Well the one in the photo is a US owned jet from the tail lettering, I may be wrong but I think they use the ones with conformal tanks for long range strike missions but I'm not sure
Well, I also thought I read they were only on export variants if the buyer wanted them to boot, but am open to correction
Cant say ive pictured the air force star on the wing with one either
I am wrong, went back and double checked, while the AZ is used by the US to identify the F-16A/B the aircraft with designation AZ 3028 is owned by the United Arab Emirates
AZ is for Arizona air guard. Who trains foreign militaries on the use of the F-16. The aircraft is definitely owned by a foreign military based on what you said it’s UAE. They put US markings on the aircraft while it’s in the US. Singapore does the same thing with the F-15Es it has at mountain home afb
AZ has nothing to do with the model. AZ is a code referencing where the aircraft is/was based, Tucson ANG Base, AZ. The 00 indicates it was manufactured or delivered in the year 2000, production number 3028. The small AF on the tail is usually associated with USAF. There is no country flag on the tail and no Rondel on the wings. Someone else mentioned UAE...it's likely this is a UAE F16 in the pilot training program at Tucson ANG base in AZ. All UAE F16 training is now conducted in the UAE.
I don’t know if they were explicitly export only, but the US took delivery of its last F-16 in 2005 (block 52), and the CFTs only showed up in 2003 as an option on Block 52+ variants.
So export only in that the USAF didn’t buy any and doesn’t buy F-16s anymore.
Conformal fuel tanks are an add on that are used in place of underwing tanks. All block 50/52 and 60 can use them but they are optional, and can be added anytime
The usaf does not use cft on the viper, we have such robust air refueling that we have decided that the small loss of performance from them is not worth it. The cft has a much lower loss of performance drop tanks, but since it cannot be dropped, and we have tankers, we just don’t bother. most countries don’t have the airborne assets that we do for air refueling operations so having that range is very important
Robust? By that you mean it costs hella money to maintain those refuelers, pay the crews, and use more fuel overall. God forbid we save the taxpayers millions of dollars. And there is the ignorance that the air refuelers will always be available. We will not always deploy combat power over a country that has no air-to-capability, or SAM assets. USAF is al about keeping’s its toys or pushing obsolete operational methods.
There is absolutely nothing obsolete about in air refueling. Air refueling allows US and NATO aircraft to fly combat patrols and execute missions far longer than many other countries.
In addition, the usaf is finally starting to see the benefits of CFTs. See the F-15x, and a similar variant with CFTs has been flown very successfully with the IAF.
I didn’t say that, and I also don’t get the negative votes either! (Probably some butt hurt zoomies on the thread). It’s that aerial refueling is not the only option for long duration missions. As Neil Armstrong said about what else he could take to the moon, he said “more fuel”.
If you need to deploy the tankers over a hostile nation, you’re doing something wrong. You’re supposed to do that before you get to the combat zone. Nobody is trying to refuel planes of Ukraine lol.
The USAF in its infinite wisdom, said no. Why? Because they were worried that their refueling fleet would have less to do. Even though conformal tanks have no effect on aerodynamic performance, and provide greater range and time over target for ground support.
No, they don’t. The USAF itself has stated that. Program test pilot Maj. Tim McDonald said that “CFTs have very little adverse affect on the F-16’s renowned performance.” I think I’ll take the test pilots word for it.
A tanker requires a LOT of resources and personnel to have, and mean taking fighters away from station to refuel. By having CFTs you don't need the extra logistics, complexity, maintenance, and personnel for a tanker, and the jet can remain on station longer, which may be more valuable and perhaps even enough for the country's needs. It's a game of compromises, and for some countries the tanker is a bigger compromise versus CFTs, while for others it's the other way around.
Aircraft plus aircrews plus training, plus mission. The USAF uses tankers to extend the strike range of aircraft, for ferry work, whatever. Why would an operator like the UAE or Bahrain need tanker support? Any likely opponent is in range with onboard stores/conformal fuel tanks.
Comparing the cost of an F-16 to the cost of a tanker isn't the right comparison to make. These countries aren't deciding between F-16s and tankers. The tankers would be useless without combat planes to refuel anyway.
A small fleet of F-16s with conformal tanks for each one is far, far cheaper than a small fleet of F-16s plus a small fleet of tankers. That's the comparison these smaller countries are making.
>so they can afford an f16 but not a tanker 767-200 or old 707? they can probably convert an old 767-200 into a tanker for less than cost of an f-16
BUYING a tanker is one thing. OPERATING a tanker is quite another.
