F-16CG Block 40 (pre CCIP)

[Seaeagle]

20 hours ago, TotenDead said:

IMO adding F-16s without Aim-7s would make them unplayable in DCS, they would get obliterated by any plane with medium range missiles. I think that the perfect solution for an early F-16 would be a non-amraam, but aim-7 capable variant

But TotenDead the whole idea behind suggesting earlier variants of the "Bluefor" jets, is the ability to build realistic historical scenarios for the 80'ies and 90'ies. Northstar98's suggestion for the Blk 40 provides for the latter - i.e. being introduced in the late 80'ies, it would be usable for missions throughout the 90'ies.

 

But for the same to be the case for the 80'ies, the "latest" useful variant would be the Blk 15 from around 1982, which didn't have AIM-7 compatibility - this only came with the ADF upgrade in 1989.

 

 

[Seaeagle]

20 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yeah, but on the US side you've only got the F-16C Block 25 (the first C variant circa mid 80s) or the ADF (late 80s).

 

Yes but AFAIK the Block 25 didn't have AIM-7 compatibility to begin with either. IIRC it came as part of a BVR upgrade performed in the late eighties in preparation for the AMRAAM. 

[TotenDead]

7 минут назад, bies сказал:

 

I fly F-16 with AIM-9M only on Cold War Blue Flag and successfully engage MiG-29 and Su-27 armed with R-27.

 

 

 

So you don't need SARH missiles? Even though 27 and 29s not only have R-27R/T, but R-73s which are way more capable than aim-9s? Welp, good for you

[Northstar98]

On 1/24/2021 at 3:43 PM, TotenDead said:

So you don't need SARH missiles? Even though 27 and 29s not only have R-27R/T, but R-73s which are way more capable than aim-9s? Welp, good for you

Welcome to the reality of the Cold War where the overwhelming majority of F-16s are only flying with sidewinders + guns.

This is also why F-15s existed, which was BVR capable from the get go.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[TotenDead]

Только что, Northstar98 сказал:

 

Welcome to the reality of the Cold War where the overwhelming majority of F-16s are only flying with sidewinders + guns.

 

This is also why F-15s existed, which was BVR capable from the get go.

 

But why did it need those Aim-7s when Aim-9s are more than enough?XD

[bies]

7 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

So you don't need SARH missiles? Even though 27 and 29s not only have R-27R/T, but R-73s which are way more capable than aim-9s? Welp, good for you

 

R-73 is more potent than R-27 in fighter vs fighter scenario.

 

At low/med alt F-16 with GE, even heavier block 50 has performance margin over first lightweight MiG-29 with big and draggy R-27s under wings.

 

I can bet IRL lightweight F-16C block 30 with GE with AIM-9 would dominate F-16A ADF with PW and Sparrows drag in 1v1 scenario.

 

BTW: Try yourself, even after just some 10-20 fights focused strictly on this topic you will have your own ideas, because it's not so straightforward and there are some other considerations.

Edited January 24, 2021 by bies

[TotenDead]

Только что, bies сказал:

 

R-73 is more potent than R-27 in fighter vs fighter scenario.

 

At low/med alt F-16 with GE, even heavier block 50 has performance margin over first lightweight MiG-29 with big and draggy R-27s under wings.

Dude, Mig launches 1st 27, you turn to evade, then he launches the 2nd one and you need to evade again. IF you manage to, then you'll be in range of R-73s and will have to find and lock MiG-29 while being targeted. F-16A is a weaker aircraft overall, though it's cute to see when people try to make it look competitive 

[Northstar98]

On 1/24/2021 at 3:46 PM, TotenDead said:

But why did it need those Aim-7s when Aim-9s are more than enough?XD

It didn't, which is why US F-16s equipped with AIM-7s were in far smaller numbers than the rest of them; there were nearly 200 more block 40s, than the F-16A Block 15 ADF and F-16C block 25 combined.

The AIM-7 was more an interim solution to expanding the BVR capabilities of the F-16 (as that's where aerial warfare was heading towards), but the AIM-120 wasn't ready yet, so some F-16s were made compatible with it, but they represented the minority of F-16s:

• ~270 F-16A Block 15 ADFs
• ~210 F-16C Block 25s

Compared against:

• ~670 F-16As 
• ~730 F-16C Block 30
• 615 F-16CG Block 40s
• 800+ F-16CJ Block 50s

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[bies]

19 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Dude, Mig launches 1st 27, you turn to evade, then he launches the 2nd one and you need to evade again. IF you manage to, then you'll be in range of R-73s and will have to find and lock MiG-29 while being targeted. F-16A is a weaker aircraft overall, though it's cute to see when people try to make it look competitive 

 

1) NEVER break your own lock cranking R-27, you absolutely don't need to to make them numb.

 

2) Crank in 3D not 2D plane.

 

3) One broken lock means ALL SAHRs are gone. Sidewinders doesn't care, even flare which fools one Sidewinder can do no harm to another.

 

4) F-16 with GE has better acceleration and speed at lower altitude than MiG-29 and a lot better than Su-27.

 

5) R-73 has better performance than AIM-9M.

 

6) At such close range situational awareness/visibility + flares + maneuver + idling the throttle and timing (everything takes just few seconds) are decisive - not F-16 vs MiG-29 or AIM-9 vs R-73 performance margins.

 

Cheers and many successful fights

 

 

((F-16 with Sparrow was never intended to fighter vs fighter combat in Europe, just small amount of specially modified old F-16A with specially modified radars to intercept high altitude Soviet bombers over continental US, with such small radar lock stability wouldn't be adequate intercepting small maneuvering tactical fighter))

Edited January 24, 2021 by bies

[TotenDead]

3 минуты назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

It didn't, which is why US F-16s equipped with AIM-7s aircraft were in far smaller numbers than the rest of them (there were more block 40s, than the F-16A Block 15 ADF and F-16C block 25 combined).

 

It's just US was wrong in terms of F-16s' weaponry from the start. Upgrade to AIM-7 IIRC was problematic due to the amount of cables needed (compared to the aim-120 upgrade) and, as AIM-120 was not that far away from entering service, in a way irrational.

4 минуты назад, bies сказал:

 

1) NEVER break your own lock cranking R-27, you absolutely don't need to to make them numb.

You do know that that makes your plane way more vulnerable compared to notching? R-27 could be launched in no escape and MiG can crank as well in order to avoid getting into your weapon employment zone as long as possible

4 минуты назад, bies сказал:

2) Crank in 3D not 2D plane.

Well, okay

4 минуты назад, bies сказал:

3) One broken lock means ALL SAHRs are gone. Sidewinders doesn't care, even flare which fools one Sidewinder can do no harm to another.

Yeah, but MiG wouldn't need to break the lock

4 минуты назад, bies сказал:

4) F-16 with GE has better acceleration and speed at lower altitude than MiG-29 and a lot better than Su-27.

Welp, not sure about that, anyway, MiG wouldn't need to accelerate at all as it won't need to bleed the speed as much as F-16 would

4 минуты назад, bies сказал:

5) R-73 has better performance than AIM-9M.

Ehm, yes, okay, didn't get how would it help F-16

 

[Northstar98]

On 1/24/2021 at 4:16 PM, TotenDead said:

 

It's just US was wrong in terms of F-16s' weaponry from the start. Upgrade to AIM-7 IIRC was problematic due to the amount of cables needed (compared to the aim-120 upgrade) and, as AIM-120 was not that far away from entering service, in a way irrational.

TD, I'm talking about the cold war here and the AIM-120 wasn't around. In development? Sure, in fact lots of F-16Cs were fitted for it, but it only came after the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[bies]

46 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Yeah, but MiG wouldn't need to break the lock

 

- You can MAKE him brake the lock if you choose so by lower notching if he wants it or not, you will lose the lock as well in the process. But you don't need to.

 

- Who is going to reaquire the lock faster when both are lost, MiG with better position or F-16 with better radar interface and visibility? Both are equally possible, a matter of skill and experience.

 

46 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

You do know that that makes your plane way more vulnerable compared to notching? R-27 could be launched in no escape and MiG can crank as well in order to avoid getting into your weapon employment zone as long as possible

 

- You don't need to do anything but proper 3D crank to deplete R-27 energy to the point of being totally harmless when fired outside some 5-8 miles depending on altitude and plane's energy. 

 

- No Escape of R-27 at lower altitude against cold supersonic F-16 is about 1,5 nautical mile, higher up maybe 3 miles... 

 

- No Escape of AIM-9M against HOT (pushing on SAHR with lock to hit) supersonic MiG-29 in similar conditions is about 8 miles...

 

Just try, set the mission up, take one friend and try before continue theoretical discussion. Just try and look what you will notice. There is more variables. Nearly all are skill and experience based.

 

((Most new guys think they are at significant disadvantage against MiG-29 because R-27 has somewhat bigger theoretical range that AIM-9, but they don't consider R-27 has to push HOT all the way to the hit colliding in the process with very enemy missile with some Mach 3 combined closure speed when AIM-9 is fire and forget when you can go cold and run at supersonic right after the shoot. IRL US and West German pilots testing MiG-29 to absolute limits stated they were very disappointed with R-27 in fighter combat being close to useless and impressed by the R-73 at the same time))

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

Yeah, you can already practice doing this already, our current F-16CM without HMD or D/L and restricted to AIM-9L/M is a pretty decent stand in for an earlier C (at least the CG/CJ due to same RADAR and RWR).

