Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

Wondering if anyone has ever heard of a viper-viper buddy refueling concept, similar to that of the A-4, A-7 and hornet systems?

Many have probably seen the KC-130J-viper IFR and Eagle-Viper IFR pics, so logical question is if Viper has been studied for this mission (using the optional under-wing 'probe' fuel tank)?

So, totally random proposal but... just considering a feasibility for modifying retired block 30, 40 -16D models in an XL type variant for such a tactical refueler option.. (maybe some 50-75 units)

Consider a stretched, modified F-16D into a reborn XL-type with CFT and underwing tanks to serve as most capable AF buddy-refueler ever deployed.

They could possibly also double with a an AE module, to serve as optional EF-16 role depending on mission requirement.

The economics could be justified IMO, as some billions$USD could be saved in reduced future USAF Tanker order. The tactical flexibility however, could prove unprecedented for Viper capability too.

Thanks for any critical feedback.

F-16.net Sponsor

- F-16 can't carry enough gas for it to make sense

- There is no need to land on a carrier - which is a big reason the Navy uses the refuelers they do

- Helos are the only USAF assets that use drouge and probe type refueling

ATC wrote:

- F-16 can't carry enough gas for it to make sense

- There is no need to land on a carrier - which is a big reason the Navy uses the refuelers they do

- Helos are the only USAF assets that use drouge and probe type refueling

Hey, thanks for reply.

You'ld be surprised however, with some of the facts involved with such a concept:

Estimated F-15E combined internal/external fuel (configured as a buddy-fueler w/store) -- 34,500 lbs.

Estimated F-16X/XL type combined internal/external fuel (configured as proposed buddy refueler w/store) -- 28,000 lbs.

OK, 6,500 lb less fuel in the F-16 concept, but then figure the fuel burn w/ F-15E's 2 engines and extra drag/weight on Eagle!! Proposed F-16 mod would be superior in above ratio compared to Super Hornet buddy-fueler too!

Of course, as also noted the whole concept would demand special probe-accessed wing tank, under relevant tactical situations (making for much more flexibility in operations). But such an F-16XX mod could furthermore allow for joint-refueling to allied tactical buddies designed with probe refueling (bonus capability)!

With lower 'political' profile (of such a buddy-tanker) and the obvious RCS reduction (if operating from a Forward operating tactical base), the logistics could be more rapidly simplified as well as the tactical footprint ambiguous?

As additional unprecedented capability, the Electronic Attack module could readily convert a tanker to EA-16 asset (perhaps using same/similar hard/software as Growler?)

while i see the passion for your views, the facts and logistics don't pan out

Quote:

Estimated F-16X/XL type combined internal/external fuel (configured as proposed buddy refueler w/store) -- 28,000 lbs.

1) the F-16XL was limited to 2 ships and retired from service in 1999. 1 may be upgraded to block 40 standard.
the problem with this is that taking retired and near retirement A/C and refurbing them into a totally different airplane is much more costly then buying an airplane outright. why buy refurbed and rebuilt fighters for a tanking mission when i can buy 4 off the shelf 707's/A310's/C-130's and have the logistical chain to make it work
2) to make this work, you would need basically 1 tanker for each fighter.

Quote:

Of course, as also noted the whole concept would demand special probe-accessed wing tank, under relevant tactical situations (making for much more flexibility in operations). But such an F-16XX mod could furthermore allow for joint-refueling to allied tactical buddies designed with probe refueling (bonus capability)!

1) now you have increased the time into service for your buddy tanker, not to mention the fact that now the recieving aircraft that don't have hose and drogue systems have to flight test and procure new wing tanks. flight and sepration tests take along time.

Quote:

With lower 'political' profile (of such a buddy-tanker) and the obvious RCS reduction (if operating from a Forward operating tactical base), the logistics could be more rapidly simplified as well as the tactical footprint ambiguous?

1) tankers, reguardless of airframe that they are in, are not forward edge of battle line aircraft. they have no business being in tactical situations. the Navy's buddy tanker F-18's are meant to top off aircraft waiting to recover on the carrier, not to follow them into battle.

2) how do they have 'less' political profile? if i wanted to limit my involvement in a hot situation, a couple of KC-135's and/or KC-10's looks alot less menacing then 36 fighter-looking aircraft

3) again, as stated above you are going to have to procure about 1 buddy tanker for every one or two planes if you want to use them in a tactical situation. the Navy gets away without doing this because they don't use the F-18 as a true buddy tanker as they rely on AF 135's and KC-10's for this. they are only used to help recovering aircraft.

4) to do this would accually cost more money as now you would either have to increase the size of your fighter squadron, or have dedicated squadrons for refueling. But, when 1 KC-10 can refuel an entire fighter squadron on a mission, where is the cost savings and reduced logistical footprint.

Quote:

As additional unprecedented capability, the Electronic Attack module could readily convert a tanker to EA-16 asset (perhaps using same/similar hard/software as Growler?)

not even going to tackle this one. by the time this would be ready for use, the F-16 airframe would be obsolete.

for now, dedicated large tanker aircraft are the way to go. they are relatively cheap, most are converted civilian aircraft (easing supply issues) and are able to do more then just tank. your airplane would have just one mission, and in a world of force mutiplcation and joint use, it would not be cost effective.

Good reply and well thought out inputs, Crazyal..

You got me on a couple of those points I think, but then again, the fundamental tactical buddy refueler concept as proposed via F-16xxl type design could change the old-time ideas, tactics and schemes vis-a-vis tactical refueling, as I see it.

Not suggesting the March of 2010 USAF tanker contract for 160-175 strategic tankers (unless it is further delayed) should not be replaced by mass fleet of simple buddy tankers.. just they would supplement as part of a comprehensive revised plan.

Strategic and 'ferry' refueling would still need to be accomplished with the KC-X. I'd propose a $25 billion, 80 tanker fleet for such Strategic/ferry roles.

Perhaps a $7.5 billion 100 tactical F-16xxl program (with EA modular mission role) upgraded from Block 30/40 D Vipers (if feasible) would only supplement future tactical capabilities therefore. (I could discuss those actual hypotheticals in more detail if you wish - didn't want to elaborate on it so much, to save bandwidth). But in short, this proposal could save > $10-15 billion in future USAF strategic tanker KC-X program. (as part of expanded, comprehensive strategic plan, Including longer-range strike platforms in future).

But to disagree with you in part, yes, strategic tankers have/do/and will indeed refuel tactical aircraft in tactical situations, 'in-theatre.'

In future however, such 'in-theatre' tactical refueling will become more complex and demanding as more and more modern adversaries of tomorrow employ more powerful tracking capability and longer-range AAM/SAM, thus seriiously challenging said high-RCS tactical 'in-theatre' ops.

Enter the buddy-store option. Merely an option for commanders requiring flexibility, such Buddy-IFR could be a major multiplier effect, especially coupled with legacy aircraft over their final 12-15 yrs of status. Perhaps 60% of such tactical situations per argument, could be more effectively supported with capable buddy-refueling. (e.g., If only 200nm of additional combat radius is required for missions).

I.E. perhaps 1 KF-16xx per 2 legacy F-16 combat airframes requiring refuel. As possible alternative role, same KC-vipers could be initially modularized to escort legacy stand-off strike sorties, employing EA AN/ALQ- systems.

Such EF-16 configuration could also be a cheaper/simplified alternative as future escort for F-35 EFS on strike missions. (to substitute for proposed, surely expensive EA-F-35 model)?

geogen,

i admire your tenacity. i wish that i lived in the world that you invision. if we did, the F-15's my unit is getting would actually fly until 2025.

see, the world you are envisioning is filled with limitless amounts of money to fund these programs. unfortunatly, there is no such limitless reserves of money. while you do put up a good argument, the decisions have already been made. by securing B-2's, F-22's, F-35's, DDG-51 destroyers, and Virginia Class subs, and using them on the first day of the war, the DOD has eliminated the need for escort ECM and buddy tankers. on the second day of the war (ie.. when air superiority has been achieved) legacy fighters, escort ECM, and bombers carrying cruise missiles can now join the fight. they won't need buddy tankers because legacy and stategic tankers can now operate closer to the FEBL and stealth fighters can carry wing stores, increasing range with drop tanks. on the third day of the war (air dominance achieved, such as in iraq and afganhistan) all aircaft can operate, regardless of type and configuration.

and the other big issue our allies. i would say the only country that would have a need for an aircraft like this is israel. we aren't going to fund or buy one, which means they would have to. and if we don't, the rest of our allies aren't, and LM aero is not going to privatly fund it themselves, especially now.

on top of all of this, there is trend to bring the AF down to the least amount of manned aircraft typs as possible. this is not the 40's and 50's when you had 6 different frontline fighters. that fact, coupled with the realization that the F-16 design is 40 years old and now obsolete. why is the AF going to spend money to buy an obsolete design?

crazyal611 wrote:

1) tankers, reguardless of airframe that they are in, are not forward edge of battle line aircraft. they have no business being in tactical situations. the Navy's buddy tanker F-18's are meant to top off aircraft waiting to recover on the carrier, not to follow them into battle.