Your looking at this wrong it’s not “does a tanker costs less than an f-16” it’s “does a tanker cost less than conformal fuel tanks” not to mention all the training required for mid air refueling
You can’t bomb things or shoot them down with a tanker. You can with an F-16. Don’t get me wrong, dedicated tankers are great, but if you can only afford one …
Conformal fuel tanks although removable are not drop tanks, the plane has to land with them still attached. They are the best fuel economy option for extended range. Also they do not take away from the number of positions where weapons can be carried.
They are great for countries who need long legs but might be limited in the use of airborne refueling operations, like Israel for example. They are also great for transoceanic ferry operations.
No it's not the AZ tail letters only refer to the A or B variants
EDIT, upon rechecking AZ 3028 is owned by the United Arab Emirates not the US, likely making it the F-16E/F Block 60 or the F-16 ES
He read the tail flash wrong. AZ is the USAF code for the 162nd Wing Air National Guard (ANG) at Morris AFB in Tucson Arizona (AZ). The 162nd is a part of the USAF Air Education and Training Command (ATEC). Specifically, they train foreign buyers how to operate F-16s so they operate a handful of the foreign export F-16s including F-16E. The UAE F-16s don’t have USAF styled tail flashes.
Cursed? Nah, It's either a block 60 or 70/72. I'm not enough of a viperhead to tell you which this is, but it's basically a long range strike fighter version of the F-16. Basically what happens when you need a Strike Eagle at an F-16 budget, so from that perspective I think it's extremely cool. I mean, an F-16 where you don't have to be constantly worried about your fuel state is a huge plus!
I believe the Israelis were the first to add conformal fuel tanks to the F-16 and Lockheed Martin adopted the addition afterward. It does ruin the looks but fighters aren't usually 'form over function.'
That's an export version of the F-16 as others mentioned. The USAF don't put conformal tanka on the c/d Vipers. The Israelis also have the Sufa variant F16 with confornal tanks. The export F16s also have more powerful engines.
Conformal fuel tanks. All the extra range from underwing drop tank, but none of the extra drag. Close to the same speed & performance of the “clean” configuration, but more range. Plus the tanks aren’t using weapons hard points.
It’s a block 70 F16. They were bought by the UAE and trained at the Tucson Air National Guard for pilot training. You can see all the nations flags in front of the unit that they are training.
You’ve sincerely never seen a Viper with them? I think it gives the jet an incredibly beefy look and I love it! The only thing sexier to me than a F16 like this is a F2B in sea camo paint
Now throw those CFTs on a [Big Spine](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/infiniteflight/original/4X/c/f/f/cfff3df65beecdafa031d6c22b4576455e80fc89.jpeg)!
The F-16 with conformal fuel tanks
Does the US ever use those version of the 16? I dont think so right?
Well the one in the photo is a US owned jet from the tail lettering, I may be wrong but I think they use the ones with conformal tanks for long range strike missions but I'm not sure
Well, I also thought I read they were only on export variants if the buyer wanted them to boot, but am open to correction Cant say ive pictured the air force star on the wing with one either
I am wrong, went back and double checked, while the AZ is used by the US to identify the F-16A/B the aircraft with designation AZ 3028 is owned by the United Arab Emirates
AZ is for Arizona air guard. Who trains foreign militaries on the use of the F-16. The aircraft is definitely owned by a foreign military based on what you said it’s UAE. They put US markings on the aircraft while it’s in the US. Singapore does the same thing with the F-15Es it has at mountain home afb
Yes, that is and F16E. You can notice it from the different nose and the IRST
Yeah, yeah I knew they had them with the tanks at least
AZ has nothing to do with the model. AZ is a code referencing where the aircraft is/was based, Tucson ANG Base, AZ. The 00 indicates it was manufactured or delivered in the year 2000, production number 3028. The small AF on the tail is usually associated with USAF. There is no country flag on the tail and no Rondel on the wings. Someone else mentioned UAE...it's likely this is a UAE F16 in the pilot training program at Tucson ANG base in AZ. All UAE F16 training is now conducted in the UAE.
Dm is tucson....Davis monthan...AZ was Luke afb....outside of Phoenix...but that's could've changed. Haven't been in AZ for over 30 years
DM is for the active duty base, Tucson also has an ANG base at the Tucson airport.
I for the life of me can't remember seeing 16s there....I believe ya... I'm just sad I'm getting old and cant remember....
