f16 F-16 Fighting Falcon: History, Performance & Discussion

[tripod2008 476]

4 minutes ago, KaKaParkChunghee said:

Any information for ROCAF F16A MLU? It seems haven't get AN/ALQ-184ECM and GBUs?

The ECM pods are possible / likely if the mechanic ever gets added, and for now GBU's are only added to aircraft that can self-designate so to be a valid candidate for their inclusion it would require a targeting pod be able to be carried.

 

I looked it up and the -20MLU circa 1998 should be able to carry the downgraded variant of the LANTIRN(Pathfinder & Sharpshooter pods) , and as of the 2011 upgrade, the AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Targeting System or the AN/AAQ-28 LITENING (V)3? or -4?, and as such should have them, though it may well end up being left for the F-16C/D-40/42 or F-15E or later to add the models. though the LITENING / SNIPER pods are both also likely as both the A-10C and AV-8B(NA) / -B+ carried them and so are also potential paths to the TGP's actually eventually being modeled, of the three the LITENING is the most likely as it was used by many airacraft.

[Renamed67451 617]

50 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

The ECM pods are possible / likely if the mechanic ever gets added, and for now GBU's are only added to aircraft that can self-designate so to be a valid candidate for their inclusion it would require a targeting pod be able to be carried.

 

I looked it up and the -20MLU circa 1998 should be able to carry the downgraded variant of the LANTIRN(Pathfinder & Sharpshooter pods) , and as of the 2011 upgrade, the AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Targeting System or the AN/AAQ-28 LITENING (V)3? or -4?, and as such should have them, though it may well end up being left for the F-16C/D-40/42 or F-15E or later to add the models. though the LITENING / SNIPER pods are both also likely as both the A-10C and AV-8B(NA) / -B+ carried them and so are also potential paths to the TGP's actually eventually being modeled, of the three the LITENING is the most likely as it was used by many airacraft.

I find a information said ROCAF got AN/ALQ-184ECM pod in 1994, but I am not sure if it is true, because ROCAF keeps using it in 2023 and update their F16 many of times.

[tripod2008 476]

12 hours ago, KaKaParkChunghee said:

I find a information said ROCAF got AN/ALQ-184ECM pod in 1994, but I am not sure if it is true, because ROCAF keeps using it in 2023 and update their F16 many of times.

The only thing I've heard about is integrating the ALQ-213, but that isn't a pod but an internal ECM management system likely to be responsible for coordinating the entire suite of Defensive Countermeasure / Electronic Attack more effectively taking workload off the pilot as they would potentially have to manage a number of separate systems while managing any number of other critical tasks.

 

The thing about ECM pods is that they tend to have modular generic hardware architectures, being able to swap between bands by changing the order of some plugs or otherwise be digitally programable and so can be tailored to a given mission's expected threats and be rapidly upgraded as needed so only really need to advance to keep pace with what you expect to face so basically as long as the programming is good and the sensor you are trying to defeat is within the pod's bandwidth it's only a matter of time before success occurs unless something new pops up in which case once a successful strategy is derived it would only need to be flashed into the pod's memory.

 

Most forms of DECM that the pod could realistically be asked to employ to defeat any given threat are techniques that are quite well understood and more reliant on being given sufficient time to work and capture and deceive the various tracking loops that systems employ so a wholesale replacement of pods is unlikely unless either issues arise with the pods or significant new capabilities emerge as new systems can extend the life of older airframes allowing limited defense budgets to be stretched that much further.

 

The newer sub-variants of pods (e.g. the AN/ALQ-184(V)9, the 9th subvariant of the pod) apparently are beginning to include IR decoys & corner reflectors that can deployed on retractable towed arrays to provide sufficient separation from the airframe and survive being hit / defeat the missile's fuses due to not matching target profiles and so causing them not to detonate.

Edited January 15 by tripod2008

[ShizuRin 636]

It appears APG-66 can be easily chaffed

BUG, probably

 

[Fireraid233 4,099]

6 minutes ago, Contrail_ said:

It appears APG-66 can be easily chaffed

BUG, probably

 

Nice skin btw

[ACOMETS 852]

1 hour ago, Contrail_ said:

It appears APG-66 can be easily chaffed

BUG, probably

 

@_David_Bowie_

[SXTREME 1,247]

1 hour ago, ACOMETS said:

@_David_Bowie_

 

It's useless to tag on random threads just make a report and post it here to get the upvotes, it takes like 10 minutes tops.

[spacenavy90 1,394]

Interesting thing I found during my research. During early AMRAAM testing you can see how F-16A would equip the AIM-120 and use TWS on the non-MFD stores control panel "SCP":

 

Spoiler

del

 

Edited January 16 by spacenavy90

[MiG_23M 1,433]

14 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

Interesting thing I found during my research. During early AMRAAM testing you can see how F-16A would equip the AIM-120 and use TWS on the non-MFD stores control panel "SCP":

 

 

What is the restriction status on this if you don't mind me asking 
Restricted

Spoiler

Restricted

Spoiler

Restricted

Spoiler

Restricted

Spoiler

 

Edited January 16 by MiG_23M

[TheOldDoctor 2]

3 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

Interesting thing I found during my research. During early AMRAAM testing you can see how F-16A would equip the AIM-120 and use TWS on the non-MFD stores control panel "SCP":

 

 

Lad seriously do you have a proper source on that or if it is restricted materials?

