not accurate for year country version Integration of PAWS (missile warning system)

[MRTX]

As some of you might have heard, in march the Air Force has ordered the PAWS system for the Air National Guards and Air Force Reserves F-16C.

To sum it up, PAWS consists of 2 pylons integrated with missile warning sensors and countermeasure dispensers.

 

(I know what some of you might be thinking: "ED said theyre gonna modell a 2007 blk.50 F-16C, and that PAWS system probably requires super flashy new tech that we dont have in DCS")

 

When it comes to the tech, its already all there, it might be a suprise to some of you but PAWS relies on the AN/ALQ-213 countermeasure panel (the same that can be found in the A-10C) and the only work ED would have to do, would be to integrate that panel into the Viper and model the PAWS pylon (and of course a bit of coding)

 

What im trying to say is, that it would be a fairly easy job for ED, and the upgrade would greatly enhance the survivability of the Viper.

[Crptalk]

+1 for when in 10-15 years ED decides to release the F-16 Viper II.

[Deano87]

Yeah... nice idea but its not going to happen.

A 2007 USAF/ANG Block 50 is quite a different jet from a modern Block 50. The jets have been upgraded with new software,hardware and weapons over the years and so regardless of how "easy" it would be, it wouldn't at all be realistic, which is what ED are striving for. Perhapse in 10 years time when we can get a 2020 edition of the Viper in the sim with all the fancy current weapons, but until then, nah.

[MRTX]

I know it definitely isnt something we would've seen back in 2007, but you could easily take a 2007 block.50 F-16C and install PAWS with very minor tweaks.

 

vor 22 Minuten schrieb Deano87:

The jets have been upgraded with new software,hardware and weapons over the years and so regardless of how "easy" it would be, it wouldn't at all be realistic, which is what ED are striving for..

 

This is obviously not a accurate depiction of the 2007 USAF F-16C block.50 (but its not like ED already has integrated "unrealistic" features that arent accurate to the 2007 F-16) , but i think we should see the 2007 model more as a baseline to expand upon in a "unaccurate" but technically possible way.

 

In my opinion it should be up to the end user to decide what specific version they would like to use of the F-16C, either the "realistic" 2007 USAF version or the "what technically could be possible" version. (in the end everybody would be happy, and to what i've experienced the "2007 Viper gang" is in the clear minority)

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by MRTX

[Mustang25]

1 minute ago, MRTX said:

I know it definitely isnt something we would've seen back in 2007, but you could easily take a 2007 block.50 F-16C and install PAWS with very minor tweaks

 

Based on the stance ED has taken with the APKWS, I wouldn't hold your breath for this on the Viper any time soon.

[llOPPOTATOll]

It will not be implemented, if the airforce is only now implementing it why do you think we will be getting it in our 13 year old viper. Besides it being "compatible" there have been many tape upgrades since 2007 so even if they added the MWS it would be missing the other upgrades making it a frankinviper.

[Northstar98]

13 hours ago, MRTX said:

I know it definitely isnt something we would've seen back in 2007, but you could easily take a 2007 block.50 F-16C and install PAWS with very minor tweaks.

 

Based on? You realise that since 2007 the F-16C has had some pretty significant avionics changes right?

 

Quote

This is obviously not a accurate depiction of the 2007 USAF F-16C block.50

 

Well, as ED themselves said that they are striving to create a particular aircraft variant at a specific point in time, and this is completely the opposite, I think we can guess the answer. 

 

Quote

(but its not like ED already has integrated "unrealistic" features that arent accurate to the 2007 F-16)

 

A.) Such as?

B.) Just because x is unrealistic doesn't mean we should make everything else unrealistic too. If someone cheats in their exam it doesn't make it okay for you to cheat too..

 

Quote

but i think we should see the 2007 model more as a baseline to expand upon in a "unaccurate" but technically possible way.

 

Using the 2007 model as a stepping stone to produce other variants? Sure.

 

Frankensteining a specific aircraft to be a mess of different variants from all over the place? Nah.

 

Getting this would mean we have a 2020 F-16C but with the weapons compatibility of the 2007 model and none of the software updates, avionics changes, new weapons etc, none of which we're getting - so we'll end up with a fictional aircraft.

 

Quote

In my opinion it should be up to the end user to decide what specific version they would like to use of the F-16C, either the "realistic" 2007 USAF version or the "what technically could be possible" version.

 

The fact is, ED's F-16C is supposed to represent a specific variant at a specific point in time, therefore, it should represent that variant and that specific point in time, as that's what it's advertised as being.

 

When I willingly and knowingly buy a car that's of a particular make, model and year, I expect it to be that make, model and year. I don't expect it to be any different. And I think that willingly purchasing one thing knowing its clearly supposed to be x but expecting it to be y is kinda silly.

 

As for what technically could be possible, this is a fantastic way to put the F-16C into a perpetual WIP state.

 

Quote

(in the end everybody would be happy, and to what i've experienced the "2007 Viper gang" is in the clear minority)

 

Oh for...

 

You realise the whole point of DCS is it's supposed to be realistic right? It's right there for all to see. We can debate for ages how well it actually achieve this, but the fact is, DCS is supposed to be realistic, whichever way you think of it.

 

And you realise the F-16C module is for all intents and purposes supposed to represent a specific aircraft variant as it was at a particular point in time. If you don't like this, that's fine, but then I have to question why you're here in the first place if you find it disagreeable? 

 

Kinda like willingly walking into a forest knowing what a forest is and then complaining about there being so many trees, kinda silly don't you think?

 

As for the clear minority, it seems odd to me that people pick up DCS, something that's supposed to be as authentic as feasibly possible, and then purchase an F-16C that's supposed to represent a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 circa 2007, only to take issue with it being so, I mean, what were you expecting?

Edited December 18, 2020 by Northstar98