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

[MiG_23M 1,623]

30 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Can you please stop trying to spin the topic around.

Do you have definitive proof that the AIM-7F sources are public releasable? What is on the PDF shows proof that it is not releasable. So you should remove the sources (as I did) until you have that proof.

It's exempt from the executive order which would outline the need to add a distribution statement and how to do so. It's exempt because it was declassified and did not need a distribution statement before or after declassification. That was made evident with the exemption. I'm not spinning anything around or trying to hide anything. It's a public document.

 

26 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

It just seems like a bit of a double standard to me. Are you saying if the document I posted last night was posted somewhere on google or somewhere public for a few years it would've been fine to do what I did? If we are going to try and get people arrested and prosecuted over things exactly like this, it needs to apply across the board. Not just when it affects people you don't like and when it is convenient.

If any of the documents you posted lacked a distribution statement on them I would not have cited them for violating distribution restrictions to the Gaijin staff this morning. The document you want me to remove has no distribution statement and it's declassified, older than 30 years. It meets all criteria for posting here. Thank you.

[spacenavy90 1,402]

delete

Edited January 19 by spacenavy90

[tripod2008 583]

35 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

It just seems like a bit of a double standard to me. Are you saying if the document I posted last night was posted somewhere on google or somewhere public for a few years it would've been fine to do what I did? If we are going to try and get people arrested and prosecuted over things exactly like this, it needs to apply across the board. Not just when it affects people you don't like and when it is convenient.

I'm not personally, out to get you or anyone else here or anywhere really. As I wouldn't even know where to go to get started with that kind of process and since I have no access to this kind of stuff at all outside the internet, the only source for any documentation I will likely ever even be able to post is just another website, archive or file dump I found in some lonely corner of the internet, and I personally doubt that whatever infractions I have committed myself wouldn't get caught up in something like this.

 

At least to me if a document is interesting(heavily subjective and muse dependent) and has been on the internet for a while or is otherwise what I would consider rare or I find myself referencing it I might consider downloading a copy if I can find one, I mean it's a risk for a number of reasons, but it's pretty much in the noise for now at least for myself likely to my own detriment.

 

People make mistakes, and I'm sure keeping things in this sort of space "clean", orderly and compartmentalized when you have open access to archives(the only DTIC stuff I have access to is what is uploaded to Archive.org, which is obviously very incomplete) would be hard as things would need to be cross checked. and excessive care would need to be taken considering the sheer breath of what could be available, and it very slow role out to the public via the yearly FOIA releases, and other uncommon entries in private collections and the "adjusting things to clean things up effectively admitting to the veracity of the claim" is very much a tautology, at least in my eyes as it is after all an opinion on what sounds most right as according to specific scenarios put forward.

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by tripod2008

[spacenavy90 1,402]

Just now, tripod2008 said:

I'm not personally, out to get you or anyone else here or anywhere really. As I wouldn't even know where to go to get started with that kind of process and since I have no access to this kind of stuff at all outside the internet, the only source for any documentation I will likely ever even be able to post is just another website, archive or file dump I found in some lonely corner of the internet, I I personally doubt that whatever infractions I have committed myself wouldn't get caught up in something like this.

 

At least to me if a document is interesting(heavily subjective and muse dependent) and has been on the internet for a while or is otherwise what I would consider rare or I find myself referencing it I might consider downloading a copy if I can find one, I mean it's a risk for a number of reasons, but it's pretty much in the noise for now at least for myself likely to my own detriment.

 

People make mistakes, and I'm sure keeping things in this sort of space "clean", orderly and compartmentalized when you have open access to archives(the only DTIC stuff I have access to is what is uploaded to Archive.org, which is obviously very incomplete) would be hard as things would need to be cross checked. and excessive care would need to be taken considering the sheer breath of what could be available, and it very slow role out to the public via the yearly FOIA releases, and other uncommon entries in private collections and the "adjusting things to clean things up effectively admitting to the veracity of the claim" is very much a tautology, at least in my eyes as it is after all an opinion on what sounds most right as according to specific scenarios put forward.

 

As I said above, I've reached out for clarification from the WT mods and also the DOD/FOIA offices. I will update you and the thread when I hear back.

[Dragon_Storm_246 28]

Bottom line is that you better Check Yourself before Accusing someone else. (Posting a reddit page, and giving literal money to war thunder youtubers because they now have video content)

[MiG_23M 1,623]

10 minutes ago, Dragon_Storm_246 said:

Bottom line is that you better Check Yourself before Accusing someone else. (Posting a reddit page, and giving literal money to war thunder youtubers because they now have video content)

As posted above, the documents I'm claimed to have posted are not restricted and are unclassified. They are available for public distribution.

If there was an issue, you'd see a distribution statement on the document itself and possibly other such texts and information ahead of the cover page and stamped all over.

[spacenavy90 1,402]

delete

Edited January 19 by spacenavy90

[tripod2008 583]

10 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

As posted above, the documents I'm claimed to have posted are not restricted and are unclassified. They are available for public distribution.

If there was an issue, you'd see a distribution statement on the document itself and possibly other such texts and information ahead of the cover page and stamped all over.

Looking at past occurrences with classified documentation "incident's" where people have adjusted a submitted document's markings, even that's not a 100% guaranteed so SpaceNavy does have a point, that we are literally taking someone else's word for it so some caution is probably for the best, since "that someone else modified / leaked it" probably wouldn't be considered a valid / sufficient excuse as common sense is likely a test that would be used. But is a risk that has been taken none the less.

Edited January 17 by tripod2008

[Danzig [email protected] 494]

Man, the two of you are extremely petty it's just sad......

[MiG_23M 1,623]

Just now, Danzig [email protected] said:

Man, the two of you are extremely petty it's just sad......

You came here to insult both of us, I'm not sure I would go around calling other people "petty" in this case.

[tripod2008 583]

1 minute ago, MiG_23M said:

You came here to insult both of us, I'm not sure I would go around calling other people "petty" in this case.

They aren't exactly wrong, though.

[MiG_23M 1,623]

5 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

This is false, they are not available for public distribution, it is unclassified but still restricted and you need to remove it.

How could it possibly have a distribution statement if they were created in 1987, two years after the stated declassification date on the document?

It meets the criteria for being posted as I said before, I'll refrain from doing so until it is shown to be restricted.
It predates the distribution codes, but was obtained in 2009 per the owner of the website. He emailed me back, I'm asking for further information regarding his possession of it.

 

 

[tripod2008 583]

5 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

It meets the criteria for being posted as I said before, I'll refrain from doing so until it is shown to be restricted.
It predates the distribution codes, but was obtained in 2009 per the owner of the website. He emailed me back, I'm asking for further information regarding his possession of it.

 

 

I am going to point out that you are asking about specific events that happened more than a decade ago now, there is no guarantee that whatever proof that they can / are willing to provide you with will meet your expectations.

Edited January 17 by tripod2008

[MiG_23M 1,623]

Just now, tripod2008 said:

I am going to point out that you are asking about specific events that happened more than a decade ago now, there is no guarantee that whatever proof that they can / are willing to provide you with will meet your expectations.

If they still possess the document they will be able to give an official determination on it's publicity status. If they gave it to a random website owner I'm pretty certain (seeing as it met all public distribution standards in 1985) that it still meets those standards today. The armament is no longer in service anywhere in the world.

[tripod2008 583]

13 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

If they still possess the document they will be able to give an official determination on it's publicity status. If they gave it to a random website owner I'm pretty certain (seeing as it met all public distribution standards in 1985) that it still meets those standards today. The armament is no longer in service anywhere in the world.

Depends, I think  a few other client nations(e.g. Egypt) might still use Sea- / Sparrows (no idea what variant(s)) though.

Edited January 17 by tripod2008

[MiG_23M 1,623]

3 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Depends, I think and a few other client nations(e.g. Egypt) might still use Sea- / Sparrows (no idea what variant(s)) though.

I can link many detailed completely unclassified and unrestricted documents on those as well, so I don't think that is much of an argument.

[tripod2008 583]

15 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

I can link many detailed completely unclassified and unrestricted documents on those as well, so I don't think that is much of an argument.

I'm sure you can, considering that the Sparrow began development in 1947 / 1955, so it has been around for sufficient time for practically everything of note about the missile and supporting systems to be declassified and well understood, and the Sea-Sparrow isn't too different mechanically from it's air launched progenitor, and performance wise many other novel systems borrowed some number of components, IIRC there is something like 13 different Missiles and Rockets that entered service that used Sparrow derived components at some point during their service life or development.

Edited January 17 by tripod2008

[MiG_23M 1,623]

5 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

I'm sure you can, considering that the Sparrow began development in 1947 / 1955, so it has been around for sufficient time for practically everything of note about the missile and supporting systems to be declassified and well understood, and the Sea-Sparrow isn't too different mechanically from it's air launched progenitor, and performance wise many other novel systems borrowed some number of components, IIRC there is something like 13 different Missiles and Rockets that entered service that used Sparrow derived components at some point.

Yeah, I'm not worried about the distribution level. It's been out so long - if there were an issue it would have been discussed long ago. Nothing in the document is particularly hard to come by without the document either. The only reason it's there though is because it's a primary source and shows exactly why the missile is overperforming via it's charts.

 

This information can be extrapolated in other ways though, but I don't think they'd want us to use that math and get it nerfed more than it needs to be.

(If it had distribution labels or something to suggest it shouldn't have been posted I would not have shared it).

Edited January 17 by MiG_23M

[MiG_23M 1,623]

He did indeed obtain it from the Naval Historical Center in the Washington DC Navy Yard.

Spoiler

I'm fairly certain this information in PDF form is never shared unless it's public distribution, in this case it makes sense. Regardless, I will have to contact them and verify this and until I am shown that it is not for public distribution I will be leaving it up on the report.

Spoiler

 

[YUi_Takamura 652]

After block 40/42, could F16 carries both 6*agm65 and 4*GBUs? I noticed ROCAF's MLU could take GBUs in fact, but it seems Gaijin forget add LANTIRN pod for F16 MLU. 

[Генерал Армагеддон 157]

2 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

He did indeed obtain it from the Naval Historical Center in the Washington DC Navy Yard.

Reveal hidden contents

I'm fairly certain this information in PDF form is never shared unless it's public distribution, in this case it makes sense. Regardless, I will have to contact them and verify this and until I am shown that it is not for public distribution I will be leaving it up on the report.

Reveal hidden contents

 

Any person can get secret documents in the USA, their security system is at the highest level

[MiG_23M 1,623]

1 hour ago, __Witcher__ said:

Any person can get secret documents in the USA, their security system is at the highest level

Document isn't "secret" or "classified" as already discussed. Let's not use the wrong terminology here.

[tripod2008 583]

3 hours ago, KaKaParkChunghee said:

After block 40/42, could F16 carries both 6*agm65 and 4*GBUs?

Theoretically yes, though you are limited to only the HEAT warhead Mavericks (AGM-65A, -65B, -65D, & -65H) as the GPHE warhead variants were never cleared for carriage on the LAU-88A/A triple rail(I don't know why that is, it probably isn't a weight issue as the HE variants aren't that much heavier) and so the LAU-117A/A must be used, and would otherwise limited to 2x AGM-65.

 

And if "Slant loading" restrictions were modeled, the LAU-88 would be able to use the rail closest to external fuel tanks or MER/TER in order to ensure sufficient separation clearance under all conditions and so would also be limited to 4x AGM-65, due to the presence of the BRU-57 / TER carrying the GBU's.

[ACOMETS 967]

33 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Theoretically yes, though you are limited to only the HEAT warhead Mavericks (AGM-65A, -65B, -65D, & -65H) as the GPHE warhead variants were never cleared for carriage on the LAU-88A/A triple rail(I don't know why that is, it probably isn't a weight issue as the HE variants aren't that much heavier) and so the LAU-117A/A must be used, and would otherwise limited to 2x AGM-65.

 

And if "Slant loading" restrictions were modeled, the LAU-88 would be able to use the rail closest to external fuel tanks or MER/TER in order to ensure sufficient separation clearance under all conditions and so would also be limited to 4x AGM-65, due to the presence of the BRU-57 / TER carrying the GBU's.

You should not be needing a pure HE variant anyway in the game 

 

HE effect is highly restricted which makes maverick sometimes worst than zuni rockets 

[Conejero00 164]

36 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

GPHE

Never heard about GPHE, what does it mean?¿