Jump to content

Questions About The F-16


TacticalError

Recommended Posts

I knew it you guys are great I know I’ll buy both - I was pretending to use my wife’s brain ????

 

I personally prefer the Hornet/Viper as opposed The Tomcat and it's mostly because they're single seaters with all kinds of toys to play with that don't require an AI RIO or a second player.

 

But.. as far as being able to fly all three in the sim yeah.. they took and keep taking my moneyz, and the Tomcat offers a lot of what it brings to the plate now as opposed to waiting for the Bug and Viper to finish. The bug is in a pretty yummy place for a2a right now and a fair bit of ground capability with HARM JSOW and unguided bombs. Or laser guided bombs/mavs if you have a jtac or a friend lasing for you. Viper for me is a must have. But the Bug is my daily driver likely until the F-16 has at least most of it's a2a capability.


Edited by Headwarp
Spoiler

Win 11 Pro, z790 i9 13900k, RTX 4090 , 64GB DDR 6400GB, OS and DCS are on separate pci-e 4.0 drives 

Sim hardware - VKB MCG Ultimate with 200mm extension, Virpil T-50CM3 Dual throttles.   Blackhog B-explorer (A), TM Cougar MFD's (two), MFG Crosswinds with dampener.   Obutto R3volution gaming pit.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can buy both if ya stay home one weekend and not fly the -172...

 

:music_whistling::smilewink:

 

Seriously, I bought the Tomcat because it's cool...and to support Heatblur. I bought the Falcon for the same reasons...it'll be cool and I want to support ED....

 

I'm not really an "expert" in any module...and it's fun to switch it up occasionally and the fact is if I take my lunch to work and skip Starbucks...in a week I save enough to buy any module I want...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true general aviation is NOT cheap! I’ve supported ED over the years buying spitfire, mirage, flanker, f15 and of course suckered into buying the Hawk which still pisses me off. I only fly the A10 and the Hornet and live them. I’ve never flown in multiplayer and would love to but have no idea how to go about that so I’m mainly doing circuits and still find that enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true general aviation is NOT cheap! I’ve supported ED over the years buying spitfire, mirage, flanker, f15 and of course suckered into buying the Hawk which still pisses me off. I only fly the A10 and the Hornet and live them. I’ve never flown in multiplayer and would love to but have no idea how to go about that so I’m mainly doing circuits and still find that enjoyable.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/ has a some helpful people and they have a training server with a wiki explaining how to setup multiplayer comms and other useful stuff.

 

If you want to play MP you will need the Beta DCS for most online servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree

 

for tank plinking generally implies target of opportunity. For this type programming coordinates is in fact not very productive method of engaging, time consuming, not to mention distracts you from everything else a pilot already need to worry about. ( this is where you would be nice to be flying a dual seater for workload reduction) It certainly doesn't help that there is no Data cartridge functiionality for the Hornet. Because pilots dont need to program their weapons from scratch every time they take off. They have presets based on the mission they are going to go out on programmed into the data cartridge.

 

By the time you do program coordinates and other weapons options , that tank may as well have moved. And you wont know it, because you have no TPOD to track a moving target or confirm the kill ( or IFF depending on ROE). You are expected to attempt to do that at visual range. That isn't always a luxury do fly low and close enough for mk1 eyeball, if you need to attack a a target and scoot off, to avoid reactionary air defenses.

 

Coordinates are more than good enough useful for static targets like Bridges, buildings etc or static defenses , which in most instances will be mission briefed and planned, but otherwise can still be chosen as TOO. Otherwise really other limits usability for other many situations that fall under TOO, where targets are able to be mobile.

 

Hi Kev,

 

Respectfully, I think you might have missed the point that I was trying to make, you typically didn't use JDAM's of this era at least for tank plinking. As you pointed out, tanks do move, and in fact you can't hit a moving target with a JDAM of this era. This is part of the reason terminal seeker and laser guided JDAM's were developed. Moreover the actual accuracy of this era of JDAM wasn't really great for dropping on very small targets like tanks. Simply put it really wasn't done much if at all in this era.

 

First generation JDAM's were developed due to limitations of dropping PGM's in bad weather which they aren't too effected by, based on experience in the Yugoslav air wars, where bad weather had real impacts on PGM use and efficiency. The second major reason was precisely because you didn't need anyone Lasing anything with a TPOD, you could fly in very low, loft bomb a bunch of JDAM's at a high value target protected by SAMS/SHORAD from beyond their effective range and GTFO before they knew what was going on. Versus the old scenario where either you or a buddy had to lase those targets, increasing your threat exposure and your risk to IADS.

 

The other point you are missing, and also isn't modeled well in DCS is the actual inaccuracies in using TPOD's to generate precise absolute coordinates, there is a good paper on this that I won't ref due to 1.16 but its a masters thesis on the topic and is entirely germane to the points you are making. And overall I think JDAM's in DCS are too precise but that's another topic and its probably "by design", think more on the order of we can hit a house, not a sub compact car.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kev,

 

Respectfully, I think you might have missed the point that I was trying to make, you typically didn't use JDAM's of this era at least for tank plinking. As you pointed out, tanks do move, and in fact you can't hit a moving target with a JDAM of this era. This is part of the reason terminal seeker and laser guided JDAM's were developed. Moreover the actual accuracy of this era of JDAM wasn't really great for dropping on very small targets like tanks. Simply put it really wasn't done much if at all in this era.

 

First generation JDAM's were developed due to limitations of dropping PGM's in bad weather which they aren't too effected by, based on experience in the Yugoslav air wars, where bad weather had real impacts on PGM use and efficiency. The second major reason was precisely because you didn't need anyone Lasing anything with a TPOD, you could fly in very low, loft bomb a bunch of JDAM's at a high value target protected by SAMS/SHORAD from beyond their effective range and GTFO before they knew what was going on. Versus the old scenario where either you or a buddy had to lase those targets, increasing your threat exposure and your risk to IADS.

 

The other point you are missing, and also isn't modeled well in DCS is the actual inaccuracies in using TPOD's to generate precise absolute coordinates, there is a good paper on this that I won't ref due to 1.16 but its a masters thesis on the topic and is entirely germane to the points you are making. And overall I think JDAM's in DCS are too precise but that's another topic and its probably "by design", think more on the order of we can hit a house, not a sub compact car.

 

 

This can only really legitimately be applied to Razbam's harrier.

 

and that paper only references l2 AT as integrated on the harrier and largely cites software errors as limitations as a prime reason preventing use of that TPOD as primary source and instead relies on earth based coordinates. That assuming said software error has not yet been fixed since, which would mean greater accuracy generarated.

 

 

We also have to remember since there are also newer version of the litening 2 and other targeting pods on the market.

 

 

Also to take into consideration Integration is different on A10C,F16C and F18. ( thats why its not a just a simple copy paste task to get L2 from A10C to F18C) This paper can not be used to assume same cause lack of advertised accuracy would pertain to those platform's and would be an assumption at this point based on that paper alone which is only on the L2 AT integration on the av8b.

 

 

Furthermore we don't know how this would compare to ATFLIR or Sniper XR.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper certainly cites all sources of error, actual and theoretical. And the theoretical ones certainly are generalizable to all Tpods, the only variables there being the "mechanical" error values, which given that its the same pod are the same. The software integration errors they mention apply mainly to JDAM relative mode not working with that version, which presumably wouldnt be an issue with the f16.

 

As for "other" pods, we arent getting the sniper pod for the 16 IIRC or a newer version of the litening.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper certainly cites all sources of error, actual and theoretical. And the theoretical ones certainly are generalizable to all Tpods, the only variables there being the "mechanical" error values, which given that its the same pod are the same. The software integration errors they mention apply mainly to JDAM relative mode not working with that version, which presumably wouldnt be an issue with the f16.

 

As for "other" pods, we arent getting the sniper pod for the 16 IIRC or a newer version of the litening.

 

but again is an assumption. You shouldn't apply the same theoretical or mechanical values to other aircraft that have different integration of that Targeting pod or especially if it is outright a totally different TGP.

 

All this proves is coordinate generation is not always 100% perfect based on aforementioned engineering problems

 

As for the Sniper pod will be for Razbams F15E and i wouldn't totally discount it for the F16 as possibility. Even wags mentioned it was more of "covering thier ass" measure by removing from list to not raise expectations in the off chance they don't have enough information. The L2 was a safer bet as they already have documentation on it, its already been integrated on A10C, and soon to be for the F/A18C, it only requiring to know how differently it interfaces on the F16. So there is still a very real chance Sniper may have a comeback to the F16C at some point after EA.

 

L2 for the Hornet is only the USMC land configuration. They will also get the ATFLIR down the line to represent the TGP the USN uses, or what the USMC can use when sharing the deck with USN hornets.

 

Or the Lantirn? its older. maybe its more inaccurate being an older system, but you dont know that, or even if you did you wouldnt have quantifiable numbers.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wouldn't totally discount it for the F16 as possibility

 

Sweet :) Even our Belgian Block 20s use the Sniper XR pod :) I'd love to use it alongside of a Belgian livery.

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but again is an assumption. You shouldn't apply the same theoretical or mechanical values to other aircraft that have different integration of that Targeting pod or especially if it is outright a totally different TGP.

 

All this proves is coordinate generation is not always 100% perfect.

 

As for the Sniper pod will be for Razbams F15E and i wouldn't totally discount it for the F16 as possibility. Even wags mentioned it was more of "covering thier ass" measure by removing from list to not raise expectations in the off chance they don't have enough information. The L2 was a safer bet as they already have documentation on it, its already been integrated on A10C, and soon to be for the F/A18C, it only requiring to know how differently it interfaces on the F16. So there is still a very real chance Sniper may have a comeback to the F16C at some point after EA.

 

L2 for the Hornet is only the USMC land configuration. They will also get the ATFLIR down the line to represent the TGP the USN uses, or what the USMC can use when sharing the deck with USN hornets.

 

Or the Lantirn? its older. maybe its more inaccurate being an older system, but you dont know that, or even if you did you wouldnt have quantifiable numbers.

 

Its not an assumption. Every TPOD that has ever been built and ever will be built will have each one of those engineering problems to tackle. The only thing is how it minimizes each source of error in those equations. Given the litening II is the same pod as we have, then those components of the error are identical, which leaves the Aircraft GPS/INS error which at a guess is fairly similar between the viper and harrier, and whatever error the pod pulls from that system which may or may not be be better than the harrier. Otherwise the POD induced errors are identical. And presumably you can use relative mode for JDAM's in the F16 which was the primary software "error" in the harrier of that era.

 

There other stuff that isn't even modeled in DCS includes a long list of things, like shitty GPS fix depending on what the constellation looks like at a specific time of day at a specific location on earth, or if you are flying low level and some of those sats are blocked, or hey if you are dropping Mr. JDAM into a canyon where he is gonna loose a GPS fix which will degrade accuracy for the last bit of the flight path.

 

You are also aware that "really good" accuracy with first gen JDAM's was only possible at certain times of day due to the orientation of the constellation right? And missions had to be planned to take advantage of those windows? But again, we don't really have good mission planning tools in DCS.

 

ATFLIR and sniperXR are gonna have the same exact issues to deal with as the litening. Perhaps the angular resolution of their sensors is better, or hey maybe its worse and that's going to change the range at which you get "acceptable" coordinate errors. But there were/are very good reasons that TPOD's weren't ever the "first" or often "Second" choice for getting target coordinates for JDAM drops.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not an assumption. Every TPOD that has ever been built and ever will be built will have each one of those engineering problems to tackle. The only thing is how it minimizes each source of error in those equations. Given the litening II is the same pod as we have, then those components of the error are identical, which leaves the Aircraft GPS/INS error which at a guess is fairly similar between the viper and harrier, and whatever error the pod pulls from that system which may or may not be be better than the harrier. Otherwise the POD induced errors are identical. And presumably you can use relative mode for JDAM's in the F16 which was the primary software "error" in the harrier of that era.

 

There other stuff that isn't even modeled in DCS includes a long list of things, like shitty GPS fix depending on what the constellation looks like at a specific time of day at a specific location on earth, or if you are flying low level and some of those sats are blocked, or hey if you are dropping Mr. JDAM into a canyon where he is gonna loose a GPS fix which will degrade accuracy for the last bit of the flight path.

 

You are also aware that "really good" accuracy with first gen JDAM's was only possible at certain times of day due to the orientation of the constellation right? And missions had to be planned to take advantage of those windows? But again, we don't really have good mission planning tools in DCS.

 

ATFLIR and sniperXR are gonna have the same exact issues to deal with as the litening. Perhaps the angular resolution of their sensors is better, or hey maybe its worse and that's going to change the range at which you get "acceptable" coordinate errors. But there were/are very good reasons that TPOD's weren't ever the "first" or often "Second" choice for getting target coordinates for JDAM drops.

 

No ones saying otherwise simply that you can't apply the same values of various causes of errors to other TGP's. doing so are basis of assumption, and would require guesstimates.

 

By all means your more than welcome to go ahead and make a bug report of it in the appropriate thread(s), if you ever hope to have said issue addressed to have more realistic Litening 2 AT simulation. No need to continue going OT in a F16 thread. We get it here. if anything it needs to be brought to attention of pertinent development teams.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ones saying otherwise simply that you can't apply the same values of various causes of errors to other TGP's. doing so are basis of assumption, and would require guesstimates.

 

By all means your more than welcome to go ahead and make a bug report of it in the appropriate thread(s), if you ever hope to have said issue addressed to have more realistic Litening 2 AT simulation. No need to continue going OT in a F16 thread. We get it here. if anything it needs to be brought to attention of pertinent development teams.

 

My original post on this was a response to the fact some guy was whining about the TPOD being ultra useful for unrealistic DCS tank plinking (he didn't want to enter coordinates, waaaah), wherein 07 era JDAM's weren't used for that (house/building plinking perhaps). In general JDAM's need terminal seekers to engage any sort of small target like vehicles, because GPS isn't some magical device that gives you centimeter level precision (no, your cell phone GPS doesn't either, it just lies to you quite convincingly) and because holy cow, vehicles in the real world move (just a slam on various aeroquake servers that park tanks in fields, not DCS in general).

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Air Force F-16's never served in combat without the capability of having a targeting pod. Also, the aircraft nor it's "smart weapons" can be used to their fullest capabilities without one. So yes, it would be nice if we did have it from day one.

 

I just finished reading Vipers in the Storm, and some F-16's did indeed have and use the LANTIRN in Desert Storm.

 

SOME F-16 units had LANTIRN capability...not even close to all of them. The majority of available pods were being allocated to the Mudhens.

 

As far as "the aircraft not being able to be used to its fullest capabilities without one"...during Operation Babylon the IAF destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor without targeting pods.

 

"In less than two minutes, Israeli F-16s dropped more than fourteen metric tons of ordnance around the center of the sixty-foot reactor. According to Perlmutter, “In all, sixteen Mk84 iron bombs were dropped on the reactor. The accuracy of the bombing, considering the IAF used no smart bombs, was astonishing. All but two were direct hits within thirty feet from the center of the target.”

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOME F-16 units had LANTIRN capability...not even close to all of them. The majority of available pods were being allocated to the Mudhens.

 

As far as "the aircraft not being able to be used to its fullest capabilities without one"...during Operation Babylon the IAF destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor without targeting pods.

 

"In less than two minutes, Israeli F-16s dropped more than fourteen metric tons of ordnance around the center of the sixty-foot reactor. According to Perlmutter, “In all, sixteen Mk84 iron bombs were dropped on the reactor. The accuracy of the bombing, considering the IAF used no smart bombs, was astonishing. All but two were direct hits within thirty feet from the center of the target.”

 

If he truly read Vipers in the Storm, he would have known that the Black Widows were one of the only squadrons (if not THE only squadron) of Vipers in theater to have LANTIRN.

 

Hey guys, didn't mean to start a debate...maybe I am just misunderstanding some things...but what I was trying so say was that it is my understanding that all USAF F-16's that served in combat, had the capability of carrying a targeting pod. Sure, not all squadrons used targeting pods due to availability or not being trained, but the aircraft itself was still capable of carrying one. Is this correct?

 

The story of the IAF is indeed impressive, but what I was trying to state in response to another post is that if the DCS F-16 releases without a targeting pod or laser/GPS guided weapons (which is expected and as planned for initial release), it is indeed not yet achieving it's full combat effectiveness and capabilities as was available in 2007.

i5 7600K @4.8GHz | 1080 Ti | 32GB 3200MHz | SSD | DCS SETTINGS | "COCKPIT"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, didn't mean to start a debate...maybe I am just misunderstanding some things...but what I was trying so say was that it is my understanding that all USAF F-16's that served in combat, had the capability of carrying a targeting pod. Sure, not all squadrons used targeting pods due to availability or not being trained, but the aircraft itself was still capable of carrying one. Is this correct?

 

 

 

No - the majority of USAF F-16s (Block 10 / 15 / 25/ 30) in 1991 had no capability to use any targeting pods at that time. Block 40/42 was the first to be integrated with anything like that. Some Block 30s were upgraded years later for TGPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - the majority of USAF F-16s (Block 10 / 15 / 25/ 30) in 1991 had no capability to use any targeting pods at that time. Block 40/42 was the first to be integrated with anything like that. Some Block 30s were upgraded years later for TGPs.

 

Hmm, interesting. I stand corrected. I still have a lot to learn and understand about the F-16. I apologize for putting up incorrect information.

 

Thank you to all for helping out!

i5 7600K @4.8GHz | 1080 Ti | 32GB 3200MHz | SSD | DCS SETTINGS | "COCKPIT"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The story of the IAF is indeed impressive, but what I was trying to state in response to another post is that if the DCS F-16 releases without a targeting pod or laser/GPS guided weapons (which is expected and as planned for initial release), it is indeed not yet achieving it's full combat effectiveness and capabilities as was available in 2007.

 

yes it will not at EA.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - the majority of USAF F-16s (Block 10 / 15 / 25/ 30) in 1991 had no capability to use any targeting pods at that time. Block 40/42 was the first to be integrated with anything like that. Some Block 30s were upgraded years later for TGPs.

 

Yeah I think folks fail to understand the whole logistics/maintenance angle of actual military ops. Just because some plane somewhere or some squadron somewhere did a thing with a pod, it doesn't mean every unit had a pile of them. Same for ordnance, same for everything really.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, interesting. I stand corrected. I still have a lot to learn and understand about the F-16. I apologize for putting up incorrect information.

 

Thank you to all for helping out!

 

Check out " F-16.net "

 

It has been around a LOOOOONG time had has a great deal of information regarding specific modification programs and specific Block / Series capabilities.

 

As a side note...Seriously?...Somebody needs to have the guy responsible for the alphabet soup that is the F-16 naming convention drug tested...Just look at F-16.net at the number of Versions and Blocks they have come up with over the years...


Edited by Sierra99

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Somebody needs to have the guy responsible for the alphabet soup that is the F-16 naming convention ...

 

Is the same story for many aircraft since WWII, like:

AD-4N or AD-4NL

http://www.airvectors.net/ava1spad.html

F-4U-4E

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

Mig-21F (item /product 65)

Mig-21F-13 (item 72)

Mig-21PF (Item 76)

Mig-21FL (item 77)

Mig-21FL ( item 77 built in India)

http://www.mig-21.de/english/technicaldataversions.htm

Etc, etc.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, guys! You can't just throw around words like "LANTIRN", okay? The LANTIRN system consists of two different pods. The 421st TFS from 'Vipers in the Storm' had the AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod with terrain following radar and forward looking infrared. They did not have the AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod which were all given to the F-15E squadrons. In the book he even talks about the 421st using AGM-65D's as improvised targeting pods since they didn't have anything else.

 

So henceforth I ask of you to differentiate between the AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod and the AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod when discussing these matters, for the sake of clarity, our shared bank of knowledge and the betterment of the human race.

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...