USAF and International F-16V Variants As A New Module

[Dawgboy]

608 USAF Vipers to Upgrade to V Variant

I'd be willing to pay for this as a full module, if DCS took it on.  I realize it comes with challenges, being "current" technology, etc.  But a sim pilot can dream, right?  

[Bunny Clark]

8 hours ago, Dawgboy said:

But a sim pilot can dream, right?  

Absolutely. I dream of an F-35 module some day. I expect we'll be dreaming for about the same amount of time. 

[Dawgboy]

9 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

Absolutely. I dream of an F-35 module some day. I expect we'll be dreaming for about the same amount of time. 

Ha!  Point taken.  Yeah...both may be a bridge too far, but the V Viper could be easier.  

[Spurts]

It's really not, the V Viper radar uses the much of the same SW as the F-35s radar.

[Dawgboy]

On 3/3/2022 at 10:00 AM, Spurts said:

It's really not, the V Viper radar uses the much of the same SW as the F-35s radar.

True.  There're bigger challenges to the F-35 than just the radar, tho.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Dawgboy

[ams999]

13 hours ago, Dawgboy said:

bigger challenges

Probably not from a legal point of view, though.

[Spurts]

Exactly.  The SW functions of the F-35 radar are classified enough that they make the F-16V impossible at study-sim level.  The F-35 is just MORE impossible.  Now, a FC3 style SSM could be possible where the radar is buffed (mostly in scan volume and update time and the ability to do A-A, GMT, etc at the same time.) to just say "this is close enough to what an AESA would function like compared to MSA".

[Geraki]

F-16 D BLOCK52 2012 WITH CFT support and tape 6 variant could be 

[SCPanda]

Or just give our Block 50 the new stuff it deserves instead of the current 2007 variant, like they did with the A-10C II. 

APG-68v9, APKWS, AIM-120C7 (or D).... All that good stuff. I am willing to pay for it, I don't care how much they charge it. Easy money for ED. 

[Dawgboy]

9 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Or just give our Block 50 the new stuff it deserves instead of the current 2007 variant, like they did with the A-10C II. 

APG-68v9, APKWS, AIM-120C7 (or D).... All that good stuff. I am willing to pay for it, I don't care how much they charge it. Easy money for ED. 

That's an outstanding compromise, and again, I'd buy it.  Q: Doesn't the AIM-120D require a Viper radar replacement?  

[Spurts]

That would be the APG-68(v)9 mentioned

[Deano87]

16 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Or just give our Block 50 the new stuff it deserves instead of the current 2007 variant, like they did with the A-10C II. 

APG-68v9, APKWS, AIM-120C7 (or D).... All that good stuff. I am willing to pay for it, I don't care how much they charge it. Easy money for ED. 

I love the idea. And I’d happily throw money at ED for another variant. The only thing I’d want ontop of that list would be a CDU screen replacing the steam gauges.

I don’t however see it happening any time soon though.

[SCPanda]

6 hours ago, Deano87 said:

I love the idea. And I’d happily throw money at ED for another variant. The only thing I’d want ontop of that list would be a CDU screen replacing the steam gauges.

I don’t however see it happening any time soon though.

Yep. But when Eurofighter comes out, an updated F-16 would be the only thing that could be a even match against the EF2000 in terms of air to air. I know DCS is not about balancing but I would hate to see everyone flying the Eurofighter in PvP severs. 

Edited March 8, 2022 by SCPanda

[Spurts]

8 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Yep. But when Eurofighter comes out, an updated F-16 would be the only thing that could be a even match against the EF2000 in terms of air to air. I know DCS is not about balancing but I would hate to see everyone flying the Eurofighter in PvP severs. 

 

Don't worry, they'll just ban the Meteor and IRIS-T like they banned the Phoenix.

[CarbonFox]

Like others are expressing. I'd be quite happy seeing a 2010-2012 spec Block 50 with the APG-68 (V9) and some additional toys like the AIM-120C-7 and JASSM.

[SCPanda]

15 hours ago, Spurts said:

Don't worry, they'll just ban the Meteor and IRIS-T like they banned the Phoenix.

