F-16 payload

I didnt see the powerful 30mm gunpod GPU-5/A in DCS:F-16CJ bl.50. That is sad, because its a very interesting kind of weapon. In real world F-16CJ can carry it. I hope DCS will add it.

I didnt see the powerful 30mm gunpod GPU-5/A in DCS:F-16CJ bl.50. That is sad, because its a very interesting kind of weapon. In real world F-16CJ can carry it. I hope DCS will add it.

Was never carried outside of testing by any country, any block.

Concerning the AIM7, IRL the F16 only received the capability to fire the AIM-7 with the BLK 25/30/32 upgrade for the primary US fleet with the F16BLK15 ANF being the first to get this capability in 1989. The american blocks were produced between 1987 and 1989 with the ANF getting sparrows at the same time. But with the AMRAAM coming online in late 1991 there was no need to carry sparrows as the AMRAAM is just the superior missile in every way imaginable and with F15's and F14's doing the heavy lifting A/A wise it wasn't really needed for the USAF. As far as I can tell the capability to carry sparrows was dropped on the blk40/42(?<-maybe no solid evidence so far. Seems some exports of this blk could while other couldn't) and blk50/52.

Now for my two cents... in the end I don't think there is really any debate on whether or not the F16blk50 could not carry the aim-7 and it was only for a few select blocks built just before the introduction of the amraam. I just wanted to summarize what had been found. As a disclaimer in the end no matter what ED does I really don't care. That being said I don't think ED should add the AIM7 to the blk50 as it is inaccurate and it would just be extra work for them. Besides its not like the AIM7 is exactly the best weapon in DCS. IMHO they are still a touch to draggy and with the way the current guidance system is (good summation by GGTharos on what should be in the guidance logic) and how it interacts with chaff just make it borderline unusable. I would much rather they be limited to AIM9's and AIM-120's. Even if the AIM-120's are still to draggy, don't loft right, are no where near maneuverable enough, eat chaff like crazy, etc etc etc (don't really want to get into this debate as that is for another thread) they still have a significant advantage in that they are active missiles. I would actually prefer this as I personally detest weapons restrictions especially considering this is a modern F16 BLK. So if you actually wanted to do a 1980's scenario you would need a BLK30/32 or earlier. Personally I've never understood this argument (just me I know it is important to some people and I truly do empathize here). Besides you need a superior freedom jet. In this case probs the Freedom-14/16 to balance out the F15's :smilewink:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article14.html -- "The APG-66 radar was modified (designated APG-66A) to provide look down/shoot-down capability, enhanced small target detection, and CW (Continuous Wave) illumination for AIM-7 guidance."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article5.html -- "Northrop Grumman ESSD (previously known as Westinghouse) AN/APG-68(V) radar, offering increased range, expanded operating modes, improved ECCM capability and sharper resolution. The AN/APG-68(V) is a considerable advancement over the APG-66 of the F-16A/B. The planar array in the nose provides numerous air-to-air modes, including range-while-search, uplook and velocity search, single target track, raid cluster resolution, and track-while-scan for up to 10 targets. Beyond-visible-range capability has been added in the form of a high-PRF track mode to provide continuous-wave (CW) illumination for guidance of the AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing missile."

I would love to see the Sparrow added as an option, always liked the Sparrow semi active homing fun.

AFAIK, no. Not only programing for the Modular Mission Computer (MMC) and other components, but also wiring to the wing so the aircraft can talk to the missile. It addition, due to its weight, it can only be carried on station 3 and 7. Also, with the AIM-7 on those stations, I am not sure if you would have the physical clearance to carry any other weapons on station 4 and 6 without them hitting the AIM-7 fins if the weapons on station 4 or 6 where ejected or deployed.

 

The problem with this is no matter what ED decides to do, will be a case of dam if you do and dam if you don't. If they add it, someone is bound to "disagree" with it being available. That persons will have people that share the same opinion and they will all do thread after thread on how it should be removed. They same will happen if they don't add the AIM-7.

 

Sadly this will not end here. There is so much misinformation and confusion of what specifically an F-16 can do, there are going to be many thread like this for a while. Before and after it is release.

So ED will create toy Falcons for the Blue Flag Server without BVR capabilities.

Considering ED deem A-10s with Russian skins an acceptable option in DCS, I don't see the downgrade of payload to simulate an earlier version as something to be concerned about. Ultimately it adds options to mission creation without any critical negatives.

I put this thread up here early doors as it will be a request raised by many in the future. There is a clear reason why it shouldn't be added but while it doesn't irk me if it is not added, knowing the mp communities enjoyment of SARH era warfare it's always great to let as many platforms enjoy as many scenarios as possible.

