not accurate for usa [NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, NOT ACCURATE FOR YEAR] APKWS on viper

[silverdevil]

i think i know the answer to this question as i could not find it as a weapon listed in the roadmap. is there any plan for APKWS on viper?

 

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2046511/f-16-downs-target-drone-with-laser-guided-rocket-in-unprecedented-test/

 

thanks

[Northstar98]

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...ads#post242691

 

Short answer, no - the F-16C we have is supposed to represent a mid-2000s aircraft, APKWS is 2012+ so we almost certainly won't be seeing it.

 

It's also the reason why we didn't see AGM-158 JASMM

[Fri13]

APKWS II is a special clause, as it is a weapon that is backward compatible and should be unlimited only by the mission designer if so wanted, otherwise be available only if mission is dated on that year when the weapon came available to be operational without updates to airframes, pylons or their computers and other systems. Those who want to fly without it, can still disable it if so wanted, like any other weapon.

[silverdevil]

roger that. i figured that was the answer. the AC is based on a particular date, and IRL are still flying, it would make sense to include these. i can even see field maintenance to be able to figure out a way to make the AC capable. in vietnam many unusual additions were made to most of the AC in that theatre. i see on this official page mentioning sniper pod which was not operational until later than 2000 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2020-08-14/

[Fri13]

roger that. i figured that was the answer. the AC is based on a particular date, and IRL are still flying, it would make sense to include these. i can even see field maintenance to be able to figure out a way to make the AC capable. in vietnam many unusual additions were made to most of the AC in that theatre. i see on this official page mentioning sniper pod which was not operational until later than 2000 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2020-08-14/

 

The ground crew doesn't need to "figure" anything out. They simply order the weapons, they get the training to convert unguided to guided ones and pilot gets minimal training to use it (how to use laser designator first on target before launching rockets).

 

[Fri13]

No more "could, would, should" frankensteining please, ED. Thanks!

It is not "frankensteining" but 100% realistic feature that just happens to be reality. In 2020 missions, you are not going to fly with the F-16C version and weapons we have in DCS. You would have APKWS II rockets with it. In 2006 you are not

havin APKWS II at all. But if you want to lock all missions to one specific date/month that the ED is modeling the F-16C, then go ahead. You will have very nice "dynamic campaign" when you are not having any other days than the couple ones.

 

[coolneko]

No more "could, would, should" frankensteining please, ED. Thanks!

 

Next guy coming in then somewhere has seen some Turkish block 50 carrying AGM-84... so "ours" should, could, would... it's a ~2007 US Viper, period.

 

Isn't ED basing their viper off the HAF blk50? So....

 

I'll never understand why someone would want to limit someone else's fun. Especially when you can set those limits for yourself through the mission editor.

[Fusedspine33]

To me the more options the merrier,

 

IF, an airframe can and has used the weapon , even proof of concept, cuz playing test pilot is fun too, then why not.

 

But.... these should be added after the module has exited EA and had all features in the original specs implemented to prevent mission/module creep.

 

If you don't like it you don't have to use it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Fri13]

IF, an airframe can and has used the weapon , even proof of concept, cuz playing test pilot is fun too, then why not.

 

The APKWS II is different for many other weapons by simply being 100% backward compatible, plug'n'play weapon upgrade to all aircrafts that is capable to fire 2.75" rockets. There is no hardware, no software (wiring etc) changes required to make it work.

It is totally standalone rocket and works just like unguided ones. The only physical difference is that it is a longer rocket where it shifts the warhead further outside of the rocket pod. Tests has been done on various airframes at various flight conditions and it is approved to service. The training is mainly for the ground crew for weapons specialists to know how to assemble the rocket, set its laser code and insert it to the launcher pods. The pilots gets own small training for now their optional capability to have their targets designated with laser with proper code before they launch the rockets at their targets.

Typically a new weapons requires rewiring, software changes and all kind changes, but APKWS II primary goal was that it is backward compatible and it succeeded in that. Naturally the military wants all kind tests to be performed before they risk any lifes or equipment for any weapon configuration, so of course all those tests were done first.

 

The APKWS II is not like "I want the new hypersonic missile" wish that so many is using against it, as the weapon itself was specifically designed to be like any already existing unguided rocket, but the rocket itself is just autonomous after launch.

 

But.... these should be added after the module has exited EA and had all features in the original specs implemented to prevent mission/module creep.

 

Normally yes,. But considering that APKWS rockets are already in the game implemented by the ED, it is nothing more than just add the weapon for official F-16C loadouts. It is like modders would take a existing weapon and add it to other airframes than officially allowed, like KA-50 carrying Mavericks.

 

But like many things, weapons should be considered in the DCS as standalone units instead part of the modules. So if there comes a updates to weapons (like the AIM-7 and after that AIM-120 flight modeling changes) they are done to weapon itself and not required to touch any of other modules. Then these weapons should be offered to third parties (official) to help them to speed up development of their products where they don't need to implement any weapons itself that already exist. And that is it is done anyways, as on the moment you release a weapon it transforms to ED coded one and then DCS World is responsible for the weapon simulation instead module. There are some exceptions like AIM-54 as developers are allowed to make own weapons, but it can result to bad results like infamous Viggen "Terminator Maverick" that flies like from Hollywood movie where missile chase targets for multiple turns etc.

 

If you don't like it you don't have to use it.

 

If someone doesn't want to use AIM-120, then they are free to do so. Same thing is with APKWS II. If they don't want to take any CM with them, or fly without cannon ammunition, it is their decision.

[Wizard_03]

 

Isn't ED basing their viper off the HAF blk50? So....

 

Nope, it's USAF/USANG.

[XCNuse]

No more "could, would, should" frankensteining please, ED. Thanks!

 

Next guy coming in then somewhere has seen some Turkish block 50 carrying AGM-84... so "ours" should, could, would... it's a ~2007 US Viper, period.

 

And this mentality is ruining the fun of today's technology that can be used on aging frames.

 

If it required new systems, it would make more sense to question things; but if you can literally plop a system onto a pylon and it works with literally zero effort... we SHOULD be able to do it.

 

Which exactly what the APKWS system was designed to do.

 

I truly don't understand the people say "no that's unrealistic for what's been designed" when... there are literally this aircraft flying around using these weapons. How is that unrealistic?

[Skyracer]

i think i know the answer to this question as i could not find it as a weapon listed in the roadmap. is there any plan for APKWS on viper?

 

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2046511/f-16-downs-target-drone-with-laser-guided-rocket-in-unprecedented-test/

 

thanks

 

[Jester2138]

No more "could, would, should" frankensteining please, ED. Thanks!

 

Next guy coming in then somewhere has seen some Turkish block 50 carrying AGM-84... so "ours" should, could, would... it's a ~2007 US Viper, period.

 

If it physically would work it should be available. Don't like it? Don't use it. You know you can control what's available to be loaded onto your aircraft per-mission, right? You're free to only ever make USAF circa 2007 missions if that's all you ever want to play. Just don't use the A-10C II and the F-16 in the same mission. Or any number of other combinations. Because that's unrealistic.

[Northstar98]

It is not "frankensteining" but 100% realistic feature that just happens to be reality. In 2020 missions, you are not going to fly with the F-16C version and weapons we have in DCS.

 

This again...

 

And given we have a mid-2000s F-16C, but nearly every other asset that isn't a BLUFOR module peaks at the 90s, it's impossible for me to set-up a peer to peer mission without employing some time travel, I don't have a choice.

 

In the last thread like this you basically told me that I do have a choice, I have the choice not to set these kinds of missions up - fantastic. And you have the choice not to do missions set after 2007, sound satisfying to you?

 

You would have APKWS II rockets with it. In 2006 you are not

 

Yeah, and I'd also be using the AIM-120D, AIM-9X Block II, AGM-158 JASSM, AGM-88E, GBU-39 too. I'd also probably be using the LITENING G4/SE so why aren't we getting those? If I don't get all of those then ED should completely abandon the mission editor, and ban any mission using the F-16C that isn't a completely historic mission set at the exact date (down to a couple of days) of the F-16C being modelled - this is essentially your argument.

 

In fact what's the point of modelling a specific aircraft at all at this point? I mean it's bad enough not having a coherent set of assets, but now we want the aircraft to not be coherent either...

 

We're not getting those or any other upgrades the F-16C might have today so why are we playing pick 'n' mix with the weapons? There's no coherency, so we are in fact pulling a frankenstein on the aircraft.

 

But if you want to lock all missions to one specific date/month that the ED is modeling the F-16C, then go ahead. You will have very nice "dynamic campaign" when you are not having any other days than the couple ones.

 

Brilliant, give me all the weapons regardless of whether our specific aircraft actually has them (or in fact existed at the time), or get rid of the mission editor...

 

Look, this argument about locking the mission editor to only completely historical missions (down to a couple of days apparently) is frankly ridiculous. The aircraft is supposed to represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16, so the aircraft should represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16 and represent the capabilities of a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16. DCS puts no constraints on what missions you can fly, (well, apart from assets and AI) and it's not like we have a choice but to take liberties; it may have escaped your notice, but nearly every other asset in DCS that isn't a BLUFOR module peaks before 90s, with next to no hope of adding newer, so if you want to set-up a mission that's peer to peer while keeping the decade consistent (let alone year), you can't. And the problem doesn't stop there either...

 

Let's go in a different direction; in the late 70s/early 80s I'd be flying an F-16 with monochromatic displays, powered by a Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200 and an analogue FLCS; if ED don't replace the engine, the FLCS and MFD with those, they should lock all missions to one specific date/month that ED is modelling our F-16C after - this is basically your argument with regard to the mission editor here.

 

DCS is a sandbox so the scenario should be up to you. If you want to keep stuff realistic, your hands are tied. I can't set a peer-to-peer mission up, for the era of most of our BLUFOR modules, without employing some degree of time travel. I don't have the REDFOR assets to missions consistent with the 2000s (REDFOR is basically stuck in the 80s), and I don't have the BLUFOR aircraft variants to make an earlier mission. I also don't really have the appropriate theatres for them either. So I'm left with 2 choices: I either have to play a game of DCS: The Final Countdown (ironic as the age gap is pretty dead on), or I don't set up a peer to peer mission at all, there isn't another option here.

 

As for realism, I don't understand why people play DCS, a game that's supposed to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible" and then have a problem with it doing exactly that.

 

Kinda like voluntarily walking into a forest and then complaining about all the trees. Or like voluntarily jumping into a swimming pool without a full-body dry suit and then complaining you got wet.

 

If we have a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C, then we should get a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C and it should represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C; it's not the variant I wanted either, but unfortunately, it is what we have and that roadmap of planned features was out long before the F-16C got released into early access...

 

Food for thought:

 

Our Viper will be an F-16C with the Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) upgrade. We feel this to be the most versatile version of the F-16 with capabilities for SEAD, precision attack, close air support, and of course air-to-air. We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods.

That "particular aircraft at a specific point in time" predates the APKWS by at least half a decade.

[BuzzU]

The version ED is giving us is fine. At least it will be when it's done.

[Fri13]

 

Okay guys, you convinced me! Arguments here are time travel (it's possible for a 2007 plane living in 2020).

 

No need to be hostile with sarcasm.

 

 

So: where is my Bf-109 with GPS (can be attached to the pit with velcro in 2020 without need to update the aircraft itself.Why limit yourself to 1944 ?!) and P-47 with nukes (regular dumb bomb, i want to sim that!)

 

You can already have GN430 with 2D addon if you so want. It is up to the studio to offer it to be added for other aircrafts with 3D model in cockpit. It is as well up to mission designer to allow it to be used in their mission based the date they set and other rules. So it already exists there and there is no need to update the aircraft for basic GPS functionality as the device itself has it all. It is same thing as with C-101 trainer https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/bundles/ns430_c-101eb_c-101cc_bundle/

 

And if you can provide evidence that P-47 was capable to carry nuclear bombs, then do so in the P-47 forum.

 

i also now want my Viper with AGM-84 (has been prototyped for the C block 50 but got dropped later

 

Was it prototyped only without success or did it get successfully capable be used without modifications to F-16C that we have? Remember, F-16C Blk 50 is special kind that you might not even find any other same aircraft in same airbase that has same capabilities but can have something other or lacks something. This is the hot topic in DCS that, 1) should studios be making more of the "generic variant" or only for very unique model (there is only one/few) that has some special features or not?

And 2) should the technically working capabilities be allowed as separately mission editor function for those who want to use them, if the feature is not in use on given country, squadron, arm or so on?

 

also the 2020 turkish Viper that actually carries them was a 2007 USAF Viper before it got sold - so technically the USAF should carry it too).

 

So do you have evidence that the technical compatibility was there in the USAF F-16 without any modifications to be done to it before Turkey received them, or they did it?

 

On top i want my pilot to be a monkey, because i would like to simulate a monkey being a test pilot like in the first rockets.

 

Yes, sarcasm is hostility toward everyone on the thread and shows that you have no real arguments to be made about the topic.

 

 

Why would you limit yourself and kill all the fun, uh?

 

This is not about "fun" as you might think, this is about realism and real capabilities, functions and designs. Without politics, without religion and without business decisions, and as well without fantasies.

 

[Fri13]

 

This again...

 

And given we have a mid-2000s F-16C, but nearly every other asset that isn't a BLUFOR module peaks at the 90s, it's impossible for me to set-up a peer to peer mission without employing some time travel, I don't have a choice.

 

Yes, then go fly alone as is. Go and blame ED from not adding a more modern ground units to DCS so it can be really used for simulate a more modern combat. Or demand them to make more fitting aircrafts to DCS world so they don't need to do anything for ground units. But don't come to argue that you are not fine to have realistic weapons on the aircraft that it is capable to use since the aircraft has come out from the factory.

 

 

In the last thread like this you basically told me that I do have a choice, I have the choice not to set these kinds of missions up - fantastic. And you have the choice not to do missions set after 2007, sound satisfying to you?

 

You have choice, you just ignore to make a decision you so want to do.

 

Yeah, and I'd also be using the AIM-120D, AIM-9X Block II, AGM-158 JASSM, AGM-88E, GBU-39 too. I'd also probably be using the LITENING G4/SE so why aren't we getting those?

 

Start new threads for those and provide evidence that the weapons are 100% backward compatible to anything older without modifications for the hardware or software.

You can go demand to ED start developing all the hangable storages and systems be untied from the aircrafts and be in the DCS assets that are allowed to be used if technically possible, without politics, religion, fantasies or otherwise.

 

If I don't get all of those then ED should completely abandon the mission editor, and ban any mission using the F-16C that isn't a completely historic mission set at the exact date (down to a couple of days) of the F-16C being modelled - this is essentially your argument.

 

That is your argument as you do not accept technically possible features.

 

In fact what's the point of modelling a specific aircraft at all at this point? I mean it's bad enough not having a coherent set of assets, but now we want the aircraft to not be coherent either...

 

What is the point to model VERY UNIQUE airframe that exist only as single unit in the whole world, NEVER been reproduced as duplicate. And that is forever locked to only that VERY SPECIFIC DATE when it has either:

1) Rolled out from the factory and signed after test flight to be operational given squadron.

2) Had been accessed by the studio developers to 3D scan it, take photographs or so.

3) Has been just chosen that "It is this date/month/year".

 

Please explain your argument that it should be flown only in very specific year that it is modeling and no other time or year or by any means interact with other units that are not available and in use in given map at that given time?

You are the one who is against that in the future from the given year, F-16C received technically possible (and in service) new weapon that doesn't require software or hardware changes to airframe but is "plug'n'play" to it. If you do not accept that it would be officially available only in 2016 -> (or so) missions and be disabled by default, only be available if mission designer clicks "Allow all weapons" then it is your problem. You don't need to use it, you don't need to fly missions as 2016 (default) but always follow the very strict time restrictions as you argue.

 

We're not getting those or any other upgrades the F-16C might have today so why are we playing pick 'n' mix with the weapons? There's no coherency, so we are in fact pulling a frankenstein on the aircraft.

 

Your "frankenstein" is already then there, as you are free to even fly with unofficial weapons loadouts etc. You wanted to do that, you got it.

 

Brilliant, give me all the weapons regardless of whether our specific aircraft actually has them (or in fact existed at the time), or get rid of the mission editor...

 

What do you want? Do you want "ALL TO ME" or do you want "DO NOT GIVE ANYTHING THAN 23rd July 2007!"?

 

Look, this argument about locking the mission editor to only completely historical missions (down to a couple of days apparently) is frankly ridiculous.

 

It is what you want.... It is what you support. So you are now saying it is "frankly ridiculous".

And sorry to inform you....

 

 

The aircraft is supposed to represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16, so the aircraft should represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16 and represent the capabilities of a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16. DCS puts no constraints on what missions you can fly, (well, apart from assets and AI) and it's not like we have a choice but to take liberties; it may have escaped your notice, but nearly every other asset in DCS that isn't a BLUFOR module peaks before 90s, with next to no hope of adding newer, so if you want to set-up a mission that's peer to peer while keeping the decade consistent (let alone year), you can't. And the problem doesn't stop there either...

 

Who says that it can't represent that by the default?

The studio that offers the module offers by default few things:

 

1) Skins for the aircrafts, so you can pretend to be flying in small set of historical and political values.

2) Weapon loadouts, so you can just easily pick one premade.

3) List of countries that allows the aircraft to be added to be flyable under its flag (side etc).

4) Campaign to fly, or at least training missions etc that you get to go without learning mission editor.

 

Next to that, you can add custom skins to aircraft for other kinds for different times, arms, countries, fictional or historical or just about anything. You can even reskin the cockpit if you so want.

You can make own custom loadouts, officially based ones or unofficial. You can choose to use some other loadouts than what USN used for Hornet and what some other country would use. Or you could choose F-16C to carry loadout that it never carried in the USAF in that airbase it is officially modeling.

You can as well put the F-16C to fly under any other flag than USA.

And you are free to make all kind custom missions you want, campaigns even. You can go fully fictional (USA participating to D-day in Normandy with F-16C...) or try to get historically as accurate as possible the DCS just offers (here, notice that DCS has its own limitations and it is ED task to improve to) with compromises you might like or don't.

You are arguing that ED should deny all that, because you are not liking that there is anything that is not official, realistic and pure for that one specific year.

 

Let's go in a different direction; in the late 70s/early 80s I'd be flying an F-16 with monochromatic displays, powered by a Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200 and an analogue FLCS; if ED don't replace the engine, the FLCS and MFD with those, they should lock all missions to one specific date/month that ED is modelling our F-16C after - this is basically your argument with regard to the mission editor here.

 

That is your argument. You do not want freedom of sandboxing, freedom to authentication and freedom for sake of simulation.

 

DCS is a sandbox so the scenario should be up to you.

 

So you 100% agree with us who want realistic weapons to be possible used on the F-16C in the missions that are dated to date after the weapon of topic has been taken in service for it.

So why are you trying so hard to invent arguments against it? If you don't want to fly with APKWS II on F-16C in 2020, it is up to you but USAF is happy that they have access to them in F-16C Blk 50! If you want to go more fictional and use them in missions in earlier dated missions like 2007, you are free to do so, but don't come to say that it is fully realistic as the weapon as is didn't exist back then like it does in 2016.

June 2016: APKWS deployed on USAF F-16 and A-10 as part of an urgent operational requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc..._Weapon_System

 

The U.S. Air Force has acquired BAE Systems’ Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS^TM) laser-guided rockets for use in ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air Force fielded the initial units to fulfill an urgent operational need for F-16 and A-10 aircraft, and it has already successfully used the weapon in combat operations.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/art...ckets-on-f-16s

 

BAE Systems’ Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) has been deployed on the US Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-16 - the first time the service has used the weapon on a fixed-wing aircraft.

 

The laser-guided rocket is being used on board aircraft supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, BAE says, and is part of an urgent operational requirement that also covers its potential use on the Fairchild Republic A-10.

https://www.flightglobal.com/apkws-d...120829.article

 

If you want to keep stuff realistic, your hands are tied.

 

Then deal with it! If you do not like to fly DCS: F-16C in any other missions than 2007, then don't!

If you don't want to fly it against very unlikely against other targets, then don't!

If you do, then do not come to say that it shouldn't be possible in DCS what is technically possible in 2016 and forward!

Just deal with it!

You don't like APKWS II it is already known.

