Jump to content

F-16CG Block 40 (pre CCIP)


Northstar98

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,

After the completion of the F-16CM Block 50, I'd like to request another F-16 variant; the F-16CG Block 40 circa late 80s/90s, before the CCIP (F-16CM) standard.

I've chosen this F-16 variant in particular, because it is both a.) a historical variant suitable for a Balkans/Kosovo conflict (if we ever get an appropriate map for it), but also because the workload required to deliver such a variant should be fairly low at least in comparison to say, an F-16A (though I'd love that one too).

  • Largely identical external model - the only differences being the removal of the JHMCS sensor and a different HUD, there'd also probably have to be a different pilot model. The only other difference that I can think of are the IFF antennae forward of the canopy, but don't hold me to that (AFAIK AIFF came with CCIP, though it's not like DCS models IFF with much fidelity anyway).
  • Identical RADAR, as well as most other avionics:
    • it has the exact same APG-68(V)5 FCR we have currently
    • it has the same RWR (or at least a minor difference (ALR-56/ALR-56M, compared to the ALR-56M we have currently).
    • The main difference would be no Link 16 and no MIDS, it also might have a different IFF system, though again, it's not like that is simulated with much fidelity anyway (though hopefully it will in the future).
  • Identical FLCS and FDM; the only differences being the slightly lower thrust (but only by very little) F110-GE-100 on the Block 40, compared to the F110-GE-129 on our Block 50. AFAIK the F110-GE-400 on the F-14B, is essentially just an F110-GE-100 with a tailpipe extension.
  • Pretty much identical cockpit, apart from the obviously the larger holographic HUD (with the ability to project NAVFLIR imagery from LANTIRN) and monochromatic MFDs though they have identical symbology AFAIK (just its all green, like that Tomcat's TID, instead of being mostly white). There are some other minor differences, namely the removal of the JHMCS sensor and control knob; as well as the removal of the DL and MIDS switches from the avionics power panel, the EHSI is replaced by mechanical one (identical to the one in the F-5E-3 AFAIK, with a control knob to the left instead of the single mode button). The rest of the cockpit is largely completely identical in form and function, the only other thing I can think of is that maybe the location of the oxygen control panel might have moved to be in between the avionics power and anti-ice panels, though the function and switches will be identical.
  • We already have most of the stores and weapons already; just no LITENING, no AIM-9X and depending on the exact year you choose, you might not have AMRAAMs (AIM-120A was in service in 1991, B in 1994/1995 and C in 1996/1997). There would also be no JSOWs. The only other things we're missing are more fleshed out modes for the HARM, it doesn't have HTS compatibility AFAIK, but it would have GBU-24 (+ variants, at least the base GBU-24/B with a Mk84 warhead and the GBU-24A/B with the BLU-109 penetrating warhead). The main addition would be the inclusion of LANTIRN, including the AN/AAQ-13 navigation and AN/AAQ-14 targeting pods; the former includes a terrain-following RADAR (TFR), which can be coupled to the F-16s autopilot, allowing for automatic NOE flight at high speeds, its imagery can also be displayed on one of the MFDs (TFR page); it also includes a navigation FLIR (NAVFLIR), which can be projected onto the HUD or on the MFDs (FLIR page AFAIK); the latter TGP is broadly identical to the one currently present on the Tomcat, with only FLIR (which is lower resolution, with 2 FOVs + a digital zoom level) and a LTD/R (no TV or LST). The one in the Tomcat though is modified (known as LTS) to have an integral GPS/IMU and a ballistics computer, to generate coordinates and provide weapon release cues; now I'm not sure if the base AN/AAQ-14 can do this, though in any case the aircraft's native systems are able to provide this information (which isn't the case in the Tomcat).

Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 10

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Hi Everyone,

 

After the completion of the F-16CM Block 50, I'd like to request another F-16 variant; the F-16CG Block 40 circa late 80s/90s, before the CCIP (F-16CM) standard.

 

I've chosen this F-16 variant in particular, because it is both a.) a historical variant suitable for a Balkans/Kosovo conflict (if we ever get an appropriate map for it), but also because the workload required to deliver such a variant should be fairly trivial by comparison.

 

  • Largely identical external model - the only differences being the removal of the JHMCS sensor and a different HUD, there'd also probably have to be a different pilot model. The only other difference that I can think of are the IFF antennae forward of the canopy, but don't hold me to that (AFAIK AIFF came with CCIP, though it's not like DCS models IFF with much fidelity anyway).

 

  • Identical RADAR, as well as most other avionics; it has the exact same APG-68(V5) FCR, we have currently, it has the same RWR (or at least a minor difference (ALR-56/ALR-56M, compared to the ALR-56M we have currently) both of these can be a straight up copy and paste job. The main difference would be no Link 16 and no MIDS, it also might have a different IFF system, though its not like that is simulated with much fidelity anyway (though hopefully it will in the future).

 

  • Identical FLCS and FDM; the only differences being the slightly (but only by very little) F110-GE-100 on the Block 40, compared to the F110-GE-129 on our Block 50.

 

  • Pretty much identical cockpit - the main differences would be the larger holographic HUD (with the ability to project NAVFLIR imagery from LANTIRN) and monochromatic MFDs though they have identical symbology AFAIK (just its all green, like that Tomcat's TID, instead of being mostly white). The other things are the removal of the JHMCS sensor and control knob;, as well as the removal of the DL and MIDS switches. The rest of the cockpit is completely identical in form and function, the only other thing I can think of is that maybe the location of the oxygen control panel might have moved to above the DTC slot, though the function and switches will be identical.

 

  • We already have most of the stores and weapons already; just no LITENING, no AIM-9X and depending on the exact year you choose, you might only have access to the AIM-120A or B (AIM-120A was in service in 1991, B in 1994/1995 and C in 1996/1997). There would also be no JSOWs. The only other things we're missing are more flushed out modes for the HARM, as well as HTS, as well as things like the GBU-24 (+ variants, at least the base Mk84 warhead and BLU-109). The main addition would be the inclusion of LANTIRN, including the AAQ-13 navigation and AAQ-14 targeting pods; the former includes a terrain-following RADAR (TFR), which can be coupled to the F-16s autopilot, allowing for automatic NOE flight at high speeds, its imagery can also be displayed on one of the MFDs (TFR page); it also includes a navigation FLIR (NAVFLIR), which can be projected onto the HUD or on the MFDs (FLIR page AFAIK); the latter TGP is broadly identical to the one currently present on the Tomcat, with only FLIR (which is lower resolution, with 2 FOVs + a digital zoom level) and a LTD/R (no TV or LST). The one in the Tomcat though is modified (known as LTS) to have an integral GPS/IMU and a ballistics computer, to generate coordinates and provide weapon release cues; I'm not sure if the base AAQ-14 can do this, though the aircraft's own systems are able to provide weapon release cues.   

Again, we don't have any documentaion on the aircraft. The flight model would have to be a copy of the block 50, which wouldn't be correct at all for the block 40. Additonaly the block 40 has many systems that are uniqe to that aircraft version, and this wouldn't be possible to model correctly without real documentation on the aicraft. And even if ED had the documentation they would have needed to complete the block 50 first, which I'd wager is a but 10% complete currently. There are so many systems that reqire complete re-writing of the code and the aicraft might be added in 8-20 years maybe? that is IF the documentation is released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 2:04 PM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Again, we don't have any documentaion on the aircraft. The flight model would have to be a copy of the block 50, which wouldn't be correct at all for the block 40.

What are you talking about? What would be the differences? All I'm seeing is maybe weight (nope), and a slight reduction in thrust (and a very slight reduction at that), other than that, the airframe is otherwise basically identical, same weight, same profile, same intake, same dimensions, same aerofoil etc; the only external difference is maybe an antenna and/or maybe a vent - that's it, the rest of the differences is inside the cockpit, which have no effect on the FDM, apart from shaving a couple of kg off of the empty weight.

It has the same FLCS (DFLCS) to my knowledge as we do; I know our current one has a few issues and inaccuracies, but it is identical to my knowledge (which I'll agree isn't much, I'm just digging up what I can find).

If you know different, I'm interested in knowing, but otherwise I can't see any significant differences that would require major changes; when our current one is corrected, it should be very much a copy and paste job.

Quote

Additonaly the block 40 has many systems that are uniqe to that aircraft version, and this wouldn't be possible to model correctly without real documentation on the aicraft.

Like what? LANTIRN? And IFF? That's it?

The TGP is already there on the Tomcat, and is less complicated than the LITENING we have currently.

The AAQ-13 will be new, NAVFLIR is already on the Harrier, but shouldn't be too difficult for ED, it is after all broadly similar to what we see with our TGPs; the TFR is however something completely new, especially with it being coupled to the autopilot.

As for IFF, it isn't even implemented with much (or any) fidelity anyway, apart from how you go about making interrogations; and even if it was, how you interact with them and how they work, at least to the point of being able to decently simulate them (even if approximated), is borderline identical (AIFF just includes mode 5, as well as M1/M2/M3 and M4, though all could be approximated in a broadly similar fashion to the JF-17).

It has an identical RADAR, and a near identical RWR (if not an identical RWR), all the displays are the same, just the HUD is bigger and the MFDs are monochromatic green, and that's it.

Same countermeasures and controls, same HUD control panel, same DED with the same pages (just DLINK is probably absent) etc.

AFAIK the aircraft is compatible with the HARM, though probably not the HTS - which isn't even in yet.

There are things like Sure Strike ('95), which included an FAC D/L and NVG compatibility; the former we're supposed to be getting on our Block 50 AFAIK, and the latter already present.

Quote

And even if ED had the documentation they would have needed to complete the block 50 first, which I'd wager is a but 10% complete currently. There are so many systems that reqire complete re-writing of the code and the aicraft might be added in 8-20 years maybe? that is IF the documentation is released.

I really struggle to believe that ED, who specifically state they need public information to consider a module, would be able to do a post CCIP, 2007 F-16CM Block 50, but not anything else and this was a fairly big deal back in 2019. Wags issued a statement that ED only uses publicly available documentation, unless an agreement can be reached (like with the A-10C, which was done under a USAF contract, for the USAF).

As for the so many systems that would require complete rewrites, I'd be interested in hearing about them.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

What are you talking about? What would be the differences? All I'm seeing is maybe weight (nope), and a slight reduction in thrust (and a very slight reduction at that), other than that, the airframe is otherwise basically identical, same weight, same profile, same intake, same dimensions, same aerofoil etc; the only external difference is maybe an antenna and/or maybe a vent - that's it, the rest of the differences is inside the cockpit, which have no effect on the FDM, apart from shaving a couple of kg off of the empty weight.

 

It has the same FLCS (DFLCS) to my knowledge as we do; I know our current one has a few issues and inaccuracies, but it is identical to my knowledge (which I'll agree isn't much, I'm just digging up what I can find).

 

If you know different, I'm interested in knowing, but otherwise I can't see any significant differences that would require major changes; when our current one is corrected, it should be very much a copy and paste job.

 

 

Like what? LANTIRN? And IFF? That's it?

 

The TGP is already there on the Tomcat, and is less complicated than the LITENING we have currently.

 

The AAQ-13 will be new, NAVFLIR is already on the Harrier, but shouldn't be too difficult for ED, it is after all broadly similar to what we see with our TGPs; the TFR is however something completely new, especially with it being coupled to the autopilot.

 

As for IFF, it isn't even implemented with much (or any) fidelity anyway, apart from how you go about making interrogations; and even if it was, how you interact with them and how they work, at least to the point of being able to decently simulate them (even if approximated), is borderline identical (AIFF just includes mode S, as well as M1/M2/M3 and M4, though all could be approximated in a broadly similar fashion to the JF-17). 

 

It has an identical RADAR, and a near identical RWR (if not an identical RWR), all the displays are the same, just the HUD is bigger and the MFDs are monochromatic, that's it.

 

Same countermeasures and controls, same HUD control panel, same DED with the same pages (just DLINK is absent) etc.

 

AFAIK the aircraft is compatible with the HARM, and its ALIC and the HTS (which isn't even in yet), and even if it's not compatible with the HTS, that's something to remove, not add - no recoding necessary.

 

There are things like Sure Strike ('95), which included an FAC D/L and NVG compatibility; the former we're supposed to be getting on our Block 50 AFAIK, and the latter already present.

 

 

 

 

 

I really struggle to believe that ED, who specifically state they need public information to consider a module, would be able to do an F-16CM Block 50, but not anything else - this was a fairly big deal back in 2019.

