napalm in the morning

[mattebubben]

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html

 

Take a look - F-16A, F/A-16A, A-16, they all are the same thing I guess

 

Not really.

 

They planned to make a A-16 that would have new Avionics and equipment an internal 30mm cannon and being up armored for the Cas duty.

 

It only has prototypes and never entered service.

 

The F-16s that flew with the Gunpods where F-16A Block 10s that had very minor modifications to let them use the gunpod (but they had no other new equipment or radar etc)

 

the A-16 and real F/A 16Cs never saw production (only prototypes)

 

the F-16A Block 10s have been called F/A 16 unofficially but officially the F/A-16 Tag was limited to the earlier project (the F/A 16C)

 

To sum it up,

The A-16 was the most Ambitious project of the 3 that would more or less demand new production.

 

the F/A 16C Block 30 project was slightly less ambitious and would have been made out of rebuilt F-16C/Ds (Block 30/32 Aircraft)

 

and the last being the F-16As armed with the GPU-5 gunpod

(which contained the Gau-13 cannon)

 

it was the cheapest and least ambitious of the 3 projects and the only one that actually went into the operational testing phase

(with the 174th TFW having their F-16A Block 10s modified to carry the Gunpod)

 

There was also the plan that if the F-16As carrying the Gunpod had been effective the same would have been done with a Number of F-16Cs.

 

But all the different projects where different aircraft.

 

So it would be incorrect to call the F-16A with the Gunpod a A-16.

Edited July 5, 2016 by mattebubben

[Vitormouraa]

I corrected before you replied me, it's not the same thing. Reading the text you see there are so many differences.. by the way, sorry for the confusion.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Vitormouraa

[mvsgas]

A-16 or F/A-16 where no prototypes, just block 25 to test the concept of a dedicated CAS F-16

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2805022&postcount=486

 

[mattebubben]

A-16 or F/A-16 where no prototypes, just block 25 to test the concept of a dedicated CAS F-16

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2805022&postcount=486

 

 

Well there was a A-16 prototype that had some of the new aviconics designed for the A-16.

 

It had Nose mounted Flir and targeting sensors.

 

here is a picture example of the prototype (its from the link i posted 2-3 posts back)

 

[112th_Rossi]

What was the point of an A-16 when the F-16 was a capable mud mover anyway?

[mvsgas]

Well there was a A-16 prototype that had some of the new aviconics designed for the A-16.

 

It had Nose mounted Flir and targeting sensors.

 

here is a picture example of the prototype (its from the link i posted 2-3 posts back)

 

 

That is Just the AFTI, test bed, not a A-16 prototype. Some of the concepts tested on the AFTI can now be seen in the block 60.

[mattebubben]

What was the point of an A-16 when the F-16 was a capable mud mover anyway?

 

Some higher upts withing the Airforce wanted to replace the A-10.

(Some things never change ^^)

 

For for that they needed something that could do the A-10s Job of low altitude CAS.

 

And they decided with taking the F-16 as a base.

 

So they needed to prove a F-16 variant could do everything the A-10 could and a part of that was to have a big ol cannon that would destroy armor etc.

[mvsgas]

What was the point of an A-16 when the F-16 was a capable mud mover anyway?

 

AFAIK, at the time of these test, it was not as capable as other airframes like F-111, F-4 etc. because it could not carry guided munitions and the A2G radar was not as capable. It is a great mud mover now, not back then.

[112th_Rossi]

Doesn't make sense to me. The A10 was designed from the ground up for long loiter times and to be put up against armoured targets.

[mattebubben]

Doesn't make sense to me. The A10 was designed from the ground up for long loiter times and to be put up against armoured targets.

 

Well sadly making sense is rarely a needed property for ideas when it comes to higher ups within politics and military acquisitions.

 

For example we again have the exact thing we had back when with the F-35 to take over the A-10s duty.

 

when that does not really makes sense and what is really needed is new design (that improves on what the A-10 is capable off) instead of trying to shoehorn a fighter into the duty of a cas aircraft.

 

But as always Money and Political influence is usually more important or as important then something being logical or making sense.

[mattebubben]

That is Just the AFTI, test bed, not a A-16 prototype. Some of the concepts tested on the AFTI can now be seen in the block 60.

 

Sorry must be the language barrier (english is not primary language and i sometimes mix terms between what the translation means in my language and that it means in english )

i never ment there was a new built dedicated prototype.

When i said prototype i was talking about the Test beds etc to make sure everything was viable etc (and some of the A-16 test aircraft were more modified then others)

 

And the main reason for that picture etc was in response to the statements in the link you shared (that i guessed that you agreed with)

 

that stated there were no major modifications done to the test aircraft.

 

Which is something i found issue with =P.

Edited July 5, 2016 by mattebubben

[mvsgas]

Code one magazine info on the AFTI F-16

 

[ame]http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_V07N3_SM_1271449318_2335.pdf[/ame]

 

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/8/

Edited July 6, 2016 by mvsgas

[Vitormouraa]

Very good stuff mvsgas!

[mvsgas]

It's crazy how many technologies now used in aircraft where tested so long ago.

[mattebubben]

Well id say we have gotten slightly off Topic ^^.

 

So lets return to the F-5E ^^.

[112th_Rossi]

The F5E only has TACAN and HSI navigation. How is this going work with waypoints in the ME?

[nomdeplume]

The F5E only has TACAN and HSI navigation. How is this going work with waypoints in the ME?

Same as with MiG-21, Huey, P-51, et al: it doesn't. ME waypoints won't do anything, as it doesn't have a navigation system that uses waypoints.

[mvsgas]

I assume like the WWII aircraft or the F-86, Mig-15/21; no need for way points. A note in the briefing about land marks used for navigation references might be useful.

[Vitormouraa]

But it won't be totally useless, you have the kneeboard!

[112th_Rossi]

So at briefing I can say:

 

Head 175 for 20 miles, Head 270 for 10 miles etc?

[mvsgas]

So at briefing I can say:

 

Head 175 for 20 miles, Head 270 for 10 miles etc?

 

You could do that and you can also use the TACAN. Heading### from TACAN ##, this many miles.

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

Well id say we have gotten slightly off Topic ^^.

Only slightly :D

[Einherjer]

Isn't there a modder who can make a napalm canister for us?

[mvsgas]

 

 

 

 

 

[SFC Tako]

Napalm is fully doable and same goes for oldschool AAA with big puffs.

We don't have any of that right now because either there's a lack of will or lack of competence to do them.

 

Anyways, this is what it looks like in a modded form on a flightsim made 15 years ago.

Edited July 6, 2016 by SFC Tako