Edited January 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

Только что, bies сказал:

 

- You can MAKE him brake the lock if you choose so if he wants it or not, you will lose the lock as well in the process.

Without notching? How?

Только что, bies сказал:

 

- Who is going to reaquire the lock faster, MiG with better position or F-16 with better radar interface and visibility? Both are equally possible, a matter of skill and experience.

I wouldn't say F-16s radar interface is even near as good as the MiGs'

Только что, bies сказал:

 

- You don't need to do anything but proper 3D crank to deplete R-27 energy to the point of being totally harmless. 

In NEZ?

Только что, bies сказал:

- No Escape of R-27 at lower altitude against cold supersonic F-16 is about 1,5 nautical mile, higher up maybe 3 miles...

I'm sorry, but if your F-16's cold, it's already probably dead. MiG-29 has 2 R-27s and 4 R-73s, so going cold would make you killed

Только что, bies сказал:

- No Escape of AIM-9M against HOT (pushing on SAHR with lock to hit) supersonic MiG-29 in similar conditions is about 8 miles...

He-he, 8 miles? At 30k feet, mach 1.5? And what about R-27 NEZ against hot?

Только что, bies сказал:

Just try, set the mission up, take one friend and try before continue theoretical discussion. Just try and look what you will notice. There is more variables. Nearly all are skill and experience based.

I don't really need that, thanks. An hour or so ago was playing on blueflag 80s' run into a pair of F-16s in a MiG, made one defensive and that gave me more then enough time to shoot down his buddy in WVR with R-27. Shame it was too dark for the gun fight, so one of the F-16s managed to return home as i noobishly missed a few gun opportunities

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

But why did it need those Aim-7s when Aim-9s are more than enough?XD

Because it was designed for a different mission - air superiority versus point defence.

[TotenDead]

Только что, Seaeagle сказал:

Because it was designed for a different mission - air superiority versus point defence.

But Aim-9 is enough...

[Northstar98]

Why are we having a pissing contest between the MiG-29 and F-16?

I for one couldn't care less which is more capable or not, that's not why I purchase modules, if it did I would own a lot less of them.

Whether the MiG-29 is better than the F-16 or not is an absolute irrelevancy - I'd like both Cold War airframes, basically equally, because I'm most interested in Cold War missions, so I'd want appropriate airframes; we'll work out which is more capable if we ever get them.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[bies]

24 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Without notching? How?

By notching, i wrote you both will lose the lock...

 

24 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

wouldn't say F-16s radar interface is even near as good as the MiGs

We have low fidelity MiG-29, considering what you wrote you are going to be disappointed with full fidelity one and how slow it operate in "independent" mode without GCI and how severe limitations it will have. It will still add the relish and realism. In low fidelity it lacks nearly all RL limitations in "independent mode", it locks target in instantly, etc. Because in low fidelity "independent mode" simply doesn't exist at all in the game now...

Now MiG-29 operates like in GCI support mode but operated by pilot manually. It's 180° different than real plane.

 

In full fidelity, when operate independent on GCI, you will have to manually select mode which all have it's limitations, you will have significantly reduced scan zones and ranges in independent mode, you will have to manually change pulse repetition frequency of the radar to maintain even just cranking enemy lock, you will have BIG doppler blind zone relative speed, you will wait good few seconds for even proper conditions longer lock etc.

Beautiful bird but with both many very strong points and many sever limitations.

 

24 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

He-he, 8 miles? At 30k feet, mach 1.5? And what about R-27 NEZ against hot?

No. R-27 against COLD F-16 slicing and running at supersonic right after shooting fire and forget Sidewinder and AIM-9 against HOT MiG pushing forward untill SAHR constant lock-requiring R-27 hit.

 

R-27 NEZ against COLD when AIM-9 against HOT. That's the whole point.

 

It is identical if you i.e. fly MiG-29 with R-73 against i.e. F-15 with SAHR Sparrow.

Edited January 24, 2021 by bies

[TotenDead]

2 минуты назад, bies сказал:

By notching, i wrote you both will lose the lock...

Nope, not necessarily MiG-29 has EO

2 минуты назад, bies сказал:

 

We have low fidelity MiG-29, considering what you wrote you are going to be disappointed with full fidelity one and how slow it operate in "independent" mode without GCI and how severe limitations it will have. It will still add the relish and realism. In low fidelity it lacks nearly all RL limitations in "independent mode", it locks target in instantly, etc. Because in low fidelity "independent mode" simply doesn't exist at all in the game now...

