Is taking 3 fuel tanks on a F-16 a good idea?

[MAXsenna]

Dude, you really think I care about what missiles someone has on their wings? For real? smh
 
It's something you notice and shrug off, I'm not actively correcting people on how they should load out their virtual jets, do what you want, you paid for the module. It's noticeable though which is my point. 

So when did you start noticing? After somebody taught you?
God I love the elitists on this forum.
But thanks for pointing it out, never thought about it so I learned something today!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

Snip....
Thanks!

[MAXsenna]

Snip...

So I made the "harsh judgement" on people carrying aim-9s on wingtips and aim-120s on the inboard stations in DCS flying our block 50s, because this way of carrying missiles is incorrect and not realistic. 
 

So why did you that? Why not be a gentleman and explain it in a civilised way so people can learn?
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SCPanda]

 

20 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

 

 

So why did you that? Why not be a gentleman and explain it in a civilised way so people can learn?
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

 

Did you even read my previous post? All I said was, "but Aim-9 on the wing tip and Aim-120 in the inner stations just make me think,"Dude you don't really know about the F-16...." 

 

And I was called out by someone that this is apparently a "harsh judgement"... so I replied

 

How does what I think in my own brain has anything thing to do with being civilized??? Your logic and English just confuse me bro. 

[Scrape]

In refence to the previous page, F-16s could carry and employ AIM-7s until the Blk 30s.  After which AIM-7 support was abandoned.  The sparrows were only capable on stations 3 & 7 and required a special pylon.  The 7 was mounted on an AIM-7 Pylon which looked similar in shape and size to a WWP.  However this was not widely used.  At the time units understood the AIM-120 would be the future and that's where the focus was.  It's safe to say Blk 40 and up no AIM-7 was used, but before then an asterisk is needed.  

[Bunny Clark]

13 hours ago, Scrape said:

F-16s could carry and employ AIM-7s until the Blk 30s.  After which AIM-7 support was abandoned.

As far as I know the only F-16s that were capable of using Sparrow were the F-16 ADFs. Those were a specific subset of specially modified F-16A Block 15OCUs built for the Air National Guard and were never used by the USAF. Though, some were deployed by the ANG for Desert Storm.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Bunny Clark

[Falconeer]

12 hours ago, Scrape said:

In refence to the previous page, F-16s could carry and employ AIM-7s until the Blk 

Maybe re-read the previous page......, only specific versions had that capability 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Falconeer

[Scrape]

14 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

As far as I know the only F-16s that were capable of using Sparrow were the F-16 ADFs. Those were a specific subset of specially modified F-16A Block 15OCUs built for the Air National Guard and were never used by the USAF. Though, some were deployed by the ANG for Desert Storm.

 

 

 

I know how people typically respond on forums, forgive to directness, but I can tell you that your information is incomplete.  I was there, and what I said was correct.

[Falconeer]

On 6/21/2021 at 9:39 PM, Scrape said:

 

 

I know how people typically respond on forums, forgive to directness, but I can tell you that your information is incomplete.  I was there, and what I said was correct.

You could have been there, fine....  but you are still wrong. Before ADF versions, F16 was Sidewinder capable only.

 

You can easily find that information yourself. Just because "some" variants were capable of firing the Sparrow, doesn't mean they all can or could. 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Falconeer

[Basher54321]

6 hours ago, Falconeer said:

You could have been there, fine....  but you are still wrong. Before ADF versions, F16 was Sidewinder capable only.

 

 

What he is saying is that sometime probably after 1992 a number of US F-16s were made Sparrow capable based on his experience with them on his USAF squadron. 

 

AMRAAM was FOC in mid 1992 - an F-16D shot down an Iraqi MiG-25PDS later that year with an AIM-120A.

 

 

Quote

 Those were a specific subset of specially modified F-16A Block 15OCUs built for the Air National Guard and were never used by the USAF. Though, some were deployed by the ANG for Desert Storm.

 

NYANG and SCANG flew Block 10s during Desert Storm and very successfully too.

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Basher54321

[Scrape]

On 6/23/2021 at 4:50 AM, Falconeer said:

You could have been there, fine....  but you are still wrong. Before ADF versions, F16 was Sidewinder capable only.

 

You can easily find that information yourself. Just because "some" variants were capable of firing the Sparrow, doesn't mean they all can or could. 

 

 

Ya see, your response is interesting.  You acknowledge that I "could" have been there, but also I can look up the information for myself.  If I had been there, what would I have to look up?  Kinda contradicts a bit.  I get the need to be contrarian, it happens, but I offered you a branch when I said your information is incomplete.  For someone who has to look it up, don't stand on the mountain of telling those who were there they are flat out wrong.  Also, try to understand that while your source of information isn't something I would say must be thrown away entirely, I don't know what that source is, but I can say that I know a fair bit about upgrade programs and how they are run when it comes to the weapons capabilities of fighter aircraft.  Using the language of "some" variants, as you put it, tells that you may not know enough to be so certain.  

[Falconeer]

58 minutes ago, Scrape said:

but I can say that I know a fair bit about upgrade programs and how they are run when it comes to the weapons capabilities of fighter aircraft.  

So do I.  I have spend 20+ years with F16's 

 

Look.... the wording I choose where not the greatest and may seem harsh to some. (Also not native English speaking) But really is not my intention and I apologise if I offended you.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Falconeer

[Fri13]

I don't care about Blk 30, Blk 10 or who ever wants to draw the strawman arguments where ever wanted.

The topic is about F-16CM Blk 50 and 3x fuel tanks to be carried. Question being "is it a good idea?"

 

And what comes to any weapons loadouts, if some loadout is technically impossible - then it shouldn't be possible be loaded in the DCS, regardless of politics, religion or anything else.

If the weapon is technically possible to be loaded in the station, pylon, adapter etc and launched functionally, then it should be possible in DCS, regardless of politics, religion or anything else. 

 

Leave the politics out as technical facts, as history doesn't tell anything that what is technically possible or not, the technical manuals does so. Not even pilot handbook tell the true things, you need to actually have the engineering manual that is something technically possible. 

 

[Xavven]

6 hours ago, Fri13 said:

And what comes to any weapons loadouts, if some loadout is technically impossible - then it shouldn't be possible be loaded in the DCS, regardless of politics, religion or anything else.

If the weapon is technically possible to be loaded in the station, pylon, adapter etc and launched functionally, then it should be possible in DCS, regardless of politics, religion or anything else.

 

I agree with you fully on your main point.

 

Unfortunately I don't think ED is necessarily going to comply. They are inconsistent. On the one hand, they are allowing 6x mavericks on the F-16 because it's technically possible, even though it is never done IRL. They are allowing 3 bags to be mounted, again even though it is never done IRL. So far so good...

 

But on the other hand, they are not going to implement APWKS rockets because they weren't used in exactly the year 2007, which is the model they are making. This is despite my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a F-16 blk 50 built in 2007 would have no issues at all using APWKS rockets 10 years later.

 

So I wouldn't hold my breath on getting AIM-7 on the F-16. But honestly, I don't really care that much. I'll take AIM-120s, thanks.

[Scrape]

8 hours ago, Falconeer said:

So do I.  I have spend 20+ years with F16's 

 

Look.... the wording I choose where not the greatest and may seem harsh to some. (Also not native English speaking) But really is not my intention and I apologise if I offended you.

 

 

 

All good man, thanks for saying that.  No hard feelings from me either.  Which country's F-16s did you work with if you don't mind me asking?  I have over a decade with the Viper myself.  US F-16s only.  

 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Xavven said:

I agree with you fully on your main point.

 

Unfortunately I don't think ED is necessarily going to comply. They are inconsistent. On the one hand, they are allowing 6x mavericks on the F-16 because it's technically possible, even though it is never done IRL. They are allowing 3 bags to be mounted, again even though it is never done IRL. So far so good...

 

As long it is technically possible it should be made possible. But it as well need to have properly simulated drawbacks. 

 

1 hour ago, Xavven said:

But on the other hand, they are not going to implement APWKS rockets because they weren't used in exactly the year 2007, which is the model they are making. This is despite my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a F-16 blk 50 built in 2007 would have no issues at all using APWKS rockets 10 years later.

 

That is correct. What they should do is to allow the APKWS II rockets to be usable, hit it with the 2016 timestamp for the proper time filter in the Mission Editor and this way you make proper timeline possible as well for those who want to follow it. Those who want to go for strictly for one specific year with real history can build their missions as they can and be repeating them time after time. Those who want realistic capabilities but make a own missions and scenarios could do so as well.

 

1 hour ago, Xavven said:

So I wouldn't hold my breath on getting AIM-7 on the F-16. But honestly, I don't really care that much. I'll take AIM-120s, thanks.

 

Only if technically possible. I don't know about that, so I leave it to those who actually knows is the AIM-7 technically possible be carried and launched in the F-16 we have. Leave the real world politics and religion out of the DCS World, that is mission designers decision to either follow or ignore in the sandbox. Those who want to restrict their missions to real history can do so with all its limitations it brings. Those who are willing to go for creativity can make missions or campaigns like "Museum Relic" and such.   

 

If a six fuel tanks is possible in F-16CM, then so be it. Just model properly the drag, weight and all other parts so those who want to use it can enjoy it. 

[Falconeer]

1 hour ago, Scrape said:

All good man, thanks for saying that.  No hard feelings from me either.  Which country's F-16s did you work with if you don't mind me asking?  I have over a decade with the Viper myself.  US F-16s only.  

 

Cool

 

I was an armament specialist on MLU birds, retired couple of year ago (and no, we never had Sparrows )

Edited June 28, 2021 by Falconeer

[G.J.S]

 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Oman-Air-Force/Lockheed-Martin-F-16C-Fighting-Falcon/2807092/L?qsp=eJwtjbEKwkAQRH8lbK1gEFOk08JWi/zAujdoyOkdewt6hPy7a7B7vBlmZpL0MnxsqBnUUwGrPGhDmZWfhfqZJtR30uBM523bSXOLSabmsPNWSWqn6klgw1EE2RD%2B/qIB%2BotQZB28%2B0HrAL2uTPvOfRhLjrxuwHiMtCxffUkwiA%3D%3D

 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Chile-Air-Force/Lockheed-Martin-F-16CJ-Fighting-Falcon/1118690/L?qsp=eJwtjbEKwkAQRH8lbK1gEFOk08JWi/zAujdoyOkdewt6hPy7a7B7vBlmZpL0MnxsqBnUUwGrPGhDmZWfhfqZJtR30uBM523bSXOLSabmsPNWSWqn6klgw1EE2RD%2B/qIB%2BotQZB28%2B0HrAL2uTPvOfRhLjrxuwHiMtCxffUkwiA%3D%3D

[Dawgboy]

42 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Oman-Air-Force/Lockheed-Martin-F-16C-Fighting-Falcon/2807092/L?qsp=eJwtjbEKwkAQRH8lbK1gEFOk08JWi/zAujdoyOkdewt6hPy7a7B7vBlmZpL0MnxsqBnUUwGrPGhDmZWfhfqZJtR30uBM523bSXOLSabmsPNWSWqn6klgw1EE2RD%2B/qIB%2BotQZB28%2B0HrAL2uTPvOfRhLjrxuwHiMtCxffUkwiA%3D%3D

 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Chile-Air-Force/Lockheed-Martin-F-16CJ-Fighting-Falcon/1118690/L?qsp=eJwtjbEKwkAQRH8lbK1gEFOk08JWi/zAujdoyOkdewt6hPy7a7B7vBlmZpL0MnxsqBnUUwGrPGhDmZWfhfqZJtR30uBM523bSXOLSabmsPNWSWqn6klgw1EE2RD%2B/qIB%2BotQZB28%2B0HrAL2uTPvOfRhLjrxuwHiMtCxffUkwiA%3D%3D

 

Yeah. I've seen them ferry with three bags.

 

Additionally, Sufas are often seen in a lot of routine mission pix.  Sufa might be outside the bounds of original post's intent, tho. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Dawgboy

[G.J.S]

12 minutes ago, Dawgboy said:

 

Yeah. I've seen them ferry with three bags, and Sufas in a lot of routine mission pix.  Sufa might be outside the bounds of OP discussion, tho. 

I didn’t reference Sufa’s, the pics linked are Block 50 F-16’s (Chilean & Omani).

Edited June 28, 2021 by G.J.S

[Scrape]

50 minutes ago, Falconeer said:

Cool

 

I was an armament specialist on MLU birds, retired couple of year ago (and no, we never had Sparrows )

 

 

Fellow 2W1 Toad here!  Over 20.

Back in the day, the AIM-7 pylons/capes were retired during blk 30s (USAF).  Some units moved away from them earlier than others, but the capes were there if the unit had the equipment.  Max 2 could be loaded on sta 3 & 7.  It wasn't widely used, and most units elected to not bother if they had the 120s, and left the equipment in cold storage.  Underwing adapters and 129 rails were better than that 7 Pylon.  The ACIS, with those super sensitive wafer connectors with the single allen

screw connectors that'd snap if your breathed on them too hard (before MMS) could talk to the AIM-7 though.  

Edited June 28, 2021 by Scrape

[Falconeer]

1 hour ago, Scrape said:

 

Fellow 2W1 Toad here!  Over 20.

Back in the day, the AIM-7 pylons/capes were retired during blk 30s (USAF).  Some units moved away from them earlier than others, but the capes were there if the unit had the equipment.  Max 2 could be loaded on sta 3 & 7.  It wasn't widely used, and most units elected to not bother if they had the 120s, and left the equipment in cold storage.  Underwing adapters and 129 rails were better than that 7 Pylon.  The ACIS, with those super sensitive wafer connectors with the single allen

screw connectors that'd snap if your breathed on them too hard (before MMS) could talk to the AIM-7 though.  

 

We never had the AIM-7 pylons, only the block 15 launchers and later the Lau-129. The block 15 launchers could be quite problemetic at times. Mostly electronics, but nothing a good bang with a wheel chock couldn't fix 

[Scrape]

22 minutes ago, Falconeer said:

We never had the AIM-7 pylons, only the block 15 launchers and later the Lau-129. The block 15 launchers could be quite problemetic at times. Mostly electronics, but nothing a good bang with a wheel chock couldn't fix 

 

 That or a 7-level screwdriver.

[BIGNEWY]

thread off topic.

 

closed