F-16CG Block 40 (pre CCIP)

[Fangs Out]

F-16A would be a first day buy. In the historical context of  the 80s the F-16 was the low of the High-low mix, which while not as capable as later varients, doesn't really matter as DCS isn't a game of equals. Its a game of historical and simulated match ups, i.e (f-5 vs Mig-21) or Mig-23 vs F-15 (Gulf war). As Northstar stated , our 80s F-16 should be a F-16A and an early F-16C model, pretending our current F-16C is a Gulf war F-16C wouldn't cut it.

Cheers

Bravelink

[bies]

F-16A would be great, it would require considerable amount of work with it's different analog avionics, totally different radar, different engine, different cockpit layout.

 

F-16C block 30 wod be far easier to make, it was the most produced F-16C variant, it's from the 1980s, it was mainstay during Desert Storm, it has identical cockpit layout as our Block 50, previous version of the same radar, nearly the same engine. Just lighter and better kinematicaly but without some modern electronic gizmos.

Edited September 29, 2021 by bies

[Fangs Out]

And was a big player in Package Q in ODS. While I agree that these Models will take a lot of work, ED with Wags could get the required documentation for the F-16A and the F-16C-30

 

Cheers,

Bravelink

Edited January 27, 2021 by Bravelink03

[Dudikoff]

I would support any older F-16 variant that could fit a Cold War scenario (same for other modules like e.g. F/A-18A or at least early C, A-10A, DCS F-15C early, AH-64A).

 

A Block 40 with LANTIRN would be great for Cold War low level strike missions, though I remember reading they had too few produced LANTIRN sets by the time of ODS that the Block 40s there didn't get to use any (they went to the more capable F-15Es) and that the F-16s in general did rather poorly overall.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Northstar98]

On 1/27/2021 at 1:40 PM, bies said:

F-16A would be great but it would require massive amount of work with it's different analog avionics, totally different radar, different engine, different cockpit layout.

 

F-16C block 30 wod be far easier to make, it was the most produced F-16C variant, it's from the 1980s, it was mainstay during Desert Storm, it has identical cockpit layout as our Block 50, previous version of the same radar, nearly the same engine. Just lighter and better kinematicaly but without some modern electronic gizmos.

 

 

The only thing with the 30 is you might have to change the RADAR if not, definitely the FLCS. 

[Kev2go]

On 1/21/2021 at 9:04 AM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Again, we don't have any documentaion on the aircraft. The flight model would have to be a copy of the block 50, which wouldn't be correct at all for the block 40. Additonaly the block 40 has many systems that are uniqe to that aircraft version, and this wouldn't be possible to model correctly without real documentation on the aicraft. And even if ED had the documentation they would have needed to complete the block 50 first, which I'd wager is a but 10% complete currently. There are so many systems that reqire complete re-writing of the code and the aicraft might be added in 8-20 years maybe? that is IF the documentation is released.

 

although it would be less work to do a block 50 pre ccip, there is documentation for a block 40/42... cant post it here due to rule 1.16 but you can defiantly find 90s era block 40/42  manual if you look for it

Edited February 7, 2021 by Kev2go

[ebabil]

I support  F16 variants with CFTs and drag chutes and 2 seaters

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, ebabil said:

I support  F16 variants with CFTs and drag chutes and 2 seaters

 

You've come to the wrong place then I'm afraid.

 

F-16s with CFTs are the Block 50/52+

F-16s with drag chutes are mostly country specific aircraft, and most of them are probably F-16AMs.

 

As for 2 seaters you're looking for the F-16B and F-16D.

 

6 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

although it would be less work to do a block 50 pre ccip, there is documentation for a block 40/42... cant post it here due to rule 1.16 but you can defiantly find 90s era block 40/42  manual if you look for it

 

 

I would've thought with the amount of cross-over there is, the amount of documentation you'd need would be fairly small, much of the aircraft works in exactly the same way our current aircraft does/will. If anything you're probably going to be removing certain features.

 

The main thing you need is LANTIRN, much of the other systems are mostly identical. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Northstar98

[SpaceMonkey037]

7 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

although it would be less work to do a block 50 pre ccip, there is documentation for a block 40/42... cant post it here due to rule 1.16 but you can defiantly find 90s era block 40/42  manual if you look for it

 

which manuals? You would at the bare minimum need the -1, -1-1 and the -34-1-1. If you don't have all of those a module will be very difficult to make accurate to real life.

[Kev2go]

On 2/7/2021 at 4:38 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

I would've thought with the amount of cross-over there is, the amount of documentation you'd need would be fairly small, much of the aircraft works in exactly the same way our current aircraft does/will. If anything you're probably going to be removing certain features.