I guess all those nights I spent over Baghdad watching the bombs hit and muzzles flash on the ground were all just a dream. Without going into to much detail and hitting the OpSec button, the fact it that the KC-135 tanker is a FEBA aircraft, we just don't get nearly as low as some others. In fact we have capabilities on board that make our presence directly overhead the battle not only fact, but it's getting to be a necessity. Granted it's taking a mindset change on the part of some tanker operators to get used to the fact that we are no longer orbiting over safe areas anymore. In fact one night we had another tanker come about 500 feet from being shot out of the sky by a SAM.

elli,

thanks for the info. what i am trying to get at here is, you are in your tanker. it is the start of a war with a adversary that has:

1)integrated air defense systems ie... modern SAMS, AAA, search radar
2)advanced interceptors
3)command and control to direct all of this

would you or your aircraft be penetrating hostile airspace with the strike package? would the AWACS and JSTARS?

i was over in Balad 2 times in the past 5 years. i know what other things the tankers are used for. but we have air dominance over Iraq and Afghanistan. when i was in Saudi for southern watch, the pilots always complained about having to go south to refuel. now they don't have to. the tankers come to them.

Crazyal, thanks for good comments again..

Hard to tell where to start, lol. First off though, I'll thank you for your service with your current unit flying F-15. Thumb

Responses to a number of your points:

1) No, I guess my 10 yr out, 2018 scenario justifying above buddy-tanker/EA proposal is NOT for deployment over today's Iraq or Afghanistan example.

2) The [USAF/DoD] 'world' I envision (as you say), 10 yrs out e.g., would actually (as proposed in part, above) save $ money compared to the status quo plan and I assume the plan for your model?? So I think you misunderstood one of my reasonings.

3) With all respect: your 'first day war' and second and third, etc, etc, scenario in 2018 is too restrictive and replete with narrow assumptions, I'm sorry. Heck, even yesterday Somali speedboats navigated around UK, US and Russian naval fleets all on high alert, to hijack a 300,000 ton Saudi Super-tanker (Sirius Star) some 450 freaking miles off KENYAN coast! One simply can't work off game plans today (and tomorrow) drawn up 5, 10 yrs ago and operate satisfied on such fixed parameters..

4) Huh? Our allies wouldn't benefit from such additional tactical buddy-refuel capability?? You note Israel as one, OK. But perhaps also Air forces currently or in future operating Gripen/Gripen NG, EF Typhoon, F-18/Super Hornet, Rafale and even friendly Mig-29 to name a few, could also benefit?

5) Put me also in the camp with those wishing we had gone with more DDG-51++ destroyers instead.

6) Correction? An un-upgraded 1980's block 30/40 is obsolete today/tomorrow you meant to say?? My fundamental point, please note, was to the contrary: enable the future specialized upgrade as proposed, a highly viable and cost-effective/economical option over the next 10 to 15 yrs, able to fill un-expected mission gaps until sufficient operational F-35 squadrons finally deploy world-wide.

i give up

i hate kicking dead horses, makes my foot hurt.

tell you what, in 10 years when this comes true, i will give you a $1000.

Crazy Al, yes in that case you are correct. But I could also see that changing in the next war, we may not have the luxury of staying to far away from the fight.

ELLI

elli,

in that case, i hope they strap some chaff and flares on for you

crazyal611 wrote:

elli,

in that case, i hope they strap some chaff and flares on for you

Perhaps add substantial Electronic jamming while you're at it!! Cool

And tankers could need more active missile defense as well, I'm afraid, 8+ yrs out.

p.s., no need for making wagers though, nor kicking dead horses on my behalf. Just discussing future tactical refueling capabilities and contingencies.

Regards-

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

Viper Buddy-store for IFR?