Concerning the AIM7, IRL the F16 only received the capability to fire the AIM-7 with the BLK 25/30/32 upgrade for the primary US fleet with the F16BLK15 ANF being the first to get this capability in 1989. The american blocks were produced between 1987 and 1989 with the ANF getting sparrows at the same time. But with the AMRAAM coming online in late 1991 there was no need to carry sparrows as the AMRAAM is just the superior missile in every way imaginable and with F15's and F14's doing the heavy lifting A/A wise it wasn't really needed for the USAF. As far as I can tell the capability to carry sparrows was dropped on the blk40/42(?<-maybe no solid evidence so far. Seems some exports of this blk could while other couldn't) and blk50/52.

 

Now for my two cents... in the end I don't think there is really any debate on whether or not the F16blk50 could not carry the aim-7 and it was only for a few select blocks built just before the introduction of the amraam. I just wanted to summarize what had been found. As a disclaimer in the end no matter what ED does I really don't care. That being said I don't think ED should add the AIM7 to the blk50 as it is inaccurate and it would just be extra work for them. Besides its not like the AIM7 is exactly the best weapon in DCS. IMHO they are still a touch to draggy and with the way the current guidance system is (good summation by GGTharos on what should be in the guidance logic) and how it interacts with chaff just make it borderline unusable. I would much rather they be limited to AIM9's and AIM-120's. Even if the AIM-120's are still to draggy, don't loft right, are no where near maneuverable enough, eat chaff like crazy, etc etc etc (don't really want to get into this debate as that is for another thread) they still have a significant advantage in that they are active missiles. I would actually prefer this as I personally detest weapons restrictions especially considering this is a modern F16 BLK. So if you actually wanted to do a 1980's scenario you would need a BLK30/32 or earlier. Personally I've never understood this argument (just me I know it is important to some people and I truly do empathize here). Besides you need a superior freedom jet. In this case probs the Freedom-14/16 to balance out the F15's :smilewink:

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article14.html -- "The APG-66 radar was modified (designated APG-66A) to provide look down/shoot-down capability, enhanced small target detection, and CW (Continuous Wave) illumination for AIM-7 guidance."

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article5.html -- "Northrop Grumman ESSD (previously known as Westinghouse) AN/APG-68(V) radar, offering increased range, expanded operating modes, improved ECCM capability and sharper resolution. The AN/APG-68(V) is a considerable advancement over the APG-66 of the F-16A/B. The planar array in the nose provides numerous air-to-air modes, including range-while-search, uplook and velocity search, single target track, raid cluster resolution, and track-while-scan for up to 10 targets. Beyond-visible-range capability has been added in the form of a high-PRF track mode to provide continuous-wave (CW) illumination for guidance of the AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing missile."

As I posted before, generalizations will be one of the many challenges this module will have to face. People see Iraqi F-16C block 52+ with Aim-7 and think all block 52 can carry it.

They see Egypt's block 40 and they say same thing about block 40. But the reality is it depends on the specific country and specific block.

So as of right now, the only F-16 capable of carrying AIM-7 are;

US ANG block 15 ADF and block 25

Egypt's block 40

ROCAF block 20 and 52

Iraqi Block 52

Not one of them the module we are getting in DCS. I am open to being proven wrong. If anyone can find a circa 2007, block 50 USAF F-16 with AIM-7 loaded in the air with tail code SW, WW or SP, show me please. Even better if anyone can find a USAF Technical Order (T.O.) 1F-16CM-1-1, 1F-16CM-1-2, 1F-16CM-34-1-1 and 1F-16CM-34-1-1-1 circa 2007 we can know for sure what weapons could be carried.

Keep in mind tail code ED form Edwards AFB, ET or OT from Eglin AFB and WA from Nellis AFB do a lot of testing and evaluation and do not match operational F-16 capabilities.

Edit

The list is wrong. ROCAF does not have block 52. The list should be

So as of right now, the only F-16 capable of carrying AIM-7 are;

US ANG block 15 ADF and block 25

Egypt's block 40

ROCAF block 20

Singapore block 52

Iraqi Block 52

Considering ED deem A-10s with Russian skins an acceptable option in DCS, I don't see the downgrade of payload to simulate an earlier version as something to be concerned about. Ultimately it adds options to mission creation without any critical negatives.

 

I put this thread up here early doors as it will be a request raised by many in the future. There is a clear reason why it shouldn't be added but while it doesn't irk me if it is not added, knowing the mp communities enjoyment of SARH era warfare it's always great to let as many platforms enjoy as many scenarios as possible.

Could we put AIM-7 on the A-10C, Mig-29, SU-27 as well then? I am game for that.

sparrows to any A/C

for you, mvsgas:

all sparrow is launchable without accident

flanker_with_swarrows.miz

You know what makes me laugh about these kinds of thread, is how fast people are willing to hang someone asking something a bit offset realisticly from their comfortable virtual reality world, in other words, why in hell would bother any of you even though the AIM-7 would be in? Will it totaly break your own little virtual experience from flying the Viper? I can understand developpers defending this as it's more job for them, but as custumer, it totaly makes me laugh, i love the Hornet, it's my fav, i want the realistic ont he modeling, system working, but i would so don'T care ven though someone would be able to load a H-Bomb on his station if that's fun for him, it would in no way affect my own personal experience, i fly the thing i want the way i want, don't mind for others.

Just don'T use it if you're not happy, or some might come up and say « well he'd be using this and that on public servers » i'd simply reply » who cares anyways if he'd be able to put some AIM-7's on his viper, in any cases on servers people only cares about having hundred AIM-120's to spam them, so even if we had modeled a huge pouch of potatoes and use it on any stations, it wouldn't makes any difference ».

One day they should make a reality show on TV with the fights going on in DCS when someone wants something not possible for an aircraft, i always end up laughing when i read the famous « it wouldn't be realistic ».

So having on an more modern aicraft using an older payload is not realistic... then i'm off to fly a bit in DCS now in peace and quiet, gonna grab the realisticly added M-2000 from the USA aircraft fleet Armada list, see ya ll :)

I don't even know why i'm posting here and taking the OP's side, as it's not realistic at all from my side, i'll never buy the Viper module. :music_whistling:

Can we get AIM-54 too and while we are at it can we get those laser pods from AC7?

Thanks.

Forget the AIM-7 compatibility, what about the ability to load conformal fuel tanks. Considering that this is a USAF focused F-16, I doubt they will add that but we can at least hope. Or maybe they will eventually add other foreign F-16s that can use the CFTs like Greece or Poland.

So ED will create toy Falcons for the Blue Flag Server without BVR capabilities.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Can we have the sparrows on the F-5 as well? I mean the F-20 Tigershark which is effectively an upgraded F-5E could carry them!

I guess in reality I don’t care what happens in the MP servers as I don’t fly for air quake, but if the intent is to simulate a block 50 USAF F-16C then that is what we should get (within the limits of a simulation). I would love to see a HUG AF-18A simulated but we have a block 20 F/A-18C so no ASRAAM or land based ILS for me (which doesn’t stop me slapping a RAAF skin on it!)

F-5 and f-20 is similar but are different.

i remember this project.

Forget the AIM-7 compatibility, what about the ability to load conformal fuel tanks. Considering that this is a USAF focused F-16, I doubt they will add that but we can at least hope. Or maybe they will eventually add other foreign F-16s that can use the CFTs like Greece or Poland.

I hope they will prevent eye cancer and not add them.

Why not. I know the US never clear the F-16 to use CFT, but just like how heatblur is adding the crazy bombloads for the F-14 as a fictional loadout, what is stopping ED from doing the same for the F-16 as a fictional loadout if the US actually did adopt CFT for frontline use (ideally for SEAD)

well you're dealing with the side of the playerbase that doesnt actually care about the airplane

they just want stuff

I’m only wishing that at some point we can get some of those extra stuff. Besides I’m perfectly fine with the current roadmap for the F-16 as is.

AIM-7 on a Block 52 Viper.

AIM-7 on a Block 52 Viper.

 

We will get block 50 not 52.:doh:

Are we even sure that this is a Block 52?

Those are AIM-9Ps aside from the Sparrow... anceint stuff you know... and it doesn't even seem to be hanging from the pylon, rather looks like it is hang from an adapter of sorts.

Photos like these don't mean much usually. People put all sorts of random ordnance under aircraft in these kinds of displays on ground. Even photos of flying with a particular payload is actually not proof of ability to use that payload, as tests can be conducted with just carrying them, but not launching them. There are many examples of that too.

AIM-7 on a Block 52 Viper.

 

The photo is from aircraft 92-0266 Republic of Singapore Air Force

So as of right now, the only F-16 capable of carrying AIM-7 are;

US ANG block 15 ADF and block 25

Egypt's block 40

ROCAF block 20

Singapore block 52

Iraqi Block 52

As I posted before

The only photos, videos or manuals that will be relative to this module (if it stays the same and nothing changes, which we all know it can) Would have to be from Shaw AFB (tail code SW), Misawa AB (Tail code WW) and Spangdahlem AB (tail code SP) circa 2007. By this time Cannon AFB had lost its block 50 IIRC. No other unit used this F-16 operationally.