Argument For/Against using Circa 2008 instead?

Was wondering what peoples thoughts were, (particularly ED, mvsgas and shadowXP) on using the CIRCA 2008 systems update instead of 2007 so our f-16 could use JSOW's. Just thought that would balance the playing field with the f-18 a little more as far as loadout is concerned. Obviously just asking for obvious reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea? I'm sure there is lots of complex issues that would prevent this or make it very difficult.

JSOW is back on the list

JSOW is back on the list

Woohoo!

Granted based on the new updated feature list it will only be the JSOW -A ( cluster) and B ( anti Armor) versions , and no C " unitary" ( IR seeker based with autonomous guidance post launch), as that is the variant that seems to have entered service after 2007 for F16C's.

But don't get me wrong, i am glad ED has reconsidered the earlier versions of JSOW for the F16.

Granted based on the new updated feature list it will only be the JSOW -A ( cluster) and B ( anti Armor) versions, and no C " unitary"

I'm sure the JSOW-C is USN only - I'm sure I read an article that specified the USAF only used the -A (-B was canceled, I believe), and orders for the -A themselves were canceled in 08/08. I'll try to dig up a source.

change of CJ to CM

Sorry, what's this about?

sent from Moto G5 using Tapatalk

Sorry, what's this about?

 

sent from Moto G5 using Tapatalk

Block 50 and 52 aircraft used to be covered by the CJ series of tech orders. After the CCIP mod, the USAF Block 40, 42, 50, and 52 aircraft are now covered by the CM series of technical orders.

"technical orders"?

I don’t care about JASSM, JSOW, CFT etc., i may even prefer to have some older block like 30 or 40 suitable for cold war / Desert Storm scenarios – and realistic counterpart for the Red side in MP – MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-21bis, MiG-23 MLA etc. Or even light and nimble F-16A.

"technical orders"?

Technical Orders are a USAF term used in the ordering process. I'm sure other branches have their version, usually they all have different names.

I don’t care about JASSM, JSOW, CFT etc., i may even prefer to have some older block like 30 or 40 suitable for cold war / Desert Storm scenarios – and realistic counterpart for the Red side in MP – MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-21bis, MiG-23 MLA etc. Or even light and nimble F-16A.

sent from Moto G5 using Tapatalk

Why not JASSM and JSOW?

 

sent from Moto G5 using Tapatalk

Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking why not both? Or are you asking why the other poster does not care if they are in?

Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking why not both? Or are you asking why the other poster does not care if they are in?

sent from Moto G5 using Tapatalk

Technical Orders are a USAF term used in the ordering process. I'm sure other branches have their version, usually they all have different names.

Technical Orders are the manuals that tells me how to operate said equipment, and how to fix it when things go wrong. However, a lot of the books are still broken down with C / CG/ CJ. The flight manual and a few others have the combined CM designation.

Also the JSOW is on the list of weapons again.

I understand that people have different reasons for wanting different versions/blocks, but personally I was excited about having the most modern jet conceivably possible in DCS. And apart from Sniper, aren’t the differences between the 2007 F-16 and later ones just software based? Is that a surmountable problem?

It's not always whether not ED can model it, it's whether or not they should be based on contracts and people they are working with. I can bring up the A-10C in this case, being locked into a certain software version, and not allowed to model certain things for the public version.

but that was different.

A10C was a consumer offshoot of an official Gov't contract for a ANG desktop trainer, where upon the agreement signed had to remove Laser mavericks ( honestly a catch 22 since E mavs are thing for FA18 ) and model Software suite 3.0 instead of 5.0 which would have had digital radios.

AFAIK as wags or anyone's stated ( or not stated) unlike the A10C, the F16C blk 50 is purely a consumer grade product for the civilian sim market, built on publicly available documentation.

Id surmise this is the most available information they have for this specific time period.

but that was different.

It's not different. Contracts are still contracts. It doesn't matter if they are offshoots of a goverment contract or are made directly for the public version.

It's not different. Contracts are still contracts. It doesn't matter if they are offshoots of a goverment contract or are made directly for the public version.

Yes it is.

Unless ed make a f16 for Gov. I dont see what s separate contract would have do do with a totally different project, of which contract would not make any reference to

Yes it is.

 

 

Unless ed make a f16 for Gov. I dont see what s separate contract would have do do with a totally different project, of which contract would not make any reference to

a contract to build X product has not a "free to all", you can be signed some rules and conditions on your contract.

I'm assuming it's all based on available information or lack there of. This is likely why ED can't do a more up-to-date version with systems like the JASSM or the APG-68 (V9).

“Comfortable using” from a legal perspective?

No, it all comes down to available data that we are comfortable using. As such, we must stick to a 2007 based on the very public available sources.

 

Thanks

“Comfortable using” from a legal perspective?

No he means comfortable from a physical perspective. :doh: