the IAF's requirements are going to be such that they wouldn't require additional range with drop tanks or anything that can replace drop tanks?
Drop tanks do not equal CFT's. As explained Drop tanks can be dropped or not carried if the mission so dictates, with IFR as backup in case the odd chance it is required for certain missions. If you loose the IFR option with CFT's then you can't loose them, if for nothing else but to preserve IFR capability.
f not, the CFTs are the most sensible way forward and all the arguments are in its favor.
CFT's work in certain scenarios, but offer little if any benefit in others while not allowing the aircraft to exercise its best possible performance. It is those latter scenarios where you would normally swap them out if they are not required. The IAF however, won't be able to do that since if they do they have to factor in the fact that they also loose IFR capability. I can't believe we actually have to debate this point. Unless one is totally blind to any F-16 drawback vis-a-vis the MRCA/IAF context one should really be able to pick this deficiency up.
Besides, as shown in previous LM brochures, the CFTs are shown as standard fit, and it would be upto the IAF to say that they don't need them.
What do brochures have to do with this?
IAF has been myopic in the past, when it bought Jaguars and had refueling plumbing removed only to have it added back later, but I doubt they would say no to CFTs if they are demonstrably reliable and don't hinder performance.
The issue is not with the IAF exercising a binary choice of CFT or NO CFT. The question is the flexibility that is lost because CFT is a pre-requisite for IFR which is another element in determining their installation whereas for most others its just a matter of requiring them for the mission needs.
Pardon me, what does this mean?
This means that while a fighter may be able to hit its max G or AOA limit with a certain load, what needs to be looked at while determining the performance impact of that load is the performance and how it is diminished even while retaining the broader envelope. As Shiv has mentioned and as I explained later both the F-22 and the F-16 are 9G capable and if that alone is used to determine capability then they should be equal. This is clearly not the case. Similarly, a fighter X may be able to do 9G's with 6 missiles, just as it would without any..One would hardly claim its performance to be unaffected by carrying the payload. What you need to look at is weight, drag, effect on subsonic acceleration, supersonic acceleration, effect on supersonic envelope, sustained and instantaneous turn rates among other things. If you compare with EFT's you will be favorable, but if you compare with another configuration where EFT's are ditched upon entering combat you will be worst off.
Maybe you know more about how much the performance suffers, and if so, please share the details. I'd be happy to know.
You don't need the darn flight manual to know that performance will be affected even though the LM pilot is most likely correct in his assertion that this compares favorably to EFT's or even the centerline tank. Even if you'r CFT's are totally bone dry you are still carrying what is nearly an equivalent of a JDAM in empty weight alone.
One shouldn't need to prove that an aircraft that is carrying 400+ kg of dead weight will perform worst than the same aircraft not carrying that much weight!
If I were to guess I'd guess that the effects in subsonic and perhaps even transonic would be marginal from purely a drag perspective but it would not be insignificant in the supersonic regime. Again, compared to carrying EFT's on most missions it is a NO BRAINER. However, that is not being debated here. What is being debates is the fact that the IAF will be leaving them on if for nothing else but to preserve IFR which is practically a capability one can't go w/o in current times.
've read reports where the LM test pilot states that the jet retains full 9G capability
The report says that it retains 9G capability. That part is true and not in dispute. See above.
But, if this really was an issue I doubt you'd see the Israelis, Greeks, Turks, Poles, Pakis, Singaporeans and Moroccans using CFTs.
That is hardly an argument. If that is the standard why not get exactly the same configuration and avionics since if they are using it it must be good? Mission needs determine configuration. Israel needs the long range and deep strike capability because they don't have enough strike kitted eagles. They are even putting EFT's on their F-35's unlike practically anyone else. For others there is simply a need for deep range and maritime capability and most (outside of Singapore) lack any other alternative for a long range/deep strike platform, or adequate tanker support for that matter.
But that is as bad as a podded IRST on a drop tank such as on the Super Hornet. You drop the tank for any reason and there goes your IRST as well.
Why bring up the Rhino and the way the USN utilizes it? The reason why the F-18E/F uses it on a tank is because *hard reality* forces the USN to carry a centerline tank to get its mission radius as per its intended utilization of the platform. They could easily keep it out of the fuel tank and it wouldn't make any difference to their integration ability. For all practical purposes the USN will be flying with a centerline tank.
Secondly, the F-18E/F on a tank solution is a USN problem and trade. They made the trade because it makes sense for them since the tank stays put for most missions (or the Rhino does not have the legs for the type of missions they envision in the future) and strapping an IRST on it saves a store. It is neither a capability on offer to other customers (see how Boeing integrated the same sensor with International Super Hornet) nor a solution that would work for most outside the USN (USAF included).
Lockheed offers both the big and small IRST' in a standard pod, roughly the size and weight of an ATP(F-15C, F-16), flush mounted on an aircraft (F-14D, allegedly F-15SA and Advanced Hornet) or on a fuel tank as Boeing has utilized it on the Rhino.
http://i63.tinypic.com/34pdim0.jpg
The way I see it, the case for CFTs versus against it is a no-brainer.
That is not the issue at hand here. The choice to strap on the CFT is to get the desired range/payload for certain mission scenarios. For most, what determines or would determine whether the CFT's stay or go would be THIS. For the IAF it would not be JUST THIS. It would also be IFR capability for the IAF unlike most others. That's a disadvantage of a make shift refueling solution to comply with the MRCA terms which was the point I was originally making.