 

that is largely true. i was merely stating that the least effort would be block 50 pre ccip. becuase then ED doesnt have to fiddle with the Flight model making adjustments for the weaker engine. Although i admit most would probably want that block 40 just so it stands out more, due to the wide HUD, versus just getting a a pre CCIP block 50.

 

But yeah IF ED wanted to they could have probably make a post CCIP Block 40 viper as well/, since the  TO 1F1CM-1-2 supplentary manual covers block 40/42/50/52 that are CCIP commonality standards in 1 go. Even wags himself said he got time in a block 42 Air force simulator to get a better feel for how F16C block 50 functioned saying it didnt matter that it was block 42 ( or even using a more modern software tape than V4.3)  because minus the HUD there was just so much commonality between it and the block 50 they chose to model.

 

I conclude ED probably chose the block 50 over the block 40 purely because it has the better engine. The whole point of the Wide angle hud was to make it suitable to displaying Lantirn FLIR imagery for low level flying at nighttime but HUD advantages i think became moot when cockpit NVG's became a thing, and also when Lantirns got phased out for Litening 2/Sniper pod.

 

Quote

 

The main thing you need is LANTIRN, much of the other systems are mostly identical. 

 

 

 

pretty much . Looking a pre ccip block 50 viper documentation from mid to late 90s indeed not a whole lot different between a 2007 F16CM viper. Basically just less features  in a nushell : analog HSI, No JHMCS, no Link 16 , monochrome instead of color displays , older LAntirn TGP, no GPS/INS,( just INS), older EGGS gunsight symbology, no GPS based munitions, to name a few things off the top of my head.

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Kev2go

[Northstar98]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:08 PM, Kev2go said:

that is largely true. i was merely stating that the least effort would be block 50 pre ccip. becuase then ED doesnt have to fiddle with the Flight model making adjustments for the weaker engine. Although i admit most would probably want that block 40 just so it stands out more, due to the wide HUD, versus just getting a a pre CCIP block 50.

Oh yes, absolutely - a F-16CJ Block 50D would be basically copy and paste, with monochromatic displays, just no Link 16/MIDS/AIM-9X/JHMCS.

I went with the 40CG as it's more of a different variant, while keeping the workload small.

Quote

But yeah IF ED wanted to they could have probably make a post CCIP Block 40 viper as well/, since the  TO 1F1CM-1-2 supplentary manual covers block 40/42/50/52 that are CCIP commonality standards in 1 go. Even wags himself said he got time in a block 42 Air force simulator to get a better feel for how F16C block 50 functioned saying it didnt matter that it was block 42 ( or even using a more modern software tape than V4.3)  because minus the HUD there was just so much commonality between it and the block 50 they chose to model.

 

I conclude ED probably chose the block 50 over the block 40 purely because it has the better engine. The whole point of the Wide angle hud was to make it suitable to displaying Lantirn FLIR imagery for low level flying at nighttime but HUD advantages i think became moot when cockpit NVG's became a thing, and also when Lantirns got phased out for Litening 2/Sniper pod.

Agreed, plus the 50 is essentially the latest and greatest. Though the other advantage is the coupled TFR, which would be something completely new in DCS.

As for the NAVFLIR, I don't know I kinda prefer it to NVGs but that's just personal - it maybe has the advantage of being projected at infinity, meaning everything is in focus - making the rest of the cockpit easier to read without having to flick on/off the NVGs.

Quote

pretty much . Looking a pre ccip block 50 viper documentation from mid to late 90s indeed not a whole lot different between a 2007 F16CM viper. Basically just less features  in a nushell : analog HSI, No JHMCS, no Link 16 , monochrome instead of color displays , older LAntirn TGP, no GPS/INS,( just INS), older EGGS gunsight symbology, no GPS based munitions, to name a few things off the top of my head.

Would it not have GPS/INS? According to this it does (EDIT: for the 90s and onwards)

But the analogue HSI is what we already have in the F-5E-3/A-10 (at least it looks it), it just has more modes (namely ILS) when compared to the F-5E-3 and a dial instead of pushbuttons for the A-10. I wasn't aware of the older EEGS symbology, though that shouldn't be too much of a showstopper.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[WinterH]

From the top of my head, the things Block 40 could have over what we have are:

- Aptly named WAR HUD, wider HUD with a lot of field of vision, and can display FLIR image overlay like Harrier

- TFR that comes with LANTIRN pod

- LANTIRN TGP, a version of which we have in Tomcat, older, less capable TGP, but still good enough to get the job done for the most part

- Not entirely sure, but I think some Block 40s had Harpoon, I don't have F-16 module, so not following closely but as far as I know ours isn't Harpoon capable

- Again, not entirely sure, but I seem to recall that Block 40 is lighter than the 50. However, I think engine has less thrust too, so not sure if it will be considerably better in handling. Very anectodal memory: but I recall reading in a few places that Turkish built Block 40s had later higher thrust engines and thus are among the better dogfighting variants of F-16C. But we'd likely get a USAF one even if we get a Block 40. Actually my story about TurAF F-16s might be more about Block 30s/40s rather than 40s/50s.