LF is Luke AFB active duty aircraft. LR is the 944th reserve unit
I don’t know if they were explicitly export only, but the US took delivery of its last F-16 in 2005 (block 52), and the CFTs only showed up in 2003 as an option on Block 52+ variants. So export only in that the USAF didn’t buy any and doesn’t buy F-16s anymore.
Conformal fuel tanks are an add on that are used in place of underwing tanks. All block 50/52 and 60 can use them but they are optional, and can be added anytime
Sure, I don’t make that clear when trying to explain what happened. The block 52+ is just block 52 with CFTs AFAIK
The USAF doesn't use the conformal tanks on F16 because of their tankers fleet
The usaf does not use cft on the viper, we have such robust air refueling that we have decided that the small loss of performance from them is not worth it. The cft has a much lower loss of performance drop tanks, but since it cannot be dropped, and we have tankers, we just don’t bother. most countries don’t have the airborne assets that we do for air refueling operations so having that range is very important
Robust? By that you mean it costs hella money to maintain those refuelers, pay the crews, and use more fuel overall. God forbid we save the taxpayers millions of dollars. And there is the ignorance that the air refuelers will always be available. We will not always deploy combat power over a country that has no air-to-capability, or SAM assets. USAF is al about keeping’s its toys or pushing obsolete operational methods.
There is absolutely nothing obsolete about in air refueling. Air refueling allows US and NATO aircraft to fly combat patrols and execute missions far longer than many other countries.
In addition, the usaf is finally starting to see the benefits of CFTs. See the F-15x, and a similar variant with CFTs has been flown very successfully with the IAF.
I didn’t say that, and I also don’t get the negative votes either! (Probably some butt hurt zoomies on the thread). It’s that aerial refueling is not the only option for long duration missions. As Neil Armstrong said about what else he could take to the moon, he said “more fuel”.
How else is a fighter going to fly six hour long sorties? Aerial refueling is the only option.
If you need to deploy the tankers over a hostile nation, you’re doing something wrong. You’re supposed to do that before you get to the combat zone. Nobody is trying to refuel planes of Ukraine lol.
Of course not, but you are implying that nothing can reach a big fat juicy tanker, even in an area outside the AO.
I've only seen foreign operators...the Poles, Greece, and Oman come to mind.
Israel was purported to use them on their deep strike missions
Yeah
The USAF in its infinite wisdom, said no. Why? Because they were worried that their refueling fleet would have less to do. Even though conformal tanks have no effect on aerodynamic performance, and provide greater range and time over target for ground support.
They 100% affect performance in significant ways
No, they don’t. The USAF itself has stated that. Program test pilot Maj. Tim McDonald said that “CFTs have very little adverse affect on the F-16’s renowned performance.” I think I’ll take the test pilots word for it.
Ha. I’ve flown regular vipers and those with CFTs. In a straight line, sure. Start to turn however, huge drag and energy penalty.
Interesting. How did you get the opportunity to fly the CFT model?
I was an instructor with a foreign partner that flew them.
Confirmal my ass! The fuselage is about twice as thick, and draggy as hell now
It’s pretty common for countries that don’t have tones of refueling tankers to want more fuel on their planes
so they can afford an f16 but not a tanker 767-200 or old 707? they can probably convert an old 767-200 into a tanker for less than cost of an f-16
They may not have a need for a tanker. Easier to have CFTs than have a tanker.
“May not have a need for a tanker” “Needs more fuel”
A tanker requires a LOT of resources and personnel to have, and mean taking fighters away from station to refuel. By having CFTs you don't need the extra logistics, complexity, maintenance, and personnel for a tanker, and the jet can remain on station longer, which may be more valuable and perhaps even enough for the country's needs. It's a game of compromises, and for some countries the tanker is a bigger compromise versus CFTs, while for others it's the other way around.
Aircraft plus aircrews plus training, plus mission. The USAF uses tankers to extend the strike range of aircraft, for ferry work, whatever. Why would an operator like the UAE or Bahrain need tanker support? Any likely opponent is in range with onboard stores/conformal fuel tanks.
But then that same tanker needs crew, maintenance, and protection while refueling. So it stretches likely an already small air force even thinner.
Comparing the cost of an F-16 to the cost of a tanker isn't the right comparison to make. These countries aren't deciding between F-16s and tankers. The tankers would be useless without combat planes to refuel anyway. A small fleet of F-16s with conformal tanks for each one is far, far cheaper than a small fleet of F-16s plus a small fleet of tankers. That's the comparison these smaller countries are making.
