noted F-16A

[Black6]

Hi, i´d be very delighted if there would by flyable version of F-16 - model A block 10. Or block 15 which is more camon to block 50. It would perfectly fit to Syria scenario in early 80th´s.

[SpaceMonkey037]

19 minutes ago, Black6 said:

Hi, i´d be very delighted if there would by flyable version of F-16 - model A block 10. Or block 15 which is more camon to block 50. It would perfectly fit to Syria scenario in early 80th´s.

Probably not going to happen because from what I know only the -1 is avaiable for the block 10/15, and that is far from enough information to create a full fidelity aircraft. I would love to have the aircraft, but right now there simply isn't enough information for the plane.

[Northstar98]

I'd love one too, it would be perfect for an 80s Germany map, with them operating out of Spangdahlem AB (a real F-16A Block 15 Base AFAIK). 

 

@SpaceMonkey037 I'm surprised there isn't more information on the F-16A Block 10/Block 15, given that I would've thought nearly all of them would've been updated to the F-16AM MLU standard (apart from a few examples such as the USN F-16N AFAIK).

[falconbr]

1 hour ago, Black6 said:

Hi, i´d be very delighted if there would by flyable version of F-16 - model A block 10. Or block 15 which is more camon to block 50. It would perfectly fit to Syria scenario in early 80th´s.

+ 1

[SpaceMonkey037]

55 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'd love one too, it would be perfect for an 80s Germany map, with them operating out of Spangdahlem AB (a real F-16A Block 15 Base AFAIK). 

 

@SpaceMonkey037 I'm surprised there isn't more information on the F-16A Block 10/Block 15, given that I would've thought nearly all of them would've been updated to the F-16AM MLU standard (apart from a few examples such as the USN F-16N AFAIK).

The only docs I know available is a block 10/15 OCP -1. Other than that the OCP vversion seems completely "secret". O well, not much more to say about it really, a -1 won't make an aircraft

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by SpaceMonkey037

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

The only docs I know available is a block 10/15 MLU -1. The OCP is completely "secret" by the seems. O well, not much more to say about it really.

 

Fair enough, just seems a little odd is all.

[Black6]

Problems with docs? This almost 600 pages manual is available on internet.

[Northstar98]

4 minutes ago, Black6 said:

Problems with docs? This almost 600 pages manual is available on internet.

 

The -1 was already mentioned, but its apparently not enough - though it's beyond me.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Northstar98

[dundun92]

you need far, FAR more than just a -1 to model an aircraft and all its systems. That being said, I dont think this is a documentation issue, ED just thought a Block 50 would be more marketable, and TBH it is.

[SpaceMonkey037]

59 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

you need far, FAR more than just a -1 to model an aircraft and all its systems. That being said, I dont think this is a documentation issue, ED just thought a Block 50 would be more marketable, and TBH it is.

The block 50 is the block that has most available documents. It has the -1, -34, -1-1 and three software update documents available for it. The only thing it's really missing are loudout limitations, so over g'ing will probably be guesswork. For a OCP version to be possible you would need so much guesswork it isn't even worth attempting.

[dundun92]

2 minutes ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

The block 50 is the block that has most available documents. It has the -1, -34, -1-1 and three software update documents available for it. The only thing it's really missing are loudout limitations, so over g'ing will probably be guesswork. For a OCP version to be possible you would need so much guesswork it isn't even worth attempting.

The fact that you cannot find a -34 for the A lying on the web doesnt mean ED cant get one.

[m4ti140]

33 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

The fact that you cannot find a -34 for the A lying on the web doesnt mean ED cant get one.

This. If it's outdated then it's quite possible it could be declassified if you know who to talk to (and assuming it even is classified, just because it's not floating around web doesn't mean it is, remember about ITAR). And they have Wags. This isn't Russia, it's easier to get info if it's not an immediate safety issue.

Edited January 21, 2021 by m4ti140

[SpaceMonkey037]

If the manuals are publically released I will be all aboard. Until then I can't see the aircraft being developed.

[dundun92]

On 1/22/2021 at 2:59 AM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

If the manuals are publically released I will be all aboard. Until then I can't see the aircraft being developed.

Fortunately for us ED made the F-18 despite this

[bies]

I think Cold War dogfighter variant F-16 it will be far more demanded after 1980s MiG-29 9.12 release. As it's Cold War counterpart.

 

Cold War era F-16s like early A blocks and C block 30 were more maneuverable and far lighter than our 2007 ground attack variant SEAD block 50CJ.

There would be very interesting to dogfight F-16A or C block 30 against MiG-29 in 1980s over Europe, (without datalinks and AMRAAMs shoot to some blip on a radar and run without seing any enemy). Going close in for Sidewinder and guns in lightweight slick plane to shoot down the enemy. Like over Bekaa Valley.

Edited February 4, 2021 by bies

[Furiz]

Isn't it better to have more different aircraft rather than 5 variants of the same aircraft?

 

If you really want to play it with no HARM or no Data Link or without aim 120c well don't equip or don't use those. Just turn DL off and there you go, block 10, enjoy

[Northstar98]

38 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Isn't it better to have more different aircraft rather than 5 variants of the same aircraft?

 

Not with this one it isn't. You can't explore all of the F-16s capability in a single aircraft.

 

The 30 is the best A/A platform and best performance

The 40 is the best strike variant (particularly low-level at night).

The 50 is the best SEAD platform.

 

The A is the best for Cold War missions.

 

38 minutes ago, Furiz said:

If you really want to play it with no HARM or no Data Link or without aim 120c well don't equip or don't use those. Just turn DL off and there you go, block 10, enjoy

 

With the wrong engine, wrong avionics, wrong RADAR, wrong FDM, completely wrong cockpit etc. There's a bit more of a difference than just HARM, AIM-120 and D/L...

 

It's like pretending the MiG-29S is a MiG-29M/SMT in A/A because you can put the R-77 on it.

[bies]

On 2/4/2021 at 2:06 PM, Furiz said:

Isn't it better to have more different aircraft rather than 5 variants of the same aircraft?

 

If you really want to play it with no HARM or no Data Link or without aim 120c well don't equip or don't use those. Just turn DL off and there you go, block 10, enjoy

 

I agree our current Block 50 CJ should be finished first.

 

A few insights

• F-16A Block 15 weights 7310kg, Block 50CJ we have weights 9027kg, nearly 2 tons of difference with identical wing means some massive differences in handling regardless of the engine, it's like slick F-16 vs F-16 loaded with 7-8 Mk-82 bombs both trying to turn. That's why some guys are complaining our F-16 doesn't turn as they expect and push ED to verify it's flight model. But ED made it correctly using NASA wind tunnel tests, late ground attack Vipers simply fly as the one in DCS, Soviet Union collapsed, there was no need for high performance dogfighter anymore - during the Cold War F-16 shoot down some 40 enemy fighters in dogfights, after the Cold War F-16 shoot down 0 (zero) enemy fighters in a dogfights. There was a need for a heavy bomb truck for low threat environment operations. That's why late Vipers are so overweight and lost their dogfighting edge. Plus dogfighting is no more a thing in ~2007 datalink/AMRAAM era.
• Making i.e. Block 30 out of Block 50 takes some 2-3 months, making completely different plane i.e. F-15E takes at least some 4 years
• Making, from from scratch to complete, some early F-16A is some year and half or two, ~2007 F-16 CJ is at least some 4 years (F-16 when it first came out in DCS was something like A in capabilities or even more, except for greater weight, with sidewinders, gun, dumb bombs and rockets with CCIP and basic navigation)

Is tossing some AMRAAMs from 20nm and run to base or tossing some JSOWs from 40nm and run to base - preferably not even seeing any enemy, to find out on a debrief after landing if you killed/destroyed something - the most exiting things to do in DCS? Probably not, but i accept people are different and may have different preferences.

 

I like 1980s with MiG-29, Su-27, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Mirage 2000 with very limited BVR capabilities, dogfighting with heat seakers and guns in close air combat, manually bombing targets with some CCIP "dot of death" dodging enemy ground fire etc. That's why i'm excited 1980s for F-14, Mirage 2000, Mi-24 or further not yet announced MiG-29 9.12.

 

But if someone prefer mid 2000 BVR A/A and standoff A/G - i'm perfectly fine with that. We have planes from both time-frames.

Just proposing to use 1980s Su-27 in 2007 missions or 2007 F-16 without AMRAAM in 1980s missions is not realistic, nor balanced or fun. It's like MiG-15 in WW2 mission completely different era of aviation.

 

Would it be nice to have both: 2007 BVR/standoff F-16 and 1980s lightweight dogfighter F-16A? I guess yes.

Edited June 4, 2021 by bies

[Furiz]

So you want ED to spend time remodeling all that stuff instead of finishing started projects and bringing some new airframe just so you can play cold war get real pls

Edited December 19, 2021 by Furiz

[bies]

3 minutes ago, Furiz said:

So you want ED to spend time remodeling all that stuff instead of finisging started projects and bringing some new airframe just so you can play cold war get real pls

 

What is the first sentence of my post? 

35 minutes ago, bies said:

I agree our current Block 50 CJ should be finished first.

 

So i guess i don't want 

Edited February 4, 2021 by bies

[m4ti140]

8 hours ago, Furiz said:

Isn't it better to have more different aircraft rather than 5 variants of the same aircraft?

 

If you really want to play it with no HARM or no Data Link or without aim 120c well don't equip or don't use those. Just turn DL off and there you go, block 10, enjoy

A is a significantly different aircraft, so much that the Mirage is a better approximation than the CM block 50 stripped of weapons. What you suggested has nothing to do with a real early block A. If they were to make one the only thing they could keep would be the external 3D model and even that would require significant changes. The flight model, the engine model, the FCS, the avionics, the cockpit, everything's completely different. The cockpit is more reminiscent of the Mirage or F-14 versions we have in game than the F-16CM.

So what I'd like to see is US assets from the same era they're adding Russian/Soviet assets from, rather than modern stuff with no counter other than giving both sides the same aircraft.

6 hours ago, Furiz said:

So you want ED to spend time remodeling all that stuff instead of finisging started projects and bringing some new airframe just so you can play cold war get real pls

Yes. I'm not gonna buy any more modern stuff cause there's no gameplay for it. We have no hope of getting modern opfor stuff to match so what's the point? If they release a new cold war airframe I'd get it.

Edited February 4, 2021 by m4ti140

[Furiz]

So it a completely different aircraft with the same airframe ok,

 

but it is still F16, from their perspective why would they do another f16?

Why not Gripen C for example or Rafale (early version came out in 2001 if I'm not mistaken) even, that would sell more than old version of the f16, the aircraft they already have in the more recent version.

[bies]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

So it a completely different aircraft with the same airframe ok,

 

but it is still F16, from their perspective why would they do another f16?

Why not Gripen C for example or Rafale (early version came out in 2001 if I'm not mistaken) even, that would sell more than old version of the f16, the aircraft they already have in the more recent version.

 

Rafale with it's AESA radar and very advanced ECM systems is completely out of question. Speak with RAZBAM, Dassault refused to sell them the license for 1980s Mirage 2000 so they were forced to make a lot of guestimation and made up things, (and that's why module is named M2000, not Mirage) only later on French Air Force allowed to disclose them more realistic data for 1980s Mirage when their module had been used as a training tool and now our M2000 works far closer to RL than the first version RAZBAM made. Even Mirage 2000-5 from 1990s is impossible for now. Rafale is completely untouchable due to French approach to classification.

 

Gripen is similar story, Heatblur wanted to make fighter variant JA-37 Viggen but SAAB refused to disclose the datalink, critical to it's effectiveness, and Heatblur didn't want to create completely unrealistic module so they have chosen AJS-37 strike variant. Gripen, even very first variant, is even more classified than 1980s old JA-37 Viggen. 

 

Similar story with Tornado, ED in last article stated producer is not interested in cooperation or disclosure materials to make Tornado. And this plane is already phased out from GB inventory.

Edited February 5, 2021 by bies

[Furiz]

The problem in this discussion is that you are completely missing my point.

 

I'm talking about the benefit for the sim and for ED if they decide to make a old version of F16, they would have to spend time and resources to model all that old stuff to make an old aircraft they already have.

They would benefit more from introducing new aircraft into the game like Apache or Hind. Rafale or Gripen was just an example. I bet Apache and Hind have people waiting ready to make that pre-purchase.

Same goes with Eurofighter, oh wait doesn't Eurofighter have AESA radar? Well early version doesn't, same with Rafale early version didn't have AESA radar and that was the one I was talking about.

Or why not spend that time and resources for playable AWACS  radar operator station (for example), or airport ground crews... there is tons of different stuff that can make the game more and more immersive than to make different version of the aircraft that we already have.

[Northstar98]

On 2/5/2021 at 11:17 AM, Furiz said:

The problem in this discussion is that you are completely missing my point.

