ECM pod

NATO F-16 operators are following likewise. Even Poland is getting 100 F-35A to replace F-16C BK50.

Incorrect

The F-35's are replacing their MiG-29's, not the F-16's

The radar can perform an ECM function, but the jamming pod can operate much more broad-band. It can jam things that the radar couldn't hope to reach, radio-frequency wise.

So for those 72 F-16s that will eventually receive the new radar, would that make the ECM pods redundant or will the new radar lack a jamming mode?

A pod will also cover the rear quarter, you know, when you're egressing. ;)

Though i have no official sources for this, just my own understanding on the matter which is only based on a few reads over the course of the years and some combat-simming experience.

I believe the externally mounted pod instead of the internal module is for a matter of convenience.

It's certainly easier to maintain / replace when you compare it to an internal module, plus it allows for "choices" on which type of pod to carry, based perhaps on base's availability, unit's cost, threat level, tasks and so on. It also allows for flexibility in case you don't actually need it, since you can just remove the pod and save yourself the extra weight, whereas the internal module is always there even if you don't need it.

It's true that you do end up losing the center line pylon for an ecm pod, but is also true that said center line is rarely used in actual combat scenarios, as you'd tend to prefer the double tank on the wings for the extra fuel, especially in CAP-kind of tasks, where you need a lot of time on station and still be able to drop the extra fuel (and consequent weight) and gain the needed agility and performance for an actual engagement. Anyone correct me if i'm wrong of course.

Though i have no official sources for this, just my own understanding on the matter which is only based on a few reads over the course of the years and some combat-simming experience.

I believe the externally mounted pod instead of the internal module is for a matter of convenience.

It's certainly easier to maintain / replace when you compare it to an internal module, plus it allows for "choices" on which type of pod to carry, based perhaps on base's availability, unit's cost, threat level, tasks and so on. It also allows for flexibility in case you don't actually need it, since you can just remove the pod and save yourself the extra weight, whereas the internal module is always there even if you don't need it.

 

It's true that you do end up losing the center line pylon for an ecm pod, but is also true that said center line is rarely used in actual combat scenarios, as you'd tend to prefer the double tank on the wings for the extra fuel, especially in CAP-kind of tasks, where you need a lot of time on station and still be able to drop the extra fuel (and consequent weight) and gain the needed agility and performance for an actual engagement. Anyone correct me if i'm wrong of course.

Yes but DCSace will whine that he can't carry an extra 6 spamrams in that configuration.

" Externally, the F-16C is almost identical to the F-16A. The only significant external difference is the introduction on the F-16C of an enlarged triangular base or "island" on the rear fuselage leading up to the vertical fin, with a small blade antenna protruding upward from it. This extra space was originally intended to house the Westinghouse/ITT AN/ALQ-165 ASPJ (Airborne Self-Protection Jammer) that is used on Navy aircraft. The USAFs ASPJ program became mired in controversy in 1989-90, followed by the USAF's withdrawal from the project in January 1990. As a result, the ASPJ was never fitted in USAF F-16s. "

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article5.html

" Externally, the F-16C is almost identical to the F-16A. The only significant external difference is the introduction on the F-16C of an enlarged triangular base or "island" on the rear fuselage leading up to the vertical fin, with a small blade antenna protruding upward from it. This extra space was originally intended to house the Westinghouse/ITT AN/ALQ-165 ASPJ (Airborne Self-Protection Jammer) that is used on Navy aircraft. The USAFs ASPJ program became mired in controversy in 1989-90, followed by the USAF's withdrawal from the project in January 1990. As a result, the ASPJ was never fitted in USAF F-16s. "

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article5.html

So they could have but never did.

Also wondering IF F16C airframe is really otherwise identical to the F16A. why do all Mid Life F16A' simply have updated AN/APG66's ( IE V1/V2 etc) instead of just reffitting them with AN/APG68 (v) radars which are more powerfull to various An/APG66 contemporary versions?

So they could have but never did.

