noted F-16A

[SilentSparrow]

On 2/19/2023 at 2:54 PM, Vampyre said:

I did. Thats why I know who owns the aircraft and you do not. The 21st Fighter Squadron operates the ROC F-16A/B Block 20 aircraft at Luke AFB for training Taiwanese F-16 pilots in the US. It only takes 30 seconds to verify this is true.

Oh shoot sorry sorry sorry

[F-2]

18 minutes ago, SilentSparrow said:

Oh shoot sorry sorry sorry

Venezuelan F-16a with Python 4 would make an outstanding redfor aircraft as well as represent Israeli aircraft from around 1990.

[bies]

Interview with F-16 pilot, here comparing early F-16A and later F-16 variants maneuverability, but the whole interview is very interesting, F-16 developement and changes, flying MiG-21 Fishbed and MiG-23 Flogger BFM against NATO fighters etc.:

 

[jojyrocks]

Personally, not much interested in the F-16A unless it comes as a HUGE discount for the current Block 50 F-16 owners, seems more like a downgrade, brings only minimal changes. It simply does not bring the amount of changes like between the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet which is actually an upgrade.

[SilentSparrow]

14 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

Personally, not much interested in the F-16A unless it comes as a HUGE discount for the current Block 50 F-16 owners, seems more like a downgrade, brings only minimal changes. It simply does not bring the amount of changes like between the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet which is actually an upgrade.

This. There's also going to be the fact that they can make a 2023-era F-16C with the APG-68(v)9 and they didn't.

[bies]

1 hour ago, SilentSparrow said:

that they can make a 2023-era F-16

They can't make 2006 era F-22. Even our 2007 era F-16C doesn't have some classified systems modeled. 2023 would be totally unrealistic fantasy, castrated from half of its real life capabilities, completely made up fiction.

They did the very last standard they were able to model in reasonably realistic way.

[WinterH]

Meanwhile me here couldn't care less about a "Super" Hornet, nor a 2023 F-16, at all, but would be interested in an 80s F-16A, as well as a 90s F-16C Block 40 maybe, but I'd lean closer to F-16A.

[Harlikwin]

On 2/26/2023 at 2:29 AM, jojyrocks said:

Personally, not much interested in the F-16A unless it comes as a HUGE discount for the current Block 50 F-16 owners, seems more like a downgrade, brings only minimal changes. It simply does not bring the amount of changes like between the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet which is actually an upgrade.

Thanks for confirming the exact reason ED needs to change their business model. 

[Mig Fulcrum]

I would love so much a F-16A, not sure if I would prefer a Block 10, block 15 or ADF but i don't care. Just give me that cockpit and that airframe!

[Northstar98]

On 2/26/2023 at 9:29 AM, jojyrocks said:

Personally, not much interested in the F-16A unless it comes as a HUGE discount for the current Block 50 F-16 owners, seems more like a downgrade, brings only minimal changes. It simply does not bring the amount of changes like between the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet which is actually an upgrade.

If you're not interested, that's absolutely fine, but I have no idea how you figure that the only changes between an A and our current CM are "minimal" especially compared to the differences between our current legacy Hornet and a Super Hornet - especially considering that if a Super Hornet were to be developed it would very likely be either a Block 1 or at best a very early, pre-APG-79 Block 2, of a similar era.

For the Block 1 and Block 2 Super Hornet there aren't really a whole lot of differences outside of the different airframe, engines, 2 extra pylons and slightly different displays (in that some are larger and in the Block 2 are all full colour). You largely have the same avionics (including more-or-less the exact same radar, RWR and DECM) and would have the same weapons (aside from maybe a buddy store, which aren't currently supported by DCS AFAIK). The cockpit would be very familiar (aside from minor changes to the displays, UFC and engine instruments they're more-or-less identical).