 

As for the so many systems that would require complete rewrites, I'd be interested in hearing about them.

 

 

 

let me just take it from top to bottom:
The engine the block 40 uses will 100% have a noticeably different thrust together with a completely separate thrust curve. Different engines work differently. This would also mean that we need documentation on how the engine system works in terms of electronics and hydraulics and we would also need to know the different fuel flows, RPM stuff, oil pressure etc. etc. Right now no information surrounding these areas are available. Additionally the block 40 has unique features like that fancy HUD. These are things that 100% need written documentation to be able to correctly implement. The block 40 would need way to much guesswork for it to even be a viable aircraft to create. Simulators and guesswork usually doesn't go hand in hand.
The block 50 is the only F-16 block that has sufficient information surrounding it, so it's not a surprise that ED went for this block. The block 40 simply doesn't have the required documentation and for that reason more than likely will not be added into the sim, nor is there possibility for it being added before the block 50 is completed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 3:22 PM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

let me just take it from top to bottom:
The engine the block 40 uses will 100% have a noticeably different thrust together with a completely separate thrust curve. Different engines work differently. This would also mean that we need documentation on how the engine system works in terms of electronics and hydraulics and we would also need to know the different fuel flows, RPM stuff, oil pressure etc. etc.

The 129 is a derivative of the 100, developing slightly more wet thrust (by slightly more, I mean a little over 3%, at least by what I can find) and is supposedly more reliable (though it's not like that's a thing in DCS, apart from random failures - which are well... random, with user set probabilities).

Being a derivative, why would it have a completely separate thrust curve, electrical, oil and hydraulic systems? We're talking about a slight derivative here, one that shares 80% parts commonality, not a radically different engine like the TF30 and F110 on the Tomcat.

Quote

Right now no information surrounding these areas are available. Additionally the block 40 has unique features like that fancy HUD.

So Heatblur can do the F110-GE-400, and it's not an issue; ED can do the F110-GE-129 and it's not an issue, but can't do the F110-GE-100, despite the latter 2 sharing 80% commonality?

As for that HUD? It has exactly the same symbology as the current one. It has EEGS (again, like the current one), it's just FLIR imagery compatible (which the current one is too, just isn't used on the Block 50, nor have ED modelled it), they have completely identical controls and an identical control panel, the ICP and DED are exactly the same too. There's very little  that would be needed to do apart from copy and paste the current one; the only work needed is 3D modelling, maybe some rescaling, and the NAVFLIR imagery (which we already have the controls for, they're just not used in our current F-16, as we don't have the AAQ-13 available), and as for said imagery, there's an image of an F-15E HUD displaying the exact same NAVFLIR imagery...

Quote

These are things that 100% need written documentation to be able to correctly implement. The block 40 would need way to much guesswork for it to even be a viable aircraft to create. Simulators and guesswork usually doesn't go hand in hand.

So far the guesswork amounts to an engine at the very worst. And lightyears away from having to have systems "completely rewritten" and the FDM being "not correct at all".

Quote

nor is there possibility for it being added before the block 50 is completed.

I never said do it before completing the 50, do it afterwards.

On 1/21/2021 at 3:37 PM, TotenDead said:

So instead of asking block 10/15 with aim-7s you're asking for another amraam carrier. Can't see why it would be interesting for anyone except you

If it was a late 80s - 1991 version, it wouldn't have AMRAAMs; just AIM-9L/M. Like I said, AIM-120A is 1992, AIM-120B is 1994/1995 and AIM-120C is 1996/1997 or did you miss that part?

Also the Block 10/15 isn't AIM-7 compatible AFAIK, at least among USAF aircraft (exports probably are), you're thinking of the F-16ADF, which was an ANG specific aircraft AFAIK. Of course export F-16s might have different capabilities, but sticking to the USAF/ANG, it's only the ADF AFAIK.

While I would love the F-16A (any block, but preferably 15), there's already a wishlist item for it in the DCS F-16C subforum, I don't need to make another one.

