Official F16 Survey

Voted for or not, the features will come, it really doesn't matter which come first, as long as work is being done, eventually the module will have all the features.

I agree to an extent. Right now the Viper has no stand off weapons, and that makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to attack targets that are heavily defended by SAMs (stand off defenses). I think its important to include Harms and something with more range than a maverick (JSOWs for example). Not that these weapons are that effective (seems stand off weapons just get shot down most of the time anyways), but at least we have a standing chance.

Now once they add a couple of stand off weapons then I agree that all other features can come in whatever order.

Only thing I would leave last is the eye candy. I prefer a fully functional jet first.

True, HARM, to be able to fight the SAMs, and MAV just cause that weapon is so versatile I cant think of any AG target that you cant hit with maverick, be it a building a moving vehicle, a ship... specially if you use it with TPOD.

This way you give the module versatility.

I agree to an extent. Right now the Viper has no stand off weapons, and that makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to attack targets that are heavily defended by SAMs (stand off defenses). I think its important to include Harms and something with more range than a maverick (JSOWs for example).

What you really want is GBU-39's (SDB). The only issue is it'll require either good mission planning or they're going to have to bring the TGP up to snuff and implement good coordinate generation / Mark Point creation.

What you really want is GBU-39's (SDB). The only issue is it'll require either good mission planning or they're going to have to bring the TGP up to snuff and implement good coordinate generation / Mark Point creation.

The only "issue" with SDBs I see is the fact we won't get them.

I agree to an extent. Right now the Viper has no stand off weapons, and that makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to attack targets that are heavily defended by SAMs (stand off defenses). I think its important to include Harms and something with more range than a maverick (JSOWs for example). Not that these weapons are that effective (seems stand off weapons just get shot down most of the time anyways), but at least we have a standing chance.

 

Now once they add a couple of stand off weapons then I agree that all other features can come in whatever order.

 

Only thing I would leave last is the eye candy. I prefer a fully functional jet first.

Just make friends with someone who flies the hornet.

Just make friends with someone who flies the hornet.

Funny you say that. I like to fly on the inferno servers. When there's a heavily defended target (with multiple SAMS) I will usually jump in to the Hornet first and engage that target with HARMs or JSOWS (but like I said before, most get shot down). Takes ALOT of munitions before enough get through to actually take out the SAMs. Once thats done, then I can get into the Viper and fly over the target. This is why I want some stand off weapons in the Viper lol.

Just make friends with someone who flies the hornet.

Sometimes I have to fly when others are at work and other way around. So from time to time there is no Hornet available and then it is really hard to be successful with the Viper...

So Harms and Mavs are really needed to make this a "standalone" fighter...

I voted for HARMS first, it's just not enjoyable to get beat up by SAM before I can get in there with dumb bombs.

NO, I don't want to fly a damn Hornet.

I want to fly a SEAD Viper. I can wait on the other stuff just please, please, let me kill some SAMS.

Like I already said in the post under Official Updates.

Please keep in mind that this is most certainly going to be like the hornet where community feedback and this poll is only going to be a factor in deciding where to go and not the direct priority list.

Like I already said in the post under Official Updates.

Please keep in mind that this is most certainly going to be like the hornet where community feedback and this poll is only going to be a factor in deciding where to go and not the direct priority list.

As it should be.

We are the Customers and can tell ED what we want to see and what we would like to have prioritized.

But that doesnt mean our voting make sense from a development standpoint.

Im pretty sure there are features which dont make much of a difference for the devs if they do it now or later, but others will.

As long as they take the voting into account we are all good (and why should they put effort into a survey if they just ignore it?).

Even with the HTS and HARM the F-16CM will still be an inferior SEAD/DEAD platform to the JF-17 simply because the LD-10 (2012) is so much newer and better than the AGM-88C (1993). I would love if we got the AGM-88D (2003) or even AGM-88E (2010).

Even with the HTS and HARM the F-16CM will still be an inferior SEAD/DEAD platform to the JF-17 simply because the LD-10 (2012) is so much newer and better than the AGM-88C (1993). I would love if we got the AGM-88D (2003) or even AGM-88E (2010).

Whats better about the LD10 in actual practice over the AGM88C besides " its newer"?. LD10 is basically just an SD10 converted with anti radiation seeker head. The AGM88E would be a pretty different ball game to the AGM88C or LD10.

From what i read AGM88D never entered operational use. IT was a developmental weapon that eventually lead to the AGM88E. I doubt we would get AGM88E because "circa 2007" viper using software tape 4.2 ( or 4.3) in this timeframe, that is assuming ED would have enough information to model newer Harms.

Whats better about the LD10 in actual practice over the AGM88C besides " its newer"?. LD10 is basically just an SD10 converted with anti radiation seeker head. The AGM88E would be a pretty different ball game to the AGM88C or LD10.

I don't know how it performs IRL but in-game the LD10 is faster and harder to acquire/shot down by SAMs.

Survey filled.

Thank you ED for the attention.

Even with the HTS and HARM the F-16CM will still be an inferior SEAD/DEAD platform to the JF-17 simply because the LD-10 (2012) is so much newer and better than the AGM-88C (1993). I would love if we got the AGM-88D (2003) or even AGM-88E (2010).

Let alone the fact that 88's in DCS often don't even hit anything (no memory mode).

Let alone the fact that 88's in DCS often don't even hit anything (no memory mode).

Not sure if this is so far off from RL.... if you read the Book from Dan Hampton he statet that he fired many Harms but to this day didnt know if even a single one of them actually hit the target.

Maybe the truth is somewhere inbetween the guaranteed hit weapon like in those other sim and something like a 50/50 chance.

There is video on Amazon Prime Smithsonian channel about the F4. You will see a wild weasel pilot describing a mission where he carried and fired 4 HARM missiles and all 4 hit their targets. I don't think the HARM is so much the issue in DCS, its those incredibly accurate defense systems that always shoots them down. I wonder if that is truly accurate.

I don't think the HARM is so much the issue in DCS, its those incredibly accurate defense systems that always shoots them down. I wonder if that is truly accurate.

True. Those defence systems just makes the harm almost useless in dcs.

If you do have a group of like 3 SEAD aircrafts to overwhelm the defence system, mission is as good as never taking off for the mission for a single SEAD flight.

True. Those defence systems just makes the harm almost useless in dcs.

If you do have a group of like 3 SEAD aircrafts to overwhelm the defence system, mission is as good as never taking off for the mission for a single SEAD flight.

That is pretty much the point of SEAD. Don’t have to destroy the anti-air site...just keep their heads down with overwhelming HARM presence so the strikers can ingress/egress unscathed. The “S” in SEAD stands for suppression.

If you're only using Agm's you're really limiting yourself. A better option is multiple aircraft with a dynamic range of weapons. Also don't forget that Sfw are great Sead/dead as well.

Again, I wonder how accurate these defense systems really are at shooting down missile after missile...

If you're only using Agm's you're really limiting yourself. A better option is multiple aircraft with a dynamic range of weapons. Also don't forget that Sfw are great Sead/dead as well.

Even with if you are a hardcore DEAD believer, an ALQ-184 and Semi/Auto CMS modes could come in handy.

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Again, I wonder how accurate these defense systems really are at shooting down missile after missile...

Turkey and Israel seem to have no problem

I wasn't aware that DCS had an alq-184 in its current state. I am speaking real world tactics in it's current state.

I wasn't aware that DCS had an alq-184 in its current state. I am speaking real world tactics in it's current state.

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk