F-16 A, B, C, MLU

[Silver_Dragon]

Surely Python talk about the L-39, a trainer jet, subsonic and very limited avionic and small weapons systems. Nothing compare whit a naval multirol aircraft with complex system, ground and air radar, advanced avionic, advanced weapons and supersonics AFM....

[Python]

Hmmmmm...

 

Python what aircraft would that be? I'm picking my brain trying to figure what Russian bird would need ground mapping radar and coming up blank...

 

Well it wouldn't necessarily have to have one, I just meant a full DCS level Russian aircraft in general. An SU-34 would be a nice candidate however.

[7rooper]

DCS will be cat's meow in simulation when a Falcon Block 40 onwards is released. Period

Those who don't want it just say that because they feel jealous that the Viper can do Air-2-air and air-2-ground and excel at both. They prefer single role aircrafts

[sniperwolfpk5]

You know what would be really fun? If someone just said "Screw it" and made an F-16XL. It would be an F-16, but the F-16 wishlisters would hate it because it's not a real F-16 :lol:

 

Viper drivers, I love you all and when an F-16 Block 40 and up comes to DCS I'll be there right with you, but seriously can we cut it with the "F-16NAO" threads every couple of weeks?

 

You have proven that F-16 is the most wanted. That's why every week a new thread pop ups.

[mvsgas]

Anyone would be up for an F-16 prior to block 20? or as Tirak, block 40 and up?

(just curious)

Any block for me.

 

Give me an F-16A prior to the Block 15 standard. A Netz, even. Let's get nimble up in here.

:thumbup:

 

Viper drivers, I love you all and when an F-16 Block 40 and up comes to DCS I'll be there right with you, but seriously can we cut it with the "F-16NAO" threads every couple of weeks?

 

DCS will be cat's meow in simulation when a Falcon Block 40 onwards is released. Period

Those who don't want it just say that because they feel jealous that the Viper can do Air-2-air and air-2-ground and excel at both. They prefer single role aircrafts

Why block 40 and up?

[Tirak]

Why block 40 and up?

 

LANTIRN, FLIR, AMRAAMs, GBUs, GPS, really from Block 40 up the F-16 could do anything under the sun.

[mvsgas]

LANTIRN, FLIR, AMRAAMs, GBUs, GPS, really from Block 40 up the F-16 could do anything under the sun.

 

Ok, but there are block 20, 30, etc with same capability and some block 40 without them, just saying.

Edited February 18, 2016 by mvsgas

[Tirak]

If a Block 20 or 30 were done, they would be done in a similar way that the F-5E was done, an early version most easily matched by original flight manuals and not MSIPIII standard. In order to avoid any confusion, going with a Block 40 would be easiest, and most fully represents the capabilities I would want to see replicated on any DCS F-16C module.

[mvsgas]

If a Block 20 or 30 were done, they would be done in a similar way that the F-5E was done, an early version most easily matched by original flight manuals and not MSIPIII standard. In order to avoid any confusion, going with a Block 40 would be easiest, and most fully represents the capabilities I would want to see replicated on any DCS F-16C module.

 

Not sure I follow, what do you mean by MSIPIII? There are newly made F-16 A models with greater capabilities from factory.

Early versions block 40 could not even carry targeting pod, nor AMRAAM, etc.

As I said countless times and what I meant here:

The problems would be for people to understand what they are getting if the modeled a specific F-16 from "X" country at "Y" time period...

 

Edit:

Again, not sure if I follow but, this is what I mean: We have to be very specific to understand the capabilities we get from X aircraft at Y time from Z country.

- If you look at F-16 80-3597 (E-597) for example, it started life AFAIK, as a block 15 and later was updated to its current capabilities of a block 20 F-16AM.

- In comparison, again as an example and AFAIK, 93-0777 (6676) was made to the block 20 standards, no upgrades. No MLU ( ROCAF is just now starting it's MLU program)

Both aircraft may or may not have differences and weapons, avionics capabilities, etc.

Edited February 18, 2016 by mvsgas

[Bidartarra]

The thing is lots of people want a F16 but among those not everyone wants the same variant. And I believe an early model without all the bells and whistles would receive a rather cold welcome from the community.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Bidartarra
BMS Discuss/Comparisons/OT

[BIGNEWY]

Still applies guys

 

Please keep the comparisons and discussions about BMS out of it.