Plus both the Block 10/15 and ADF are radically different to our current aircraft, which increases the workload, they have a different airframe, drastically different, analogue cockpit (which isn't a bad thing, just it's much more work), different FLCS (analogue instead of digital) and a very different engine (F100-PW-220 as opposed to the F110-GE-100/129)

As for interested? I take it you're not into history much? Ever heard of those 2 European wars during the 90s? The map of which a relatively popular choice in the DLC map wishlist? Ring any bells? It's also the aircraft block flown by US Squadrons based in Korea - another popular map choice.

It also fits the overwhelming majority of air defences and other assets better. As well as having probably the best night-attack capability of all US F-16 variants.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Только что, Northstar98 сказал:

If it was a late 80s version, it wouldn't have AMRAAMs, just AIM-9L/M or did you miss that part?

Okay then. Any non-amraam teen would be great to be added IMO as it restricts you to a completely different gameplay.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 3:50 PM, TotenDead said:

Okay then. Any non-amraam teen would be great to be added IMO as it restricts you to a completely different gameplay.

My main reason behind the Block 40, was its low level night attack capability (same why I'm interested in the F-111F - and both have coupled TFRs, which allows you to fly very low and fast, at night), while being a variant that should be comparatively much easier to do than other F-16 variants.

AMRAAM compatibility depends on which year you choose. Ignoring things like Pacer Strike and Gold Strike (which is mostly just D/L compatibility with ground units such as FACs), there's basically no difference between a late 80s Block 40 (which wouldn't have AMRAAMs), and a mid-to-late 90s block 40 that would. It's an aircraft that AFAIK, didn't change all that much before the CCIP (F-16CM) upgrade. So you could absolutely take it into late 80s scenarios, and do so realistically, unlike our current aircraft.

And as said before, it's at home in a late 80s cold war scenario (where again, it would only have AIM-9M at best), it's also suitable for a Balklans/Kosovo conflict (though that's now into the 90s, where F-16Cs started fielding AMRAAM), being based, among others in Aviano, Italy. It's also the US Block stationed in Korea (at least historically), at airbases like Kunsan.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Also the Block 10/15 isn't AIM-7 compatible AFAIK, at least among USAF aircraft (exports probably are), you're thinking of the F-16ADF, which was an ANG specific aircraft AFAIK. Of course export F-16s might have different capabilities, but sticking to the USAF/ANG, it's only the ADF AFAIK.

The exports weren't AIM-7 compatible either. AFAIK the only execption involved exactly the F-16A ADF - i.e. ex. US ANG airframes offered for export(to Egypt IIRC).

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying its a good or bad idea, just pointing out that if theres not much difference between the two, you already have an airframe thats just as capable as the Blk 40 with albeit small differences. If its not much of a big difference, why bother with it? Let them finish this one first because its FAR from finished.

  • Like 2

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 5:21 PM, Seaeagle said:

 

The exports weren't AIM-7 compatible either. AFAIK the only execption involved exactly the F-16A ADF - i.e. ex. US ANG airframes offered for export(to Egypt IIRC).

 

I thought as much, it's just there's such an array of differences among export variants.

On 1/21/2021 at 5:28 PM, Hammer1-1 said:

Not saying its a good or bad idea, just pointing out that if theres not much difference between the two, you already have an airframe thats just as capable as the Blk 40 with albeit small differences. If its not much of a big difference, why bother with it?

It's the IRL appeal for me, as well as being a historical variant, plus LANTIRN.

It's similar to the F-14A-135-GR (late) that we have currently and the F-14B; the B is more capable, but not by a whole lot (engine and that's it), but the A was more prolific and arguably more iconic.

With this the CM Block 50 is more capable (apart from fast, low-altitude, night attack capability) but the 40 has more historical appeal in the Balkans/Kosovo, as well as potential for what-if Cold War and Korea; in a similar breath the C Block 30 has appeal for ODS over Iraq and the A Block 15 for what-if Cold War scenarios over Germany etc.

For aircraft as diverse as the F-16 (even just sticking to the C for the time being), you can't really explore all of its capabilities with a single variant and rather than fudge different aircraft variants together from multiple time periods, I'd prefer to get the individual variants; I just thought, that with the amount in common with the current aircraft (probably has the most in common, apart from a CJ Block 50D), a CG Block 40 would be a good place to start.