[spacenavy90 1,394]

delete

Edited January 19 by spacenavy90

[MiG_23M 1,433]

15 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

It is 40 years old; allowed per Gaijin rules. Check the cover page.

 

Strange that this is your 2nd ever post on the forums...

No, it isn't permitted per U.S. Laws on restricted and export restricted data.
And by the way, 3/4 things you posted are newer than 30 years and still restricted.

Oh, and you're also wrong it's not permitted via Gaijin's rules either.

Spoiler

First offense on 1/10/23 was already handled and you fixed it per the mods request:

Spoiler

F-16 restricted information was posted today in this thread:

Spoiler

Two more uncited charts in your AMRAAM thread came from these two sources

Spoiler

Second source from AMRAAM thread

Spoiler

 

[Dragon_Storm_246 28]

10 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

No, it isn't permitted per U.S. Laws on restricted and export restricted data.
And by the way, 3/4 things you posted are newer than 30 years and still restricted.

Oh, and you're also wrong it's not permitted via Gaijin's rules either.

Reveal hidden contents

First offense on 1/10/23 was already handled and you fixed it per the mods request:

Reveal hidden contents

F-16 restricted information was posted today in this thread:

Reveal hidden contents

Two more uncited charts in your AMRAAM thread came from these two sources

Reveal hidden contents

Second source from AMRAAM thread

Reveal hidden contents

 

Can you like **** off Respectfully, thank you

[Eretaloma 32]

12 minutes ago, Dragon_Storm_246 said:

Can you like **** off Respectfully, thank you

What a compelling argument!

[Ziggy1989 1,455]

So, if I am reading this correctly, each citation for every tech manual mentioned are what the US Government declares DoD only, distributed amongst US agencies only. X-port controlled? 

 

Sounds a little rule breaky with a hint of federal criminality. 

 

Edited January 16 by Ziggy1989

[zzoega 479]

Yeah I've noticed as well that the f16 radar gets chaffed in front aspect. 

[G0NZA587 7]

While we're on the subject of the F16, I think it would be great to add the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany. 
the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany, so at least they would have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk
 have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk, so at least Germany would have a new aircraft in addition to this same one being Argentinian. 

[spacenavy90 1,394]

6 minutes ago, G0NZA587 said:

While we're on the subject of the F16, I think it would be great to add the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany. 
the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany, so at least they would have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk
 have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk, so at least Germany would have a new aircraft in addition to this same one being Argentinian. 

 

While I would love to see a modern A-4 like that in-game, not sure how it relates to the F-16 sadly...

[G0NZA587 7]

which is literally an F16 but inside an A4

[Ziggy1989 1,455]

1 hour ago, G0NZA587 said:

While we're on the subject of the F16, I think it would be great to add the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany. 
the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany, so at least they would have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk
 have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk, so at least Germany would have a new aircraft in addition to this same one being Argentinian. 

 

54 minutes ago, G0NZA587 said:

which is literally an F16 but inside an A4

that thing is awesome! Make a thread so no one gets hurt. Never knew that one existed. 

[spacenavy90 1,394]

Just to clear the air here, and to re-iterate what has been said multiple times in various locations:

 

I have already spoken with @Smin1080p via PM last night on this the issue of restricted information that was posted last night and the offending restricted content has been already been removed. In the future I will be more careful about what technical information I post. Hopefully we can put this issue behind us.

[Fedorann 33]

44 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

Just to clear the air here, and to re-iterate what has been said multiple times in various locations:

 

I have already spoken with @Smin1080p via PM last night on this the issue of restricted information that was posted last night and the offending restricted content has been already been removed. In the future I will be more careful about what technical information I post. Hopefully we can put this issue behind us.

 

Your Honor, my client pleads "Oopsie Daisies." 

[WNxDavid990 143]

3 hours ago, G0NZA587 said:

While we're on the subject of the F16, I think it would be great to add the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany. 
the A-4AR Fightinghawk in Germany, so at least they would have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk
 have an F16 but inside an A4 Skywawk, so at least Germany would have a new aircraft in addition to this same one being Argentinian. 

 

Yes, add it. So i can dunk on it with my Sea Harrier 

[spacenavy90 1,394]

26 minutes ago, Fedorann said:

 

Your Honor, my client pleads "Oopsie Daisies." 

 

"Ladies and gentlemen the jury... bleh!"

 

Edited January 16 by spacenavy90

[Ziggy1989 1,455]

 

1 hour ago, Fedorann said:

Your Honor, my client pleads "Oopsie Daisies." 

The penalty for a conviction of unauthorized disclosure includes up to 10 years in prison , a large fine, or both.

 

prolly just a fine.  Provided he is not a government employee and they don’t have bigger fish to fry. 
 

Unauthorized transmissions of restricted data is nothing to joke about. When we post data without proper vetting, the poster is not only at risk, but the game publisher itself. Open to litigation, fines etc.

 

hope tech moderators are vigilant moving foreword. It’s quite the responsibility. 
 

Edited January 17 by Ziggy1989