You don't like to fly F-16C in any other than missions dated to 2007, it is already known.

And you don't like to fly F-16C in any other configuration than 100% realistic for the squadron that gave the ED access to model it.

And it is totally understandable that you really, really dislike the idea that F-16C is flowing on the RED side.....

 

I can't set a peer-to-peer mission up, for the era of most of our BLUFOR modules, without employing some degree of time travel.

 

You and your "time travel" opinion... You should little bit give a freeway to understand that ED has lots of work to do and likely would be willing to include a more modern units for ground as well for various decades like they do now with WW2. Like offer packages for 70's, 80's and 90's and then some for aughts. But even before that it would be nice to have even semi-realistic ground units behavior and have "Intelligence" in their AI....

 

I don't have the REDFOR assets to missions consistent with the 2000s (REDFOR is basically stuck in the 80s), and I don't have the BLUFOR aircraft variants to make an earlier mission. I also don't really have the appropriate theatres for them either. So I'm left with 2 choices: I either have to play a game of DCS: The Final Countdown (ironic as the age gap is pretty dead on), or I don't set up a peer to peer mission at all, there isn't another option here.

 

You have options. You just don't like to use them. Deal with it!

 

As for realism, I don't understand why people play DCS, a game that's supposed to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible" and then have a problem with it doing exactly that.

 

Yes, you fail to explain yourself with your problem to do exactly that, have a APKWS II laser guided rockets available for F-16C in missions that are dated in 2016 or later?

You talk about time travel, you talk about how you can't make realistic missions in the DCS, and then how you can't and you can't and you can't.

If you do not want to use weapon loadouts, skins, countries etc that are not realistic, then don't!

 

But let others to be able make realistic weapon loadouts for F-16C Blk 50!

 

Kinda like voluntarily walking into a forest and then complaining about all the trees. Or like voluntarily jumping into a swimming pool without a full-body dry suit and then complaining you got wet.

 

Yes, you are doing that....

 

If we have a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C, then we should get a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C and it should represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C; it's not the variant I wanted either, but unfortunately, it is what we have and that roadmap of planned features was out long before the F-16C got released into early access...

 

Yes, stay in the mission editor for 2007 year only and do not fly against anything else than units that are used in the maps presented countries in 2007... Play your 2007 game as you want. We others have realistic wishes and flexibility as well to understand that DCS World is Simulator and Sandbox.... With huge amount of lacking challenges from the ground units and AI capabilities and what we still have.

 

That "particular aircraft at a specific point in time" predates the APKWS by at least half a decade.

 

Yes, and here is the same F-16C Blk 50 in 2019 in operational USAF inventory....

 

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/bob-...ht-hours-mark/

 

Is it so impossible to understand that the F-16C Blk 50 that DCS has, is still being used by USAF in 2019-2020 etc?

Fully capable to use APKWS II rockets officially in combat missions....

[Xavven]

I think GPS on a Bf-109 is anachronistic. It's technically possible but no nation flew the Bf-109 after GPS was invented. I can't put myself in the shoes of a Bf-109 pilot using GPS in a "what if?" war scenario, because either it would have to be in 1940 where there was no GPS or in 1999+ when no nation was using the Bf-109 for combat sorties.

 

Likewise, the P-47 was not a nuclear capable aircraft if I'm not mistaken.

 

However, there are F-16C Blk 50's in the USAF inventory today that use the APKWS, and it doesn't require an update to the aircraft to use it. This in my mind is why I would support having the APKWS on the F-16 in DCS -- it doesn't actually break from reality provided your mission is after the year 2016.

 

I'm surprised at how heated this thread got. Adding APKWS to the F-16C will most certainly not ruin DCS, and neither will its exclusion. I think we can all relax :)

[Fri13]

I think GPS on a Bf-109 is anachronistic. It's technically possible but no nation flew the Bf-109 after GPS was invented. I can't put myself in the shoes of a Bf-109 pilot using GPS in a "what if?" war scenario, because either it would have to be in 1940 where there was no GPS or in 1999+ when no nation was using the Bf-109 for combat sorties.

 

If someone would be flying it today, even if just for the airshows or whatever, they would totally be with some kind GPS unit with them. That is what these NS430 kind devices are great for, that you can just replace these today by using iPad as kneeboard and have a safer and easier navigation than what the pilots did back then.

So would it be unrealistic if it is reality?

 

 

I'm surprised at how heated this thread got. Adding APKWS to the F-16C will most certainly not ruin DCS, and neither will its exclusion. I think we can all relax :)

 

It will get heated when some people get offended that DCS would get "non-pure" features as in future the aircraft would be used with some new technically capable features than what was in the past. It is simple as time period in mission editor that should be the limiting factor.

 

10 years from now, in 2030 (if DCS still exist), we do have more modules (hopefully) that are from today, like example Super Hornet or a F-14D might come reality, maybe even something for redair if things changes, who knows. There can as well come available new weapons or targeting pods that are used on some other aircrafts like Eurofighter Typhoon etc. So if it is technically possible, it shouldn't be restricted from DCS world than by time of the mission.

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

 

Yes, then go fly alone as is. Go and blame ED from not adding a more modern ground units to DCS so it can be really used for simulate a more modern combat. Or demand them to make more fitting aircrafts to DCS world so they don't need to do anything for ground units. But don't come to argue that you are not fine to have realistic weapons on the aircraft that it is capable to use since the aircraft has come out from the factory.

 

You have the problem with realism here Fri, not me.

 

You have choice, you just ignore to make a decision you so want to do.

 

Rule for thee but not for me eh?

 

Start new threads for those and provide evidence that the weapons are 100% backward compatible to anything older without modifications for the hardware or software.

 

Whether it's backwards compatible or not is irrelevant, it's right there in the planned list of features, from Wags. I suggest you "deal with it".

 

That is your argument as you do not accept technically possible features.

 

Are the things I said not technically possible features? Features present on F-16Cs that are firing APKWS? The F-16Cs you keep showing me?

 

And I don't know Fri, things not existing at the time sounds like a technical challenge to me...

 

What is the point to model VERY UNIQUE airframe that exist only as single unit in the whole world, NEVER been reproduced as duplicate. And that is forever locked to only that VERY SPECIFIC DATE when it has either:

1) Rolled out from the factory and signed after test flight to be operational given squadron.

2) Had been accessed by the studio developers to 3D scan it, take photographs or so.

3) Has been just chosen that "It is this date/month/year".

 

Go take it up with ED, if you have a problem with DCS trying to offer "the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible" and developing an F-16C Block 50 of which they "are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time" and that they have "no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods." then you take it up with them. If you didn't want the F-16C we have, that was stated to be what it is, then why did you buy it?

 

Again, you're voluntarily jumping into a swimming pool, with knowledge that you would get wet, and then are complaining that you got wet.

 

Please explain your argument that it should be flown only in very specific year that it is modeling and no other time or year or by any means interact with other units that are not available and in use in given map at that given time?

 

Wait, that's your argument :huh:

 

Ideally there would be multiple variants spanning multiple years, with different capabilities. But working with what we've got compromises need to be made. The difference is, I can make compromises (even if they're far from ideal IMO), you apparently cannot.

 

If compromises have to be made (and they do, unless you're okay with pretty limited missions), then fine, that's why I am for keeping the mission editor, and am for people being able to make the missions against whatever targets, wherever they want.

 

You are the one who is against that in the future from the given year, F-16C received technically possible (and in service) new weapon that doesn't require software or hardware changes to airframe but is "plug'n'play" to it.

 

And in that exact same timespan, the F-16C got updates to its avionics. In both platforms that use APKWS in DCS, they both have dedicated SMS profiles for the APKWS - go figure.

 

All of those weapons I listed are just as technically possible on F-16Cs that fire APKWS, because they are aircraft running different software than ours.

 

What you want is for all intents and purposes (literally) a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, but you want it to represent a 2016+ F-16C, in a yes, but not really sort of way. It's not much more than special pleading over APKWS.

 

I think DCS should be consistent, that's all. And if they're going to go out of their way to make aircraft that they aren't then their wilfully going against their own goals.

 

You don't need to use it, you don't need to fly missions as 2016 (default) but always follow the very strict time restrictions as you argue.

 

The irony.

 

Your "frankenstein" is already then there, as you are free to even fly with unofficial weapons loadouts etc. You wanted to do that, you got it.

 

I wanted it?

 

And no, the weapons we have are representative for a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50; the HARMS on station 4 and 6 I won't get into.

 

What do you want? Do you want "ALL TO ME" or do you want "DO NOT GIVE ANYTHING THAN 23rd July 2007!"?

 

Fri, this applies just to you as much as it does to me, just you want to pick 'n' choose.

 

The F-16C ED is developing, is supposed to represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, so it should have the capabilities of a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50; as APKWS didn't exist at the time (and didn't on an F-16C by nearly a decade), and didn't even exist for at least half a decade.

 

It is what you want.... It is what you support. So you are now saying it is "frankly ridiculous".

And sorry to inform you....

 

No, the problem is that restricting missions to purely historical ones (i.e not just dates, but missions that actually happened) would mandate deletion of the mission editor and a banning on any missions that didn't historically happen, which would mean banning every mission currently in DCS. And you even took it to the extreme going about how it should be restricted for specific days too. That is ridiculous.

 

Also, again, if I want to set-up a mid-to-late Cold War mission, if I want to fly BLUFOR all I have is the F-14A Tomcat, and the F-5E-3, which heavily constrains my options - my only choice here is that I don't do a historically accurate mission.

 

Note: this has absolutely nothing to do with the weapons, our 2007 F-16C Block 50, is armed with Mk82s, Hydra 70s, AIM-9L/M and Paveway IIs without losing any accuracy, that isn't a problem. The problem is a lack of historical variants and comprehensive assets. DCS is a sandbox, but here it's a sandbox without any sand. My options here are either I don't do mid-to-late Cold War missions with historically accurate assets, or I make compromises - so here, I go with making the compromises, which is fine, it's far from ideal, but it is what I've got to work with.

 

The better option here would be for ED to develop multiple variants spanning multiple decades, it works for the both of us, unfortunately it probably isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

Who says that it can't represent that by the default?

The studio that offers the module offers by default few things:

 

1) Skins for the aircrafts, so you can pretend to be flying in small set of historical and political values.

2) Weapon loadouts, so you can just easily pick one premade.

3) List of countries that allows the aircraft to be added to be flyable under its flag (side etc).

4) Campaign to fly, or at least training missions etc that you get to go without learning mission editor.

 

And?

 

Next to that, you can add custom skins to aircraft for other kinds for different times, arms, countries, fictional or historical or just about anything. You can even reskin the cockpit if you so want.

You can make own custom loadouts, officially based ones or unofficial. You can choose to use some other loadouts than what USN used for Hornet and what some other country would use. Or you could choose F-16C to carry loadout that it never carried in the USAF in that airbase it is officially modeling.

You can as well put the F-16C to fly under any other flag than USA.

And you are free to make all kind custom missions you want, campaigns even. You can go fully fictional (USA participating to D-day in Normandy with F-16C...) or try to get historically as accurate as possible the DCS just offers (here, notice that DCS has its own limitations and it is ED task to improve to) with compromises you might like or don't.

 

Dude, what the hell are you talking about, did you even read my response? I said that mission designers can craft any mission they want to, you fly any mission you please, they don't have to be the same as mine, I'm happy for you to fly the F-16C we have in any mission you want to.

 

DCS places almost no restrictions on missions (okay, practically there are issues where there are lacking assets etc), but apart from that, no restrictions whatsoever. That's because it's mission goal is to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible." How well that goal is achieved is another matter, but there is nothing there about what missions you take these authentic assets into.

 

Similarly the goal for the F-16C was "to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods."

 

You seem to have a problem with this.

 

You are arguing that ED should deny all that, because you are not liking that there is anything that is not official, realistic and pure for that one specific year.

 

Am I Fri13? Or are you going to misinterpret/lie about everything I say? (And no, this isn't a challenge).

 

If people want to mod things, go right ahead, it's not a problem. Hey! you could mod APKWS if you like! Well isn't that a nice solution to your problem. It's 100% plug 'n' play right?

 

And I'm very sorry that you find DCS' mission goals so disagreeable. Again, you're voluntarily going for a swim, knowing you'd get wet, and are now complaining that you got wet.

 

And when did I ever say that ED should take away the mission editor, loadout editor, paintkits etc? Spoiler alert: never

 

I mean how do you read what I've written and then conclude the exact polar opposite? If I say the sky is blue are you going to respond telling me how stupid I am for thinking it's purple?

 

That is your argument. You do not want freedom of sandboxing, freedom to authentication and freedom for sake of simulation.

 

Is it Fri, is it really? "If you don't allow this 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 to be a 2016 Block 50 (but only by the inclusion of APKWS for some reason) then you're against muh freedom!!!"

 

Please.

 

And again, you play DCS, which is supposed to offer the most realistic depictions of modules possible. They release a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, and that by ED's own admission "We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods."

 

And then you take issue with it being so.

 

But nope, it's me who hates realism.

 

So you 100% agree with us who want realistic weapons to be possible used on the F-16C in the missions that are dated to date after the weapon of topic has been taken in service for it.

 

What I said is that the mission you design is up to you. I don't know what missions you fly, but usually mine don't turn the aircraft into something it's not.

 

So why are you trying so hard to invent arguments against it?

 

Invent? They're just as much ED's arguments as much as mine.

 

They're just as much, oh y'know, the main underlying principle of DCS...

 

So If you don't want to fly with APKWS II on F-16C in 2020, it is up to you but USAF is happy that they have access to them in F-16C Blk 50!