[Bidartarra]

The only people whining for an "Early" F-16 are the Russian pilots afraid f the AIM-120. Personally I'd like to see a Block 50 with HARM capability. (Coincidentally, That's the AI model we have right now.)

 

 

 

.

 

Some people like older aircrafts, nothing wrong with that. Your statement about people being scared of the Amraam is quite condescending.

[Jester Darrak]

I got a question here:

 

Since SEAD is a vital role in modern air (-to-ground) warfare and a big selling point, has the F-16CJ (also known as Block52+) still all the capabilities the regular 50/52 has? As far as I know only the F/A-18C is completely a multirole/multimission capable aircraft since there are so many different Viper Blocks in the USAF and the Charlie Hornwt is kind of an all-in-one package.

[Python]

The thing is lots of people want a F16 but among those not everyone wants the same variant. And I believe an early model without all the bells and whistles would receive a rather cold welcome from the community.

 

 

While I agree that somebody will always be disappointed, I think the F-16 is popular enough that we'll see multiple versions released down the line. Personally I'd buy them all...

[Nealius]

CJ primarily refers to the 50/52. Not sure if the 52+ is included under CJ or separate, but the US doesn't use the 52+. I think most "frontline" squadrons in the US use 40/42/50/52. Anything below seems to be ANG and training according to F-16.net. 52+ probably retains SEAD capabilities but last I did any research the HTS pod was never exported and not many of the 52+ users (e.g. Israel) even have HARMs.

 

Please keep the comparisons and discussions about BMS out of it.

 

This is why, I think, that we will probably not see an F-16 in DCS for a while. It will inevitably open up comparisons.

[Bidartarra]

I got a question here:

 

Since SEAD is a vital role in modern air (-to-ground) warfare and a big selling point, has the F-16CJ (also known as Block52+) still all the capabilities the regular 50/52 has? As far as I know only the F/A-18C is completely a multirole/multimission capable aircraft since there are so many different Viper Blocks in the USAF and the Charlie Hornwt is kind of an all-in-one package.

 

Not an expert but if a HTS can be fitted on any F16 then it expands the realm of possibilities on a lot of variants . You can also use the Harm as a sensor before engaging but it's a pain compared to Using it with HTS.

[Nealius]

After digging around on F-16.net the HTS can only be added to the CG (after CCIP upgrade) and CJ (which was designed to work with HTS from the beginning), and isn't exported, so you won't find it on a 52+. Even though the CG and CJ are getting closer to having similar capabilities, the apparent doctrine is that CG is for strikes and CJ is for SEAD.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Nealius

[Bidartarra]

After digging around on F-16.net the HTS can only be added to the CG and CJ, and isn't exported. Even though the CG and CJ are getting closer to having similar capabilities, the apparent doctrine is that CG is for strikes and CJ is for SEAD.

 

Good info, thanks.

[Jester Darrak]

+1

[mvsgas]

I got a question here:

 

Since SEAD is a vital role in modern air (-to-ground) warfare and a big selling point, has the F-16CJ (also known as Block52+) still all the capabilities the regular 50/52 has? As far as I know only the F/A-18C is completely a multirole/multimission capable aircraft since there are so many different Viper Blocks in the USAF and the Charlie Hornwt is kind of an all-in-one package.

 

Depends on the Country. Not all 52+ users wanted the same capability. Now in terms of SEAD, depending on the country and keeping in mind this changes with different updates, Block 20, 30 to 52+ can carry AGM-88. I think even the block 60 can but I'm not sure if the AGM-88 was sold to UAE.

 

CJ primarily refers to the 50/52. Not sure if the 52+ is included under CJ or separate, but the US doesn't use the 52+. I think most "frontline" squadrons in the US use 40/42/50/52. Anything below seems to be ANG and training according to F-16.net. 52+ probably retains SEAD capabilities but last I did any research the HTS pod was never exported and not many of the 52+ users (e.g. Israel) even have HARMs.

HTS pod is not needed for SEAD, Block 30 has done the missions since Desert Storm 1 without it.

 

After digging around on F-16.net the HTS can only be added to the CG (after CCIP upgrade) and CJ (which was designed to work with HTS from the beginning), and isn't exported, so you won't find it on a 52+. Even though the CG and CJ are getting closer to having similar capabilities, the apparent doctrine is that CG is for strikes and CJ is for SEAD.

Block 40 88-0494 with HTS pod, click on image to enlarge

 

A team of 36th Aircraft Maintenance Unit crew chiefs move an F-16 Fighting Falcon into a hardened aircraft hangar on Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea, Jan. 12, 2016. The 36th AMU trains, equips and executes mission capabilities to ensure the 51st Fighter Wing is able to provide safety and deterrence to the ROK. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Dillian Bamman/Released)

 

Block 40 90-0794, click on image to enlarge

An F-16 Fighting Falcon takes off during Exercise Beverly Midnight 15-3 May 1, 2015, at Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea. During the six-day exercise, the wing inspection team implemented wartime scenarios to test the Wolf Pack’s ability to defend the base and take the fight north. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Katrina Heikkinen/Released)

[Jester Darrak]

So all in all the thesis still stands that only the Hornet is an all-in-one package where every aircraft (in the US inventory) is able to perform a multitude of missions including SEAD, CAP, CAS, Strike etc just depending on aircrew/squadron training instead of avionics as it is with the F-16, at least regarding the SEAD feature as there is special Software needed?

[mvsgas]

So all in all the thesis still stands that only the Hornet is an all-in-one package where every aircraft (in the US inventory) is able to perform a multitude of missions including SEAD, CAP, CAS, Strike etc just depending on aircrew/squadron training instead of avionics as it is with the F-16, at least regarding the SEAD feature as there is special Software needed?

 

Special software? Not that I know off. M2 Operational Flight Program (OFP) introduce the AGM-88 capability to some F-16. I think the latest OFP is M7. Most F-16C/D (block 25 to 52) can do all those missions mentions.

[Nealius]

I never said the HTS was needed for SEAD and I specifically said that it could be attached to the 40 so I'm not sure what your reply is trying to point out....

[Buzzles]

The thing is lots of people want a F16 but among those not everyone wants the same variant. And I believe an early model without all the bells and whistles would receive a rather cold welcome from the community.

 

Speak for yourself, I quite enjoy the older versions without all the bells and whistles.

 

Aircraft from the 40's through to the late 70's tend to have some quirks which make them interesting to fly, plus you often have to think about how you're going to employ them due to various limitations compared to the modern ones.

 

Sometimes, less is actually more.

[mvsgas]

I never said the HTS was needed for SEAD and I specifically said that it could be attached to the 40 so I'm not sure what your reply is trying to point out....

My intend was to add information to you post and to point that although in the past CG and CJ squadron had different capabilities, missions, training and equipment available (even after the initial completion of the CCIP); Now, it seems, they are consider all CM/DM in terms of the mission and capabilities. So with squadrons receiving the require equipment and training, it is harder to find a CG and CJ Squadron in the USAF inventory. They are now (meaning in the last 5 years) appear to share common missions.

 

 

No directed at you Nealius, just because I'm a F-16 qeek;

Something else to add is F-16 are designated as A, B, C, D, E, F, N, YF-16A/B, NF-16A/D, QF-16A/C and TF-16N in the US as per DOD 4120.15L and it's addendum. So when you hear about CG, CJ etc. That is actually a Technical Order (T.O. also known as the aircraft manuals) designation commonly used to quickly differentiate blocks. So Block 25 to 32 are C/D, Block 40/42= CG/DG, Block 50/52= CJ/DJ and CCIP F-16 are CM/DM only when talking about mission capabilities, weapons and some avionics but retain the previous T.O. designation on the rest of the manuals.

 

Additionally, some (but not all) F-16 user use the F-16AM/BM term to identify modernize F-16A/B.

 

Lastly, to Jester Darrack;

It is hard to compare the F/A-18C/D to the F-16C/D ( or any aircraft for that matter) without knowing all the F/A-18C/D subversion and upgrades. So we can say they have same capabilities, but this would be overlooking a lot of details on both aircraft.