brar_w wrote:
F-35 and F-22 interoperability does not mean that. It means that you exchange data based on the Link-16 interface just as you would with another F-16 or F-15. It will be the same if an F-16 flies with a Rafale for example.
Link-16 is slow and lacks the bandwidth to share large files - its more like a text message. So its limited data sharing at best if that's all the USAF wants for its upgraded F-16s to be able to share with the F-35 and F-22 fleet.
If the IAF asks for F-35 level of integration, it will end up paying the cost of the F-35 or at least the Rafale. Sensor fusion means different things to different architectures so you have to define what sort of interaction you want. his is just scratching the surface and the L-16 enables that. Its deliberately kept to a minimum because Link-16 is a long range system that can exchange over distance and with lots of platforms. The way F-22's IFDL or F-35's MADL exchanges data is complete integration with sensors in which each aircraft's sensors are adjusting themselves in a cooperating scenario..so you could have a radar track on a target from one F-35, and 2 Electro Optical tracks from another in the four ship while all combine ESM data to triangulate a threat. The F-35 can't do this with F-16's, and the F-16's can't do this with each other to the same level. The limiting factor is Link-16 because its built for bulk and not for what the IFDL or MADL accomplish.
But surely threat and target data can be shared otherwise just what the heck were LM officials talking about when they say that the F-16Vs would be able to "talk to" and operate alongside F-35s.
if the USAF's requirements are just to get some level of inter-operability at the lowest price point and hence they get just some Link-16 data sharing capability, it won't be very useful for the IAF. Unfortunately, we know very little about the IAF's ODL system, and what level of data sharing it entails. Don't even know how the Rafale and Su-30MKI or the rest of the IAF's fleet will share data, if at all.
On what basis are you making these assumption?
On the basis that all Block 50/52 and Block 60 F-16s are plumbed for and have the structural provisions for fitting CFTs. All operators of the Block 50/52 and 60 use these and it is a lower drag option than the drop tanks that doesn't impinge on the fighter's performance.
link to article
Flight testing with aerodynamic shapes was conducted on an F-16C at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., from March through August. A total of 24 test flights and 65 flight test hours were accomplished, and testing involved loads, flutter, and stability and control.
Lockheed Martin puts a lot of effort to it in response to international market demands for more range and payload. CFTs have become a very popular option in recent orders and new business pursuits.
Lockheed Martin began F-16 flight demonstration of an initial CFT shape in 1994 to investigate performance and handling quality characteristics. Subsequent wind tunnel testing led to the current external lines, which were initially validated in flight testing of high angle-of-attack handling characteristics at Edwards AFB, Calif., last year.
"The flying qualities of the F-16 with CFTs are essentially unchanged when compared to a non-CFT equipped airplane," said Stephen W. Barter, chief F-16 test pilot and company CFT project pilot. "For most combat flight conditions, it's as if the CFTs are not even there. The surest way for me to tell if CFTs are installed is to look over my shoulder."
"The CFTs have very little adverse affect on the F-16's renowned performance," said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. "The aircraft retains its full 9-g capability and flight envelope with the CFTs installed. The drag impact is very small - less than one percent in combat configuration at cruise conditions."
..
A shipset of two CFTs provide a total of 440 U.S. gal, or approximately 3,000 lbs of additional fuel for the F-16. The extra fuel can significantly extend mission range, time on station or time engaged in combat. This range/persistence enhancement is very valuable for countries that do not have tankers for aerial refueling. For countries that do have tankers, CFTs can reduce the tanker offload demand and extend the fighter's penetration distance
CFTs also increase the F-16's payload flexibility. For medium range air-to-surface missions, CFTs can eliminate the need for wing tanks. This allows doubling the F-16's primary weapon capacity and flying with two, rather than one, types of large weapons in a balanced configuration.
F-16 CFTs are located on the upper fuselage surface, which significantly reduces stores recertification requirements and the associated costs. The upper surface arrangement allows the CFTs to be relatively light weight because nothing is suspended from them. The CFTs do not interfere with daily inspections and servicing and can be removed or installed in about two hours.
..
The only Block 50/52 user that doesn't use the CFTs, is the USAF and they claim the reason behind that is that they have adequate tanker support.
link
..
From what I have gathered over the years on the topic via talking to pilots directly and seeing mentions of the decision in publications from time to time, the USAF justifies not procuring CFTs because it already has so many tanker aircraft. Additionally, in a major air battle they don’t need the extra weapons stations freed up by the inclusion of CFTs as a great advantage because they can simply assign more F-16s to target set. For longer-range strike missions they can use the F-15E or even a bomber.
..
And a lot of rationale behind why it makes a lot of sense to fit CFTs. It's a no-brainer really. No affect on the jet's performance, flexibility of payload, higher warload, none to less dependance on tankers, and the difference in cost for av-gas from a tanker versus av-gas on the ground. All versus the maintainers having to spend a couple of hours to remove them for routine maintenance every month or so.
..
F-16 CFTs are designed for the jet’s full flight envelope, up to 9 g’s, maximum angle of attack, sideslip and maximum roll rate and they have almost no impact on maneuverability or speed below mach one, where fighters spend the vast majority of their time. Even above mach one, they have less performance impact and carry more fuel then a centerline drop tank.
While Israel, Turkey, Poland, Greece, Morocco, Pakistan, Oman, Singapore and the UAE all actively use CFTs on their F-16 fleets, the U.S. has bypassed the option all together.
..
Now let’s take a closer look at this rationale. It is true that the U.S. has a dizzying amount of tanker aircraft, about 450 in total, with 59 being KC-10 Extenders and the rest being KC-135R Stratotankers. These aircraft can also be used for cargo missions but mainly they provide refueling for thirsty U.S. and allied military aircraft. Meanwhile, the F-16 still represents the backbone of the USAF’s tactical air combat capability, with over 900 units still in service even after many squadrons have been shuttered due to budgetary cuts.
Over 250 of these aircraft are Block 50/52 F-16CJs that were delivered optimized for CFTs. In other words, around 30 percent of the USAF most advanced and youngest F-16s could easily be fitted with CFTs, many of which have the challenging “Wild Weasel” Suppression of Enemy Air Defense/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) mission. This demanding mission is a critical support capability that is needed to ensure the safety of both short-ranged and long-ranged aircraft against an enemy with even a rudimentary air defense system.
The F-16, with its limited range and “work in progress” Harm Targeting System (HTS), has never been ideally suited for this mission, only really coming into its own in it after key avionics and weapons upgrades over the last decade or so. The addition of another 40 percent or so of internal fuel would help make the jet the best Wild Weasel it could possibly be, and give it the legs it needs to work anti-aircraft systems over while strike and counter-air aircraft accomplish their missions in enemy airspace.
Adding close to 50 percent internal fuel to 25 percent of the USAF’s existing F-16 fleet offers a slew of benefits, both tactically and strategically. First off, greatly enhanced loiter time and range. This will allow these F-16s to not be as closely tethered to aerial tankers as they are today, having to depart roughly every hour to refuel while over the combat area, which greatly complicates planning and can leave a hole over a key area of the battlefield. This is especially when executing critical close air support (CAS) and Wild Weasel missions.
On medium and short range missions, CFTs mean more maneuverability, less drag penalty and more weapons available per aircraft when compared to flying an F-16 with cumbersome under-wing tanks. On long-range missions, where underwing drop tanks are paired with CFTs, it means enhanced range and on station time.
..
Then there is the tanker vulnerability issue, as they are large targets incapable of defending themselves, and tasked with operating within a few hundred miles of their short-legged fighter dependents. During a war against an enemy with anti-access and area-denial capabilities, this could mean long ‘tanker bridges’ shuffling fighters from far away bases to the front lines. It also means that the tankers themselves will be far-forward deployed. As such, they will be vulnerable to enemy attack, especially during swarming enemy operations, or those where advanced low-observable enemy aircraft are being used. Thus, the farther these tankers can be pushed back by increasing our combat aircraft’s organic range the safer they will be during such a conflict conflict.
Also keep in mind that over the vast reaches of the Pacific, during even a limited near peer-state conflict, if the enemy kills the tanker, they may also have killed all the fighters dependent on that tanker as they would have to divert to bases vulnerable to enemy attack or run out of fuel and ditch in the ocean.
Finally, you have cost. Tanker gas costs anywhere from $25-$35 per gallon (some claim it is closer to $50) when you factor in the costs associated with aerial refueling. This is in comparison to about $5 to $6 when an aircraft is fueled on the ground. During sustained low-intensity warfare operations or during training, relying more on ground-based fuel than on tankers is a much more economical way to go about the fighter business. It will also offer more time per sortie during training when aerial refueling assets are not used. This means less aircraft “turns” and much greater efficiency when getting pilots their required training hours. Less sorties, but longer ones, is also easier on the hardware.
The best part about the CFTs is that they are removable. For certain operations, if they are deemed unnecessary, the aircraft can be left stripped of them, and for other missions they can be fitted. For instance, over Afghanistan, where persistence during CAS missions was key and there was no air-to-air or advanced surface-to-air threat, hauling some 40 percent more gas while being able to carry more weapons seems like a pretty logical advantage. Yet even during combat operations, where there is a robust surface-to-air and air-to-air thrust, any slight hinderance the CFTs cause to agility, which apparently is almost nothing, is overcome by being able to stay in the fight longer at higher thrust settings.
