Future F-16 variations possible?

[Munkwolf]

1 hour ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

If this was how we would create modules we would be stuck with WW1 bi-planes only. I don't think that's what we want.

 

That's not at all what I meant. My post was, instead of the C, do the A first. Key word in my post was "variants", and in a thread about F-16 variations. I did not mean don't do any modern planes until every plane starting with WW1 is finished. How you read it that way I'm not sure.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Monkwolf

[SpaceMonkey037]

10 hours ago, Monkwolf said:

 

That's not at all what I meant. My post was, instead of the C, do the A first. Key word in my post was "variants", and in a thread about F-16 variations. I did not mean don't do any modern planes until every plane starting with WW1 is finished. How you read it that way I'm not sure.

 

The F-16 has a couple main iterations. OCU vs MLU and you also have those fancy new block 70 things. Each are made to suceed in their respective time period. Right now I find that a MLU F-16 simply has a lot more purpose, while an OCU would be more of a cool thing to have than anything else. I don't see an OCU version being one of the main aircraft in dcs, where as I can see how the block 50 can be like it already is. 
Additionally there is the whole point of manual availablity. I don't think it was considence that ED decided on this aircraft.

[Bremspropeller]

On 3/4/2021 at 12:25 PM, Northstar98 said:

They both would also fit perfectly on a Cold War northern/central Germany map, the F-16 having a base at Spangdahlem AB (the A-10A and both Cs, as well as the current F-16CM Block 50 already have a Spangdahlem livery), and the MiG-29 at numerous bases, operated by both the GDR and the USSR (Damgarten, Laage and Wittstock, as well as probably a few others - we already have a Damgarten livery for the 9.13S MiG-29S).

 

There never were F-16As at Spang, though. They went straight to the C when they retired the F-4. Same at Ramstein.

The A model - in USAFE - was only based in Hahn (HR) and Torrejon (TJ) as it seems.

 

I'm in for more Viper versions.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There never were F-16As at Spang, though. They went straight to the C when they retired the F-4. Same at Ramstein.

The A model - in USAFE - was only based in Hahn (HR) and Torrejon (TJ) as it seems.

 

My mistake, thanks for clearing it up.

 

Though the F-16A would still fit perfectly on a Cold War northern/central Germany map, just not at Spangdahlem. It's also still a perfect contemporary to the full-fidelity 9.12 MiG-29 we're supposedly getting.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[TheCabal]

Any updates reg. a possible F-16A? Or do we still only have Falcon 3.0 and Strike Fighters? 

[Bunny Clark]

On 10/3/2022 at 8:30 AM, TheCabal said:

Any updates reg. a possible F-16A? Or do we still only have Falcon 3.0 and Strike Fighters? 

It'll be announced as a new module if it happens. 

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting, you'd likely suffocate. 

[TheCabal]

On 10/10/2022 at 7:55 AM, Bunny Clark said:

It'll be announced as a new module if it happens. 

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting, you'd likely suffocate. 

Still alive after 2 decades of holding my breath. I'm persistent

[Mig Fulcrum]

+1 for a F-16A any block 15 would be an instant purchase for me, ADF, OCU or the standard one. I just want that old cockpit.

[Orwell]

On 3/3/2021 at 1:22 PM, Berserk said:

Yes, F-16A, it would be a true dogfighting machine of it's era! One of my first choices of the best potential modules. Not heavy "lead nose" F-16C to fight from the distance with AMRAAM.

 

F-16A would be something like more modern F-5E when it comes to way it fights. You don't have to remember to click ten or more electronic something to prepare for combat, just enjoy pure performance, maneuverablility, clear unobstructed canopy view and dogfight enemy MiGs with gun and sidewinders.

 

Many new folks intimidated by F-16C hundreds pages manual would jump to F-16A and enjoy the real essence of air combat, you, your two sidewinders, gun and lightweight fighter with pure handling.

 

 

 

I'm confused why people think this about F16A

It had way less power and wasn't *that* much lighter. 

It was a "pure fighter" not because of its handling characteristics, but because it couldn't really do much else in terms of capability. 

F16A: 25,281 Combat loaded, 14,670lbs thrust (23,830lbs in AB)

F16C/D: 26,463 Combat loaded, 17,155lbs thrust (28,984lbs in AB)

C was 1,182lbs heavier, but with 5,154lbs more thrust.
More thrust vastly trumps the weight "penalty" (which isn't even that much).

Edited October 26, 2022 by Orwell

[F-2]

2 hours ago, Orwell said:

I'm confused why people think this about F16A

It had way less power and wasn't *that* much lighter. 

It was a "pure fighter" not because of its handling characteristics, but because it couldn't really do much else in terms of capability. 

F16A: 25,281 Combat loaded, 14,670lbs thrust (23,830lbs in AB)

F16C/D: 26,463 Combat loaded, 17,155lbs thrust (28,984lbs in AB)

C was 1,182lbs heavier, but with 5,154lbs more thrust.
More thrust vastly trumps the weight "penalty" (which isn't even that much).

 

I had a series of messages with Fred Clifton and while the A and C where tough opponents the C seems to have been a greater threat because of its power. I think the A is better in very limited circumstances like nose pointing and radius but apparently only has limited AIM-9L capability. It just doesn’t seem like the A doesn’t  very much, it’s kinda like an improved F-5. I know people like it for the Cold but even in the 80s it seemed like the C moved to a more robust multirole capability early, around the same time the Fulcrum and Flanker entered service.

 

My number one is F-2 (I’m collecting docs on it)

Block 40 next because it has capability our 50 block 50 doesn’t 

block 60 cause it’s cool and why not it’s a wishlist.

[F-2]

As above

[bies]

4 hours ago, Orwell said:

I'm confused why people think this about F16A

Early F-16A were whole lot lighter, Block 1-10 weighted 7 tons empty, about 2 tons lighter empty weight than our late Block 50. And maneuverability is more about wing loading, not T/W.

F-104 Starfighter had fantastic T/W for its time with big wing loading and that's why, regardless of its T/W, it had terrible maneuverability. And all F-16C were nose heavy carrying much heavier (and also much more capable) APG-68 radar and other avionics. Another thing is F-16A could fight on full afterburner way longer than fuel hungry GE engine later variants which had to use it to compensate for mass increase.

  

Real pilots flying them:

Quote

"The block 50/60 series are still very good airplanes, and lightly loaded, more than capable of holding their own in a fight. But, because of their higher weight, they just can't turn as quick as the earlier blocks could.
This was lamented by some of the pilots I had at Eglin- we had block 15's through block 50's there. The pilots loved the power and avionics capability of the 50's, but in a straight out visual guns 'fight', the lighter blocks held the upper hand in maneuvering."

Quote

Shari Williams, F-15C pilot with >2000hrs
I have not flown any Viper, I have flown against all from the block 10 to block 60. The toughest BFM fight was against a clean F-16A Block 10. Very light, excellent performance throughout the envelope, not nose heavy, and seemingly much more capable at very slow speeds. Equipped with an all aspect heater it was an excellent fight. As far as GE motors I think the big mouth Block 30 was very capable once they got the leading edge programming down.

Quote

Karl Gruner
What do you think about F-16A vs F-16C in a dogfight? In a pure dogfight, the F-16A would win. Probably against most other variants. Everybody that i talked to, F-16A in a pure dogfight would be better. F-16C had many other advantages.
 

Quote

"Back in the day the Blk 30 (both big and small mouth) and Blk 40 were known as "Lead Nose Vipers" when flying against F-16A Blk 15s in similar configuration dogfighting. And yes I know they could haul more iron and had better avionics but once they hit the merge the Blk 15 had a distinct advantage."

