Program. Standardization.

The Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) is a $2 billion modernization effort that seeks to standardize all USAF Block 40/42/50/52 F-16s to a common Block 50/52-based avionics software and hardware configuration for simplified training and maintenance. Lockheed Martin received a contract to develop the first phase CCIP configuration upgrade packages in June 1998; kit production work started in 2000, and deliveries began in July 2001

It didn't matter what base an F-16 came from or how it was configured when it left the factory. When they completed the CCIP program they were exactly the same. ALL the Block 40/42s were the same except for the engines. ALL the Block 50 & 52s were the same except for engines. There are a couple of slight differences between the CCIP for the 40/42s &50/52s but the point is there IS a standard.

This isn't a win/lose thing, and I don't know how else I can explain to overcome this communication issue we're having. If you still miss my point, I give up =)

I understand exactly what you are saying...The problem is the answer you are providing while "factually correct" is also misleading.

Yes...there is. That was the entire point of the CCIP Program. Standardization.

It didn't matter what base an F-16 came from or how it was configured when it left the factory. When they completed the CCIP program they were exactly the same. ALL the Block 40/42s were the same except for the engines. ALL the Block 50 & 52s were the same except for engines. There are a couple of slight differences between the CCIP for the 40/42s &50/52s but the point is there IS a standard.

If CCIP was the last TCTO/ECP/ upgrade/update those F-16 went through that would be accurate, but it was not. For example: in 2007/2008, while station in Kunsan with the 80th FS, we where converting from block 30 to 40 after CCIP. We where getting aircraft from Eielson AB and from Cannon ( since Cannon was switching to AFSOC and Eielson to Agressors). So depending if the F-16 came from Cannon or Eielson, the had differences in the cockpit. Some panels where located in different places or they had different panels. We did not have all the T.O. sets so that did not help.

So we where still transition to the 40, and they started to do the over the horizon communications also, it was just the schedule TCTO and as aircraft went to phase, they started to add those changes, so different antennas, radio panels and communication capabilities, etc.

So, circa 2007/2008 in Kunsan AF, 8th FW: Between the 35th and 80th FS we had block 30, block 30 painted for the aggressor roll, CCIP block 40 (in different configurations) non CCIP block 40 ( in different configurations)