  • The F-16As are the best bet for Cold War stuff.
  • The F-16C Block 30 is best performer, having the best TWR.
  • The F-16CG Block 40 is the best strike variant, especially for low-level, night interdiction/strike.
  • The F-16CJ Block 50D is the best SEAD platform, with the full HARM suite, with the HTS.

Once we get into the CCIP/MLU upgrade (F-16CM/F-16AM standard respectively), there's much more overlap in capability, though they each still have their respective advantages over other variants (apart from the A).

Quote

Let them finish this one first because its FAR from finished.

That's always been my intention from the get go. I said do it after the current CM Block 50, which was the first thing I said after "Hi Everyone"


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 5:44 PM, Seaeagle said:

I think his point was in connection with historical mission potential.

Fair enough, though I've provided some (though, map permitting), though to me it sounded more about capabilities and differences.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Fair enough, though I've provided some (though, map permitting), though to me it sounded more about capabilities and differences.

 

I was replying to Hammer-1 about what I thought your considerations were for the Blk 40, but you beat me to it 😄


Edited by Seaeagle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 5:48 PM, Seaeagle said:

I was replying to Hammer-1 about what your considerations were for the Blk 40, but you beat me to it 😄

Oh, pffft! 😛 my bad!


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like any earlier F-16 variant:

 

F-16A Block 5 or 10 - the most nimble, analog cockpit, very early 1980s, small tail, fought in real full scale wars in the Middle East in Israeli service

 

F-16C Block 30 - the best performer, the best acceleration, sustained turn rate, climb rate etc. due to lower mass and lower drag than later variants and already having GE engine/big intake - last fighter F-16 variant, used also as agressor due to it's kinematic performance, in service from mid/late 1980s developed to dogfight Soviet MiG-29 over Europe, the most produced varian, fought in real full scale war Desert Storm

 

F-16C block 40 - ground attack variant specially for night strike, integrated with LANTIRN and wide lantirn HUD, very late 1980s, developed to operate in high treat enviroment, slightly worse performance than Block 30 due to higher mass and drag


Edited by bies
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 5:56 PM, bies said:

I would like any earlier F-16 variant:

 

F-16A Block 5 or 10 - the most nimble, analog cockpit, early 1980s, fought in real full scale wars in the Middle East in Israeli service

 

F-16C Block 30 - the best performer, the best acceleration, sustained turn rate, climb rate etc. due to lower mass and lower drag and GE engine/big intake - last fighter F-16 variant, used as agressor due to it's performance, in service from late 1980s developed to dogfight Soviet MiG-29 over Europe, the most produced varian, fought in real full scale war Desert Storm

 

F-16C block 40 - ground attack variant specially for night strike, integrated with LANTIRN and wide lantirn HUD, very late 1980s, developed to operate in high treat enviroment, slightly worse performance than Block 30 due to higher mass and drag

Exactly this.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

 

The exports weren't AIM-7 compatible either. AFAIK the only execption involved exactly the F-16A ADF - i.e. ex. US ANG airframes offered for export(to Egypt IIRC).

 

F-16 payload - Page 3 - DCS Wishlist - ED Forums

6674.jpg

Many export F-16 operators have AIM-7 capable planes ROCAF among them.

 

onto the OP the night strike falcon with the WAR HUD would be awesome to have but lets not forget what happened with the RAZBAM F-15E where it was originally going to be a model comparable in weapons and capabilities to what you describe (no 9x or 120c5 or MIDS) and they went back on that and made it a noughties aircraft

 

Not that the idea is bad its probably only going to be revisited by ED after some time passes and the current teen series planes are done and they seem themselves with no new projects to do in the modern fast mover arena

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I thought as much, it's just there's such an array of differences among export variants.

 

 

It's the IRL appeal for me, as well as being a historical variant, plus LANTIRN.

 

It's similar to the F-14A-135-GR (late) that we have currently and the F-14B; the B is more capable, but not by a whole lot (engine and that's it), but the A was more prolific and arguably more iconic.

 

With this the CM Block 50 is more capable (apart from fast, low-altitude, night attack capability) but the 40 has more historical appeal in the Balkans/Kosovo, as well as potential for what-if Cold War and Korea; in a similar breath the C Block 30 has appeal for ODS over Iraq and the A Block 15 for what-if Cold War scenarios over Germany etc.

