F 16 Block 52 conformal fuel tanks - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-20-2020, 08:57 PM   #21
FoxOne007
Member
 
FoxOne007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kocrachon View Post
I would like to see this now... Seeing as ED bent the rules on TER Mavericks (US doesn't do that) and now inner pylon HARMs (US doesn't wire their F-16s that way at all), at this point there is no logical reason for ED to keep denying CFTs.


We have Israel skins and Israel in a map, CFTs make sense to replicate those missions.
they didn't really bend the rules, manuals showed that those configurations were valid, unlike CFT's on USAF Vipers, as USAF Vipers don't have the fuel hoses and mounting points for CFT's present
__________________
FoxOne007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 05:45 AM   #22
Kocrachon
Member
 
Kocrachon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxOne007 View Post
they didn't really bend the rules, manuals showed that those configurations were valid, unlike CFT's on USAF Vipers, as USAF Vipers don't have the fuel hoses and mounting points for CFT's present
ANd if you read that entire long post, you would see that *multiple* F-16 crew chiefs and people who worked on them verified that even as far up as 2016, the USAF had 0 F-16s that were wired to do so. It required the same wiring that allows Mavericks on the inner pylon (which isn't allowed on our model either). So the Manual said "Its possible" but the aircraft were never set up to actually do it that way on a physical or firmware level.

As for a former UH-60 mechanic, our manuals talked about "possible" things in them as well, such as adding AGM-114s to the UH-60L, but the only version of the helicopter to actually *get* that were MH-60Ls which had far more modifications to make it work. The UH-60L didn't have the wiring or the avionics to do so even though it was "Technically" possible with an additional billions in spending and upgrading. So the manual does not speak to what was actually done in the US inventory.

The US F-16s are not "Wired" to do 4x Harms just like they are not "Piped" to use CFTs, so, again, no real argument against it anymore.
Kocrachon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 07:05 AM   #23
cofcorpse
Partner
 
cofcorpse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kocrachon View Post
So the Manual said "Its possible"...

The US F-16s are not "Wired" to do 4x Harms just like they are not "Piped" to use CFTs, so, again, no real argument against it anymore.
So, manuals say it is possible to use 4 HARMs. Could you point were it is said that it can use CFTs?
I see your point and don't want to be rude in any way, but it seems to be "trolling", just as described in 1.10 rule.
I guess it is safe to say that the documentation and information we have says nothing about CFTs. As far as I am aware, of course.
cofcorpse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 04:09 PM   #24
Kocrachon
Member
 
Kocrachon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cofcorpse View Post
So, manuals say it is possible to use 4 HARMs. Could you point were it is said that it can use CFTs?
I see your point and don't want to be rude in any way, but it seems to be "trolling", just as described in 1.10 rule.
I guess it is safe to say that the documentation and information we have says nothing about CFTs. As far as I am aware, of course.
Its not trolling.

I asked when the F-16 was announced if we would get CFTs, and I was told no, US ANG Block 50 never used them. They have thrown this excuse out the window by using TER Mavericks (which again, every crew cheif said was never done, and that they never even had LAU racks in their shacks and were never trained on) which they originally said no to until enough demand came in. They gave 4x Harms which, again, were not possible because PHYSICALLY the aircraft can not do that because the wiring is not there. They can attach onto the pylon. One guy even said as far as 2016 that was not possible on any USAF F-16. ANY. So this begs the question, again of "Possible". Possible is saying, its possible the earth will randomly explode, but not "probable". So this "documents says its possible" argument is weak.

It gets even more grey because ED will not point to where their docs say its possible. So far, the crew cheifs of F-16s say the document just says its an approved "Flyable" loadout, as in, the aircraft is rated to safely fly with that loadout (which make sense, pylons are universal) but not operational load out because the only wiring there would be jettison wires.

The USAF F-16s are quite capable of being modified to carry CFTs, and the request is just as logical. 0 F-16s in the USAF are wired for AGM-88s on 4x Pylons, 0 F-16s in the USAF are piped for CFT. But if they are going to break for 100% non existent loadouts, then for the love of god give us CFTs because there are real world examples of Block 50 F-16s in the world using CFTs, one of them being a nation we now have great access to. There are NO real world examples of a single Block 50 in the world using 4 data pylons on F-16s.

All of this is "Possible", CFTs were possible for the USAF birds, but the USAF declined the acquisitions, it made more fiscal sense to not get CFTs, because of AAR. So its not like the USAF F-16s could not be modified to add CFTs. They just opted against it in favor of also not wiring the inner pylons for data because the USAF always just used those for fuel tanks anyways, so it was a waste of money to add smart munition capability for smart munitions. Again, POSSIBLE, just as possible as USAF CFTs, but the USAF refused BOTH smart inner pylons and smart CFTs. If we want to argue possible, then both ARE possible.

Possible is a loaded term and being abused right now.

My UH-60 documents said it was possible to modify a normal UH-60L for AGM-114s. It was POSSIBLE, with very very expensive updates and changes that the army didn't pursue. So the manuals are for "Maybe in the future, possibly" kind of scenarios as well. Its not just a simple add it on and firmware update, it was saying, we could spend billions of dollars on this update to make it work. That doesn't mean that it was realistically going to happen or really fully developed.


EDIT: To put it best as I can, Manuals will often times be written early in development. They can often times include things that were either planned but never acquired or implemented, or they include things that could be acquried/added in the future because Lockheed, Boeing, etc made it capable of being adapted to do it, so you don't need to buy a bunch of new manuals. So there are tons of things in these manuals that are not actually applicable to what was really possible with the version of the aircraft the manual was written for. This becomes even more true for Aircraft that are designed to be exported.

Last edited by Kocrachon; 09-22-2020 at 09:57 PM.
Kocrachon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 10:19 PM   #25
FoxOne007
Member
 
FoxOne007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kocrachon View Post
Its not trolling.

I asked when the F-16 was announced if we would get CFTs, and I was told no, US ANG Block 50 never used them. They have thrown this excuse out the window by using TER Mavericks (which again, every crew cheif said was never done, and that they never even had LAU racks in their shacks and were never trained on) which they originally said no to until enough demand came in. They gave 4x Harms which, again, were not possible because PHYSICALLY the aircraft can not do that because the wiring is not there. They can attach onto the pylon. One guy even said as far as 2016 that was not possible on any USAF F-16. ANY. So this begs the question, again of "Possible". Possible is saying, its possible the earth will randomly explode, but not "probable". So this "documents says its possible" argument is weak.

It gets even more grey because ED will not point to where their docs say its possible. So far, the crew cheifs of F-16s say the document just says its an approved "Flyable" loadout, as in, the aircraft is rated to safely fly with that loadout (which make sense, pylons are universal) but not operational load out because the only wiring there would be jettison wires.

The USAF F-16s are quite capable of being modified to carry CFTs, and the request is just as logical. 0 F-16s in the USAF are wired for AGM-88s on 4x Pylons, 0 F-16s in the USAF are piped for CFT. But if they are going to break for 100% non existent loadouts, then for the love of god give us CFTs because there are real world examples of Block 50 F-16s in the world using CFTs, one of them being a nation we now have great access to. There are NO real world examples of a single Block 50 in the world using 4 data pylons on F-16s.

All of this is "Possible", CFTs were possible for the USAF birds, but the USAF declined the acquisitions, it made more fiscal sense to not get CFTs, because of AAR. So its not like the USAF F-16s could not be modified to add CFTs. They just opted against it in favor of also not wiring the inner pylons for data because the USAF always just used those for fuel tanks anyways, so it was a waste of money to add smart munition capability for smart munitions. Again, POSSIBLE, just as possible as USAF CFTs, but the USAF refused BOTH smart inner pylons and smart CFTs. If we want to argue possible, then both ARE possible.

Possible is a loaded term and being abused right now.

My UH-60 documents said it was possible to modify a normal UH-60L for AGM-114s. It was POSSIBLE, with very very expensive updates and changes that the army didn't pursue. So the manuals are for "Maybe in the future, possibly" kind of scenarios as well. Its not just a simple add it on and firmware update, it was saying, we could spend billions of dollars on this update to make it work. That doesn't mean that it was realistically going to happen or really fully developed.


EDIT: To put it best as I can, Manuals will often times be written early in development. They can often times include things that were either planned but never acquired or implemented, or they include things that could be acquried/added in the future because Lockheed, Boeing, etc made it capable of being adapted to do it, so you don't need to buy a bunch of new manuals. So there are tons of things in these manuals that are not actually applicable to what was really possible with the version of the aircraft the manual was written for. This becomes even more true for Aircraft that are designed to be exported.

Those 2 things have been added after several manuals and data sheets have confirmed the posibilities.... that is completely different then your reasoning for CFTs.

This is honestly a dead and pointless arguement...
__________________
FoxOne007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 10:34 PM   #26
Kocrachon
Member
 
Kocrachon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxOne007 View Post
Those 2 things have been added after several manuals and data sheets have confirmed the posibilities.... that is completely different then your reasoning for CFTs.

This is honestly a dead and pointless arguement...

You are right, its pointless, because you are ignoring the main thing i keep pointing out

The documents do not prove what is actually capable with the US inventory. Again, Multiple verified crew members 100% said that the USAF has never, NEVER, wired F-16s for the inner pylons to have smart munitions on the inner pylons. Not Block 50, Not Block 52, not Block 54.

And again, as someone who was in the god damn military and has documents... The documents are not about "What is operationally happening" but more around "This is what could be done had your branch spend an extra 200 billion on this upgrade, but they didn't, but we are gonna leave it in the manual".

Its a moot point. ED didn't add them because "It was possible", they added them because of the outcry.

Like I said, its possible to add AGM-114s to a UH-60A, I have documents that say its Possible. However, the US Army never paid for those upgrades. My manual says its possible, but realistically, its not. The documents cover something that was never done and never paid for. The docs are not the source of truth of what the US inventory is actually wired, built, or capable of doing. So "The docs the docs the docs" is not proof it was done or capable, its proof that if the USAF wanted to, they could have paid to upgrade the F-16s to do that.

Hell, often times, the docs are wrong, because of version drift between "Blocks", realistically, 5 different Block 50 F-16s are not identical at all and have different issues.

With that very logic, our F-16s should also get JSOW A-C, and Nukes, and Pythons, Because its *possible* if the USAF decides to spend the time and money to add that capability, but they dont and wont.

Hell, you want to get into the "Its Possible"? Then give us IRIS-T, because the missile is actually backward compatible with any pylon and system that can use the AIM-9X.

Oh, "The US never used the IRIS-T", yeah but the US also never armed their F-16s for 4x HARM so again, moot point. When you start taking away the "What was done" vs "Whats possible" you start creating this mess of a field.
Kocrachon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.