not planned or correct for version TFR-FLIR for DCS F-16 Block50

[Geraki]

It is nice and realistic for M4.2 the TFR-FLIR implementation

 

 

HAF F-16 Block50 here:

 

 

USAF

[mvsgas]

Not realistic, USAF has not used TFR/AAQ-13 on the F-16 block 40/42 for over 15 years, definitely not use in 2007 and never on the Block 50/52. Last I saw one was Osan AB, 36th FS in 2000 on block 40. OFP has nothing to do with it. No USAF operational block 50/52 squadron ever use the AAQ-13/TFR.

 

I guess ED can decide to add what ever they want, but not a realistic option, could be like the whole LAU-88 thing.

 

To quote Wags

Indeed, certainly not an operationally valid loadout. However, after talking with the team yesterday, we'll probably allow it for those that want to be so inaccurate.

 

Thanks

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241489&page=3

Edited March 31, 2020 by mvsgas

[Glide]

My understanding is that FLIR functions moved internal after the LANTIRN. This is why they are not in the Litening pod.

 

 

 

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B085KX5QZW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_image_o03?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[stormrider]

Not realistic, USAF has not used TFR/AAQ-13 on the F-16 block 40/42 for over 15 years, definitely not use in 2007 and never on the Block 50/52. Last I saw one was Osan AB, 36th FS in 2000 on block 40. OFP has nothing to do with it. No USAF operational block 50/52 squadron ever use the AAQ-13/TFR.

 

I guess ED can decide to add what ever they want, but not a realistic option, could be like the whole LAU-88 thing.

 

To quote Wags

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241489&page=3

 

 

Doesn't use doesn't mean can't use. Can you prove it can't use?

[Glide]

According to that reference above, all block 50's are Lantirn capable. However, if he is correct and the FLIR capabilities moved internal to the F-16, then the Lantirn combo is obsolete.

[stormrider]

According to that reference above, all block 50's are Lantirn capable. However, if he is correct and the FLIR capabilities moved internal to the F-16, then the Lantirn combo is obsolete.

 

 

Obsolete doesn't mean incompatible, does it?

[stormrider]

My understanding is that FLIR functions moved internal after the LANTIRN. This is why they are not in the Litening pod.

 

 

 

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B085KX5QZW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_image_o03?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

 

 

 

According to your book, it's the block 60 who received the built-in FLIR.

 

 

[Bananabrai]

Would be cool to carry a more oldschool combination of LANTIRN and the TFR/AAQ-13.

Would be enough for me to not wish for a Block 40.

 

Could also be prohibited easily by not having LANTIRNs and AAQ-13s on base for those who don't like it.

[Glide]

@Stormridersp, I know. I want terrain following radar and flir on the hud. I don't care how we get it. :)

[Kirk66]

@Stormridersp, I know. I want terrain following radar and flir on the hud. I don't care how we get it. :)

Block 50 is not compatible with Lantirn TF system; only the Block 40s had the necessary WFOV HUD that can display the Nav Flir video and TF symbology.

 

Classmate of mine from the zoo was killed in a Block 40 doing night low level LGB deliveries with the Lantirn system. Having a few flights in Block 40s (including a night TF low level to the range and direct pops - from the pit no less) I can tell you it was pretty challenging! AF finally decided it was just too dangerous for a single seat fighter and dropped it.

 

Vulture

[Glide]

@Kirk66, yes, I've read they dropped it because if the hazards too. Still, the capability was there, and it would be fun to pretend it worked. I understand some modules have sophisticated autopilots such that the pilot can take hands off the sticks and work the systems. You can achieve the same results with careful waypoint planning, except without the ups and downs. :)

[Frederf]

AAQ-13 may be a block 40 thing but I've recently been told of a pod-less TFR type system that used the digital terrain database. Is that system ever used on Block 50 or older?

[Glide]

@Frederf, did it really use a terrain database? That sounds like GPS.

[Frederf]

GPS just tells you where you are not where the ground is. Obviously any pseudo TFR would have to combine both accurate self position and terrain info. One without the other would be useless.

[Glide]

GPS tells you where you are, add a terrain database that says given your location and your desire to be 500 ft agl, your flightpath should be XYZ, throw in a terrain avoidance system, and you have your modern UAV platform in the making.

 

 

 

I don't know if these things were first developed on the Viper, but it's fun to pretend they might have actually worked that way.

[Frederf]

I'm not talking about where such a system was first developed. I'm not pretending either. I have read that the FLY UP switch position can have effect even without TFR pod installed.

 

I am asking if there is some kind of ATF functionality, limited or full, without the TFR pod.

