Interesting... Especially since I had not heard of Conformal Fuel Tanks before. Why Don't The Newest US Air Force F-16s Use These High-Tech Fuel Tanks?
That's an interesting "white paper" of sorts. CFTs have been around for a while. Foreign customers want them because most have no tankers. We would still just tank and fight anyway...just for longer. Ultimately it probably seems like little gain for the cost and programmatic effort required. IMO, the block 60 viper is all we needed instead of 22s and 35s. But nobody asked me...
Cause it makes the F-16, one of the "sexiest" jet fighters of all time, look like the hunchback of Notre Dame. Apart from that I'm guessing that the Air Force is probably having a tough time figuring out how to turn an off the shelf and relatively inexpensive project into time/cost overrun boondoggle. Those taxpayer dollars aren't gonna waste themselves!
I was working on F-15s when fuel-only CFTs were introduced (early 80's, Israeli design) and the added level of maintenance was significant. Damn, we hated those things. Ultimately, CFTs went mostly to the E model (with added integral bomb pylons). The second photo is a Boeing SE model F-15 that displays both versions. . Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Aerodynamically, it obviously adds drag, including wave drag at transonic speeds, which could severely limit its ability to attain supersonic speeds too. That is according to Whitcomb's Area Rule for the smooth distribution of cross-sectional area from nose to tail, which is most noticeable in coke bottle fuselage design you see on the F-5/T-38 and F-106, but it is in all fighter design to minimize transonic drag. So, besides the maintenance problems, it reduces combat performance. As they say, speed is life, especially when you want to leave the fight.
I'm going to show my ignorance here and ask just what the heck is a Conformal Fuel Tank? Conforming to what?
OKAY, I can see the bustle-like tanks attached to the fuselage in the photo. Looks less draggy than externally mounted on the wing.
This is what the AF should have bought instead of C/D/E/F and every Block included. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
There's a sparked memory. While stationed at Langley during the early 80's a request from TAC HQ (literally across the street) seeking volunteers for the fly-off competition between the developing F-15E and the F-16XL. Turns out, I was the only one from Langley who submitted an application but it was never up channeled. I even called the admin puke on the deadline day to make sure everything was in order. I remember him saying that he was waiting for more applications before he would send them out. Would have been a great gig (at Nellis) but my path went in an awesome but different direction anyway.
The XL was nice, but a cranked arrow design has all the limitations of its delta wing lineage...might as well have bought the Rafale if that's what we were after. The Rafale, in my mind, is one of the sweetest planes flying. Just about as sexy as the Viper and just as deadly.
Not trying to derail, but to a human factors guy like me, one of the coolest things about Rafale is this...the central MFD. It is right beneath the HUD, is focused to infinity, and...get this...has every other line of vertical resolution displaying a different collimated image that when fused from the pilots point of view, effectively widens the display area. It's nothing short of brilliant. I've flown some cool fighters, including the eagle, viper, and Typhoon, but Rafale is the only one other than the Viper that I wished I could have done an exchange tour on. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Having worked on the fuel systems of F-16 aircraft for years I believe I know a good reason why the U.S. does not use them. They would have to be new aircraft, and I dont think the U.S. has purchased any new F-16's since the 90's. To retrofit our planes would be a nightmare, as we typically overfly them, and our C, CG, (CJ's could maybe handle them as the newer blocks of aircraft have improvements in the airframe) I don't believe could handle the extra weight/stress without causing problems (Just hanging the aim 9 at the wing tip caused problems) the older blocks have enough cracks in the wings/airframe as is, I don't see the benefit to adding them to older aircraft, as it would greatly reduce reliablility and then you would need to spend $$$$$$ for the training and maintenance of them. Also, there are many different packages customers can have installed on the F-16 between upgraded avionics that go along the backbone of the aircraft, larger engines, and even gun pod attachments, as well as even 600lb wing tanks. The gov has opted for a new design rather than having purchased upgraded/different F-16 packages.
