Questions About The F-16

Hi,

I am most likely going to pre-order the F-16 in the coming days. I would like to know a few things about it!

-If the Sniper XR is not available, which Litening variant are we going to see?

-What kinds of liveries are planned for it? (Any tigermeet type liveries, or are they all going to ke AF standard?)

-Are there any plans for triple racs for the mavericks or dual racs for A2A missiles?

-Are there any pictures of the interior cockpit panel lights?

-Will there be a IFF function on release? (If not, when will it be available)

-How powerful of a radar does it have? (How far can it see and lock targets?)

-Is Wags going to do a video tutorial series on it? (I find them super useful!)

-What will the power to weight ratio be compared to the hornet?

-Will the JHMCS be able to interact with the targeting pod? (Even if its Litening or Sniper?)

I will most likely pre-order it no matter the answer! :pilotfly:

The F-16 is indeed tempting. Some of your questions and time of availability of those features are answered in the thread introducing the F-16.

I can't link it right now. You can look it up.

Cheers

Hi,

I am most likely going to pre-order the F-16 in the coming days. I would like to know a few things about it!

 

-If the Sniper XR is not available, which Litening variant are we going to see?

-What kinds of liveries are planned for it? (Any tigermeet type liveries, or are they all going to ke AF standard?)

-Are there any plans for triple racs for the mavericks or dual racs for A2A missiles?

-Are there any pictures of the interior cockpit panel lights?

-Will there be a IFF function on release? (If not, when will it be available)

-How powerful of a radar does it have? (How far can it see and lock targets?)

-Is Wags going to do a video tutorial series on it? (I find them super useful!)

-What will the power to weight ratio be compared to the hornet?

-Will the JHMCS be able to interact with the targeting pod? (Even if its Litening or Sniper?)

 

I will most likely pre-order it no matter the answer! :pilotfly:

This should be what you're looking for i think, has all the details of what will be there for the F-16

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2019-02-15_Beta/

As for the specific questions,

-Are there any plans for triple racs for the mavericks or dual racs for A2A missiles? I've read somewhere on the forum that the triple Maverick was not an actual thing used in operation while it was used for training (If i remember correct), i think i remember Wags saying they would/could allow it ingame even though not realistic.

-Are there any pictures of the interior cockpit panel lights? There is a few threads sharing pictures of the F-16, you could find one with cockpit panel light, but not 100% sure.

-Is Wags going to do a video tutorial series on it? (I find them super useful!). I think i can remember Wags having replied to that already saying there would be, just like the series he does on the F-18.

If I may add a question here that might fit in:

Can we expect that a lot of what is done for the Hornet for months now will be a benefit for the Viper? E.g. IFF, Mavericks, JDAMs, AA radar modes, TGP, ECM, ...

Is it too naive to think that the Viper should have a lot more systems running at release or at least get it much faster than the Hornet after?

Tom thats the hope/theory at least. The backend of some of those systems should be more or less identical. Just with a different looking front end implementation.

-What will the power to weight ratio be compared to the hornet?

-Will the JHMCS be able to interact with the targeting pod? (Even if its Litening or Sniper?)

1. Much better power to weight ratio than the Hornet. The big engined F-16s are a real hot rod.

2. Yes

I just hope that ED will give F-16 a TPOD in a first place.

Hornet shows that having GBU, JDAM or even MAV without it is not a best thing.

I just hope that ED will give F-16 a TPOD in a first place.

 

Hornet shows that having GBU, JDAM or even MAV without it is not a best thing.

Yet many wars were fought and won without Tpods... I wonder how that was possible.

Yet many wars were fought and won without Tpods... I wonder how that was possible.

I don't understand your comment...This is a discussion about the DCS F-16...a 2007 USAF version, not a Sopwith Camel, Mustang, Sabre, Phantom, etc. The F-16 flys in a world where smart weapons and targeting pods exist and wars are fought with.

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.

The DCS Hornet is still missing systems and capabilities it had in the early 90's.

 

US Air Force F-16's never served in combat without the capability of having a targeting pod.

In 1991 most of the USAF F-16s in combat had no such capability - the only system available was LANTIRN (AAQ-14) that could only be carried by the few USAF Block 40 squadrons.

Unfortunately they were never allocated any during that period - they all went to F-15E squads instead.

In 1991 most of the USAF F-16s in combat had no such capability - the only system available was LANTIRN (AAQ-14) that could only be carried by the few USAF Block 40 squadrons.

 

Unfortunately they were never allocated any during that period - they all went to F-15E squads instead.

I just finished reading Vipers in the Storm, and some F-16's did indeed have and use the LANTIRN in Desert Storm. The author of the book was LANTIRN qualified and utilized it during combat against Iraq in the book.

I don't understand your comment...This is a discussion about the DCS F-16...a 2007 USAF version, not a Sopwith Camel, Mustang, Sabre, Phantom, etc. The F-16 flys in a world where smart weapons and targeting pods exist and wars are fought with.

 

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.

 

The DCS Hornet is still missing systems and capabilities it had in the early 90's.

because EA. its simply not fully finished yet.

that being said i would think the Litening 2 should come for the F16 in EA pretty early on if we are already slated to get Litening 2 for the F18C in Open beta build by early July if not very end of June.

I just finished reading Vipers in the Storm, and some F-16's did indeed have and use the LANTIRN in Desert Storm. The author of the book was LANTIRN qualified and utilized it during combat against Iraq in the book.

They only had the AAQ-13 which is the NAV/FLIR pod not the TGP pod (AAQ-14).

Actually if you go to the last but one photo page you can see one of the guys taking off on a combat mission with the AAQ-13 on the left cheek and nothing on the right cheek.

If I may add a question here that might fit in:

Can we expect that a lot of what is done for the Hornet for months now will be a benefit for the Viper? E.g. IFF, Mavericks, JDAMs, AA radar modes, TGP, ECM, ...

Yes, Wags has said that much of the work done on the Hornet can transfer over to the Viper.

I don't understand your comment...This is a discussion about the DCS F-16...a 2007 USAF version, not a Sopwith Camel, Mustang, Sabre, Phantom, etc. The F-16 flys in a world where smart weapons and targeting pods exist and wars are fought with.

 

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.

 

The DCS Hornet is still missing systems and capabilities it had in the early 90's.

When I worked on F-4E's back in 1978 in the 33rd TFW at Eglin AFB, Florida, the 58th TFS mission was primarily air-to-ground and was equipped with the AN/AVQ-23 PAVE SPIKE laser designator pods. F-4D and F-4E models carried the pods from 1974 until 1989. So, not stone age. More like bronze. :)

I don't understand your comment...This is a discussion about the DCS F-16...a 2007 USAF version, not a Sopwith Camel, Mustang, Sabre, Phantom, etc. The F-16 flys in a world where smart weapons and targeting pods exist and wars are fought with.

 

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.

 

The DCS Hornet is still missing systems and capabilities it had in the early 90's.

I have no problem if the F-16 we get has all the basic weapons minus the TGP if it gives them more time fix any potential bugs with the pod. The Minimum Viable Product will still be a joy to fly and kill with just like the F/A-18.

While it is true that many USAF F-16s now operate with TGP for ground pounding, the Viper is still very effective with simple unguided weapons. Just look at Israel's combat history in the 1980s, or the USAF deployment of F-16s during the Second Gulf War of 1991.

Yes, Wags has said that much of the work done on the Hornet can transfer over to the Viper.

Ty. So I won't have to worry too much. I will sure have a lot of fun with the early access Viper.

I don't understand your comment...This is a discussion about the DCS F-16...a 2007 USAF version, not a Sopwith Camel, Mustang, Sabre, Phantom, etc. The F-16 flys in a world where smart weapons and targeting pods exist and wars are fought with.

 

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.

 

The DCS Hornet is still missing systems and capabilities it had in the early 90's.

In the context of the previous comment it means people are using pgms wrong in game because they dont understand how they are actually employed. You dont need a tpod on your plane to use jdams, or mavs. You use jdams like a delivery driver, you fly to the release point and drop them on whatever. Mavs are a bit more dynamic, but same idea. Where this all falls apart is on the "tank plinking" online servers which have no relationship to the reality of how air warfare is conducted. Amd people moaning to no end about having to punch in coordinates. Yes a tpod is needed to self or buddy lase LGBs or Lmavs, but thats not a critical functionalty IMO. Especially for tank plinking.

In the context of the previous comment it means people are using pgms wrong in game because they dont understand how they are actually employed. You dont need a tpod on your plane to use jdams, or mavs. You use jdams like a delivery driver, you fly to the release point and drop them on whatever. Mavs are a bit more dynamic, but same idea. Where this all falls apart is on the "tank plinking" online servers which have no relationship to the reality of how air warfare is conducted. Amd people moaning to no end about having to punch in coordinates. Yes a tpod is needed to self or buddy lase LGBs or Lmavs, but thats not a critical functionalty IMO. Especially for tank plinking.

Roger that...good explanation.

Question for those more knowledgeable than me. I fly Cessna 172 real world, fly A10c and F18c in DCS (barely competently). While I have barely scratched the surface of F18 I’m so tempted by the F16 taking me back to my Falcon simulator days. Pros and Cons should I buy the old F14 because it’s gorgeous and out now or should I wait and go for the Viper? Appreciate any thoughts anyone is willing to provide.

Thanks guys and girls

Question for those more knowledgeable than me. I fly Cessna 172 real world, fly A10c and F18c in DCS (barely competently). While I have barely scratched the surface of F18 I’m so tempted by the F16 taking me back to my Falcon simulator days. Pros and Cons should I buy the old F14 because it’s gorgeous and out now or should I wait and go for the Viper? Appreciate any thoughts anyone is willing to provide.

Thanks guys and girls

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. You can get months and months of enjoyment out of the F-14 now.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. You can get months and months of enjoyment out of the F-14 now.

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

In the context of the previous comment it means people are using pgms wrong in game because they dont understand how they are actually employed. You dont need a tpod on your plane to use jdams, or mavs. You use jdams like a delivery driver, you fly to the release point and drop them on whatever. Mavs are a bit more dynamic, but same idea. Where this all falls apart is on the "tank plinking" online servers which have no relationship to the reality of how air warfare is conducted. Amd people moaning to no end about having to punch in coordinates. Yes a tpod is needed to self or buddy lase LGBs or Lmavs, but thats not a critical functionalty IMO. Especially for tank plinking.

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.

Yet many wars were fought and won without Tpods... I wonder how that was possible.

i dont know m8, many wars were fought and won before the advent of aircraft. I wonder how this was possible:smartass:

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

lol