 

For aircraft as diverse as the F-16 (even just sticking to the C for the time being), you can't really explore all of its capabilities with a single variant and rather than fudge different aircraft variants together from multiple time periods, I'd prefer to get the individual variants; I just thought, that with the amount in common with the current aircraft, it would be a good place to start.

 

 

That's always been my intention from the get go.

 

I mean ideally that's what should have been done in the beginning, offer packs giving 2 or 3 variants of the plane at different parts of its life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2021 at 3:22 AM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

onto the OP the night strike falcon with the WAR HUD would be awesome to have but lets not forget what happened with the RAZBAM F-15E where it was originally going to be a model comparable in weapons and capabilities to what you describe (no 9x or 120c5 or MIDS) and they went back on that and made it a noughties aircraft.

Yeah, which is kinda a pain for people into Cold War scenarios (I'm most interested in the mid-to-late Cold War, say mid-ish 60s to very early 90s). I'm most interested in a Block 40 from the late 80s to mid 90s (i.e a late Cold War/Operation Deny Flight era aircraft); which in the case of the former, would only have AIM-9M at best, and the latter AIM-120A/B (if that).

Going into an Operation Allied Force era in late 90s, the only thing that would've really changed on the Block 40 is AMRAAM C (though probably an early C model and not the C5), and apart from Pacer Strike modified aircraft, the Block 40 is otherwise mostly the same.

Though, the thing is; it seems that most players are only interested in the absolute latest and greatest variant possible, so that's probably why the F-15E turned into another post 2000s aircraft that don't really fit much apart from maps; most of the assets still being Cold War (apart from BLUFOR modules + a few select others), and the fact so far (at least from ED) the best REDFOR we'll get is an early 80s initial production MiG-29.  

Quote

Not that the idea is bad its probably only going to be revisited by ED after some time passes and the current teen series planes are done and they seem themselves with no new projects to do in the modern fast mover arena

I mean ideally that's what should have been done in the beginning, offer packs giving 2 or 3 variants of the plane at different parts of its life.

Yeah, personally I like having variants, but I realise it's not always feasible, in this case though, it should in theory be easier. What I thought could work is you purchase 1 variant at full price, and then once you own one, you can get the others with a substantial discount; the base aircraft costs $80 already so say $15 for a similar variant, workload dependent.

And yes, ED are running out of doable modern aircraft, at some point, they're probably going to have to start looking at others (so far they seemed averse to doing older aircraft, like the century series. It's a shame because in theory, these aircraft should be far easier to complete, being not much more complicated than the F-86F and F-5E-3.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Many export F-16 operators have AIM-7 capable planes ROCAF among them.

Ok thats news to me - could you list some of them(apart from ROCAF and Egypt)?

 

But anyway, I was refering specifically to the Block 15 in the 80'ies, since this was the rationale behind wanting this variant in DCS(for 80'ies scenarios). My understanding is that the Blk 15 ADF was the first F-16A variant that got AIM-7 compatibility......and that was in 1989(so kind of defeats the purpose of a dedicated 80'ies entry).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Ok thats news to me - could you list some of them(apart from ROCAF and Egypt)?

 

But anyway, I was refering specifically to the Block 15 in the 80'ies, since this was the rationale behind wanting this variant in DCS(for 80'ies scenarios). My understanding is that the Blk 15 ADF was the first F-16A variant that got AIM-7 compatibility......and that was in 1989(so kind of defeats the purpose of a dedicated 80'ies entry).

Iraq is another that comes to mind.

 

No other users come to mind off the top of my head, might be all of them might be more of them but the F-16 export market really is full of surprises

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1129937216514379778

video of one tanking with AIM-7s

 

Some shots of Iraqi and Singaporean F-16s with them

F-16 Viper FAQ - Page 13 - Zone-Five Aircraft Modeling Forums

https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/03/2001912185/-1/-1/0/180424-A-ZZ999-326.JPG


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22.01.2021 в 19:15, Seaeagle сказал:

Ok thats news to me - could you list some of them(apart from ROCAF and Egypt)?

 

But anyway, I was refering specifically to the Block 15 in the 80'ies, since this was the rationale behind wanting this variant in DCS(for 80'ies scenarios). My understanding is that the Blk 15 ADF was the first F-16A variant that got AIM-7 compatibility......and that was in 1989(so kind of defeats the purpose of a dedicated 80'ies entry).

IMO adding F-16s without Aim-7s would make them unplayable in DCS, they would get obliterated by any plane with medium range missiles. I think that the perfect solution for an early F-16 would be a non-amraam, but aim-7 capable variant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2021 at 6:45 PM, TotenDead said:

IMO adding F-16s without Aim-7s would make them unplayable in DCS, they would get obliterated by any plane with medium range missiles. I think that the perfect solution for an early F-16 would be a non-amraam, but aim-7 capable variant

Yeah, but on the US side you've only got the F-16C Block 25 (the first C variant circa mid 80s) or the ADF (late 80s).

Both are now more divergent from our aircraft, and would have to have a redone FLCS (analogue FLCS as opposed to digital FLCS), different RADAR (APG-66/APG-68(V) as opposed to APG-68(V)5), different engine (F100-PW-220), different INS. The cockpit would be much the same (basically in the same boat as the 40, but with the added benefit of being able to recycle the HUD), the F-16A Block 15 ADF however would have to have a completely new cockpit.

This was one of my main considerations for the block 40, in that it's probably the variant that's easiest to do (apart from the F-16CJ Block 50D), while offering some new capability (namely enhanced low-level night strike capability), without needing to start a lot of things from scratch. Going further back from the 40 and the workload needed gets driven up, even if I would love to have them all (especially the A Block 15).

As for A/A, AFAIK the block 25 is like the 40, in that it's FFBNW AIM-120s (and with past 1992/1993 with AIM-120A, 1994/1995 with the AIM-120B and 1996/1997 with the C, if the 25 was still around).

In general, Cold War F-16s were pretty much exclusively WVR fighters with just fox 2s and guns; and there are only 2 variants even capable of supporting fox 1s (at least for US aircraft, and one of those was basically at the end of the Cold War).


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2021 at 10:04 PM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Iraq is another that comes to mind.

 

No other users come to mind off the top of my head, might be all of them might be more of them but the F-16 export market really is full of surprises

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1129937216514379778

video of one tanking with AIM-7s

 

Some shots of Iraqi and Singaporean F-16s with them

 

Ok thanks. I looked around a bit and found some other export examples - including the F-16A ADF and some later C blocks with AIM-7 compatibility(I guess because the operators culdn't get AMRAAMs for them). But all of them dates to the mid 90'ies at the earliest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TotenDead said:

IMO adding F-16s without Aim-7s would make them unplayable in DCS, they would get obliterated by any plane with medium range missiles.

 

I fly F-16 with AIM-9M only on Cold War Blue Flag and successfully engage MiG-29 and Su-27 armed with R-27.

 

How?

 

Because R-27 require constant lock when AIM-9 is fire and forget with it's own abort range when you can disengage right after shoot.

 

At the same time MiG-29 has to fly directly on a collision course with my sidewinder to maintain his lock to all the way to the hit and I'm already full cold.

 

And his advantage of being able to shoot R-27 before me is very small since I simply crank as I wish depleting early R-27 energy with ease. Only very, i mean very close R-27 can be successful considering F-16 going cold right after firing AIM-9 and R-27 forced to chase >Mach 1 fighter.

 

It's not some theoretical consideration, it's practical solution tested by my and guys from my squadron. It was also real life consideration of Cold War Sparrow/Sidewinder armed F-15 pilots and ACEVAL/AIMVAL.

 

Only R-27ER of Su-27 could change the situation but this is 1990s weapon, just like AMRAAM, both POST Cold War.

 

And it's heavier/more draggy ground pounder F-16 block 50 variant than F-16C block 30 fighter hot rod of Cold War era which would add another acceleration margin to this equation. For Cold War servers AIM-9 armed F-16, like it was IRL, is perfectly capable and potent.

 

That's why they didn't integrate real tactical air force F-16 with heavy and draggy Sparrow IRL.

 

Sparrow in F-15 or F/A-18 was used in special low drag recess fuselage pylons developed specially for this plane weapon platforms. Having to pay full drag penalty like F-16 with Sparrow simply hanging below the wing (or MiG-29 with big and draggy R-27 on full drag under wing pylons) kills the performance.

 


Edited by bies
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...