T_T I would love to use Meteor and IRIS-T to blow up some bandits

[Northstar98]

As far as going more modern, I'm only really interested in an M6.1/6.2 spec F-16CM, circa mid 2010s, which AFAIK, would include the following:

Sensors:

• AN/APG-68(V)9 possibly kept with (V)5 until AN/APG-83 SABR

Weapons:

• AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 (AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM P3I.3 is from 2007, so might actually be appropriate for our current aircraft, C-5 on the other hand is from 2003).
• ADM-160B MALD (active + passive radar enhancement)
• ADM-160C MALD-J (OECM)
• AGM-158A JASSM
• AGR-20 APKWS II
• GBU-39/B SDB
• GBU-54(V)1/B LJDAM [Mk82]

Other notable features:

• AGCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System).

With that said, I doubt we'll ever see it, and that the current aircraft is the latest and greatest they can feasibly do and besides, without complementary REDFOR (which seems to be a non-starter), I'm less in favour of it compared to say, a pre-CCIP Block 40, or an A Block 15 (which would be the perfect counterpart to the 9-12 MiG-29 ED hopes to develop).

Edited July 1, 2022 by Northstar98
correction based on Kev2go's comments

[SCPanda]

26 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

As far as going more modern, I'm only really interested in an M6.1/6.2 spec F-16CM, circa mid 2010s, which AFAIK, would include the following:

Sensors:

• AN/APG-68(V)9

Weapons:

• AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 (AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM P3I.3 is from 2007, so might actually be appropriate for our current aircraft, C-5 on the other hand is from 2003).
• ADM-160B MALD (passive reflector)
• ADM-160C MALD-J (OECM)
• AGM-158A JASSM
• AGR-20 APKWS II
• GBU-39/B SDB
• GBU-54(V)1/B LJDAM [Mk82]

Other notable features:

• AGCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System).

With that said, I doubt we'll ever see it, and that the current aircraft is the latest and greatest they can feasibly do, and besides, without complementary REDFOR (which seems to be a non-starter), I'm less in favour of it, compared to say, a pre-CCIP Block 40, or an A Block 15 (which would be the perfect counterpart to the 9-12 MiG-29 ED hopes to develop).

I second this! 

Question: How does MALD work?

[Northstar98]

On 3/9/2022 at 10:20 AM, SCPanda said:

I second this! 

Question: How does MALD work?

The ADM-160B is essentially the same as the ADM-141A on the Tomcat, it's a decoy missile that tries to make itself look like a real aircraft by enhancing its RCS and amplifying returns from hostile radars.

Like the ADM-141A, the ADM-160B probably uses passive (such as a Luneburg lens) and active radar enhancers (blip enhancement - essentially working like a transponder that receives RADAR pulses, amplifies them, and then repeats them) so that the radar receives a return signal that has greater amplitude, making the decoy appear larger on radar. According to designation-systems, it definitely has the latter, and can respond to several frequencies and can provide returns simulating any aircraft in the inventory.

The ADM-160C MALD-J takes the ADM-160B, and adds OECM to it, allowing it to act as a miniature stand-off jammer or a decoy missile (with the mode being selectable, I imagine it can also be programmed to go active upon reaching a certain waypoint). I think it might also have Link 16 capability, allowing it to be reprogrammed in flight.

Unlike the ADM-141A/B though, the ADM-160 has a small turbojet (the ADM-141A/B are just gliders) and can fly a route with up to 256 pre-programmed waypoints (fairly sure the TALD can also be programmed with multiple waypoints, but that functionality isn't present on the ADM-141A on the Tomcat). Not sure on the endurance/range, designation systems gives the ADM-160A (which was cancelled) as having a >20 minute endurance, with a range of up to 250 nmi. The ADM-160B and C are supposed to have a longer range and endurance.

If you're wondering what the difference between the ADM-141A and the ADM-141B (which is planned for the Hornet, though AFAIK, the ADM-141C (powered version of the A, with a 160 nmi range) would also be appropriate), they're basically the same, but the B instead has a 36 kg chaff payload in lieu of the transponder for active radar enhancement.

