Lima29

Did you read what the OP said? He rippled 12 bombs and 10 hit before the pipper and 2 after the pipper which is not how it’s supposed to be and not how you just described! 10 and then 2 is nowhere near an even split no matter where you learnt maths!

I’ve read from one or two people that’ve said it doesn’t work when the aircraft is moving, so they go into Active Pause and it works.

Really??!! Read the description of the event …. it says Hwang closed to 7-8 miles, called tally, closed to 5 miles and tried twice to uncage the Sidewinders but couldn’t get “tone”! When @JB3DG said he doubted anyone had made a successful Sidewinder shot at 7-8 miles, you tried to prove him wrong by replying referencing an incident where you claim that someone made two unsuccessful attempts at 10 miles …. when in fact, in the incident you reference, the pilot was unable to get “tone” around 5 miles away from target!! You’ve really just supported his stance! Are you really surprised that people don’t believe or respect things you say on here?

It appears to have an acmi pod fitted so it’s likely to be a captive training gbu-15 or agm-130, they don’t have fins.

If you Google image search for F-15Cs from 57th FIS (the Iceland based Squadron), every photo that comes up has CFTs fitted.

Well the proof is actually right there, the photo that has been posted above (labelled as F-15A intercept Tu-95) has actually been mis-labelled - if you look at a better quality image of it you can see that the serial numbers of the two aircraft are 80-0030 & 80-0040 both of which were, are & always have been F-15C’s.

I might find you irritating but you are correct with a lot of what you say on here and for some reason people won’t listen to what you say about the F-15E not operating without the CFTs till recently but with the bits I’ve highlighted from your last post you are wrong & seem to be putting your head in the sand just like you complain about other people not listening to your posts - USAF F-15C’s have flown operationally with CFTs - it’s not fleet- or worldwide and is limited to Iceland & possibly Alaskan based Eagles, but they were not test or training programmes, up there they operationally flew with CFTs fitted.

But …… this does not look like a photo, when you zoom in this looks exactly like airbrushed artwork

Not sure what your point is with these pics. The first is a prototype and the second is a test bird, we know that these type of aircraft had 600-gal tanks slung under them - but no operational US F-16CM did, so ED won’t do them.

It has been already, a couple times I think. It’s a few pages back - about 4 or 5 maybe.

I’m sure this is a bug that has been mentioned a few times before. Im sure it’s been said that it should slave to the SPI in GM/GMT but it isn’t at the moment, the work-around being that you have to cycle the targeting point as you are doing at the moment.

@Dragon 1-1 Nevermind the accuracy of his comments comparing those two missle systems; I think the main concern is why he completely out of the blue brought up the comment, about two MANPADS systems being the same, in a thread about the Sidewinder?

I have a feeling that we’ll not be getting the 600 gal tanks, they may have existed in the timeframe of our modelled F-16 but, forgive me if I’m wrong, the USAF / ANG have never used the 600 gal tank. The only pictures I’ve ever seen of this tank on a US F-16 were on a test aircraft, I’m pretty sure they were an Israeli invention & I think the only other countries aircraft I’ve seen with them fitted are Greece & the UAE.

Have you actually read what he wrote…. I do not think so…. He was being informative & telling people about a test/sales program where an aircraft that was virtually an F-15E was flown without CFT & then he posted some videos showing those flights as well as some videos showing the F-15E & F-15I being flown without CFT to show people what it would be like. At no point did he ever say that he was showing the F-15E as it would be flown in combat.

I was wondering about these things too, and while AvroLanc makes some logical sense I can’t see ED going with the “let’s do something that seems logical” approach when at every other step they’ve done they refuse to go with the logical approach & refuse to do things or adjust things because they haven’t seen some evidence of it. On a slightly different (maybe, some would say, minor) point Wags / ED have called this “new” bomb the GBU-24/B, but the “ /B ” version is the version that uses the normal Mk-84 low drag GP warhead while in the video the bomb on the aircraft is clearly using the BLU-109 penetrator warhead which would make the bomb we have the GBU-24A/B. It might not make much difference to some but others are sticklers for the details!

I know you’re saying that “our” version was “later than LANTIRN equipped versions” but that’s not strictly true. @Kev2go posted a topic last year where he showed photos of several different Block 50’s (what we have, although the Tape numbers aren’t known) all carrying LANTIRN targeting pods - operational, not test airframes. You can tell that they are LANTIRN not LITENING because of the intake shape. The post was quickly locked & marked “not planned” though, so you’re correct that we won’t see them.

The problem you have is that these things you keep referencing are from the manual for the MLU bird & when you look at the introduction to that manual it specifically states that it is for the updated F-16A/B block 10 & 15 as used by the Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian & Danish Air Forces (known as European Participating Air Forces (EPAF)) & not for the USAF versions! As you keep being told, the EPAF MLU aircraft , while similar do not necessarily have exactly the same features as the USAF/USANG F-16C block 50 that ED has repeatedly stated they are modelling. in fact the M2 tape manual that you reference here specifically states that there are differences between the USAF and EPAF software, although it doesn’t actually state what the differences are! So unless you can reference from the USAF block 50 manual you may not get what you keep demanding!

The problem you have is that these things you keep referencing are from the manual for the MLU bird & when you look at the introduction to that manual it specifically states that it is for the updated F-16A/B block 10 & 15 as used by the Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian & Danish Air Forces (known as European Participating Air Forces (EPAF)) & not for the USAF versions! As you keep being told, the EPAF MLU aircraft , while similar do not necessarily have exactly the same features as the USAF/USANG F-16C block 50 that ED has repeatedly stated they are modelling. So unless you can reference from the USAF block 50 manual you may not get what you keep demanding!

Out of interest, if the USAF never used the JSOW, why is it part of the PACAF Standard Loads list for 35FW F-16s? (Which was incidentally: 2x JSOW, 3x AIM-120, 1x AIM-9 & 2x wing tanks). Surely, to be included on the list of Loadouts it must be in the inventory to be used. I can’t imagine the Air Force would issue a list of what should be loaded if they don’t physically have the ordnance, that would be totally pointless! Also, if they don’t use the JSOW why do they have a Loading Standards Time of 25 minutes to load a JSOW weapon onto an aircraft (F-16 and F-15) listed in their Aircraft & Equipment Maintenance Management documents?