 

And the USAF before fielding APKWS also featured software updates to their F-16Cs! But sure, let's strive for incoherency.

 

If you want to go more fictional and use them in missions in earlier dated missions like 2007, you are free to do so

 

If I don't fly the F-5E-3, I don't have another option other than to give up entirely. I wish it were different, but the ship has already sailed.

 

but don't come to say that it is fully realistic as the weapon as is didn't exist back then like it does in 2016.

 

It is more realistic! What is so difficult here?

 

APKWS did not exist for our F-16C. And the F-16C that currently use APKWS, feature software updates, the software updates wasn't exclusively for APKWS but the fact is, is that the F-16C Block 50s today with APKWS are different aircraft than ours, when it comes to the avionics.

 

Then deal with it! If you do not like to fly DCS: F-16C in any other missions than 2007, then don't!

 

BINGO!

 

And if you don't want to fly a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007 then don't!

 

I don't know Fri13, maybe you should "deal with it".

 

If you don't want to fly it against very unlikely against other targets, then don't!

 

Again, if you don't want to fly the F-16C we have, then don't fly it! Sound satisfying to you? Maybe you should look in the mirror before telling people to deal with it.

 

If you do, then do not come to say that it shouldn't be possible in DCS what is technically possible in 2016 and forward!

 

I work with what I've got, it's not ideal, but I don't have another option here.

 

Just deal with it!

 

Speak for your freaking self!

 

You don't like APKWS II it is already known.

 

Bloody hell, more projecting... :doh:

 

I'm perfectly fine with the APKWS II Fri13, I don't hold a grudge against it or anything, it didn't bully me when I was a child or anything...

 

I mean, we've got it in the A-10C II haven't we? You know the module I bought, the first day it went up?

 

You don't like to fly F-16C in any other than missions dated to 2007, it is already known.

 

Yep, if I want to make a mission that fits the overwhelming majority of assets, I have to make do with what I've got and make compromises - it's not ideal, but it is what it is. I'm not holding out too much hope that it will improve.

 

And you don't like to fly F-16C in any other configuration than 100% realistic for the squadron that gave the ED access to model it.

 

Is the F-16C only representative of a single squadron? Does it feature things that are different from other squadrons? Or are you just making things up?

 

And it is totally understandable that you really, really dislike the idea that F-16C is flowing on the RED side....

 

You know aggressor squadrons are a thing right? Hell the USAF aggressors are even in DCS, as their own separate 'country'!

 

You and your "time travel" opinion... You should little bit give a freeway to understand that ED has lots of work to do and likely would be willing to include a more modern units for ground as well for various decades like they do now with WW2.

 

This just gets better and better...

 

I mean, speak for yourself Fri13! There's so many things that are planned for the F-16C but aren't in yet, but here you are demanding more, even when it isn't realistic for our F-16C and when ED has no intentions of doing so.

 

I guess it's okay when you do it.

 

Like offer packages for 70's, 80's and 90's and then some for aughts. But even before that it would be nice to have even semi-realistic ground units behavior and have "Intelligence" in their AI...

 

Would love them, sadly not much interest from developers unfortunately, (even though the vast majority of assets are in that timeframe, and apart from BLUFOR modules, there aren't any assets post 2000s).

 

You have options. You just don't like to use them. Deal with it!

 

This just gets better and better. I mean the irony and the self-awareness, it's just astounding.

 

Yes, you fail to explain yourself with your problem to do exactly that, have a APKWS II laser guided rockets available for F-16C in missions that are dated in 2016 or later?

 

And have GBU-39, AIM-120D, AIM-9X Block II, AGM-88E, tape 5.2 avionics... But sure I'm the one who hates realism and consistency.

 

You talk about time travel, you talk about how you can't make realistic missions in the DCS, and then how you can't and you can't and you can't.

If you do not want to use weapon loadouts, skins, countries etc that are not realistic, then don't!

 

Somebody pinch me.

 

Fri13, it may have escaped your notice, but the F-16C already has the weapons available for these missions, this isn't the problem. Just you misinterpreting my points, you're good at this aren't you?

 

But let others to be able make realistic weapon loadouts for 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Blk 50 (which is what it IS)

 

Fixed that for you.

 

And wait, you can't make realistic loadouts for that?

 

Yes, you are doing that...

 

Right.

 

Yes, stay in the mission editor for 2007 year only and do not fly against anything else than units that are used in the maps presented countries in 2007

 

See, it IS the argument you're making.

 

And again, I can compromise for earlier missions, far from ideal, but it doesn't result in an inconsistent aircraft being made into something it's not.

 

We others have realistic wishes and flexibility as well to understand that DCS World is Simulator and Sandbox

 

Yet you have a problem with DCS realistically simulating a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 as a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50...

 

Okay.

 

But at least you're flexible enough to demand that if ED want to make a specific aircraft of a specific time frame, they should effectively ban and delete the mission editor...

 

Wait...

 

With huge amount of lacking challenges from the ground units and AI capabilities and what we still have.

 

Totally with you here, 100% of the way. The ground units was actually part of my whole point (though I didn't make it clear). The problem isn't weapons or liveries or whatever, it's assets.

 

The overwhelming majority of them are mid-to-late Cold War, but full-fidelity modules are pretty sparse... The era that's most flushed out in DCS is probably WWII, by far.

 

Yes, and here is the same F-16C Blk 50 in 2019 in operational USAF inventory...

 

With an upgraded avionics package, with the compatibility of all those weapons I listed, and yet...

 

Is it so impossible to understand that the F-16C Blk 50 that DCS has, is still being used by USAF in 2019-2020 etc?

Fully capable to use APKWS II rockets officially in combat missions....

 

And is it so impossible to understand that it isn't the F-16C we have? Again, different software update.

[Northstar98]

However, there are F-16C Blk 50's in the USAF inventory today that use the APKWS, and it doesn't require an update to the aircraft to use it.

 

Even so, these aircraft were updated with new software, before they got APKWS, this software allowed compatibility for newer weapons. Our aircraft doesn't have this upgrade, and ED have said that we won't be getting weapons of these aircraft with newer software.

 

This in my mind is why I would support having the APKWS on the F-16 in DCS -- it doesn't actually break from reality provided your mission is after the year 2016.

 

Only if you pretend that the F-16C featured no upgrades in that period, look I'd love to get more variants of more timeframes because it would work for everybody and everybody would get what they want, and if it could be done by changing the date on the mission editor, perfect.

 

But why are we only getting some features of a 2016 F-16C and not others, where's the consistency? DCS already suffers from a consistency problem in terms of assets and eras, it doesn't need to be made worse.

[Fri13]

 

You have the problem with realism here Fri, not me.

 

You completely miss the whole point that APKWS II does not require (or use, benefit etc) any software or hardware modifications at all!

 

If your platform can fire 2.75" standard rockets, it is 100% compatible and capable to use APKWS II.

It is 100% Plug and Play weapon upgrade to ANY SYSTEM.

 

You are against the history, reality and facts.

 

 

Since 2016 every F-16C that has been in USAF inventory has been able to carry and launch those, without any modifications and use them as long they just were used in the operations where those weapons were assigned to be used.

 

It is same thing with UH-1, AH-64, F/A-18C, AV-1B etc etc.

If the US operates the airframe and is capable to use unguided rockets, then it can be loaded up with APKWS II and use them if not self-designating capability then to fire them while someone else designates target for them.

 

You need to provide technical evidence that is not possible, so do it.

You just can't accept that DCS players make and fly in missions that are newer than the year the module is presenting the aircraft, the default is even 21st June 2016, 8 AM.

 

 

That is default for all missions unless otherwise set. And mission editor allows you to define different date for the mission and limit the units and weapons availability for that using the ED made filter library.

 

Because technically APKWS II is fully compatible basically everything that west has, it should be part of the DCS Core as AGR-20A and to all western aircrafts using 2.75" unguided rockets since 2012- limited by individual aircraft for realistic historical date (like F-16C for 2016, A-10C for 2013 and AH-64, 2016 for Harrier, 2018 for Hornet, so on) and if one wants, they can simply disable the time limiter (as with any weapon or unit) and use them as wanted, or not to use them if so wanted. Just like they might want to make missions where Russia and USA are on the same side when attacking against Norway in the future map of Falklands, that Norway has conquered for their political reasons to get Oil to their fellow citizens.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...elic_campaign/

 

"The Museum Relic" is a story driven campaign that takes place between the two small fictional countries of Matova and Obristen. As their war stretches on into its fifth year, both nations are feeling the strain of not being able to replenish any of their lost vehicles.

 

or

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...18c_raven_one/

 

The Raven One campaign for the F/A-18C Hornet is based on the bestselling novel of the same title. This campaign was developed with the active participation of author Kevin Miller and Vincent "Jell-O" Aiello, host of the Fighter Pilot Podcast. Both are retired U.S. Navy Hornet pilots, each with over 3,000 career flight hours and numerous overseas deployments.

 

 

Or

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...in_3_campaign/

 

Striving to be as realistic as possible, the units featured in the campaign are based on their real-life counterparts.

 

 

Simply put, you have no valid arguments against APKWS II rockets to be available for F-16C.

No time based.

No technology based.

No realism based.

No history based.

 

Only for some idea that DCS loses its "purity" if F-16C would as well receive historically realistic weapons for it. (And if you do not understand that, we live today 2020, soon 2021. And in reality our very specifically modeled F-16C Blk 50 is in operational use in USAF and they have APKWS II rockets in operational use for F-16 since 2016. It is history for us, the real history.)

 

https://defense-update.com/20191224_...semissile.html

 

Other advantages of the AGR-20A are the bigger loadout (more missiles carried by each aircraft) and the ability to load weapons faster than an AIM-120. In 2016 the rocket has been integrated with F-16 and A-10 and US Marine Corps F/A-18D under an urgent operational need and was deployed in Operation Inherent Resolve (fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria) since 2017.

 

We have in DCS a F-16C Blk 50, we have APKWS II as AGR-20A, we have Syria map. All are realistic, technically correct and possible, historically accurate that F-16C Blk 50 we have gets an capability use AGR-20A rockets in DCS. If you do not like to use them then don't. If you don't like to use them historically incorrect, then don't make missions in Syria map with them older than 2016, if you have problems with flying F-16C in any other mission that one specific "point of time" as 2007, then so restrict yourself to that and deal with it.

 

*) https://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Articl...urs-threshold/

 

SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany --

Aircraft 91-0343, a U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon assigned to the 480th Fighter Squadron, became the first block 50 F-16 in U.S. Air Forces Europe-Air Forces Africa and the second in the U.S. Air Force to cross the 10,000 flight hours milestone, at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, April 23, 2020.

 

The aircraft roared past 10,000 flight hours with U.S. Air Force Col. Jason Hokaj, 52nd Fighter Wing vice commander, at the stick and it was all made possible by generations of dedicated Airmen assigned to the 52nd Maintenance Group over the past 26 years.

 

“This is such an amazing event to be part of,” Hokaj said. “To think about the amount of hands and minds used to get here, to keep this machine flying, it’s a testament to the professionalism of the 52nd MXG. I’m honored to be a small part of this history.”

 

The aircraft also broke the Air Force record for being the fastest F-16 to reach 10,000 flight hours.

 

“Even though we are not the first F-16 to break 10,000 hours, we are the fastest,” said Senior Master Sgt. Andrew Yates, 480th Aircraft Maintenance Unit lead production superintendent. “The first aircraft to break that mark, 90-0808 in Misawa, was delivered a year earlier than our aircraft. It took 26 years and 11 months to break the mark. Aircraft 91-0343 took 26 years and 9 months.”

 

Aircraft 91-0343 arrived at Spangdahlem in 1993 and has served in numerous engagements.

 

“The jet was born on July 21, 1993 and arrived to Spangdahlem in August of that year,” Yates said. “This jet has only been stationed at Spangdahlem, and has been assigned to both the 22nd and 480th Fighter Squadrons.

 

The 52nd Fighter Wing’s F16’s, including 91-0343, have flown in countless exercises, partnered with jets from dozens of countries, and seen numerous combat hours.

 

“The jet has taken part in both Operation Northern and Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, Odyssey Dawn, and lastly Operation Inherent Resolve in 2016 where it helped set the record for most precision guided munitions delivered by an F-16 unit in a six-month period,” Yates said.

 

The current 52nd MXG chief enlisted manager, U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Christopher Yager, started his career performing maintenance on several Spangdahlem AB F-16s, including aircraft 91-0343.

 

“This was my first duty station in 1997 and during those four years I was assigned to the same unit as this jet and had the opportunity to work it on many occasions,” Yager said. “I was here when our first jet hit 2,000 hours.”

 

Due to the efforts of the 52nd MXG, the 52nd FW remains prepared to respond to security threats, and 480th FS pilots provide continued deterrence throughout the European Theater.

 

“The fact that the same aircraft are here and still making the mission happen at a very high level - we lead the Air Force in nearly every F-16 metric - is a testament to the hard work and dedication of generations of maintenance Airmen,” Yager said.

 

Aircraft 91-0343 is expected to continue service in the Air Force for decades to come.

 

“This aircraft also has structural updates scheduled that will take its projected service life until 2080,” Yates said. “Pound for pound, the best fighter around!”

