Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Blkdog was correct - drag is the main reason here. It does limit the acceleration and top speed performance. CFTs cause more drag, thus it is not advised to use them in a "fighter" configuration of the plane but mount ordinary fuel tanks instead, that can be dropped at any moment.

For example, F-15C/D with CFTs is limited to 1.8 Mach top speed.

However, CFTs are a great deal for "strike" configurations when it is needed to turn a fighter into a truck with a huge payload, delivering it's package to target.

So, rule of thumb here is to my mind:

With CFTs - "Strike configuration", double-seaters suit this category best, cause weapons operator is cruicially needed in STRIKE, CAS, SEAD, DEAD missions.

Without CFTs - "Fighter configuration".

F-16.net Sponsor

DeepSpace,

I stand corrected. Thanks!!

Why not keep the CFTs and one centerline tank attached with the late block Viper for a long loiter sortie?

saintwarrior wrote:

So, rule of thumb here is to my mind:

With CFTs - "Strike configuration", double-seaters suit this category best, cause weapons operator is cruicially needed in STRIKE, CAS, SEAD, DEAD missions.

Without CFTs - "Fighter configuration".

Doesn't match the USAF mode of operation. The SEAD/DEAD Vipers are single seaters, so also for strike or CAS.

The only nations having the double seaters work with a WSO in the back seat are Greece, Israel, Poland and Singapore, possibly Oman and Chile too.
Rest fly ordinary single seaters in all roles, while the buses take on the training roles.

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 620

WSOs are not needed. I can fly every mission the Viper(and Mudhen) is tasked to perform without a back seat driver. I've flown all the different mission profiles. CFTs and a centerline would be more efficient than two wing bags. The drag created by the CFTs is much lower than that of the externals. Most pilots I know would vote to ditch the wing bags for another pair of weapons stations. The sole reason the US Vipers don't have them is there isn't enough money to pay for them.

SnakeHandler wrote:

WSOs are not needed.

I noticed WSO just in general aspect of modern aircraft industry. If certain air force needs a strike aircraft - they take a double-seat version as a basis. F-15E Strike Eagle and it's Israeli derivative F-15I Raam, as well as F-16I Sufa are the examples of this concept, I think.

I am not a combat pilot at all, just aviation enthusiast so I don't know and cannot discuss on questions, regarding flight control automatisation level that allows F-16C pilots to fly their missions without WSOs.

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 620

It isn't the automation. We're just better.

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

F-16C with CFT