 

 

Also wondering IF F16C airframe is really otherwise identical to the F16A. why do all Mid Life F16A' simply have updated AN/APG66's ( IE V1/V2 etc) instead of just reffitting them with AN/APG68 (v) radars which are more powerfull to various An/APG66 contemporary versions?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html

 

Also wondering IF F16C airframe is really otherwise identical to the F16A. why do all Mid Life F16A' simply have updated AN/APG66's ( IE V1/V2 etc) instead of just reffitting them with AN/APG68 (v) radars which are more powerfull to various An/APG66 contemporary versions?

The APG-66V 2 was quite a significant upgrade that apparently demonstrated performance near to the APG-68 of that time - was also a bit lighter.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html

i know what the MLU is.....

F16 net hat still doesn't answer why upgrading the AN/APG66 was chosen over the AN/APG68 if the airframe would allow for it.

The APG-66V 2 was quite a significant upgrade that apparently demonstrated performance near to the APG-68 of that time - was also a bit lighter.

so it was short sightness since AN/APG 68 still had more upgrade potential ( see V9).

so it was short sightness since AN/APG 68 still had more upgrade potential ( see V9).

I really don't know - most likely they thought the next step would be replace with something else - unlikely to be political because APG-68 was exported to various non primary countries by then.

Taiwan (ROC) had the very similar APG-66 v 3 around the same time but they are currently replacing them with APG-83 which will also be replacing APG-68s from now.

Hello everyone! A question about the ECM pods used by the F-16. I have noticed that the most used are AN / ALQ 131 and AN / ALQ 184. Which of the two is the most modern and which are the differences also regarding the missions to be performed. Thanks in advance for the information and good waiting for the Viper!

Which of the two is the most modern and which are the differences also regarding the missions to be performed.

The 184 is a newer and more aerodynamic pod than the 131, despite being a modified version of the older ALQ-119. There are also 'deep' and 'shallow' versions of each that are differently configured. Unfortunately any in-depth info about ECM is highly classified, and from my understanding, electronic warfare is only simulated at a pretty basic level in DCS. For example, IIRC in the A-10C there is no difference in capability between the two pods. The level of secrecy surrounding these systems means that info about exact capabilities and mission sets for each pod is most likely not something that we can or should be getting our hands on. If you're interested in the history and some unclassified details about the technology of these two pods, there's a post in this thread on F-16.net from someone who apparently worked on designing them.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=12353&sid=7d5e0c4f067e8249fbe71dceed9e8686

"mu110" many thanks for your reply!!!

Hello everyone! A question about the ECM pods used by the F-16. I have noticed that the most used are AN / ALQ 131 and AN / ALQ 184. Which of the two is the most modern and which are the differences also regarding the missions to be performed. Thanks in advance for the information and good waiting for the Viper!

Both pods are updated and upgraded regularly. They are both just as capable. Its matter of what is available to each unit, at a specific location at a specific time.

So if you are interested:

Look at USAFE.af.mil, spangdahlem.af.mil, and Aviano.af.mil. What pod do they carry?

Now look at PACAF.af.mil, Osan.af.mil, Kunsan.af.mil, and Misawa.af.mil

Finally look at ACC.af.mil, Shaw.af.mil

So for those 72 F-16s that will eventually receive the new radar, would that make the ECM pods redundant or will the new radar lack a jamming mode?

No.

The external pods are here to stay.

Lots of good discussion here, but a few take aways:

You will never see the pod on a wing station. It just doesn't make sense, will create a huge stores config limitation (you will likely be in the asymmetric category which reduces your ops limits to lower G/Air speed) and you're taking away a weapons store you probably badly need. It will be centerline always.

ECM is a huge part of BVR that I seldom see reproduced accurately in DCS or any other flight sim, and honestly it's way better that way. It overly complicates things airborne in realtime, and just wouldn't be that fun to deal with. About the best application in the sim would be how it affects your survival against SAM engagements but that's now treading into a realm of guessing since you won't have the full technical data or numbers to put this together.

I'm very interested to see how this get's implemented by the ED team.