[DrBackJack]

AAQ-13 may be a block 40 thing but I've recently been told of a pod-less TFR type system that used the digital terrain database. Is that system ever used on Block 50 or older?

 

Yes, It's a pretty old system called the Digital Terrain system. It has these features.

 

terrain referenced navigation (TRN)

predictive ground collision avoidance system (PGCAS)

database terrain cueing (DBTC)

obstacle warning and cueing (OWE)

passive ranging (PR)

Edited October 14, 2020 by DrBackJack

[Glide]

If you are not pretending, then what are you doing?

[Frederf]

OK how does database terrain cueing (DBTC) manifest itself in the F-16 (this variant hopefully)? Does it work similar to traditional TFR? Is it not similar to traditional TFR but does provide some steering or cueing? Does it only do anything when used in conjunction with traditional TFR?

 

Database terrain cueing (DBTC) is one of five functions in the new Digital Terrain System (DTS) to be integrated into all F-16s. The terrain-referenced navigation (TRN) function of the DTS determines aircraft position relative to a stored digital flight map based upon terrain elevation data. The DBTC function provides a vertical steering guidance cue displayed as a box in the head-up display. By keeping the flight path marker in this box, a pilot could fly at a preset terrain clearance. The DBTC function demonstrated military utility by serving as a cue to aid the pilot in terrain masking in low visibility. While trying to closely follow the DBTC box, pilots uncovered a pilot induced oscillation (PIO) problem which was more prevalent at high speeds in rough terrain. To analyze this, the test team developed a tracking task. From the evaluation, the team identified three problems; discrete jumps, jitter, and high sensitivity to pilot inputs at high speeds. Through ground simulation, test team engineers came up with potential solutions to these problems. Low update rate error estimates were removed to minimize the occurrence of discrete jumps. A low-pass filter in the vertical acceleration feedback loop was adjusted to reduce jitter. A velocity dependent lag filter was added to the vertical acceleration feedback loop to reduce high-speed sensitivity. The result was a DBTC system which will be an aid instead of a distraction while terrain masking. -1998

 

I can't find DBTF in anything older than block 5X+/70. DBTC does do vertical steering visual cueing (but probably not AP coupling like radar TF). By 2007 all USAF should definitely have it.

 

Apparently the "3" ICP button opens the DTS page where you can enter the clearance value.

[SkHiTech]

it would be a great feature, to choose using or not could be players call. More realistic-fan or not :-)

[Fri13]

Came to search here that what is the capability of this as saw it in https://youtu.be/Aq5HXTGUHGI?t=60

That is F-16C block 25 with it.

 

IMHO if it is technically possible in our Viper, it should then be there regardless the politics.

If it is not technically possible, then it shouldn't be available, regardless the politics.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Fri13

[Deano87]

I doubt we wil see it on the Block 50.

 

But I'd love to see a Block40/42 with the WAR HUD and all the TFR bells and whistles. - AFTER the Blk 50 is done, of course. I'd happily throw more money at ED for it as well.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Deano87

[falconbr]

29 minutes ago, Deano87 said:

But I'd love to see a Block40/42 with the WAR HUD and all the TFR bells and whistles.

+ 1

[Cupra]

Here too

[Northstar98]

I would love LANTIRN in the F-16C, though the best option would be to do a late 80s/early 90s F-16CG Block 40. There's so much you can straight up copy and paste over from the current aircraft, even if it was something like a $10-20 upgrade like the A-10C II was.

 

• Identical FDM (apart from maybe weight and engine power, but these shouldn't be fairly trivial changes).
• Identical avionics, including the RADAR, RWR (I think) and FLCS. Only thing is no LITENING, no Link 16, no MIDS and no JHMCS, that's it.
• Basically identical cockpit and cockpit interaction, identical displays (apart from maybe the DLINK DED page which should be absent). The only difference is the HUD, which has identical controls and symbology AFAIK (apart from the FLIR imagery) and the removal of controls for JHMCS, D/L and MIDS as well as the removal of the JHMCS sensor (some switches might be moved around or some panels changed, but AFAIK, it should only be where the oxygen controls are, and the avionics power switches (no DL power and no MIDS knob), if that).
• We've basically got all the weapons already, apart from the GBU-24 (and variants) and maybe JDAMs as well as some missing modes for the HARM and AGM-65. If you want to be strict about the date it would only have the AIM-120A/B, no AIM-9X and no JSOWs.
• Identical external model (apart from the HUD and JHMCS sensor).

 

In fact the only real difference that would be significant work over the current F-16C is LANTIRN, having essentially the same AAQ-14 TGP as on the Tomcat (just without its own INS and ballistics computer AFAIK) and the navigation FLIR with autopilot coupled TFR.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Northstar98