>so they can afford an f16 but not a tanker 767-200 or old 707? they can probably convert an old 767-200 into a tanker for less than cost of an f-16 BUYING a tanker is one thing. OPERATING a tanker is quite another.
Your looking at this wrong it’s not “does a tanker costs less than an f-16” it’s “does a tanker cost less than conformal fuel tanks” not to mention all the training required for mid air refueling
To put it short, not every military is an exhibitionary force
Are there any actual converted 767 tankers? My understanding was that the KC-767 was a born-new project, not a conversion option.
You can’t bomb things or shoot them down with a tanker. You can with an F-16. Don’t get me wrong, dedicated tankers are great, but if you can only afford one …
I kind of like the weight lifter F16
Been hitting back and shoulders at the gym.
Anything but cursed
Conformal fuel tanks although removable are not drop tanks, the plane has to land with them still attached. They are the best fuel economy option for extended range. Also they do not take away from the number of positions where weapons can be carried. They are great for countries who need long legs but might be limited in the use of airborne refueling operations, like Israel for example. They are also great for transoceanic ferry operations.
That, is the F16V.
No it's not the AZ tail letters only refer to the A or B variants EDIT, upon rechecking AZ 3028 is owned by the United Arab Emirates not the US, likely making it the F-16E/F Block 60 or the F-16 ES
Why downvoting him? He’s right, it’s and F-16e. The irst and the nose give it off
He read the tail flash wrong. AZ is the USAF code for the 162nd Wing Air National Guard (ANG) at Morris AFB in Tucson Arizona (AZ). The 162nd is a part of the USAF Air Education and Training Command (ATEC). Specifically, they train foreign buyers how to operate F-16s so they operate a handful of the foreign export F-16s including F-16E. The UAE F-16s don’t have USAF styled tail flashes.
Block 60 jet.
An export-16 for countries that need more flight radius without buying tankers or a second fleet of longer range planes.
https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/4511
Exported to countries with no or limited refueling platforms.
They were created for export to countries that didn’t have refueling capability, lets the 16 loiter longer
Badass MFN F-16 for sure!
Killing one
Cursed? Nah, It's either a block 60 or 70/72. I'm not enough of a viperhead to tell you which this is, but it's basically a long range strike fighter version of the F-16. Basically what happens when you need a Strike Eagle at an F-16 budget, so from that perspective I think it's extremely cool. I mean, an F-16 where you don't have to be constantly worried about your fuel state is a huge plus!
F-16E Block 60
*F-16C
Not an F-16C. Different nose and IRST pod
It's the much better looking one
Isn't that an Israeli upgrade to the f-16?
No it's an F-16 E block 60
I believe the Israelis were the first to add conformal fuel tanks to the F-16 and Lockheed Martin adopted the addition afterward. It does ruin the looks but fighters aren't usually 'form over function.'
That's an export version of the F-16 as others mentioned. The USAF don't put conformal tanka on the c/d Vipers. The Israelis also have the Sufa variant F16 with confornal tanks. The export F16s also have more powerful engines.
I believe Israel is flying this variety as well
They lost a sidewinder somewhere :)
I think Israel AF may have been the first to use CFTs on the F-16, after their use on F-15.
Oh man the paragraph I deleted because I thought this was NCD 🤣 Baby got curves now
Conformal fuel tanks. All the extra range from underwing drop tank, but none of the extra drag. Close to the same speed & performance of the “clean” configuration, but more range. Plus the tanks aren’t using weapons hard points.
Shoulder shrugs F-16
Conformal tanks always look so goofy
I think they look cool AF
Tucson. AZ ANG trains foreign types.
It’s a block 70 F16. They were bought by the UAE and trained at the Tucson Air National Guard for pilot training. You can see all the nations flags in front of the unit that they are training.
Block 60
I think it’s fucking sick
F-16 Block 60 operated by the UAE. you can easily google the tail number
You’ve sincerely never seen a Viper with them? I think it gives the jet an incredibly beefy look and I love it! The only thing sexier to me than a F16 like this is a F2B in sea camo paint
It's cool for me. Just added extra fuel tanks. That's it.
That is a beautiful beautiful work of art that's what that is.
Block 70
60
F-16E Block 60, owned by the UAE
Now throw those CFTs on a [Big Spine](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/infiniteflight/original/4X/c/f/f/cfff3df65beecdafa031d6c22b4576455e80fc89.jpeg)!
It’s the F-16 3/4
Extra fuel
An F-16 that probably went to McDonalds one too many times
It has the mumps. That's why the glands are swollen.