Jump to content

Targeting Pod Choice


Kev2go

Recommended Posts

I found proof that it was It was used on USAF F16C block 50s. SOme claimed this wasnt used  for a Circa 2007 Viper

 

This is a F16C block 50 #91-0353 from Shaw Air force base in  2007. 77th Fighter Squadron.

 

 

https://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album38/album64/91-0353_001

 

 

 

91-0353_001.jpg?m=1371928120

 

 

F16C block 50 # 94-041 77th FS Red flag 2009.

 

0TrDzS0.jpg

 

 

F16C block 50 #91-0345 from the 77th FS  Red Flag mission at Nellis AFB on July 21st, 2010

 

 

91-0345_002.jpg?m=1371907890

 

 

https://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album38/album64/91-0345_002

 

 

 


Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Kev2go changed the title to Lantirn TGP for F16C block 50?
  • Wags locked this topic
  • 5 months later...

 

21 minutes ago, RuskyV said:

I agree it would be nice, however the version of the viper being modelled in DCS came later than the LANTIRN equipped F16s.
 

I know you’re saying that “our” version was “later than LANTIRN equipped versions” but that’s not strictly true.

 @Kev2go posted a topic last year where he showed photos of several different Block 50’s (what we have, although the Tape numbers aren’t known) all carrying LANTIRN targeting pods - operational, not test airframes.
You can tell that they are LANTIRN not LITENING because of the intake shape.

The post was quickly locked & marked “not planned” though, so you’re correct that we won’t see them.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They already modeled the LANTIRN TGP page so all they would have to do is make it so you can load the pod. They marked that post “Contradicts All Documentation,” but that’s simply not the case lol. 


Edited by llOPPOTATOll
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DCS F-16CM's LITENING TGP page is modeled incorrectly, and is modeled as a LANTIRN TGP page instead of a LITNEING TGP page. This is evident if you look at a LANTIRN TGP page in F-16 documentation. Ive also sourced a few photos that illustrate the inaccuracies in this modeling. 

unknown.png

show above is what a LITENING TGP page should look like, as you can see its quite a bit different than what is modeled in DCS. You can see the Multi Target track button on OSB 18 which allows you to track multiple targets at the same time with the TGP. You can see the laser pointer options on OSB 2 with options of LSR, PTR, and BTH similar to the A-10C. There are a few things that are greyed out in this image but I can describe a few of them. In the bottom left window is the Passive ranging function which uses baro altitude and a few algorithms to determine the range to target.unknown.png

Now shown above is the LANTIRN TGP which looks nearly identical to the supposed LITENING targeting pod page shown in DCS.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's entirely possible the layout the OSB options are different between blocks/tapes, since the labels are provided by the computer, not the pod. I'm not saying it's definitive one way or the other, just a point to consider.


Edited by Tholozor
  • Like 2

REAPER 51 | Tholozor
VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/
Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

I have unlocked this thread, the official answer is:

Quote

Zero documents mention any use in a Block 50/52 and all SMEs agreed it was not a valid system. A one off image is hardly evidence. If it was we’d be seeing many many more.

You can discuss this SPECIFIC wishlist item, but stay on topic, and if you have real info to share, it needs to pass rule 1.16 or be sent in PM, the moment this thread gets ranty or OT I will lock it again, and I wont answer the Hoggit thread about it next time.

  • Like 4

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
14 hours ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

They already modeled the LANTIRN TGP page so all they would have to do is make it so you can load the pod. They marked that post “Contradicts All Documentation,” but that’s simply not the case lol. 

 

Please PM me the documentation you have. We are doing a US Block 50, so if its in reference to a Greek Block 50, that will not cut it.

Thanks

  • Like 3

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so I found an article from 2015 on the 388th website at Hill AFB that showed they had trained people working in a shop that maintained them.
https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/667382/hills-lantirn-pod-shop-closes-its-doors/

The website unfortunately doesn’t conclusively provide evidence unless the f16s used by the 388th were the same as is being modelled in DCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuskyV said:

The website unfortunately doesn’t conclusively provide evidence unless the f16s used by the 388th were the same as is being modelled in DCS.

All fighter squadrons from the 388th flew Block 40.

  • Thanks 1

REAPER 51 | Tholozor
VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/
Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN Targeting Pod was the most widely used targeting pod in the USAF F-16CM-50 fleet in 2007. The reason for this is that the USAF block 50 fleet transitioned directly from the LANTIRN system to the SNIPER. However, they kept flying their LANTIRNs alongside the SNIPERs as the SNIPERs extremely narrow FOV made it great for stuff like air-to-air missions but a lot less useful for missions like CAS where pilots fly very close to the target area and need the wide FOV of the LANTIRN when searching for targets and doing talk-ons.

I think the confusion arises because the USAF F-16CM-50 did not use the AN/AAQ-13 LANTIRN Navigation Pod and therefore people assume they're looking at a LITENING simply because they look so similar and they don't see a navigation pod. You can however tell the difference between a LANTIRN and a LITENING targeting pod visually:

LITENING: http://www.kenmiddleton.net/real_aviation/litening/F-16_Litening_158FW_03.html

Shorter than the LANTIRN and has a straight inlet duct.

LANTIRN: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoehxV-VYAArgYg.jpg

A lot longer than the LITENING and it has a canted inlet duct.

Practically every photograph you can find of an USAF F-16CM-50 from 2007 will be of it carrying either the LANTIRN AN/AAQ-14 or the SNIPER pod. I actually can't recall ever seeing a USAF F-16CM-50 carrying a LITENING around 2007. I linked an airliners.net search below where you can find a lot of amateur photographs from 2007. Pretty much all of the aircraft in the search are F-16CM-50s with a few block 52's and the likes strewn in here and there. If you want to verify you can always run the aircraft serial number and double check that it's the correct block of aircraft.

https://www.airliners.net/search?aircraftBasicType=8185&aircraftGenericType=8185&aircraft=32099&sortBy=dateAccepted&sortOrder=desc&perPage=84&display=detail&page=15

As an example, here is a USAF F-16CM-50 in 2007 from Spangdahlem which is clearly seen carrying the LANTIRN AN/AAQ-14:

1200006.jpg?v=v40

  • Like 4

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tholozor said:

It's entirely possible the layout the OSB options are different between blocks/tapes, since the labels are provided by the computer, not the pod. I'm not saying it's definitive one way or the other, just a point to consider.

 

Not necessarily. Pods come with different features so while yes it's going to be loaded by the jet in it's displays, each pod will be slightly different due to the different capabilities of each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tholozor said:

It's entirely possible the layout the OSB options are different between blocks/tapes, since the labels are provided by the computer, not the pod. I'm not saying it's definitive one way or the other, just a point to consider.

 

That is not how this system works.

This is one of those bugs with tech data backing that is literally “un-refutable” . TGP symbiology is blatantly modeled in the DCS Viper around Lantirn and not Litening. There is tech data documentation that clearly shows this, for the correct tape. So I’m curious what’s really going on here… Last I heard, NineLine has been DMd this documentation proof, but he is not bothering to reply.

Another example of ED turning a blind eye to what is honestly a big bug. Among the symbiology being incorrect, this would also mean our current HOTAS controls are also incorrect if ED modelled as per Lantirn. I would not even be upset if they were just truthful and said "look, we can only do lantirn since that is all we have info on" but to try and deceive people into their module advertising of "Litening TGP"... is really messed up from a consumer pov tbh. Especially now when they are attempting to say "correct as is" when some of us have official documentation that is completely counter to that. 


Edited by Wing
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
1 hour ago, Wing said:

That is not how this system works.

This is one of those bugs with tech data backing that is literally “un-refutable” . TGP symbiology is blatantly modeled in the DCS Viper around Lantirn and not Litening. There is tech data documentation that clearly shows this, for the correct tape. So I’m curious what’s really going on here… Last I heard, NineLine has been DMd this documentation proof, but he is not bothering to reply.

Another example of ED turning a blind eye to what is honestly a big bug. Among the symbiology being incorrect, this would also mean our current HOTUS controls are also incorrect if ED modelled as per Lantirn. I would not even be upset if they were just truthful and said "look, we can only do lantirn since that is all we have info on" but to try and deceive people into their module advertising of "Litening TGP"... is really messed up from a consumer pov tbh. Especially now when they are attempting to say "correct as is" when some of us have official documentation that is completely counter to that. 

Please stop making stuff up, I have not been sent any such "proof". 

Please read the rules as you are very close to a 1.10 with comments such as we are deceive people, etc.

The team did look back into it this morning and we have no actual, good documentation for Litening in this time period, only videos that SMEs have indicated are Litening. As per SMEs, the Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) looks correct for Litening of that period. We are open to counter evidence.

 

3 hours ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

Pm’d

I see no documents or reference to documents, please understand you are going against experienced real world Viper Pilots, yes there can be details outside their knowledge, but when its opinion vs opinion, we are going with the real pilots every time. So I need actual documents.

  • Like 1

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Please stop making stuff up, I have not been sent any such "proof". 

Please read the rules as you are very close to a 1.10 with comments such as we are deceive people, etc.

The team did look back into it this morning and we have no actual, good documentation for Litening in this time period, only videos that SMEs have indicated are Litening. As per SMEs, the Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) looks correct for Litening of that period. We are open to counter evidence.

 

I see no documents or reference to documents, please understand you are going against experienced real world Viper Pilots, yes there can be details outside their knowledge, but when its opinion vs opinion, we are going with the real pilots every time. So I need actual documents.

1). Not "making stuff up". I was told that a DM with tech data proof was sent to you, over a week ago. Then never heard any response back.

This behavior as a CM, is blatantly frustrating. I have seen the DM itself, and the user attempted to reach out to you on 5/3/2022. No response from you. He then attempted to reach out again at 5/5/2022. No response again from you. He reached out AGAIN... weeks later. You finally bothered to reply on 5/18/2022. In further proof to show that I am not "making stuff up", I can send over the DM proof of this to @Wagsif needed. I will not play this game with you, if you are going to continue attempting to write off paying customers as "making stuff up", to hide the actual fact of the matter that I originally pointed out as a CM you ignored initial private reach out with this subject. 

2). Is it possible then as you claim "we have no actual, good documentation for Litening in this time period, only videos that SMEs have indicated are Litening." that the current DCS modeling for the TGP is actually infact showing Lantirn symbology then? To even compound this a bit more, the current ED modeling for TGP HOTAS controls is also replicating Lantirn controls, and not Litening - as per the tech documentation. Instead of saying "correct as is" right off the bat, why is it difficult to humbly not take offense - and be a bit more open minded to this not actually being "correct as is"?

3). The tech data that shows very clearly as per this tape, the Lantirn symbiology vs Litening symbiology, as well as Lantirn HOTAS controls vs Litening HOTAS controls is the 1F-16CM-34-1-1. I will not personally send this over as it is Distro E, but I am sure ED has their own proper channels to gain eyes on this tech data for clarification.

Why not be a bit more open minded and humble with your customers? This is brought up passionately, because the store page advertises a Litening TGP with the Viper. Not Lantirn. So the further investigation should be valued instead of taken offensively along side alot of other situations like this in the past. I.E. A10C dispersion included.


Edited by Wing
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

I will say it one more time for you, nothing has been sent to me. You seem unwilling to say who sent it to me or where, so I can only assume, but I have not received any documents as proof.

SO whatever this person is telling you is not true. So if someone would like to send me this proof, I would be happy to do so, if you think you need to send it to Wags then you can do that as well.

By the way, if its the person we are talking about, he reached out to me on 5/18/2022 at 3:48 in the morning my time... I do sleep, I responded to him at 7:37 am my time. But he hasnt responded to me yet (which I guess is ok when its the other way)

And IF this is the same person, once again he has sent NO, let me repeat this NO documents or reference to any documents. If this is the correct person, I wont say his name because I dont know why we are being coy about it, but this is what was sent.

Quote

Ive been looking into the LITENING implementation in DCS and it seems to match the LANTIRN page better than the LITENING page. Not sure if there was difficulty in acquiring information for it but a few things arent quite right like the MAV handoff "MAN" and "AUTO" doesnt seem to be a thing for LITENING. My info is for M5.2+, but im not aware of any M4.2+ information out there

This has zero reference to any documentation, ZERO. I cant do anything with that. 

You are stating a bunch of stuff, but again, where is your proof, and if you are referencing documents that you can't share, what makes you think we can get them, or share them outside US borders?

31 minutes ago, Wing said:

Why not be a bit more open minded and humble with your customers? This is brought up passionately, because the store page advertises a Litening TGP with the Viper.

Because I already answered this TWICE, and you have come back and said we are deceiving you, with out a shred of evidence. Sorry but unless you have something valid to show we should change this, it will not change based on our SME's who are actual F-16 pilots. I dont know how else I can say this. 

 

31 minutes ago, Wing said:

3). The tech data that shows very clearly as per this tape, the Lantirn symbiology vs Litening symbiology, as well as Lantirn HOTUS controls vs Litening HOTUS controls is the 1F-16CM-34-1-1. I will not personally send this over as it is Distro E, but I am sure ED has their own proper channels to gain eyes on this tech data for clarification.

What makes you think this? We don't have free range on all these documents. If you can't send it, then you have your answer on if we can use it. I don't imagine jail sounds fun to you, it doesn't sound fun to us either, hence rule 1.16.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...