I guess as a module, if it was an F it would have more differences on account of the 2nd seat, but apart from that it wouldn't really be filling anything that the current F/A-18C doesn't already fill, either with regard to era or capabilities (though I'd still be in favour of a Super Hornet, preferably an F, just for the sake of completeness for the SC module, unless it was an early Block 2, I don't think I'd be all that interested, especially considering the difficulties we're having completeing the legacy).

In comparison the cockpit of an F-16A is almost completely different to the F-16CM, aside from some instruments and control panels (though many of them are in different places). You could say the cockpit is more like the Mirage 2000C's cockpit than our current F-16CM Block 50. For avionics it has a different radar on a significantly different display which in turn is in a completely different place; it has a different RWR and it doesnt have any MFDs like we're familiar with. The airframe is probably not as big of a difference compared to the differences between a legacy and a Super Hornet, but it does have a different FLCS and a different engine (which also isn't a derivative unlike the F404 and 414).

An F-16A would also fill a role that currently isn't really filled by anything else, especially if you go down the route of having maps, modules and assets being coherent with each other (again, the closest counterpart is the Mirage 2000C which was far less prolific, especially in a Cold War setting where only France is a relevant operator, compared to the US, Norway, Belgium and Denmark), and would fit right at home on the upcoming Kola map. An F-16A (at least as a stand-in) would also fit on the Syria and Sinai maps (being used by Jordan, Egypt and Israel, though Egypt also uses the 2000).

You are right that in terms of capabilities, an F-16A would be a downgrade and going backwards is likely to be a harder sell.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Northstar98
mostly formatting

[exhausted]

Can we start to consider the F-16A Block 10 again? This is a huge distinction from the F-16C we have now. This would be closer to the F-5 than the modern F-16, in fact. It would be able to add a lot of 1970s capability to what we have in the F-5, without compromising the need for skill. 

[Harlikwin]

14 hours ago, exhausted said:

Can we start to consider the F-16A Block 10 again? This is a huge distinction from the F-16C we have now. This would be closer to the F-5 than the modern F-16, in fact. It would be able to add a lot of 1970s capability to what we have in the F-5, without compromising the need for skill. 

An early Blk15 was the most prolific, exported, and versatile while still being old school. But I'd be fine with either at 10 or early 15. The late 15's are mfd monsters like our current Viper, don't want that.

[Dragon1-1]

Block 15 or even Block 10, depending on how big you are on the TGP. I'd actually want to see a small tail Viper from the 80s, with the original APG-66 and no chin hardpoints, but that would be extremely old-school. Then again, why not both? FM would be the biggest thing, and also 3D work would be required, but the two blocks could share control schemes and they are otherwise very similar.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 2/22/2023 at 9:48 PM, F-2 said:

Venezuelan F-16a with Python 4 would make an outstanding redfor aircraft as well as represent Israeli aircraft from around 1990.

Redfor Vipers? Yes, please. This would be awesome.

[WinterH]

14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Block 15 or even Block 10, depending on how big you are on the TGP. I'd actually want to see a small tail Viper from the 80s, with the original APG-66 and no chin hardpoints, but that would be extremely old-school. Then again, why not both? FM would be the biggest thing, and also 3D work would be required, but the two blocks could share control schemes and they are otherwise very similar.

I would strongly assume the point of this thread is for an OG Block 10 to 20, maybe even 5, so exactly that extreme old-schoolness. Thus, TGP would be out of window anyway. Without later updates such as MLU etc, I believe the first F-16 to have a TGP was Block 40 with LANTIRN at late 80s or early 90s.

Why not both sounds good, but systems wise they would be fairly different, so not sure if it would be desirable/feasible for a dev.

[Gunfreak]

Yeah I want the F16 used by the first foreign buyers of F16, like Norway, Nederlands, Denmark and Israel. With drag chute please.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Gunfreak

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

I would strongly assume the point of this thread is for an OG Block 10 to 20, maybe even 5, so exactly that extreme old-schoolness. Thus, TGP would be out of window anyway.

Actually, Block 20 had LANTIRN. Block 15 had provisions for an unspecified type of TGP (listed as "EO/FLIR/TF", so probably intended to be LANTIRN), but it seems that the chin hardpoints were never used. It's an oddity. Both hardpoints exist on that model, but there's literally nothing to put on them in the loadout chart. It could have used that tiny radar screen to display FLIR video, but there's no evidence it ever did.

[bies]

19 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

An early Blk15 was the most prolific, exported, and versatile while still being old school. But I'd be fine with either at 10 or early 15. The late 15's are mfd monsters like our current Viper, don't want that.

The difference was Block 10 achieved nearly all F-16A air kills. When other blocks like 1, 5, 15 haven't seen much action. They would be less relevant than Block 10.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, bies said:

The difference was Block 10 achieved nearly all F-16A air kills. When other blocks like 1, 5, 15 haven't seen much action. They would be less relevant than Block 10.

Blk15 was exported way more tho. So its just a question of relevant how. And I mean yeah ok, 1 country got all the A/A kills.

 

[MAXsenna]

Yeah I want the F16 used by the first foreign buyers of F16, like Norway, Nederlands, Denmark and Israel. With drag chute please.

"First four" were Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Norway. Israel got theirs because of Iran -79.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[F-2]

12 hours ago, bies said:

The difference was Block 10 achieved nearly all F-16A air kills. When other blocks like 1, 5, 15 haven't seen much action. They would be less relevant than Block 10.

I also don’t think there is any publicly available performance documentation on the small tail F-16. Apparently for the F-16a those were in the classified supplement. Block 15 has tons of charts.

[Evoman]

On 2/26/2023 at 4:29 AM, jojyrocks said:

Personally, not much interested in the F-16A unless it comes as a HUGE discount for the current Block 50 F-16 owners, seems more like a downgrade, brings only minimal changes. It simply does not bring the amount of changes like between the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet which is actually an upgrade.

The main issue with the F-16C is that it can't be used in Cold War era scenarios. The Cold War era is currently the most fleshed out with a far better selection of redfore opponents than BVR. So in a way the F-16A would be far more useful in older scenarios. Check out the below video for more details as to why the Cold war makes more sense for DCS.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Evoman

[Nipil]

2 hours ago, Evoman said:

The main issue with the F-16C is that it can't be used in Cold War era scenarios.

That's not correct, even blk 40/42 were already being delivered in 1989, thus covering the very late CW era. Blk 25 was first delivered in 1984, blk 30/32 in 1987, thus fitting well into mid-late 80's. So, blk 30/32 would still be pretty viable for a hypothetical Third World War starting in 1989. I would still prefer blk 15, which has flown with a ton of countries, though.

[exhausted]

I want to put a lot of space between the current Block 50 and a Cold War variant. I'm thinking of the 10 for its little bitty tail. LOL

15, I don't care... 1 I don't care... 5 I don't care. Any of them are good. But let's get this bird going. Excellent candidate for modders to built. It would be a staple like tthe A-4 or C-130!

Edited October 20, 2023 by exhausted

[Harlikwin]

10 hours ago, Nipil said:

That's not correct, even blk 40/42 were already being delivered in 1989, thus covering the very late CW era. Blk 25 was first delivered in 1984, blk 30/32 in 1987, thus fitting well into mid-late 80's. So, blk 30/32 would still be pretty viable for a hypothetical Third World War starting in 1989. I would still prefer blk 15, which has flown with a ton of countries, though.

Realistically the Cold war ended in 89, or even earlier with the polish worker strikes, the most plausible 80's scenario is in 83 i.e. Able archer. Anything really past that is pretty much fantasy. There was 0 political will to invade Europe after the early 80's. Besides there was no non nuke scenario anyway, literally every war plan known starts with multiple rounds of tac nukes all over Europe. So basically you have "early" 80's as your credible WW3 scenario.

Where the early vipers are interesting is the other theatres where they fought and were used. 

Also, early deliveries etc don't really make it relevant, like great you have 3 birds and 2 guys that are training to fly them. Most of those later blocs were not relevant for this very simple reason. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Harlikwin