F-16

[shagrat]

When have you seen an F/A-18 using sea mines? I do not think I seen them ever being carried by an F/A-18, sure it can but never seen it. When is the last harbor we mine? Desert storm? 27 years ago?

Australian Training excercises as described by Mac "Serge" Tucker in "Fighter Pilot" for example... and it wasn't about "when did anybody" do it, but about "the Viper can do everything an F/A-18C can, apart from Carrier ops".

 

Well, a Viper can't lay mines for example.

 

And the last AMRAAM fired in earnest, has been launched from an F/A-18C it seems (Syria 2017)?

 

Both planes fulfil multi-role requirements and do it very well.

The F-16 for the Air Forces (multiple countries) and the F/A-18C for multiple branches, Air Forces (multiple countries) Navy and the US Marine Corps.

[mvsgas]

Australian Training excercises as described by Mac "Serge" Tucker in "Fighter Pilot" for example... and it wasn't about "when did anybody" do it, but about "the Viper can do everything an F/A-18C can, apart from Carrier ops".

 

Well, a Viper can't lay mines for example.

 

And the last AMRAAM fired in earnest, has been launched from an F/A-18C it seems (Syria 2017)?

 

Both planes fulfil multi-role requirements and do it very well.

The F-16 for the Air Forces (multiple countries) and the F/A-18C for multiple branches, Air Forces (multiple countries) Navy and the US Marine Corps.

 

That's cool but how about pictures of aerial mine carried by an F/A-18C? I am seriously curious now.

 

Finally

5VNzwRbAtZc

 

This is the only example I can find, strange.

Edited January 27, 2018 by mvsgas

[shagrat]

That's cool but how about pictures of aerial mine carried by an F/A-18C? I am seriously curious now.

 

Finally

5VNzwRbAtZc

 

This is the only example I can find, strange.

It's not that popular, maybe. They often use BDU-33 for practice drops.

The fun aspect in DCS is, that we could possibly try to mine the immediate path of a CSG if the other side isn't careful... Though I doubt, that is a realistic scenario. In the Strait of Hormuz, though denying passage at choke points sounds very interesting...

[zxrex]

Are you aware that the quickstrike mine is just a JDAM with different fusing? USAF has dropped them from B1s and 52s. I'm guessing if they wanted to hang one on a 16 it wouldn't be too much trouble. Not sure on that just don't think the mines put a plus on the 18 side.

[shagrat]

Are you aware that the quickstrike mine is just a JDAM with different fusing? USAF has dropped them from B1s and 52s. I'm guessing if they wanted to hang one on a 16 it wouldn't be too much trouble. Not sure on that just don't think the mines put a plus on the 18 side.

That is a Quickstrike II, not sure we get these. Even then it isn't much about "hanging", you could drop them out of a balloon.

The F/A-18C avionics can calculate the detailed parameters for a combined drop with multiple airplanes and execute this.

 

I guess it would require a complete new "Naval" block F-16 with the F/A-18 systems to enable a proper delivery...

 

Edit: and it wasn't about "better", it was about "F-16 can do everything an F/A-18C can do, except Carrier ops".

 

As I said above both platforms cater slightly different needs. That is why the Navy and Marines and some countries outside the US don't fly the F-16 but the F/A-18 as a multirole jet... And it has two engines, just in case one fails. ;)

Edited January 27, 2018 by shagrat

[Stratos]

Spain bought them in part cause the Hornet came with two engines, that mean safer operations in Canary islands, quite far away continental Spain itself.

[Creature_1stVFW]

Having the necessary systems built for the F18 will make it somewhat easier to build the F16, I'm guessing.

 

I think it's a good idea to hold off on the F16 and let DCS 2.5 settle down and let ED polish up 2.5, damage model, missions etc and finish off the F18

 

Then do the F16 latter, it will do well, many from that other sim would buy it, the problem is the full on fans coming here, they could really mess up this forum, because no matter what, the other sim will be better because, blah blah blah, feel sorry for the mods already. ;)

 

:poster_ban:

 

.

 

Wow, really?

[Kev2go]

Everything Except...win the Light Weight Fighter competition...

 

:D

 

That being said, in my opinion the LWF competition is the last time we built a fighter aircraft "right". The YF-17 may have "lost" the LWF contract but in the end became the F-18. One development program yielded two outstanding aircraft.

 

it simply met US navy needs better.

 

2 engines, and better suited when modified for carrier landings. Since the USAf didnt have these requirements F16 did the job to thier standards.

 

F35 also went through a competition against Boeing XF32. It won. the F35 despite its developmental Cost Overuns, has turned out now thats its entering service to be quite a very capable aircraft

 

 

That is a Quickstrike II, not sure we get these. Even then it isn't much about "hanging", you could drop them out of a balloon.

The F/A-18C avionics can calculate the detailed parameters for a combined drop with multiple airplanes and execute this.

 

I guess it would require a complete new "Naval" block F-16 with the F/A-18 systems to enable a proper delivery...

 

Edit: and it wasn't about "better", it was about "F-16 can do everything an F/A-18C can do, except Carrier ops".

 

As I said above both platforms cater slightly different needs. That is why the Navy and Marines and some countries outside the US don't fly the F-16 but the F/A-18 as a multirole jet... And it has two engines, just in case one fails. ;)

 

 

but that is it for the most part. Carrier landings, and for some Nations the 2 engines. However some of these nations sure don't mind making compromises in the Engine Dept, as Austrialia is buying F35's as thier next gen Plane, Canada was going to also until it was politicized by the opposition. ( but thats a different matter).

 

 

OFcs navy also added the mining capability, But the Viper doesn't need to. IT was not adopted as naval aircraft. In any case the DCS hornet we are getting doesn't appear to be getting this capability. At this rate the only thing thats could be said is better " is that it has some extra electronics, Like a digital fuel display, and Extra multi function screen allowing you to run navigational page at the same time as having 2 displays to spare for other tasks. having a digital Fuel Display is also more technologically nifty tham a Analog fuel gauge, but more of a luxury than a must have necessity.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Kev2go

[Terzi]

I think there is no point in discussing which one is better, the F-16 or the F-18.

 

If any of them is better than the other, it is just a little bit better and that does not really matter.

[Basher54321]

For those who don't know the 'carrier' F-16 story: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/v-1600-the-carrier-capable-f-16-that-wasnt/

 

Interesting article but also appears to be misleading regarding the F-16A.

 

The Air Force didn't want a Lightweight no frills A-A fighter at all as the article states - they wanted a multirole fighter with emphasis on A-G to replace the F-4 Phantom - which was why the LWF was killed and the F-16A was increased in size. It could have carried AIM-7s from IOC in 1980 without any redesign - the only reason it didn't was pure politics.

[Stratos]

Interesting article but also appears to be misleading regarding the F-16A.

 

The Air Force didn't want a Lightweight no frills A-A fighter at all as the article states - they wanted a multirole fighter with emphasis on A-G to replace the F-4 Phantom - which was why the LWF was killed and the F-16A was increased in size. It could have carried AIM-7s from IOC in 1980 without any redesign - the only reason it didn't was pure politics.

 

That's why I fly a lot of F-16ADV in BMS, I feel using the Sparrow is more challenging and fun than the AMRAAM. And also cause I like to fly in ODS too. :)

[mvsgas]

It could have carried AIM-7s from IOC in 1980 without any redesign - the only reason it didn't was pure politics.

 

AFAIK;The YF-16 and block 1,5,10 and 15 could not carry the AIM-7 nor the radar could guide it. Only later modified version of the Block 15 (ADF) in the USAF could carry it. Now, specific version (by country and year not by block) can carry the AIM-7. For example Egypt block 40 and ROCAF Block 20. The YF-16 was tested to carry the AIM-7, but it was added to the Main Landing Gear Door because is the only place they could add the missile without redesigning/rewiring the wing. And it was a carry/separation test, the YF-16 could not guide it.

 

The F-16 was never intended to carry the Sparrow missile because it was designed to be a short range day-time interceptor without any BVR capabilities. Although the possibility of equipping the aircraft with the missile were already tested succesfully in 1977 it took untill the introduction of the F-16C block 25 and the F-16 ADF before the Viper got a BVR capability.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article10.html

Same conversation here:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2741

and

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160730&page=1

Edited January 28, 2018 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

F-16ADV

What is an F-16ADV?

[mvsgas]

I posted this a while ago, LM F-16 options

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2682140&postcount=85

[Basher54321]

mvsgas - I have quite lot of videos of the 1977 AIM-7 test flight and firing - have attached a photo of one carrying them AIM-7s on the wing stations.

 

Firstly do not confuse the YF-16s with the F-16A Block 1 - the Block 1 got a redesign which made it larger to account for wonderful A-G role it was going to be performing.

 

As Harry Hillaker mentioned - the YF-16 was a quicky demonstrator only - the centerline AIM-7 stations (according to John Williams) were only there for testing - you couldn't do that on the block 1 because they moved the pylons inboard so there was no clearance.

 

Also John Williams has stated several times the official reason General Dynamics did not put AIM-7s on the Block 1 was because there was no requirement from the customer (USAF).

 

The APG-66 simply didn't have the CW module but there was no technical reason it couldn't have been added at the time according to Pat Acadoo.

 

Mike Loh was on the USAF redesign team in the late 70s

 

But he was in a quandary. Air Force four-star generals had ordered him not to put a Sparrow missile on the F-16 because they didn’t want it competing directly with the F-15. But they didn’t say anything about inventing a new missile.

 

“I pursued a lightweight radar missile very quietly, as an advanced development project, with no strings to the F-16 or any other fighter,” Loh says. “I worked quietly with missile contractors and the Air Force Development Test Center at Eglin to put together radar missile designs that could fit on Sidewinder stations. This initiative later turned into AMRAAM, the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.”

 

 

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/

 

 

You will note the Reason the Block 25 had provisions for AMRAAM in 1985 was because the missile was supposed to be ready then!

[mvsgas]

mvsgas - I have quite lot of videos of the 1977 AIM-7 test flight and firing - have attached a photo of one carrying them AIM-7s on the wing stations.

Carry test, the aircraft could not guide the missile.

 

Firstly do not confuse the YF-16s with the F-16A Block 1 - the Block 1 got a redesign which made it larger to account for wonderful A-G role it was going to be performing.

I did not confuse it:

The YF-16 was tested to carry the AIM-7, but it was added to the Main Landing Gear Door because is the only place they could add the missile without redesigning/rewiring the wing. And it was a carry/separation test, the YF-16 could not guide it.

Note, I posted YF-16

 

 

As Harry Hillaker mentioned - the YF-16 was a quicky demonstrator only - the centerline AIM-7 stations (according to John Williams) were only there for testing - you couldn't do that on the block 1 because they moved the pylons inboard so there was no clearance.

 

Also John Williams has stated several times the official reason General Dynamics did not put AIM-7s on the Block 1 was because there was no requirement from the customer (USAF).

 

The APG-66 simply didn't have the CW module but there was no technical reason it couldn't have been added at the time according to Pat Acadoo.

 

Mike Loh was on the USAF redesign team in the late 70s

 

But he was in a quandary. Air Force four-star generals had ordered him not to put a Sparrow missile on the F-16 because they didn’t want it competing directly with the F-15. But they didn’t say anything about inventing a new missile.

 

“I pursued a lightweight radar missile very quietly, as an advanced development project, with no strings to the F-16 or any other fighter,” Loh says. “I worked quietly with missile contractors and the Air Force Development Test Center at Eglin to put together radar missile designs that could fit on Sidewinder stations. This initiative later turned into AMRAAM, the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.”

 

 

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/

 

 

You will note the Reason the Block 25 had provisions for AMRAAM in 1985 was because the missile was supposed to be ready then!

That is cool but the fact is that only specific version of the F-16 ( by country and year) can carry the AIM-7 because the country did not buy the upgrade or the missile or both. So AFAIK US ANG Block 15 ADF (circa 1990) ROCAF Block 20, Egypt Block 40 (not seen their other block with it). There are picture of US block 25 carrying for testing but never seen them operationally.

 

And if you look at any of the other F-16 thread (here and other sites) this conversation have been repeated over and over.

Edited January 28, 2018 by mvsgas

[Kev2go]

Interesting article but also appears to be misleading regarding the F-16A.

 

The Air Force didn't want a Lightweight no frills A-A fighter at all as the article states - they wanted a multirole fighter with emphasis on A-G to replace the F-4 Phantom - which was why the LWF was killed and the F-16A was increased in size. It could have carried AIM-7s from IOC in 1980 without any redesign - the only reason it didn't was pure politics.

 

exactly

 

the Fighter mafia forced down AF throats the idea that a fighter only needed Close range IR missiles. And they were still upset at the air force for what they deemed was "feature creep" not liking the F16A entirely because it could hold more than 2 IR missiles and because it still had A Radar included, and because it could still be used for bombing (even in most ordinance was unguided)

 

So it took the air force until the first production F16C to get those capabilities they wanted from the start at F16A IOC.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Kev2go

[mvsgas]

So it took the air force until the first production F16C to get those capabilities they wanted from the start at IOC.

 

What? :huh:

[Basher54321]

Carry test, the aircraft could not guide the missile.

 

 

That is all correct of course - my point was, that if the USAF wanted AIM-7 on Block 1 from the start there appears to be no reason it could not have been.

 

 

There are several sources that list the Block 32s for Egypt as the first production F-16s with actual AIM-7 capability - if someone from Egypt ever confirms that will let you know.

[mvsgas]

That is all correct of course - my point was, that if the USAF wanted AIM-7 on Block 1 from the start there appears to be no reason it could not have been.

 

I do not know about RADARs, but I think at the time, a radar that size did not have the power to guide the AIM-7. The missile and RADAR had to evolve or the F-16 needed to be bigger. Another thing to consider, with AIM-7 loaded, is not much else the F-16 can carry for a decent range. Unless some of the blocks with conformals tanks and internal jammers can carry AIM-7.

Edited January 28, 2018 by mvsgas

[Basher54321]

I do not know about RADARs, but I think at the time, a radar that size did not have the power to guide the AIM-7. The missile and RADAR had to evolve or the F-16 needed to be bigger. Another thing to consider, with AIM-7 loaded, is not much else the F-16 can carry for a decent range.

 

Where does your theory on required radar power come from? seem to remember the APG-66 being tested with a CW module in the 70s if I can find the ref.

 

Was the little APQ-120 in the F-4E comparable to the APG-66 - certainly not on performance or tech but it could support AIM-7 alright.

 

Will need to check the details but the APG-68 is not much more than a modified APG-66

 

also the modified APG-66 (V) 1 and 3 both supported AIM-7

 

 

Not seeing the relevance - ADF carried it on 3/7 in an interceptor role - capability where required and range reduction probably not significant.

[mvsgas]

Where does your theory on required radar power come from? seem to remember the APG-66 being tested with a CW module in the 70s if I can find the ref.

 

Was the little APQ-120 in the F-4E comparable to the APG-66 - certainly not on performance or tech but it could support AIM-7 alright.

 

Will need to check the details but the APG-68 is not much more than a modified APG-66

 

also the modified APG-66 (V) 1 and 3 both supported AIM-7

 

 

Not seeing the relevance - ADF carried it on 3/7 in an interceptor role - capability where required and range reduction probably not significant.

 

Yes, but at the time of the YF-16/Early blocks. So later RADAR can do it, when the missile and RADAR evolve, miniaturize components that could use the small antenna to radiate enough power and keep the temperature controlled and they fit on the nose of the F-16. Even now, on hot desert days, the ECS struggles to cool avionics on the ground.

Regardless, is all conjecture in my part anyway.

[Pilotasso]

PoAF's original order of F-16's (there were 2 orders) was of the ADF variant back in 1994. They had the exact same radar APG-66 as standard block 15, 10 and 5, then only difference was that they had an additional radar mode and wiring to 2 stations on the wings specifically for the Sparrow. The government at the time specifically wanted a plane with BVR capability, however we had no public information available if the missiles were infact ever acquired either directly from the manufacturer or from another allied country inventory (the second batch was purchased in 1999 for the intent of MLU conversion).

 

The Italian ADF's even had AMRAAM compatibility. But they entered service later with the intent as serving stop gap for the Typhoon only.

[mvsgas]

PoAF's original order of F-16's (there were 2 orders) was of the ADF variant back in 1994. They had the exact same radar APG-66 as standard block 15, 10 and 5, then only difference was that they had an additional radar mode and wiring to 2 stations on the wings specifically for the Sparrow. The government at the time specifically wanted a plane with BVR capability, however we had no public information available if the missiles were infact ever acquired either directly from the manufacturer or from another allied country inventory (the second batch was purchased in 1999 for the intent of MLU conversion).

 

The Italian ADF's even had AMRAAM compatibility. But they entered service later with the intent as serving stop gap for the Typhoon only.

 

I doubt it was the same RADAR. Software and probably a different subversion. I think the APG-66 is up to version 9 now, I need to look that up. And I need to find the article, but Italian had a limited AIM-120 use, not all modes and capabilities, just enough to work.

[mvsgas]

Trying to learn more about the AN/APG-66 found this

F-16 APG-66 FIRE CONTROL RADAR RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY CASE STUDY

This is a direct PDF file link

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a142075.pdf

 

Edit:

From what I gather so far, the APG-66 got AIM-7 capability during the early 80 but it was being tested and developed while being fielded, so under constant updates.

Edited January 28, 2018 by mvsgas