 

It would obviously lose other things, like having an older version of the radar, no HTS pod for better HARM modes, no access to JHMCS, possibly no AIM-9X but not entirely sure, and advanced TGPs like Sniper XR or Litening II would be replaced by older LANTIRN.

 

It would be cool to get, but I am really not sure if it would really be all that different of an experience compared to modern bird we have. WAR HUD would be interesting though, that's for sure. 

 

Older F-16C blocks like 25 or 30 would make dogfighting/maneuvering enthusiasts happier I think, and would also fit into burgeoning late Cold War set up a lot better. They were considerably lighter as far as I know. They would also lose most of the ground attack capabilities, but hey, at least Mavericks would still be possible. I think Block 30s did get AMRAAMs eventually, but that can be limited in mission design for Cold War servers. Sparrow equipped F-16 was really late, and a rarity as far as I know.

 

F-16A would really be a different experience, but that single "MFD" with 8 segment characters will not be to everyone's taste, and I can see many people becoming mad over no BVR capability at all :P. But it would be a great aircraft to have for 80s scenarios. Would be at home with F-14A, Mirage 2000C, and upcoming modules like MiG-23MLA, MiG-29A, Mirage F.1 etc. Interesting enough for ED to put in the effort and make after finishing the current one? I don't know... Do I want F-16 to take yet more effort from birds I would like instead? I also don't know. But I know one thing: Personally don't care much about F-16C Block 50, and I don't have it, don't intent to buy it at any point. When I feel like flying a modern multirole F-16C, I do have that other sim for that anyway, which is rather rare. But, even I would probably buy F-16A or C up to Block 30, as it would be a different experience, and would also fit 80s-early 90s modules in DCS.

[Fangs Out]

Here's a picture of the Block 40 . Used by the IDF IAF . 

And Here F-16C block 40 over Iraq in ODS

[Fangs Out]

Also, did someone mention , the WAR HUD

[Ikaros]

Does the TFR on the Block 40 fly the plane like in the Tornado IDS?

[TotenDead]

> Pleeeeez, we need a cold war F-16, block 50 is bad for 80s scenarios

A few days later

> ... so, this F-16 block 49.99 would fit DCS well

[Northstar98]

On 2/11/2021 at 12:05 AM, Ikaros said:

Does the TFR on the Block 40 fly the plane like in the Tornado IDS?

Yes, it is an autopilot coupled TFR AFAIK. Allowing for automatic NOE flight at high speeds, particularly at night or in less than optimal weather.

On 2/11/2021 at 5:19 AM, TotenDead said:

> Pleeeeez, we need a cold war F-16, block 50 is bad for 80s scenarios

A few days later

> ... so, this F-16 block 49.99 would fit DCS well

A very late 80s initial production Block 40 would be fine for late 80s Cold War, and would have basically the same air-to-air capabilities of earlier blocks (only thing is the RADAR), minus the extra workload associated with remodelling the FLCS among other things (the workload gets larger the earlier you go - an F-16A Block 15 would need a new FLCS, completely different cockpit with different functionality, new RADAR, probably different RWR, new engine etc).

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[upyr1]

Thanks to historical mode, older versions of the F-16 or any of the planes we have would be nice. The real issue though is price and the risk of diminishing returns.  The chances of someone buying multiple versions of the same aircraft will depend on discounts and how big of a fan boy they are.  So if the biggest difference between the block X and block Y are hitting the delete key and changing a variable or two such as aircraft weight then there is absolutely no reason not to have both in the same module

[Northstar98]

On 2/17/2021 at 2:43 PM, upyr1 said:

Thanks to historical mode, older versions of the F-16 or any of the planes we have would be nice. The real issue though is price and the risk of diminishing returns.  The chances of someone buying multiple versions of the same aircraft will depend on discounts and how big of a fan boy they are.  So if the biggest difference between the block X and block Y are hitting the delete key and changing a variable or two such as aircraft weight then there is absolutely no reason not to have both in the same module

This is a big part of why I chose the Block 40, as much of the aircraft is reasonably identical (particularly the big ticket items like the RADAR for instance). So the risk is minimised if not many people are interested in it (which I imagine won't be many but those after strict historical stuff).

The main workload intensive things are LANTIRN; we already have a feature complete version on the Tomcat it should be too hard for ED to do the same thing. NAVFLIR is much the same as a boresighted IR TGP but projected on the HUD (which RAZBAM has done), the main issue would be the autopilot coupled TFR.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[mkellytx]

On 1/27/2021 at 8:03 AM, Dudikoff said:

A Block 40 with LANTIRN would be great for Cold War low level strike missions, though I remember reading they had too few produced LANTIRN sets by the time of ODS that the Block 40s there didn't get to use any (they went to the more capable F-15Es) and that the F-16s in general did rather poorly overall.

 

The book Vipers in the Storm is a must read if you wish to understand USAF block 40's during ODS.  The author flew with the 4 FS and 421 FS during ODS, very insightful.  Basically, the 388 FW had Nav pods, but all of the targeting pods went to the Beagle squadrons since they had GIB's.  Still quite a bit of good info on what a block 40 with the Nav pod could do.

[FoxOne007]

On 1/21/2021 at 3:04 PM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Again, we don't have any documentaion on the aircraft. The flight model would have to be a copy of the block 50, which wouldn't be correct at all for the block 40. Additonaly the block 40 has many systems that are uniqe to that aircraft version, and this wouldn't be possible to model correctly without real documentation on the aicraft. And even if ED had the documentation they would have needed to complete the block 50 first, which I'd wager is a but 10% complete currently. There are so many systems that reqire complete re-writing of the code and the aicraft might be added in 8-20 years maybe? that is IF the documentation is released.

Sorry do you work for ED?? You might not have Block 40 docs but that doesn’t mean ED can’t get access to those via their contracts!

 

I for one would love a 90’s Block 40 with the LANTIRN stuff, it would definitely change F-16 game play and mission execution in general. And people calling it “just another AMRAAM carrier” need to do better research before they make dumb statements like that

[Kev2go]

On 2/10/2021 at 6:07 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

Would it not have GPS/INS? According to this it does (EDIT: for the 90s and onwards)

 

 

 

yes it would my mistake i overlooked that function in the manual

[Divutski]

Well I would love to see all vipers, falcons, LAHAK, SUFA it could be cool to even see the block52 variants on one platform. That could be awsome. But imagine the work. What I don't understand is, it should be easy. You just have to get some viable data, then everytime you change the f16 block model. The parameters and internal models/ function needs to be changed. Its a wish list. And I can only hope it is going to happen someday. Currently we have Falcon BMS for that

[F-2]

Apparently Bahrain’s block 40s might have been the only Vipers to carry Aim-7 in the gulf war.

 

Aim-7f was sold to the country by 1988

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=cgEErAddXGsC&pg=PA32&dq=aim-7+bahrain&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjoldGQyaj5AhXwpIkEHcQsA_4Q6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=aim-7 bahrain&f=false

 

AIM-7 was qualified on the F-16 for FMS in late 1989

 

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=VyFQAAAAYAAJ&q=f-16+aim-7+bahrain&dq=f-16+aim-7+bahrain&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjR86Hpyaj5AhWZlIkEHcApB3s4FBDoAXoECAUQAw#f-16 aim-7 bahrain
 

they wanted Aim-7 from the start

They definitely did use Aim-7 at some point it’s just pinning down when

 

https://www.dstorm.eu/pages/en/bahrain/f-16.html

 

[bies]

The only US F-16C variant ever integrated with AIM-7 was Block 25, and not all Block 25 machines were integrated, there is an interview with a pilot flying them. Overall AIM-7 were close to useless with small F-16 radar that's why USAF never deployed AIM-7 integrated F-16 in Europe. AIM-7 also significantly decreases F-16 kinematic performance, acceleration, climb, maneuverability, range - F-16 contrary to AIM-7 integrated fighters like F-4, F-14, F-15, F/A-18 - didn't have semi-recessed low drag AIM-7 pylons.

Oh, and "they" absolutely didn't want AIM-7 from start. USAF specifically didn't want it. Masterminds behind F-16 concept Boyd, Sprey, Myers absolutely and purposely didn't want AIM-7 on F-16.

That being said i would love any Cold War F-16, especially lightweight more maneuverable early F-16A, especially super nimble Block 1, 5, 10 - with small tail, better for dogfight, but worse for heavy bomb loads. Or topic night ground attack Block 40 with LANTIRN.

Edited August 8, 2022 by bies