 

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-databas...-profile/3386/

https://www.incirlik.af.mil/News/Video/videoid/529811/dvpTag/OIR/

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/04/18/marines-boost-lethality-of-hornets-with-high-precision-kill-munitions/

https://www.flightglobal.com/bae-touts-apkws-for-is-battle/115641.article

https://sofrep.com/news/army-experiments-with-ground-based-version-of-popular-precision-guided-munition/

 

These are the rotary-wing qualified platforms: AH-64D/E Apache, AH-1W/Z Super Cobra/Viper, AH-6 Little Bird, AH-1F Cobra, OH-58 Kiowa Warrior, UH-1Y Venom, IA-407 Bell, MH-60S/R Knighthawk, Seahawk, UH-60L/M Blackhawk, ARH Tiger

 

These are the fixed-wing qualified platforms: F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-18 Hornet, AV-8B Harrier, A-208 Combat Caravan, A-29 Super Tucano, A-10 Thunderbolt, OV-10 Bronco.

 

All of the U.S. military branches (sans the Space Force) have utilized the APKWS operationally in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

[Northstar98]

You completely miss the whole point that APKWS II does not require (or use, benefit etc) any software or hardware modifications at all!

 

Totally irrelevant!

 

Are you even reading what I'm typing?

 

If your platform can fire 2.75" standard rockets, it is 100% compatible and capable to use APKWS II.

It is 100% Plug and Play weapon upgrade to ANY SYSTEM.

 

Then do explain to me why the A-10C II, in DCS, has a dedicated SMS profile for it? Is it not realistic?

 

You are against the history, reality and facts.

 

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

 

Fact of reality is, is that the F-16C we've got, is supposed to represent a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 circa 2007. And by ED's own statements, they want their F-16 to be that specific variant, of that specific year. That's the reality here Fri13, what's the words I'm looking for? "Deal with it"?

 

It's also reality, than the F-16s flying with APKWS feature avionics and software updates, and have expanded capabilities than the one we have, they are a different F-16C Block 50 variant. We're not getting any of those (for the exact same reason we're not getting APKWS), so we won't have a consistent aircraft. Sounds like a good idea for something that's supposed to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible" on an aircraft that's supposed to represent "a particular aircraft at a particular point in time" (not).

 

Since 2016 every F-16C that has been in USAF inventory has been able to carry and launch those, without any modifications and use them as long they just were used in the operations where those weapons were assigned to be used.

 

As well as have their avionics updated! And be able to fire every other weapon around! But I get it, consistency isn't something we are striving for, we should make aircraft based on specific variant and timeframe, but then don't. Got it.

 

It is same thing with UH-1, AH-64, F/A-18C, AV-1B etc etc

 

Dude, the UH-1H was out of service with the only operator who operates both it and APKWS, before APKWS even existed.

 

You need to provide technical evidence that is not possible, so do it.

 

Do I?

 

Not my argument, you're making things up (again).

 

You just can't accept that DCS players make and fly in missions that are newer than the year the module is presenting the aircraft, the default is even 21st June 2016, 8 AM.

 

Already gone here, keep sticking your fingers in your ears...

 

Our Viper will be an F-16C with the Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) upgrade. We feel this to be the most versatile version of the F-16 with capabilities for SEAD, precision attack, close air support, and of course air-to-air. We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods.

 

We make study sims, and are striving for the most accurate representation of the model we can get the most information on, and that is public legal information. If you want guessing and Frankenstein monster Vipers, you will have to look elsewhere. We are making the DCS: F-16CM Block 50, and whatever should come with it used by USAF and ANG, circa 2007.

 

You really need to come to peace with this.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...elic_campaign/

 

"The Museum Relic" is a story driven campaign that takes place between the two small fictional countries of Matova and Obristen. As their war stretches on into its fifth year, both nations are feeling the strain of not being able to replenish any of their lost vehicles.

 

or

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...18c_raven_one/

 

The Raven One campaign for the F/A-18C Hornet is based on the bestselling novel of the same title. This campaign was developed with the active participation of author Kevin Miller and Vincent "Jell-O" Aiello, host of the Fighter Pilot Podcast. Both are retired U.S. Navy Hornet pilots, each with over 3,000 career flight hours and numerous overseas deployments.

 

Or

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...in_3_campaign/

 

Striving to be as realistic as possible, the units featured in the campaign are based on their real-life counterparts.

 

Who cares? Seriously Fri13, what point are you even trying to make here? You're not arguing against anything I've said at all! YOU'RE the one basically telling us that we can't have the mission editor and have the specific variant of F-16C we've got, not me.

 

Simply put, you have no valid arguments against APKWS II rockets to be available for F-16C.

No time based.

No technology based.

No realism based.

No history based.

 

Here are the arguments:

 

"...we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods."

 

"...We are making the DCS: F-16CM Block 50, and whatever should come with it used by USAF and ANG, circa 2007."

 

Get it yet?

 

Just because you can't get over this doesn't mean it's invalid. APKWS didn't even exist (for nearly a decade) on the F-16C, and F-16Cs were upgraded with new avionics before APKWS even existed at all. We won't be getting any of the other upgrades that happened before APKWS came along. If we have it your way, we have a mash-up F-16 that is for all intents and purposes (literally) a variant from 2007, but with weapons from 2016, but only one of the weapons, and no other upgrades, something which isn't representative of a 2016 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50.

 

Only for some idea that DCS loses its "purity" if F-16C would as well receive historically realistic weapons for it.(And if you do not understand that, we live today 2020, soon 2021.

 

It isn't historically accurate at all, the F-16C flying with APKWS are not the same F-16Cs we have in DCS, their avionics have some significant differences, whether these avionics updates facilitate APKWS or not is totally irrelevant, because in any case a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, isn't the same aircraft as a 2016+ USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, there are significant differences in the avionics, that's exactly the problem - why is it so difficult?

 

And in reality our very specifically modeled F-16C Blk 50 is in operational use in USAF and they have APKWS II rockets in operational use for F-16 since 2016. It is history for us, the real history.)

 

No they weren't, we're flying an aircraft that represents tape 4.2/4.3, the aircraft around today, and the only ones firing APKWS are those upgraded with software tape 5.1 (which came before APKWS even existed) and probably even the later 6.1.

 

Since our F-16C, the new aircraft got updated with different radios, newer data-link, new INS, new IFF, and a new armament interface - in short, they are are a different F-16C version, and much of these were before APKWS even existed!

 

You want an aircraft, that is for all intents and purposes (again, literally, read the above, I've made them pretty hard to miss) a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, you want it to stay as one, pretend nothing else changed to it in nearly 10 years and add APKWS on it, because screw consistency right? Again, you might want to revaluate reality here...

 

I think I'll stop this here, I'm only repeating myself at this point...

[Xavven]

If someone would be flying it today, even if just for the airshows or whatever, they would totally be with some kind GPS unit with them.

 

Yes, which is why I would support having GPS in the Bf-109 if DCS were a civil aviation sim. While people do perform airshows in DCS, it's really a military sim. There is no military scenario where the Bf-109 would be employed and have GPS.

[BuzzU]

Everybody (mostly) loves the realism in DCS but when realism doesn't fit with what they want. Suddenly, it's not important anymore.