Hmm, I got another results. Your Gallons confuse a poor Norwegian, I prefer kg if you don’t mind:

Rafale internal: 4700 kg
F-16 internal: 3200 kg
F-16 CFT: 1383 kg

F-16 internal + CFT: 4583 kg.

Not too different from the 4700kg of internal Rafale fuel… IMHO. In particular for the F-16 block 50/52, since it is significantly lighter than the Rafale.

Due to the canard layout the Rafale will probably still have somewhat larger range, but I am not sure if the difference is that big. And both are still some way off the F-15 in range and carrying capacity. However if CFTs are added to Rafale it definitely starts to move closer to F-15 territory…. IMHO.

F-16 Internal fuel source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Specifications_.28F-16C_Block_50.29
F-16 CFT source http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714

Edit: If my math is correct the Rafale carries 2.5% more fuel internally than F-16 internal + CFT

The main diference is that i’ve used Lockheed Martin numbers for internal fuel.
They quote 2852 kg’s of internal fuel on LM page. Either that’s the number for the twin seater (bit strange the rest of the numbers and the image is of a single seater), or they got it wrong (it happens) or an old rumour, avionics and structural reinforcements have eaten internal space in their latest incarnations, is true (i doubt it). On top of that the Rafale has more wet external pylons.
But let’s keep it simple, the most common operational configuration used by the Rafale, six 340 kg’s AASM, three 2000l external’s, four aam’s and an LDP has a combat radii (Hi-Hi) north of 750NM, a typical CAP configuration, three 2000l external and six aam’s has a combat radii of 920 NM, I think that this pretty much kills the discussion.

Cheers

Numbers please (with source if possible) 🙂

The basic number is ~3800 gallons of fuel (max internal and external) for the Gallic thingy at ten tons (clean) versus ~2800 gallons of fuel for the Viper (max internal and external) at between nine and ten tons (clean). (the numbers were taken from Dassault “Fox” publication, converted to gallons myself and LM specifications page)
There are severall official combat radii diagrams out there, and while they are not exactly an Apples to Apples comparison they dont leave much doubt on the outcome.

Cheers

I agree — what is funny is that if they make CFT to Rafale it would probably be the Western fighter that would come closest to F-15 in terms of range and carrying capacity.

It doesn’t need the CFT’s for that, the Rafale already is the Western fighter that come closest to the Strike Eagle in terms of range and carrying capacity.

The problem of course is that the Rafale and Eurofighter are just as expensive as the F-35

That has been repeated “ad nauseum” around here for the last few months with absolutely zero evidence suporting it.
Untill now there were two competitions involving one of the two Eurocanards and the F-35A, on both of them, Japan and korea, the JSF was handily beaten on costs, and in one of the competitions, South Korea, Airbus offered 1/3 more airframes than LM for roughly the same amount of money.
The F-35A MIGHT end in the same cost bracket that evolved versions of the twins by the beggining of the twenties, “might” being the correct word.

Personally, I don’t understand why they don’t simply further expand the Reaper fleet. Cheap. In-service. Not very fast but more than makes up for it with its tremendous endurance (40 hrs+). Nor is it limited by pilot fatigue levels. Arm it with the new APKWS Hydra rocket pods (instead of the Hellfire/Griffin), and the mission cost drops steeply. And if the air force brass shows some wisdom, it can be piloted by NCOs, freeing up expensive combat pilots for more relevant tasks.

Will it be capable of CAS? With two EFTs and 52 laser guided rockets, low speed loiter capability and multiple operators on high def screens assisting… I’d say its the next best thing to an AC-130.

Something like that had already crossed my mind, on the other hand it has a massive disadvantage, there´s a political massive clout suporting manned CAS “With a Bloody Big Gun” in Washington (if not the Warthog would have been long gone), i can imagine that if the USAF went and stated, “we are going to dump the A-10 and stuck a bigger wing in the Reaper and buy two hundred of them”, there would cries for blood on the Capitol.

Pentagon worried about dwindling USAF fighter numbers

US deputy secretary of defence Robert Work has expressed concern about the size of the US Air Force’s tactical fighter force, which has dropped from 88 squadrons before the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to just 54 squadrons today.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-worried-about-dwindling-usaf-fighter-number-422996/

Lucky them, the RAF went from 30 to 8 sqn´s Fast Jet in the same period.
Yep i´m being a bit sarcastic.

No new input AFAIK. I don’t know where you checked from, but this is from the last SAR report –

Vnomad, the SAR has this habit of making future predictions that might become true, or not (see the Raptor´s one´s on this last bit).

2015 numbers are these:
F-35 CPFH – $42,200
F-16C/D – $20,318

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-cost-and-readiness-data-improves-in-2015-as-fl-421499/

An important observation, something that i am aware that you are aware :), but for the rest of the readers, with the increase of the fleet, the F-35A CPFH costs almost certainly will come down (quite a lot) unless it starts to be heavily used in operational scenarios (the ones were the F-15/16/18 are being used today).