CFT for the upcoming F16 CJ please!

Hi ED

It would be great if you could implement CFT's for the upcoming F16 CJ module.

I think the F16 CJ can support CFT's.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714

This way we can represent more nationa who use the CFT's (such as Israel, Poland etc) and thereby enrich the multiplayer community as well, and increase the diversity.

+1

Hi ED

 

It would be great if you could implement CFT's for the upcoming F16 CJ module.

 

I think the F16 CJ can support CFT's.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714

 

 

This way we can represent more nationa who use the CFT's (such as Israel, Poland etc) and thereby enrich the multiplayer community as well, and increase the diversity.

There is more to it that CFT. Radar are different, RWR, weapons capabilities, engine, etc. The F-16I (Like the Mitsubishi F-2 and the UAE block 60) is barely an F-16. So many things are different. All of this has been covered in the already hundreds of thread.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3757855&postcount=1146

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3757828&postcount=255]

Lastly; asking the same thing on three different threads the same day? really?

+1

 

 

That is a block 40 (87-0353) and it does not apply to DCS since they announce a block 50. Additionally, being a Edwards AFB F-16, it is highly modified.

That is a block 40 (87-0353) and it does not apply to DCS since they announce a block 50. Additionally, being a Edwards AFB F-16, it is highly modified.

I know that it's completely unrealistic and i put the picture up for fun.

The point is, there are a lot of countries - as you know - that operate Block 52+ or Block 60 Vipers with CFT's like Greece, Poland, Turkey, the UAE, Egypt, Pakistan - I don't count the Sufa in here and for Israel - we can simulate the Barak with limited weapons load without CFT's - and the Player base from These countries would love to resemble their respective Air Force Vipers as good as possible. That's why this Topic constantly and repeatedly Comes up again despite everybody knowing that USAF Vipers don't use CFT's and despite knowing we won't get any export Version.

The servers can restrict the use of CFT's and specific weapons to specific countries e.g. You must not mount CFT's and a HTS on the same plane and a lot of people in Europe and the middle east would be very happy :)

And it looks cool even on USAF Vipers

+1, I'd like CFT's too. Doesn't matter to me if the US uses them or not.

+1 for CFTs, F-16 is fuel thirsty

-1 it is unrealistic, F-16C block 50 never had CFT.

+1 for CFTs, F-16 is fuel thirsty

If you need more fuel you have drop fuel tanks.

fact of the matter is you guys dont give a damn about anything dcs really stands for

you dont even care about what aircraft it is you're flying you're all just in it for the looks

fact of the matter is you guys dont give a damn about anything dcs really stands for

 

you dont even care about what aircraft it is you're flying you're all just in it for the looks

The opposite is true! We all respect and love that ED is going to simulate a specific airframe to the tinest detail. Nobody I know wants to Change that, nor do I. In the consequence requesting addional versions of the Viper e.g. a belgian F-16A or a greece F-16C Block 52+ is completely unrealsitic.

We will get a USAF F-16CJ and not a HAF F-16C Block 52+ or anything else.

On the other hand people should at least respect that people e.g. from europe would love to fly the aircraft their respective countries AF fly - just look at the livery section do these guys over their also don't give a damn about what DCS stands for because liveries are also just for the looks. to voice the opinion that it would be nice to have the option to add CFT's in a Wishlist thread should not be branded as negating what DCS stands for.

ED also incorprated skins with the Hornet of countries that don't use the Lot 20 C-model (or in the case of Israel at all). Without question, additional - and for our model unrealistic - mounting options take this step further.

Is it a completely unreasonable wish - i don't think so. Will ED do something like that - probably and most likely not. But does it equal not giving a **** about the DNA of DCS - absolutely not. It's about the guys from europe the middle east or the far east who would love to get a little optical bonus to try to get a little closer to simulate their respective AF operation.

Not unless they are optional. I hate'em, but if I can just tick a box and voila, they be gone, then fine with me.

I think they totally destroy the otherwise elegant look of the F-16.

The only thing I don't want is a frankenviper. I don't want the flight model of an RDAF A model block 10, with the flight computer of an IADF 1995 block 32, with the weapons of a USAF 2007 block 50 and the cockpit of an USAF block 40.

If so many people want CFT, let get a 2007 TAI Block 50+. Ah but we won't have the HTS pod or do they HARMs? Oh wait no GBU-54, 39, etc. Which one is it, CFT? systems? Weapons?

Not unless they are optional. I hate'em, but if I can just tick a box and voila, they be gone, then fine with me.

I think they totally destroy the otherwise elegant look of the F-16.

The only thing I don't want is a frankenviper. I don't want the flight model of an RDAF A model block 10, with the flight computer of an IADF 1995 block 32, with the weapons of a USAF 2007 block 50 and the cockpit of an USAF block 40.

 

If so many people want CFT, let get a 2007 TAI Block 50+. Ah but we won't have the HTS pod or do they HARMs? Oh wait no GBU-54, 39, etc. Which one is it, CFT? systems? Weapons?

Absolutely guys! The only viable option imho is a "tick a box" implementation otherwise probad would be Right!

Strictly USAF Block 50 CJ avionics etc.

I just think the Viper is a special case with so many versions active in so many countries, where it can be justified to give the player base a little bit more headroom to get creativ. And - mvsgas you know it better than anyone else here since you're answering those request alot over at the Viper thread - CFT-Option may be the single most requested "unrealistic feature" to be implemented.

I would love to have this creativ freedom to simulate e.g. polish Block 52+. My only concern would be - and you mentioned that already in the Viper thread mvsgas IIRC - that i would probably as easy to implement as eg. a drop tank and that it could tie up significant development resources.

While the USAF might not use CFTs, the F-16CJ Block 50 is still capable of mounting them, isn't it? I mean, I thought that the primary difference between the Block 50 and the exported Block 52 was just the engine. Yes, some countries like Israel, Japan, and the UAE fly radically different Falcon variants, but most of the countries that fly F-16C Block 52 aircraft almost always use conformal tanks (I had thought that Israel used them for their A/B/C/D variants as well, but the only pictures I can find of Israeli F-16s with CFT are all listed as being the F-16I, which is more of a mini-Strike Eagle than a Viper).

Regardless, if the CFTs are available and usable on the F-16CJ Block 50 and can be used, then it seems like it would be reasonable to include that option, especially since so many other countries operate the F-16 with CFTs. I have heard conflicting reports from F-16 pilots about the extent to which CFTs affect flight characteristics, but even the pilots who have praised them have still said that they do have at least some effect, so it may mean adding more work to the flight model.

Additionally, the one potential problem that I can see might be a lack of good data. If USAF F-16s rarely use CFTs, and if most of the avaible flight data on CFTs is coming from F-16 Block 52, which has a different engine with different thrust levels, I could see that being a potential stumbling block.

While the USAF might not use CFTs, the F-16CJ Block 50 is still capable of mounting them, isn't it? I mean, I thought that the primary difference between the Block 50 and the exported Block 52 was just the engine. Yes, some countries like Israel, Japan, and the UAE fly radically different Falcon variants, but most of the countries that fly F-16C Block 52 aircraft almost always use conformal tanks (I had thought that Israel used them for their A/B/C/D variants as well, but the only pictures I can find of Israeli F-16s with CFT are all listed as being the F-16I, which is more of a mini-Strike Eagle than a Viper).

 

Regardless, if the CFTs are available and usable on the F-16CJ Block 50 and can be used, then it seems like it would be reasonable to include that option, especially since so many other countries operate the F-16 with CFTs. I have heard conflicting reports from F-16 pilots about the extent to which CFTs affect flight characteristics, but even the pilots who have praised them have still said that they do have at least some effect, so it may mean adding more work to the flight model.

 

Additionally, the one potential problem that I can see might be a lack of good data. If USAF F-16s rarely use CFTs, and if most of the avaible flight data on CFTs is coming from F-16 Block 52, which has a different engine with different thrust levels, I could see that being a potential stumbling block.

On that one I count on mvsgas expertise:

The CFT where tested to F-16C block 50/52. But those aircraft are modified and the article is wrong when stating that USAF block 50/52 are delivered with the modifications. There are structural modifications to attached the CFT and there are fuel system and ECS system modifications to accommodate CFT. Panther would know better than me but is not as simple as the article makes it seem.

Flight Model-wise the question is, will you have to alter the whole FM or would you be able to program that as some kind of external store like some underwing fuel tanks

They seriously need to make a sticky thread, USAF F-16CJ block 50 cannot equip CFTs end of story. No sense asking for unrealistic features.

I have been saying the same things for some years now.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480889&postcount=20

While the USAF might not use CFTs, the F-16CJ Block 50 is still capable of mounting them, isn't it?

This will be the biggest challenge ED will have with the DCS F-16, fighting all the misconceptions people have about the F-16.

The problems would be for people to understand what they are getting if the modeled a specific F-16 from "X" country at "Y" time period.

I hope everyone has realistic expectation of the F-16 tho.

I mean, I thought that the primary difference between the Block 50 and the exported Block 52 was just the engine.

Generally speaking, originally the engine and the intake.

Speaking specifically, the radar, radar software, the flight control computer and its software, RWR and its hardware and software, lighting (or NVIS), weapons capabilities, what pods can they carry, radios, over the horizon communications, some internal components...should I keep going?

Regardless, if the CFTs are available and usable on the F-16CJ Block 50 and can be used, then it seems like it would be reasonable to include that option, especially since so many other countries operate the F-16 with CFTs.

They seriously need to make a sticky thread, USAF F-16CJ block 50 cannot equip CFTs end of story. No sense asking for unrealistic features.

If USAF F-16s rarely use CFTs,...

Not rarely, never. No active USAF F-16 has carried CFT. Testing USAF F-16 and other countries F-16 that fly in our bases for training, yes.

We do not have 52+ or F-16 with CFT. We have units with this aircraft assigned to them but not part of the US inventory.

On that one I count on mvsgas expertise:

To clarify, I am no expert. Take what I post whit a grain of salt. Just because I use to work on F-16 does not mean I know everything, not even close. I am sure several other users here have more knowledge on F-16 the I will ever have.

http://forums.eagle.ru:8080/showpost.php?p=3601926&postcount=354