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

[Ignition]

6 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

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.

The DCS F-18C has better stand-off weapons.

The only cool thing about the F-16 is the HTS and 105. It is what it is.

The AGM-154A is very VERY unreliable in DCS, its not worth it.

[Tholozor]

53 minutes ago, Ignition said:

The AGM-154A is very VERY unreliable in DCS, its not worth it.

JSOW-A and other submunition dispensers may see an improvement in the next patch:

 

[llOPPOTATOll]

11 hours ago, Hobel said:

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.

 

USAF F-16s got GBU-39s in tape M6.1, which was around 2012

Edited July 19, 2022 by llOPPOTATOll

[Aquorys]

On 7/18/2022 at 8:18 PM, Frederf said:

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.

Kinda sounds like real life. Not every F-16 has all the capabilities that were ever developed for some very specific variant of an F-16, because resources are limited and not everyone needs and wants to pay for everything.

@RafaPolit In my opinion, the fact that we don't have every weapon on every aircraft only makes the in-game missions more interesting, because you will have to figure out whether you can do the mission or not, and if you can, then you'll have to figure out how. What weapons, what flight-path, what risk factors, etc. Or you might want to employ a combined force of different aircraft performing different roles.

If you just wanted to be able to strike anything anywhere, you could as well just ask for a B-2 or F-35 module, or set up an AB destroyer to fire a crapload of cruise missiles... but then, where is the challenge, and what's the point of playing the game?

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aquorys

[RafaPolit]

17 minutes ago, Aquorys said:

@RafaPolit In my opinion, the fact that we don't have every weapon on every aircraft only makes the in-game missions more interesting, because you will have to figure out whether you can do the mission or not...

Yes, with this I have to agree.

[Bunny Clark]

On 7/18/2022 at 11:53 AM, RafaPolit said:

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

Sorry it seems it took a while for people to get around to your actual question. But as we did eventually get to: no, a USAF F-16C circa 2007 does not carry any point-target standoff weapons. The USAF was originally interested in the JSOW-C, but ultimately decided to drop out of the program and only acquire the JSOW-A. 

It's a somewhat curious situation. It probably has something to do with the F-16C being primarily a SEAD and light strike aircraft, and the USAF preferring other platforms for the standoff precision strike role. The F-15E has carried a number of long range standoff weapons, including the AGM-130 which is closer to the SLAM in capability, and the USAF has a fleet of heavy bombers with very long range standoff cruise missiles to fill that capability. The Navy needs its strike aircraft to be more flexible, so you see the Hornet with a wider variety of available weapons because it's basically the Navy's only strike asset. 

This was ultimately rectified though. Within a decade of when our Viper is modeled the F-16C gained the GBU-39 SDB, a GPS guided standoff glide weapon, the AGM-158 JASSM, a powered stealthy long range cruise missile, and the AGM-53 StormBreaker, an updated GBU-39 with datalink and an IIR seeker head allowing it to better target moving vehicles. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Bunny Clark

[RafaPolit]

Thanks so much for this answer.

38 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

...This was ultimately rectified though. Within a decade of when our Viper is modeled the F-16C gained the GBU-39 SDB, a GPS guided standoff glide weapon, the AGM-158 JASSM, a powered stealthy long range cruise missile, and the AGM-53 StormBreaker, an updated GBU-39 with datalink and an IIR seeker head allowing it to better target moving vehicles. 

 

This last phrase is, precisely, why I think that having the JSOW-C, even if not 100% accurate, was not such a crazy idea.   I understand that ED (or third party contributors) cannot model every variation of every plane with every variation of every weapon it can carry.    Still, when I purchase the F-16, in my mind I am purchasing "the general use and scope that the F-16 has served in the US (and other!!!) armies".  So, if some form of F-16 at some point gained that ability, it makes sense (for me) to offer a point-target standoff weapon.

 

In contrast, the general accepted approach of "we are modeling the F-16C from the USAF that operated between feb and june 2007", makes for a less versatile include in different types of missions.  For example, let's say I wanted to model a fictional mission with a stolen older F-16C that was retrofitted an GBU-39 SDB! Sure, that probably never happened, but EDs "limiting" approach prevents those scenarios from being created.

I don't know if anyone wonders why, for example, there is but ONE official campaign for the F-16?  Is there really no interest at all in the plane?  Is it that missions are more limiting due to some reason or another?  In my mind (and I am a developer of software in my non-gaming life!) providing versatility (as opposed to more limiting scenarios) greatly enhances the capabilities of our users to be more creative, to expand the boundaries of our modules / software and to use our software in ways we even didn't imagine in the first place.

So, if I provide full flexibility, and a particular creator thinks that that GBU-39 SDB overpowers the F-16, he or she can take it away with the click of a button.  The other way around is not possible.  If some creator thinks that that is the "twist" required for his story, he cannot include it, no matter what with the current options available.

With all that said, I still think that we should be able to have those options, and allow the mission creators to limit them if they think that means that everyone would just pick the F-16 in their servers. This also fulfills the notion expressed above about diversity and not having a one plane that can do it all.    So, I'd still think there are merits for this, outside of the 100% factual approach that ED takes for the modules.

I take it I am on the "lesser popular" boat.  Sure.  But some people here are inclined to thinking that if you are not with the majority, then you are surely wrong, no matter what.  That is why I really appreciate the research and thoughtfulness in your reply @Bunny Clark .  Thanks a lot!  That makes for a constructive conversation around an issue and I really appreciate that.

 

Best regards,

Rafa.

Edited July 25, 2022 by RafaPolit

[Bunny Clark]

3 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

In contrast, the general accepted approach of "we are modeling the F-16C from the USAF that operated between feb and june 2007", makes for a less versatile include in different types of missions.  For example, let's say I wanted to model a fictional mission with a stolen older F-16C that was retrofitted an GBU-39 SDB!

The trouble with that approach is that modern fighter aircraft are highly integrated systems. The software update that brought GBU-39 capability to the F-16C added a bunch of other features as well, and from the sounds of it ED does not have sufficient information on all those updates to model them accurately. So you potentially end up with an aircraft carrying a weapon but modeled with software that doesn't support that weapon. Or you model the aircraft with bits and pieces from various software versions and end up with an aircraft that isn't fully accurate to any time period. Neither approach is really right or wrong in a computer game, but ED has chosen to take the approach of picking one time period and modeling that as accurately as possible. I don't fault them for it, as much as I would love SDB in our Viper, their approach provides a far more clearly defined scope and limits feature creep in the project.

Quote

I don't know if anyone wonders why, for example, there is but ONE official campaign for the F-16?  Is there really no interest at all in the plane?  Is it that missions are more limiting due to some reason or another?

It's just because making campaigns takes a lot of time, and for a while after launch the Viper had such a limited capability set it wasn't worth it to start writing missions. There are multiple DLC campaigns currently being worked on for the Viper. I started working on a Viper campaign around January of 2021. 

[RafaPolit]

5 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

...The software update that brought GBU-39 capability to the F-16C added a bunch of other features as well, and from the sounds of it ED does not have sufficient information on all those updates to model them accurately. So you potentially end up with an aircraft carrying a weapon but modeled with software that doesn't support that weapon... 

That's why the JSOW model C was such a "good fit", it is already modeled, the plane already has the software to communicate with it.  Heck, it was even part of the roadmap at one point!   Anyway.  Thanks, I hope there's something in the future that feels this role. 

[statrekmike]

On 7/25/2022 at 1:49 PM, RafaPolit said:

Thanks so much for this answer.

This last phrase is, precisely, why I think that having the JSOW-C, even if not 100% accurate, was not such a crazy idea.   I understand that ED (or third party contributors) cannot model every variation of every plane with every variation of every weapon it can carry.    Still, when I purchase the F-16, in my mind I am purchasing "the general use and scope that the F-16 has served in the US (and other!!!) armies".  So, if some form of F-16 at some point gained that ability, it makes sense (for me) to offer a point-target standoff weapon.

 

In contrast, the general accepted approach of "we are modeling the F-16C from the USAF that operated between feb and june 2007", makes for a less versatile include in different types of missions.  For example, let's say I wanted to model a fictional mission with a stolen older F-16C that was retrofitted an GBU-39 SDB! Sure, that probably never happened, but EDs "limiting" approach prevents those scenarios from being created.

I don't know if anyone wonders why, for example, there is but ONE official campaign for the F-16?  Is there really no interest at all in the plane?  Is it that missions are more limiting due to some reason or another?  In my mind (and I am a developer of software in my non-gaming life!) providing versatility (as opposed to more limiting scenarios) greatly enhances the capabilities of our users to be more creative, to expand the boundaries of our modules / software and to use our software in ways we even didn't imagine in the first place.

So, if I provide full flexibility, and a particular creator thinks that that GBU-39 SDB overpowers the F-16, he or she can take it away with the click of a button.  The other way around is not possible.  If some creator thinks that that is the "twist" required for his story, he cannot include it, no matter what with the current options available.

With all that said, I still think that we should be able to have those options, and allow the mission creators to limit them if they think that means that everyone would just pick the F-16 in their servers. This also fulfills the notion expressed above about diversity and not having a one plane that can do it all.    So, I'd still think there are merits for this, outside of the 100% factual approach that ED takes for the modules.

I take it I am on the "lesser popular" boat.  Sure.  But some people here are inclined to thinking that if you are not with the majority, then you are surely wrong, no matter what.  That is why I really appreciate the research and thoughtfulness in your reply @Bunny Clark .  Thanks a lot!  That makes for a constructive conversation around an issue and I really appreciate that.

 

Best regards,

Rafa.

 

 

 Look. I am going to be a bit blunt here and say that versatility isn't really the issue here. The F-16 module as it is right now (and especially as it will be when it is feature complete) is VERY versatile already. That said. No aircraft in DCS is going to be ideal for every possible role and sometimes the weapons cleared for use on a given aircraft are not going to match up with some arbitrary gameplay level requirement we might want to personally impose. Eagle Dynamics and the various third party developers are not really beholden to whatever fantastical scenario a given player can think up. DCS World has always been marketed and designed as a pretty realistic combat flight sim sandbox and that means that while there are a lot of aircraft modules that cover the entire gamut of possible mission types and roles, no one aircraft is intended to excel at everything arbitrarily. Choosing the right aircraft for a given mission or part of a mission is part of the job of a DCS mission designer and that will inevitably mean that sometimes we don't get to use our favorite module for EVERY possible job. 

 It is useful to look at it like this. Since Eagle Dynamics is developing DCS World as a pretty realistic combat flight sim sandbox, it makes sense that like in real life, you really have to think of each aircraft as part of a larger "airpower ecosystem". Even the most modern real-world multi-role aircraft is going to have individual strengths and weaknesses and as such, military planners and those that develop doctrine will plan missions with multiple aircraft types involved as a way to offset those weaknesses and fill any capability gaps. A DCS mission designer needs to think the same way. That is the whole point. If you want to deliver a single warhead from the longer end of stand-off ranges, you need to understand what aircraft module will do that for you and build your mission accordingly. If you are dead-set on having F-16's in said mission, there are plenty of ways to integrate them in supporting roles. It falls on you to creatively find ways to fit realistic platforms into whatever fantastical scenario you can dream up.