Quote

Gero Finke, EF pilot

"The F-16 is a very capable weapon system in all respects! Of course there are „thousands“ of variations flying around. If you are strictly focussing on WVR („Dog Fight“) engagements, some aspects on the more modern variants are not helping. The engines got bigger and bigger, the stuff they put in and on the airframe got more and more, but what remained is a pretty small wing area that has to deliver the lift.

Quote

"On the F-16, yes, the Blk 50 is all about power. But if I had to choose which Viper to BFM in, then it's the Blk 30."

Quote

"No worries. Now between blocks (F-16), the Block 30 was the best performer in ACM. The block 30 had the best acceleration of them all. Don't get me wrong, the -129 is a kick in the pants, but the Block 50 also grew a little in the weight department... :)"

Edited October 26, 2022 by bies

[Dragon1-1]

Also, the pre-MFD Viper cockpit is the coolest thing ever.  It's like the Mirage 2000 without all the Frenchness and with all the neat things that make the F-16 so easy to learn and fly. It also doesn't have the MFDs or DED of the later blocks, making it a lot more straightforward. A Block 10 Viper would be my choice for an 80s variant, Block 15 was when they started to get fat.  

BTW, there's one more reason: it can haul more Mk82s than any other Viper. The reason? MERs:

This is Block 1, likely a test aircraft, but documentation shows this to be a valid loadout up to Block 15. Not a particularly useful one, because you're hauling a lot of bombs and not a whole lot of fuel, but if you want to drop a stick of 18 bombs from a Viper, that's just the thing.  

[F-2]

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_Block_15_Falcon_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf We have the 1984 F-16 block 15 standard aircraft characteristics. Unclassified, same kinda document ED and others have posted on the AIM-7F.

 

I’m not linking to the HAF Block 50 manual but comparing both aircraft at similar load out they seem very similar in turn rate. Comparatively in climb and acceleration the Block 50 blows the 15 out of the water. The best climb listed for the block 15 is 306 m/s while the 50 is a stunning 365 m/s in a 7.5 Degree turn.

 

similarly on a a topic on F-16.net comparing the Block 30 and Block 50 we see something kinda interesting 

 

From a 1991 block 30 manual we get an empty weight of 17953. Compared to a 2003 F-16 block 50 of 19261.

A 27395 lb block 30 with a DI of 38 and a 28670 lb block 50 with a DI of 38 have an max STR within .2 of each other while max ITR is within .5 of each other. Both have a turn radius around 1500 ft within 75ft of each other (sea level). All of these go to the block 30 but the difference is nearly negligible. On the other door the block 50 has a one second acceleration advantage under mach 1 and a more substantial above.

block 15 is heavier then the 10, but while the late 80s aircraft weights similar to a block 25 and 32 aircraft, the early 80s version is much lighter. I don’t doubt a difference exists but I would be very cautious in assuming it’s that massive.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by F-2

[Doncho]

I'd love to have any Viper version that carried a Lantirn + TFR.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, F-2 said:

block 15 is heavier then the 10, but while the late 80s aircraft weights similar to a block 25 and 32 aircraft, the early 80s version is much lighter. I don’t doubt a difference exists but I would be very cautious in assuming it’s that massive.

It's not massive, it's all the same aircraft, but it's enough to make a difference. Also note, weight distribution is different in block 10 than in all others, affecting their ability to rate their nose. The early blocks are also rated for a higher G load (IIRC, 9.7G as opposed to 9), though of course that depends on the pilot being able to hold that much. All in all, you could expect a very different experience flying an early Viper, it should be far more competitive in one circle, while taking away some two circle and vertical performance.

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, Doncho said:

I'd love to have any Viper version that carried a Lantirn + TFR.

Best bet is probably a CG/CM Block 40 as it shares a fair amount in common with our current CM Block 50.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[TheCabal]

Is there something I (hopefully) missed after a few years reg. a F-16A or at least a F-16A mod?