 

Suffice to say though, I think the current F-16CM Block 50 is the latest we'll get, I'm fine with it being as advertised, and I'm not sure when the ADM-141 will come to the Hornet.

EDIT: The ADM-141A has been implemented to the Hornet.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Northstar98
reworded to make more sense, updated

[Dawgboy]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

As far as going more modern, I'm only really interested in an M6.1/6.2 spec F-16CM, circa mid 2010s, which AFAIK, would include the following:

Sensors:

• AN/APG-68(V)9

Weapons:

• AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 (AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM P3I.3 is from 2007, so might actually be appropriate for our current aircraft, C-5 on the other hand is from 2003).
• ADM-160B MALD (passive reflector)
• ADM-160C MALD-J (OECM)
• AGM-158A JASSM
• AGR-20 APKWS II
• GBU-39/B SDB
• GBU-54(V)1/B LJDAM [Mk82]

Other notable features:

• AGCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System).

With that said, I doubt we'll ever see it, and that the current aircraft is the latest and greatest they can feasibly do, and besides, without complementary REDFOR (which seems to be a non-starter), I'm less in favour of it, compared to say, a pre-CCIP Block 40, or an A Block 15 (which would be the perfect counterpart to the 9-12 MiG-29 ED hopes to develop).

 

By the authority vested in me, APPROVED!!  Now, back to reality...

[Dragon1-1]

I'd rather have an F-16A. Modern, MFD-heavy modules take ages to finish and the main challenge is memorizing the switchology. F-35 could probably be flown by a monkey trained to follow checklists. Old birds, you have to actually fly. I've been a big Viper fan since I was a teenager, but these days, the Tomcat won me over because of that. The A model Viper would be a lot like Mirage 2000, another bird I like a lot, in that it's just old enough not to be overly complex, and just new enough to be easy to fly. So give me Fox 2s, the dinky radar, and the analog FLCS.  

[Dawgboy]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'd rather have an F-16A. Modern, MFD-heavy modules take ages to finish and the main challenge is memorizing the switchology. F-35 could probably be flown by a monkey trained to follow checklists. Old birds, you have to actually fly. I've been a big Viper fan since I was a teenager, but these days, the Tomcat won me over because of that. The A model Viper would be a lot like Mirage 2000, another bird I like a lot, in that it's just old enough not to be overly complex, and just new enough to be easy to fly. So give me Fox 2s, the dinky radar, and the analog FLCS.  

"Move along, sir.   Nothing to see here.  Keep moving..."   

[Bunny Clark]

13 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

With that said, I doubt we'll ever see it, and that the current aircraft is the latest and greatest they can feasibly do

Depends on your perspective. I have fairly high confidence we'll see a more modern F-16 (and even an F-35) in a high fidelity combat flight sim someday. It may not be for another decade or more, and it may not be DCS, but someday it'll happen. We just have to be (very) patient. 

[Dragon1-1]

No doubt, when today's new tech becomes old tech, we'll see an early model F-35 simulated, and maybe even the F-22, which I find more to my liking of the two (less touchscreen, more switches). That said, rather than chasing new stuff, DCS should focus on one or two eras and get them fleshed out. Best candidates are "Yesterday's News era", that is, 2001 to 2010: Iraq, Tanker War, Georgia, US in Afghanistan, and the "Top Gun era", which is to say, 80s and 90s, Gulf War, Iran-Iraq war, Soviets in Afghanistan, Falklands and of course Cold War gone hot, or dissolution of the USSR gone wrong scenarios. 

I'm increasingly beginning to think that leaving Vietnam and Korea to 3rd parties would be the right decision. I suppose some WWII work could help for Korea, what with it being mostly fought with WWII hardware plus a small number of then-latest tech, but overall, the best pre-1980 Cold War modules are 3rd party.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[Northstar98]

9 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That said, rather than chasing new stuff, DCS should focus on one or two eras and get them fleshed out.

+9999999999999999999999999999999999 to that.