You want to say that our F-16 doesn't lock the target instantly?

 

2 минуты назад, bies сказал:

No. R-27 against COLD F-16 slicing and running at supersonic right after shooting fire and forget Sidewinder and AIM-9 against HOT MiG pushing forward untill the hit.

Eh?

2 минуты назад, bies сказал:

R-27 NEZ against COLD when AIM-9 against HOT. That's the whole point.

 

Dude, do you read what i write? Oh gosh, okay, whatever

 

[bies]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Why are we having a pissing contest between the MiG-29 and F-16?

 

I for one couldn't care less which is more capable or not, that's not why I purchase modules, if it did I would own a lot less of them.

 

Whether the MiG-29 is better than the F-16 or not is an absolute irrelevancy - I'd like both Cold War airframes, basically equally, because I'm most interested in Cold War missions, so I'd want appropriate airframes; we'll work out which is more capable if we ever get them.

 

 

Exactly that. DCS is a simulator, not some artificially balanced PvP competitive Multiplayer league.

 

It's about historical airplanes recreated in as reasonably realistic way as possible.

 

Did some historical plane have some advantage in some areas over some other? Good, let it have it and learn how to use it.

Did some historical plane have some weak point? Good, let it have it and learn how to overcome it.

 

As simple as that.

 

So going back to the topic any Cold War F-16 will be a great addition, super nimble analog early A, super performance dogfighter hot rod block 30, LANTIRN integrated night strike Block 40. Great.

 

It will be obviously even more relevant when full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 will be released.

And to be honest i see Cold Wad F-16 variant not earlier than full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 release since then it will be much bigger pressure to modify some existent plane like todays ~2007 F-16 to make a proper counterpart for the 1980s MiG.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

Exactly, all I want to do is set up peer-to-peer missions with appropriate assets, on appropriate maps. It's all just a matter of consistency and coherency.

Not having the mile wide, inch deep thing going on that we have now, where very little actually fits together, and the only thing approaching comprehensive and consistent is WWII...

At the moment, unless you're doing a WWII mission, you're basically limited to 1 of 3 choices; make incredibly limited scenarios (with at best 1-2 FF aircraft on each side), make them asymmetric and non-peer-to-peer, among aircraft that aren't comparable or contemporary; or fudge something together make it fit, and try and pretend it's a different variant.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Fangs Out]

As someone said already, I also buy modules because of their historical significance. I really want to fly a "Fighter Mafia" F-16A and a Gulf war era F-16C

[Baco]

dude who cares about your MP killfest scenarios... Like said above, we need mor scenario based variants, not uber killing machines to face your foes  on line...

 

I want Realistic historical aircraft and parity of assets, not the latest most advanced....

Giveme a Blok 15/20 I would be in heaven AND I can simulate A) more real historical conflicts B) more varied Air forces and realistic scenarios....

 

Right now, its air quake heaven..

 

And I want DCS for being a realistic fight sim sand box...

 

If Razbam does the 2000 F 15 I am not buying it at all, no use, no need no added content, capabilities nor diversity in scenarios... 

Actually I cant think of ANY us post 80´s aircraft that I would buy... 

[bies]

+ 1 for every Cold War variant as a future MiG-29 9.12 counterpart.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

On 1/27/2021 at 10:52 AM, bies said:

+ 1 for every Cold Wat variant as a future MiG-29 9.12 counterpart.

Best counterpart is probably the F-16A Block 15 (MSIP I) - which was the contemporary to the 9.12 MiG-29 at the time (though the MiG has superior BVR capabilities, and possible WVR capabilities with helmet cued R-73) - the contemporary missile at the time was the AIM-9M-3, with only RADAR cueing at best (to my knowledge).

And while at absolutely love one (it would be a perfect variant for the mid-to-late cold war), it be basically an entirely new module - it has significantly different avionics (different RADAR to name just one) and cockpit layout, significantly different engine, it would have to have a remodelled exterior and FDM, and a rewritten FLCS (F-16A - F-16C Block 30 had analogue FLCS, block 40 and above have digital FLCS).

Though yes I would love as many variants as possible, though for the time being I'd like to prioritise variants that have the easiest workload, while still offering something new.

The CJ Block 50D (pre-CCIP) is probably the easiest - everything kept basically the same; but with monochromatic MFDs, no datalink/MIDS, no AIM-9X, no JSOWS and no JHMCS or JHMCS controls, basically no new functionality, just it's 15 or so years older

The next easiest would be the CG Block 40 (again pre-CCIP), which is much the same with a few differences (though not really significant from where I'm standing), but would have expanded night-attack capability, particularly at low level.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting