closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[Dee-Jay]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

Isn't that a live missile?

 

Yes absolutely, it could be a live missile (but I must admit that I don't see well on your picture).

I would even say that, if test conducted was about the 4/7 perfo and flight test, it shall better be a "live" missile to get the exact weight and GC than is real conditions.

But as you know, it still do not tells us if they ever been launched from that station, even from test Edwards test a/c. (But I humbly think that at least those one were modified to allow the launch/jett test. Or at least jettison test, but this is only a personal guess with not a single clues).

Edited February 26, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[randomTOTEN]

https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-16A-Fighting-Falcon-401/992538/L

 

So an Edwards F-16A on display at an airshow.

 

EDIT: Would the USAF really mount explosives, then invite the public in close proximity?... I've never really asked that question before lol.

Edited February 26, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[Dee-Jay]

A flight certification is not a matter of peace time vs war time. It is not allowed to fly with. Period.

 

@RandomToten:

"Display" is not necessarily for "public" (regular civilian) and can be (quite often BTW) for high rank authorities or industrial representatives.

Live ordnance are not dangerous for public. Much less than an hydrazine leak.

 

Are they actually true live missiles (?) We see an orange ring. Aren't they actually bronze color?

 

 

...

 

I don't see what point you are trying to prove ... (?) ... you won't prove anything with only this. Not that they can be launch, nor the opposite.

Again, personally I believe that ED a/c could launch AGM-88 from inner pylons for tests. But it change nothing to the fact that "regular" USAF airframe can't and finding prove that special test a/c can won't serve to advocate 4*HARM on the "regular" DCS F-16 BLK50.

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[randomTOTEN]

7 hours ago, Dee-Jay said:

"Display" is not necessarily for "public" (regular civilian) and can be (quite often BTW) for high rank authorities or industrial representatives.

True, the photographer of this:

...states, "On display at the Edwards Air Force Base Open House," in 1999, which I interpret as this event: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-08-me-20187-story.html which is a public airshow. I highly suspect he is a civilian member of the public.

 

7 hours ago, Dee-Jay said:

Live ordnance are not dangerous for public. Much less than an hydrazine leak.

These are excellent points.

[Spectre1-1]

sorry to be the party pooper but the planes 3/4 stations aren't wired for it.
source: Scrape's post, you get the pleasure of arguing about that with him if you want to verify his credentials

[=Panther=]

4 hours ago, Spectre1-1 said:

sorry to be the party pooper but the planes 3/4 stations aren't wired for it.
source: Scrape's post, you get the pleasure of arguing about that with him if you want to verify his credentials

I think you mean 4/6 but we already discussed that a few times already.

[Furiz]

4 hours ago, Spectre1-1 said:

sorry to be the party pooper but the planes 3/4 stations aren't wired for it.
source: Scrape's post, you get the pleasure of arguing about that with him if you want to verify his credentials

 

Your source is a forum post... I'm glad ED doesn't follow your footsteps.

[Dee-Jay]

5 hours ago, Furiz said:

 

Your source is a forum post... I'm glad ED doesn't follow your footsteps.

 

"Be careful" to such kind of shortcut Furiz. Basically you are right. But ...

It is easy to know, by discussing "off line", if a member of a forum if reliable or not. Or at least in good faith. VERY easy actually.

The "counter example" it also true ... sometimes : an "SME" is not always that much right as we could think. Most of the time, for good reasons. For example, let take a pilot, he do not know everything about his plane. And on many cases, a engine specialist or a crew chief ... will have more reliable info. and even sometimes a "simple" passionate because some ppl read all the books entirety and knows them by heart where most of the pilots do not. And I can tell you this because recently, I've learned something about my own plane from somebody who never flew onboard.

Sometimes also ... an SME can be wrong about something simply because he didn't understood the question or because the question has been badly asked. And ... SME is like anybody else, they are human ... can make mistakes. Finally, a forum member can be an SME. The same way, an SME is not always a forum member.

What is a shame is that exchanges about that is mostly unilateral. It is not a discussion ... it is a one way road.

[Scrape]

7 hours ago, Furiz said:

 

Your source is a forum post... I'm glad ED doesn't follow your footsteps.

 

This is the what he was getting at.  I'll repost here to clarify why some people bring my name up in this discussion since its buried several pages back on a different discussion.  

 

Link to post:  

 

 

 

 

Posted September 28, 2020

Outside of the factory and depo maintenance only one career field will wire a weapons harness for a wing on an F-16 when on station. Wing changes are completed on station. The only, not avionics, not crew chiefs, not anyone but 2W1 Weapons Troops will wire the wing of an F-16 for all weapon stations. When it comes to which wires and buses are present there is no greater SME on the flightline. Why? Because the wing harness comes as one piece and must be dissembled and then reassembled when installed on the wing with wires ran to their specific stations. I'm a Weapons Troop, and have spent 13 of my 20 years working F-16s in 4 units, 3 of which happened to be SEAD units.

 

I'm posting not to make controversy, but to set the record straight. It is not an operational limitation to not carry HARMs on sta 4&6. There is no 1553 bus for 4&6. The 1553 bus is for 3&7 and sits near to the JRIU. No 1553 bus, means no 1760 capability for 4&6. No smart weapons, no JDAM, etc. That means only conventional stores can be reliably employed there. There's no "double braid" bundle for those who might know a thing or two. There is also no video line for sta 4&6. This means no AGM-65s either. I saw it mentioned that the AGM-65 and AGM-88 use different video lines. This is false. It's the same line. No video, no 1760 capability on 4&6 for any US F-16 unit. No variations.

 

What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so. It's not feasible in terms of cost or man hours. It's not something that could be done in days. Each jet would take weeks of maintenance to convert, not to mention the cost of a redesigned harness.

 

How can it be so confusing? If what I'm saying is true then how is there conflicting data? This is an easy mistake looking from the outside in. If one were to look at a wiring diagram, then they might come upon a T connector at the wing disconnect. This connector has three ports. A single on one side, and two on the other. This T connector, one on each side of the F-16 at the wing disconnect is a video line junction. The single plug goes forward toward the SMS, and there is a plug for sta 3&4 on the left side and correspondingly 6&7 on the right. They are labelled in the wire diagram. The 4&6 plugs of that T connector are capped. Without intimate knowledge of the system, it would be easy to make a mistake.

 

The F-16 is approved to fly with 88s on 4&6? Yes it is. However any reference to an SCL does not tell nor should it be interpreted that the missile was fired or employed from a particular station. There is no firing of munitions during SCL testing. All the SCL can tell you, it's one and only job, is to confirm that the aircraft is aerodynamically sound in flight and can be operated in the air without undue stress to the pilot or airframe with a particular loadout.

 

Any reference to test aircraft. Don't count. There's a book worth of reasons why, but test aircraft should never be considered when asking what if, because test birds are what ifs in and of themselves. Also, a test bird doesn't have to be at Edwards to be a test bird.

 

I'm not posting to make an opinion about what ED is or is not doing with 4&6. I'm trying to shed a little light on real world F-16s because the community seems to have lots of questions in this regard with a search for the truth.

 

I'm not coming from a position of being well read. Because of how a wiring harness must be installed, you get to know every single pin, because you'll be wiring every single pin for each station. Connect every matrix and multiplex bus. It's not an easy job, and not one that everyone is chosen to qualify for. The best guys still take a couple weeks to finish one side.

 

I hope this helps shed a little understanding on where the real world jet sits on the matter, and why.

[Scrape]

1 hour ago, Dee-Jay said:

 

"Be careful" to such kind of shortcut Furiz. Basically you are right. But ...

It is easy to know, by discussing "off line", if a member of a forum if reliable or not. Or at least in good faith. VERY easy actually.

The "counter example" it also true ... sometimes : an "SME" is not always that much right as we could think. Most of the time, for good reasons. For example, let take a pilot, he do not know everything about his plane. And on many cases, a engine specialist or a crew chief ... will have more reliable info. and even sometimes a "simple" passionate because some ppl read all the books entirety and knows them by heart where most of the pilots do not. And I can tell you this because recently, I've learned something about my own plane from somebody who never flew onboard.

Sometimes also ... an SME can be wrong about something simply because he didn't understood the question or because the question has been badly asked. And ... SME is like anybody else, they are human ... can make mistakes. Finally, a forum member can be an SME. The same way, an SME is not always a forum member.

What is a shame is that exchanges about that is mostly unilateral. It is not a discussion ... it is a one way road.

 I agree with what you bring up here.  Often the nuance of information and the context of where a person sits in the chain of events, the difference between creator, maintainer, and end user is often mushed into a blob of all knowing.  It's a challenge to parse that out and explain how that works.  Especially when the thing being discussed is complex as it is.  It's when someone ask you something like, you didn't realize that this panel changed shape between year X vs X?  How could you not know, you touch it everyday?  Inside your head, you might be thinking, because I never cared what shape the panel was, it's a panel, it's either open or closed.  

[Frederf]

I have this head theory Scrape and I wanted to run it past you. It's only marginally related to the topic and it might be impossible to answer even with someone with your insight.

 

My theory is that in the primordial days of F-16 development there were made four "video connection" potential for 3/4/6/7 but at some point someone realized that sacrificing 4/6 to "double up" on 3/7 allowed more functionality, possibly Quick Draw for Maverick. The second connection being used for the next missile on the station so essentially there are two simultaneous connections to station 3 for example.

[Furiz]

I understand where are you coming from and I have read your post Scrape, I'm not saying you are lying just trying to point out that you might not be aware of everything, if you did work on F-16 you didn't work on every one of them right?

what if there was a few units of F-16 fitted and wired to operate HARM from 4 and 6? you may not be aware of that.

 

Then another question, why did ED model this F-16 to be able to operate HARM from all 4 stations, they do have some sources.

 

I don't know as much as you about the systems and wires etc etc..., but I don't believe it is ok for ED to change some system based on some forum post with no docs to support. And I'm not asking for docs, I know it cant be posted, but you can tell ED where to ask for them.

After all I want our F-16 sim to be as accurate as possible, be it 2 or 4 HARM.

 

But people here just blindly believe in everything, you made an educated post, and yea it is well said, and there you go like 70% supporters that will die for it;D

And all we know you might just be well read and laughing at all this behind your screen

[dundun92]

~ignore, webpage had not updated to latest post when I made my message~

Edited February 28, 2021 by dundun92

[Scrape]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

I understand where are you coming from and I have read your post Scrape, I'm not saying you are lying just trying to point out that you might not be aware of everything, if you did work on F-16 you didn't work on every one of them right?

what if there was a few units of F-16 fitted and wired to operate HARM from 4 and 6? you may not be aware of that.

 

Then another question, why did ED model this F-16 to be able to operate HARM from all 4 stations, they do have some sources.

 

I don't know as much as you about the systems and wires etc etc..., but I don't believe it is ok for ED to change some system based on some forum post with no docs to support. And I'm not asking for docs, I know it cant be posted, but you can tell ED where to ask for them.

After all I want our F-16 sim to be as accurate as possible, be it 2 or 4 HARM.

 

But people here just blindly believe in everything, you made an educated post, and yea it is well said, and there you go like 70% supporters that will die for it;D

And all we know you might just be well read and laughing at all this behind your screen

No offense taken from if anyone who doesn't agree.  From theory of operation, to application, to wire impedance the meat and potatoes of what I said cannot be challenged.  I get that you don't know me personally, but you won't be able to find anyone else that's knowledgeable, from the perspective I've described, on the subject that would disagree.  

 

To answer your question about what if there was a few F-16s fitted and wired....

 

It doesn't work that way.  I can explain how and why it doesn't work that way, but I'll leave it to you if you would like to go that route in the conversation rather than offer a deluge of operational examples on the why your what if question is not possible for multiple reasons.  The F-16 upgrade program does not work the way you might think it could work.  In short, versions are standardized, for all of the logistical reasons you may imagine.  Upgrades are not mysterious, at a certain level we are aware of what unit X has going on, and there are reasons for that too.  If you can't imagine I think I can offer a couple examples if you like.  

 

The other question of why did ED model the F-16 to fire HARMS from 4&6...

 

That's the big money question for a lot of people because of what I've explained.  ED spokespersons have stated they have documentation.  I tried to explain how that documentation could be misleading.  Not that I know what ED's documentation is, I don't know what they have.  However I'm comfortable with this subject that I can take some guesses on what it could be, and ED should not be blamed for intentionally getting this one wrong, or not doing their research.  I'm sure they did.  Because this specific why of the system in the F-16 it's not something that is apparent outside of people intimate with the weapons system.  A pilot, Crew Chief or Avionics troop would have no idea of the why or be able to match my explanation, for example.  It's an honest mistake kind of situation.  I don't have an opinion on how ED should handle the situation.  That's up to them.  

 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Scrape

[Scrape]

1 hour ago, Frederf said:

I have this head theory Scrape and I wanted to run it past you. It's only marginally related to the topic and it might be impossible to answer even with someone with your insight.

 

My theory is that in the primordial days of F-16 development there were made four "video connection" potential for 3/4/6/7 but at some point someone realized that sacrificing 4/6 to "double up" on 3/7 allowed more functionality, possibly Quick Draw for Maverick. The second connection being used for the next missile on the station so essentially there are two simultaneous connections to station 3 for example.

Evidence points to this as being the case in part.  F-16s were built for the option, but there is a but.  Early F-16s were fielded during the days of Integrated Combat Turns or ICTs.  An ICT was where the aircraft would be turned for another sortie without the pilot getting out or shutting the engine down.  The aircraft would be loaded, serviced, and fueled all at the same time with the engine running.  Then the jet would taxi right back out and complete another sortie.  Effective ICTs could double a sortie rate in a given time period or at least increase sortie generation by 50%.  That was meant to translate into the enemy being pummeled by constant pressure in a seemingly non-stop flow of fighters flowing into the target area.  This practice was phased out by the Blk 30 era of F-16s.  That could be, a factor, not a whole reason, but consideration why the initial design considered 4&6 as potential smart weapon capable.

 

Another factor could be space.  There's not a lot of it.  It's remarkably tight behind the leading edge flap, and it is very easy to create a chafing situation there.  Another bundle going to 4&6 is tough to imagine.  There's no extra room in there as it is.  Again a possible factor.  Doubling up as you put it...I think I know what you mean, but the analogy doesn't align with how those stations are wired.  In some cases you might have a point.  F-15Es for example have a sort of complex rail yard style wiring system for their CFTs.  Certain portions of the lines are shared.  This is why you can't mix 120s and JDAMs on CFTs, for example.  The F-16 though, has a completely different wiring system.  It is in a way straight forward by comparison.  

Edited February 28, 2021 by Scrape

[Blaze1]

On 2/28/2021 at 7:32 PM, Furiz said:

Then another question, why did ED model this F-16 to be able to operate HARM from all 4 stations, they do have some sources.

I believe ED's source was the stores limitations section from the supplemental flight manual.  This section proves carriage, jettison and delivery limits for the stores.

[Kev2go]

On 2/28/2021 at 3:49 PM, Scrape said:

No offense taken from if anyone who doesn't agree.  From theory of operation, to application, to wire impedance the meat and potatoes of what I said cannot be challenged.  I get that you don't know me personally, but you won't be able to find anyone else that's knowledgeable, from the perspective I've described, on the subject that would disagree.  

 

To answer your question about what if there was a few F-16s fitted and wired....

 

It doesn't work that way.  I can explain how and why it doesn't work that way, but I'll leave it to you if you would like to go that route in the conversation rather than offer a deluge of operational examples on the why your what if question is not possible for multiple reasons.  The F-16 upgrade program does not work the way you might think it could work.  In short, versions are standardized, for all of the logistical reasons you may imagine.  Upgrades are not mysterious, at a certain level we are aware of what unit X has going on, and there are reasons for that too.  If you can't imagine I think I can offer a couple examples if you like.  

 

The other question of why did ED model the F-16 to fire HARMS from 4&6...

 

That's the big money question for a lot of people because of what I've explained.  ED spokespersons have stated they have documentation.  I tried to explain how that documentation could be misleading.  Not that I know what ED's documentation is, I don't know what they have.  However I'm comfortable with this subject that I can take some guesses on what it could be, and ED should not be blamed for intentionally getting this one wrong, or not doing their research.  I'm sure they did.  Because this specific why of the system in the F-16 it's not something that is apparent outside of people intimate with the weapons system.  A pilot, Crew Chief or Avionics troop would have no idea of the why or be able to match my explanation, for example.  It's an honest mistake kind of situation.  I don't have an opinion on how ED should handle the situation.  That's up to them.  

 

 

 

 

I don't know for sure what they are referring to but i would think it likely what mislead ED into thinking so was the  TO 1-F16CM-1-2 2007

 

which shows harms being carried on station 4 and 6.

 

Someone from dekka provided the pertinent excerpt on reddit as per quote " 4 x AGM-88 loadout is presented in T.O.1F-16CM-1-2 (15 october 2007), Figure 5-2 (Sheet 363), so it seems that it's a valid loadout."

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Kev2go

[Dee-Jay]

On 3/2/2021 at 1:17 AM, Blaze1 said:

I believe ED's source was the stores limitations section from the supplemental flight manual.  This section proves carriage, jettison and delivery limits for the stores.

I bet on that one also. AFAIK, It is the only document they could refer to in order to went on their conclusion. As simple as this.

[Blaze1]

12 hours ago, Dee-Jay said:

I bet on that one also. AFAIK, It is the only document they could refer to in order to went on their conclusion. As simple as this.

It's strange how redundant descriptions/procedures are at times left in manuals even after numerous iterations.

[Blinky.ben]

On 2/21/2021 at 3:16 AM, Ignition said:

I love my 10 AMRAAM and 8 JSOW F-18!

Yep this is what is really weird for me. The community is very passionate about the F-16 not having 4x harms (I have absolutely no idea if it can or not) but if you look hard enough there is a document on the internet that’s was the testing documentation for the AGM-154 on the F-18 which I showed ED along time ago. It goes into how the F-18 under no circumstances (not even total war) is it to carry more then 4xAGM-154 due a few issue particularly aerodynamically. But even still you can not find anything that supports 8x AGM-154 on the F-18C

Edited March 4, 2021 by Blinky.ben

[dundun92]

1 minute ago, Blinky.ben said:

It goes into how the F-18 under no circumstances is it to carry more then 4xAGM-154 due to some wind issue when dropping.

Yes, but is there any evidence that it cannot carry and fire 8, regardless of how inadvisable it would be? The F-16 HARM issue is a completely different issue, this is a discussion of whether you can actually fire the weapon from the pylon; the F-18 issue your describing seems to be more of an advisory limitation, as in "you can drop them alright, but they may hit your jet". The correct solution for the F-18 issue wouldnt be to remove 8 JSOW, but rather make it where if you carry more than 4 theres a high chance of you getting hit by it. For the F-16 HARM issue, this is either the plane physically can fire 4, or it cant.

[Blinky.ben]

14 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

Yes, but is there any evidence that it cannot carry and fire 8, regardless of how inadvisable it would be? The F-16 HARM issue is a completely different issue, this is a discussion of whether you can actually fire the weapon from the pylon; the F-18 issue your describing seems to be more of an advisory limitation, as in "you can drop them alright, but they may hit your jet". The correct solution for the F-18 issue wouldnt be to remove 8 JSOW, but rather make it where if you carry more than 4 theres a high chance of you getting hit by it. For the F-16 HARM issue, this is either the plane physically can fire 4, or it cant.

I do see your point but I think it needs to be considered on the same level. The military does.

[3WA]

On 2/18/2021 at 4:55 AM, Desert Fox said:

Except for when you PvP and you are literally forced to 4 Harm or otherwise your whole team will pick on you for being a purelord and how they will lose the round if you don't 4 Harm because the other side does. Literally my sigpic.

 

I'd really love to have realism based competitive PvP in DCS but decisions like this just kill it right away.

Yeah, but one) Few people play MP.  Almost ALL people in this game are single players (and aren't as highly concerned about realism, want to just play and blow off steam more than anything).  So, you're going to be WAYYY outvoted by those people.  Two) If your playing MP, and you want realisim, you need to talk to the other side, and establish some rules.  Or, just have the server itself establish the rules.  Three) It's the same on the A-10.  I fly with six Mavericks, because they are large, and six missiles is not many when your entering a large tank battle.  I figure, by now, 2021, they should have fixed the wheel burning issues with the 5th and 6th Mavericks.  If they haven't, some engineer is being lazy.

 

It's nice to have options, and pick how realistic you want to be, in your own SP game.  This also sells a lot more modules.  Kind of how I'm turned off by BS2, because the shkval especially doesn't work against aircraft / heli's in the sky, and I can't load igla's to deal with them.  Having the shkval fixed and igla's will be one of the key conditions to whether I buy BS3 or not.  Especially since I see that the Ka-52 can carry Igla's ( what the experimental Ka-50 eventually became ).

 

One of the things I look for in "realism" is, did other nations do it?  Every one always talks about whether the USAF did it, and focus only on that.  I focus on what ALL nations have done with an aircraft.  For instance, other nations have put igla's on the Ka-50 ( Some even R-73 ).  Other nations have put stingers on the Apache, and AIM-9 on the Cobra.  i.e. It can be done, and is possible.

Edited March 4, 2021 by 3WA

[Northstar98]

On 3/4/2021 at 10:32 PM, 3WA said:

It's nice to have options, and pick how realistic you want to be, in your own SP game.  This also sells a lot more modules.  Kind of how I'm turned off by BS2, because the shkval especially doesn't work against aircraft / heli's in the sky, and I can't load igla's to deal with them.  Having the shkval fixed and igla's will be one of the key conditions to whether I buy BS3 or not.

 

I'm going to dispute this sells more modules thing; options to reduce the realism really haven't changed at all since DCS' inception.

 

And the thing that sells? It's providing aircraft people want, look at the hype for the apache, for the F-16; both were asked for, for years - that's what sold them. 

 

I've not seen anybody who was super hyped for an option to make x less realistic, aside from what we already have. I really doubt 'game mode' is what made them sell "a lot more modules", given the mode has been essentially abandoned - and I can't find a single content creator who uses it. More that lots of people want a module, so when that module gets released, it sells like hotcakes.

 

When the MiG-21bis came out, I didn't see anybody really hyped that it has an option to make the ASP gunsight more/less realistic, and over the years it seems players want more realism - not less.

 

And an attack helicopter is not supposed to be going after aircraft, it's an attack helicopter. Only thing I will say is that the Vikhr should have an AA mode with a laser proximity fuse and a fragmentation warhead (perhaps a continuous rod, which envelops the main warhead).

 

Quote

One of the things I look for in "realism" is, did other nations do it?  Every one always talks about whether the USAF did it, and focus only on that.  I focus on what ALL nations have done with an aircraft.  For instance, other nations have put igla's on the Ka-50 ( Some even R-73 ).  Other nations have put stingers on the Apache, and AIM-9 on the Cobra.  i.e. It can be done, and is possible.

 

Except ED is typically providing specific variants of a specific operator at a specific point in time; this limits the scope and gives us something nice and coherent, perfectly in line with DCS' goals.

 

Giving us fictional aircraft that are a hybrid of multiple variants creates an incoherent mess, as now we have to do research on multiple aircraft types and then find a way to combine them into a single variant - probably making stuff up along the way - this goes against DCS' goals, and that's why developers are against doing it.

 

As for the F-16C, here's what Wags has to say:

 

Quote

...We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[Dee-Jay]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:32 PM, 3WA said:

One of the things I look for in "realism" is, did other nations do it?  Every one always talks about whether the USAF did it, and focus only on that.  I focus on what ALL nations have done with an aircraft.  For instance, other nations have put igla's on the Ka-50 ( Some even R-73 ).  Other nations have put stingers on the Apache, and AIM-9 on the Cobra.  i.e. It can be done, and is possible.

 

 

Mirage 2000 ... In France we have C,B, -5, D and N models ... Other nations have also Mirage 2000, -9, EG, -5EBA ... etc ...

Those are not the same planes. Each are VERY different.

 

RAZBAM is simulating (rather correctly) the Mirage 2000C.

 

F-16C/MLU looks the same, but blocks and tapes updates makes them VERY different also. They are not the same jet fighters.

 

Question is:

Is DCS F-16 going to be an USAF F-16C Blk50 simulation or not?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Dee-Jay