 

I'm talking about the benefit for the sim and for ED if they decide to make a old version of F16, they would have to spend time and resources to model all that old stuff to make an old aircraft they already have.

Try telling that to people after newer Su-27/MiG-29 variants; they would have to spend time and resources to model all that new stuff to make a new aircraft they already have. Same for the Superhornet.

It's exactly the same thing, just the other way around.

DCS suffers from a major depth problem in that it is a mile wide - with aircraft and assets spanning ~70 years, but an inch deep - pick any one decade, and barely anything fits together.

• For WWII you're all set (well, comparatively anyway), there's a decent number of BLUFOR and REDFOR modules, a reasonably comprehensive set of assets, though there's still plenty to be done (again, for both sides) and at least 2 maps. It's by far the most fleshed out era (though naval is very lacking) out of all of them.
• For early Cold War (50s - early 60s), there's the MiG-15bis, MiG-19P and F-86F and that's it. For ground units we've so far got the ZSU-57-2 with AZP S-60 (which is basically the same gun) and KS-19 (as well as an FCR for both), but aside from that (and using the WWII assets pack as filler), there's literally nothing else, no maps, no ships.
• For the 70s, we've got lots of assets, including most of REDFOR ground units and air defences; But only the F-5E-3 and MiG-21bis as playable modules (F-14A-135GR early coming). Though still no map, and very little naval (only have a few outdated REDFOR assets, and no BLUFOR assets).
• For the 80s you've basically got all of the stuff of the 70s, there's also FC3 and some more AI assets like SAMs, ground vehicles and a select number of aircraft, as well as basically every USSR naval asset. This is probably the era that's most fleshed out after WWII, and where an F-16A Block 10/15 would fit right in. It's also the era of the Mi-24P and the 9-12 MiG-29, and counting FC3, this decade actually has the largest number of flyable aircraft.
• For the 90s you've got everything from earlier, plus the AJS 37 and our current F-14A/B Tomcat and maybe a few more ground vehicles/air defences (Patriot and Tor).
• For the 2000s plus, we've got the overwhelming majority of popular full-fidelity BLUFOR (both A-10Cs, AV-8B N/A, F-16CM, F/A-18C), as well as the GREENFOR JF-17, a few naval assets (mostly from the Supercarrier Module and the Chinese asset pack, even if the latter are kinda questionable from a graphical perspective), a few select ground vehicles and that's it; everything else has to be taken from earlier decades.

In SP, PvE, if you have weapons unrestricted, the modern BLUFOR aircraft (basically all of them) are shooting fish in a barrel, not only are they fighting aircraft 20 years out of date (at least), but it's being flown by DCS' AI, which is like taking candy from a baby who hates candy, who is throwing its candy at you. The aircraft are flown in exactly the same way you'd fly an airliner, it gets kinda boring after 2-3 times.

Cold War airframes fit much better, their REDFOR contemporaries are much more doable and both should be easier to actually complete.

Quote

Same goes with Eurofighter, oh wait doesn't Eurofighter have AESA radar? Well early version doesn't, same with Rafale early version didn't have AESA radar and that was the one I was talking about.

The early version of the Rafale still has a phased array RADAR, just PESA not AESA. Nothing in DCS has a phased array RADAR with any fidelity, and we struggle as is to have variants of 80s planar array mechanical RADARs that work properly, and even then they're mostly simplified, module dependent of course.

And the Eurofighter doesn't even have an AESA RADAR, it's still using the CAPTOR-M as far as I know, which is still a mechanical planar array RADAR.

And the Rafale and Gripen are basically out of the question; look at the situation with Dassault, and Heatblur had too much difficulty with the JA 37, which a lot of the early Gripen's systems were based off of.

And all of them have absolutely no peer contemporaries in DCS whatsoever, nor are we likely to get any anytime soon, and as we get even more modern BLUFOR aircraft the problem gets worse and worse, the depth problem increases even more so creating more of an incoherent mess.

Quote

Or why not spend that time and resources for playable AWACS  radar operator station (for example), or airport ground crews... there is tons of different stuff that can make the game more and more immersive than to make different version of the aircraft that we already have.

Making an aircraft that fits literally the rest of DCS World a lot better than the current one, as well as being the perfect counterpart to the 9-12 MiG-29 we are getting is more immersive, as well as makes DCS more coherent.

It's certainly more immersive than every DCS mission playing out like the movie 'The Final Countdown' (the irony being that the age gaps aren't far off from what's depicted in that film).

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling