not planned - correct as-is Will the F-16 not get a ranged single-target GPS weapon?

[RafaPolit]

Hello all.

With the latest newsletter mentioning that the MK-84 "completes the Viper's weapons roadmap", I am left perplexed that there is no 'single target' ranged GPS weapon for the F-16.  Is this expected? Is this realistic?

The Viper already has the AGM-154A JSOW CEB (CBU-Type) which splits into many smaller warheads.  The F/A-18 Hornet has both the A and C variants, where the C can, indeed, serve as a single-target warhead.  Can the F-16 not be extended to carry the C variant to give us a ranged weapon capable of taking out armored units?

The Hornet has extended access to the AGM-84 E and H missiles, which are even better at this tasks. 

So, I believe there is a missing "slot" of needs that the Viper is missing out without these warheads.  I know there are other GPS guided bombs, but they are not suitable for longer distance drops which make them useful in different scenarios.

Am I missing something?  Is this functionality covered by other equipment I may be unaware of?

Surely the JSOW C Unitary BROACH could be very simple to add, right?

 

Thanks,
Rafa.

[BigMac.no]

Post nbr 2:

However, I do believe the quatation; "completes the Viper's weapons roadmap" is related to complete the "early access stage". If, when and how the F16 will be developed later is another thing I guess.

 

Personally I would love to have the A-version, thou' I am afraid the F16 might bring an unbalanced play at this moment.

 

...or maybe ED will make an additional F-16 module so I can spend some more money

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by BigMac.no

[RafaPolit]

Ps. I have read Wags comment on the roadmap: 

I honestly don't understand this line of thinking:
 

Quote

AGM-154C removed from lists as this is not a valid weapon for a US Block 50. USAF/ANG only operate the AGM-154A.

Well... this ONLY makes sense, if, on the other hand you provide EVERY WEAPON that the F-16 Block 50 was able to handle.  Does that make sense?  So, if you are providing every possible option that existed in real life, I understand removing a non-used variant.  BUT, if you are not including a particular type of weapon, then adding others that fulfill the same need, even if they were not 100% realistic, makes sense to me.  I don't know.   Doesn't ring like a reasonable approach.

 

3 minutes ago, BigMac.no said:

Post nbr 2:

However, I do believe the quatation; "completes the Viper's weapons roadmap" is related to complete the "early access stage". If, when and how the F16 will be developed later is another thing I guess.

 

Personally I would love to have the A-version, thou' I am afraid the F16 might bring an unbalanced play at this moment.

 

...or maybe ED will make an additional F-16 module so I can spend some more money

 

 

Hey, we almost posted at the same time.  Yeah, I was reading that and replying as you typed.  Not sure I agree with that approach at all.

[Frederf]

JSOW has GPS. I've looked and ED's choice of what weapons to include and not appears perfectly accurate.

The point of the simulation is to simulate the item as it is, not how you need it to be. Capability gaps are not a mistake 

[RafaPolit]

Ok.  Since you want a perfectly accurate simulation, then let me ask you the other way around then: was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the block 50 capable of tackling armored units?  If the answer is yes, then give that to us.  No questions asked.  Is that better?  My solution was: since it's more difficult to add different weapons that are not modeled in the system, perhaps adding the C variant, which is already modeled and the Viper already holds its sibling, could be easier.

But, since people here are completely obsessed with "accuracy", then yes, for sure, let's change the approach.  Give me the HISTORICALLY ACCURATE weapon that the block 50 held that could use ranged GPS weapons that were able to handle armored vehicles.  I'm 100% sure there is such a weapon.  I'm not an expert on what it's name or functionalities were.  

I'm sure I'm not the first pilot, on DCS or in real life, that had "that need" as you put it, for the F-16.

Happy with the new question / request?

Edited July 18, 2022 by RafaPolit

[RafaPolit]

Also, let me point out that you can pick and choose "which" accuracy you want developed.  The F-16 can carry Harpoon missiles, but not on the US version.  So, you can choose to pick "that" accuracy and include the Harpoon.  

[Frederf]

The modeled airplane cannot employ Harpoon or JDAM.

[RafaPolit]

since you opted to ignore the first part of the question, here it goes again:

was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the block 50 capable of tackling armored units from far away?

[WinterH]

Oh look another "I want my favorite plane to do [X] and thus include [Z] weapon coz its other sub variants did" thread! How many minutes since we had another one?

[RafaPolit]

So you took the time to complaint and not to answer? How useful.  No wonder you get 2.4K posts.

[AdrianL]

And you are not listening. It has been stated over and over  that the F-16 we have is the USAF/ANG circa 2007 Block 50. Only weapons that were carried by this variant are modelled. Not weapons from every possible variant of Block 50 or Block 50 capable. USAF/ANG circa 2007 US Block 50.

They have to make the cutoff at some point. If you allow 1 weapon not carried then you need to add them all.

Edited July 18, 2022 by AdrianL

[RafaPolit]

Yes, and my question still remains: was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the USAF/ANG circa 2007 Block 50 capable of tackling armored units from far away?

Is the answer to that a no?

[WinterH]

13 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

So you took the time to complaint and not to answer? How useful.  No wonder you get 2.4K posts.

*to complain
It isn't so much a complaint as a statement though. And you were answered by ED: that it is not a valid weapon for the given bird we have, and by Frederf that capability gaps are an actual thing.

If you want to take out single armored targets with a guided weapon in your F-16, make due with your actual capabilities: use a Maverick, yes shorter lock range, but at least it doesn't mind if said armored targets decides to do that simple thing called moving, unlike fancy GPS stuff. Or use a high altitude LGB drop. Or, if you do so must use a long ranged GPS guided glide weapon... and nothing else, well... fly a Hornet... or... possibly even less palatable for you, a JF-17

I've had over 8 years to "get" 2.4K posts, but seeing from this thread, you'll need a lot shorter than that with argumentative threads like this :))

Edit: or... you can try your luck with JDAMs of course, again shorter range, but since you seem to insist on GPS guidance, there you go...

Edited July 18, 2022 by WinterH

[Frederf]

20 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

since you opted to ignore the first part of the question, here it goes again:

was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the block 50 capable of tackling armored units from far away?

Outside of AGM-154A I don't know of any. I'm a bit confused by "the block 50" since that encompasses a lot of different airplanes, nations, and time.

[Dragon1-1]

2 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

Yes, and my question still remains: was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the USAF/ANG circa 2007 Block 50 capable of tackling armored units from far away?

Is the answer to that a no?

It's a no. There's no GPS-guided standoff weapon on the Block 50 Viper, any Block 50. It is basically a SEAD platform first and foremost, and second a high level fighter-bomber.

Just now, Frederf said:

I'm a bit confused by "the block 50" since that encompasses a lot of different airplanes, nations, and time.

Actually, it doesn't. Export customers get the Block 52, which is the one with half a million custom variants, and most of those are technically Block 52+, anyway. The Block 50 is pretty much US-only, perhaps also Turkey, but I'm not sure on that.

[RafaPolit]

Thanks Frederf, I can see you are really trying to be constructive.  I appreciate that.  As stated above by others, the DCS is (apparently?) a USAF/ANG only version, and circa 2007 at that.  So yeah, we are nearing territory where the plane is modeled after the F-16 that launched from Nellis Airbase on June 7 2007 and the bombs that particular flight carried!  .  

Jokes aside, I am really surprised that there was no equivalent to solve that area of needs.

@WinterH Yes, I know you can use Mavericks, I understand they benefit from tracking moving targets, I know you can drop 105s and have them even "sense" the tanks around them.  You don't need to ridicule the person you are talking to in order to make a point, but I assume that is your way of feeling superior and wining an argument.  Was I asking how to defeat a tank with the current options? No.  Thanks for your answer, but I already know how to do that.   You did not read my questions or concerns.   I asked if the F-16 is not to get a long-range GPS guided weapon capable of penetrating armored vehicles.

I believe given the time-frame and capabilities of the aircraft, such a role was probably one that the jet did actually have.  Unfortunately, I'm not an expert and I was asking if someone knows of such solutions.

Also, as you can see, I have 84 posts in 8 months... so, it would take me 20 years to reach your post count.  So I am not the one posting useless "statements".  Thanks.

 

[Frederf]

There are export B50s. But even "Block 50" doesn't narrow it down. Different customers buying the exact same airframe in the exact same year may have different capabilities, equipment, software, etc. Even inside the USAF in the same squadron might not be identical because one has undergone change per T.O. 123456ABCXYZ and the other hasn't.

I understand there's always the desire to have more capabilities in the airplane and to experience new and interesting systems. It's very normal to want more stuff.

[RafaPolit]

25 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's a no. There's no GPS-guided standoff weapon on the Block 50 Viper, any Block 50. It is basically a SEAD platform first and foremost, and second a high level fighter-bomber.

Thanks for this info.  So they were not "built on top of previous versions"?  So, if the F-16A/B Block 20 was able to carry Harpoons, they don't "carry over" to newer versions?  Then I have to say the approach by ED is "correct" but I don't think it's ideal.  Again, if they are going to limit the module to the Block 50 version that the USAF/ANG used in a particular window of time, I believe it's too limiting.  For any aircraft!  I believe that, in order to be a little bit more "versatile", the models need to encompass a wider range of variants, or provide different types of variants of the planes, like the Tomcat A/B options.  

If there are multiple international versions that could carry Harpoons or X, Y and Z, I think it makes sense to include those and let the mission designers include those as options.  They could be limited in-mission to model the bl50 of the USAF/ANG perfectly if that is the designers intent, but if those are not available at all, missions cannot take advantage of the "reverse" approach which is to include those on the type of missions that could use a foreign F-16 that had additional options.

I really question that obsession with "accuracy" vs. an extra level of playability.  For example, Nuclear weapons exist since 1944 ~ 1945.  Lets be "realistic" and allow a single plane to destroy an entire map dropping a single bomb.  Realistic? Sure.  Playable? Probably not so.  So, for me, purchasing "an F-16" is one thing, purchasing a general "F-16C block 25 to 52" is more restrictive.  Purchasing "the USAF/ANG F-16C block 50 of 2007" borders on the limit of "I think that is the wrong approach".

For some reason, everyone prefers things limited rather than versatile.  I don't understand that mentality. Thanks again for the info. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by RafaPolit

[BIGNEWY]

We have stated countless times that our F-16CM is a Block 50, USAF, circa 2007. This has not changed.

[Hobel]

Which F16s Can Carry GBU39?

 

 

and If we get the option for the AGM154A that we can adjust the trigger height, it should be a very reliable weapon against tanks in DCS.

 

[Exorcet]

18 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

For some reason, everyone prefers things limited rather than versatile.  I don't understand that mentality. Thanks again for the info. 

Realism enhances playability. Lack of capability is something you need to account for as a mission planner/pilot/whatever.

Anyway there is nothing stopping ED from making additional F-16 versions later.

[BigMac.no]

50 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

Yes, and my question still remains: was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the USAF/ANG circa 2007 Block 50 capable of tackling armored units from far away?

Is the answer to that a no?

Maybe this will bring some light in relation to your question:

 

[Frederf]

There is a lot of parallel heredity in F-16s. The modern F-16As flown in Europe may be "A"s but they are similar in performance to USAF "C"s. It is quite messy to know all the little variations because it depends on politics and money and what each nation needs, is allowed to have, and can pay for. F-16 development would have made "E" and "F" models for USA a long time ago but a whole letter improvement is harder to get funding for than "upgrading the old Cs" even if the only difference is the designation.

I understand wanting more than a narrow slice of F-16 history. We all do. But even this narrow slice is very complicated and difficult to simulate. Selling a similar but different F-16 could be difficult to justify in terms of sales relative to how much documentation/experts/time is available.

[Dragon1-1]

11 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

Thanks for this info.  So they were not "built on top of previous versions"?  So, if the F-16A/B Block 20 was able to carry Harpoons, they don't "carry over" to newer versions? 

No. First of all, Harpoons weren't carried by Block 20 at any point, mostly because it's not a "normal" block. It's a Taiwanese frankenviper that is part F-16A and part C, basically what a Block 15 upgraded to a Block 52 standard would be, except Block 20 was, AFAIK, built like that from the start. That's even before you start getting into extensive Taiwan-specific modifications that this version has plenty of. In fact, those mods are the sole reason Block 20 exists at all. If it wasn't for that, they would've just bought the Block 52. None of these changes ever made it back to US.

The USAF Block 50 does not support Harpoon in any way, shape or form. Never did, since USAF never used the Harpoon. This is a specific aircraft, from a specific time, for which ED has all the documentation, licenses and everything that does into making a viable module. It would be nice if they went with the "Viper family" approach like HB does, but they didn't. Maybe one day, at an extra cost, A-10CII style, but even then, the best "stand off" weapon we could get with that is the SDB. 

[RafaPolit]

I was basing my bl20 comment off of wikipeida:
 

Quote

F-16A/B Block 20[edit]

Block 20 added some F-16C/D block 50/52 capabilities: improved AN/APG-66(V)3 radar with added CW mode to guide two types of BVR missiles – AIM-7M Sparrow missiles and AIM-120 AMRAAM, carriage of AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, as well as the LANTIRN navigation and targeting pod. The Block 20 computers are significantly improved in comparison to that of the earlier versions that later integrated into post 1997 Block 50/52, and also getting color MFD. The Republic of China (Taiwan) received 150 F-16A/B Block 20 aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants

9 minutes ago, BigMac.no said:

Maybe this will bring some light in relation to your question:

 

Thanks, I'll look into the thread.