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

[tripod2008 565]

1 hour ago, MiG_23M said:

Post the title page and ask if anyone can check the citation or restriction, email relevant authorities and ask for the distribution statement on said document.

Not all archives come with a sperate or previewable titlepage / Item identifier / distribution statement so would involve transmission / receiving a copy of the whole document in order to determine that in the first place and so xxxx you over before you began since as a PDF you get the whole document with no way around that fact. And on top of that just becuse it's marked as a "Class A document" how would you know that it is, or at least isn't version a 3rd party modified of a still restricted document before knowing anything about the document in question especially going into the future if unlike Classification status, these Distribution Restrictions don't appear to be revised over time, but run in parallel to classification for whatever reasons. And ignorance isn't an excuse.

 

Take for example if I linked the AH-1F operator's manual from 2001 https://www.docdroid.com/6LPnGpt/bell-ah-1f-cobra-attack-helicopter-operators-manual-pdf how would you go about finding current contact details for whichever authority now controls this "older" document, using only public sources, without the document's identifiers and without being asked why you want / need to know let alone contacted them in the first place? As explaining why concisely might be a little awkward, assuming they even give you the time of day.

 

In short I think it's an awful waste of time of people that I'm certain have better things to be doing than answer the same question about the same slew of documents "Internet" documents that the people that could actually take advantage of the information already have it, as they have been out there for years at this point and I personally doubt that the relevant authorities are completely unaware, considering that a number of "questionable" documents and resellers / achieves are but a basic google search away, let alone where a portion of the DTIC's own pubic archives are re-hosted alongside other submitted documentation (https://archive.org/details/dticarchive?tab=about), which blurs the lines.

 

I could for example have linked NAVAIR 01-110HC-1T (1986) which of course states that it is unclassified and doesn't appear have Distribution Restrictions but without a disclaimer anywhere how do I know.

 

 

Edited January 18 by tripod2008

[MiG_23M 1,593]

3 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Not all archives come with a sperate or previewable titlepage / Item identifier / distribution statement so would involve transmission / receiving a copy of the whole document in order to determine that in the first place and so xxxx you over before you began since as a PDF you get the whole document with no way around that fact. And on top of that just becuse it's marked as a "Class A document" how would you know that it is, or at least isn't version a 3rd party modified of a still restricted document before knowing anything about the document in question especially going into the future if unlike Classification status, these Distribution Restrictions don't appear to be revised over time, but run in parallel to classification for whatever reasons. And ignorance isn't an excuse.

 

Take for example if I linked the AH-1F operator's manual from 2001 https://www.docdroid.com/6LPnGpt/bell-ah-1f-cobra-attack-helicopter-operators-manual-pdf how would you go about finding current contact details for whichever authority now controls this "older" document, using only public sources, without the document's identifiers and without being asked why you want / need to know let alone contacted them in the first place? As explaining why concisely might be a little awkward, assuming they even give you the time of day.

 

In short I think it's an awful waste of time of people that I'm certain have better things to be doing than answer the same question about the same slew of documents "Internet" documents that the people that could actually take advantage of the information already have it, as they have been out there for years at this point and I personally doubt that the relevant authorities are completely unaware, considering that a number of "questionable" documents and resellers / achieves are but a basic google search away, let alone where a portion of the DTIC's own pubic archives are re-hosted alongside other submitted documentation (https://archive.org/details/dticarchive?tab=about), which blurs the lines.

 

 

That was a long winded way of saying "it might not be on the title page".

It's not a waste of someone's time to check inquiries like that, it's literally someone's specific job. There are more than enough people on the forum with access to this stuff to stop by and happen to see someone wants to know these things, and I wouldn't mind when I find time.

[tripod2008 565]

29 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

it might not be on the title page

Does that somehow make it not a crime to have received / taken possession the document at any point in time regardless of the source, if things were pushed I don't think it would stand up in court as a defense to say "I needed to obtain a whole copy of the document to ascertain whether or not it was legal for me to posses and peruse the document as I wish", especially with the way minimum sentencing seems to be everywhere the judge / panel / jury really doesn't care about the why of things only if the law was broken or not, and so their hands are tied should things go to trial and I doubt that the prosecution would offer a deal / bargain, as it would be unlikely that people caught up in this would be of any level of assistance in tracking down the "source" of these leaks, assuming that it isn't some attempt at Entrapment or Counter-Intel by the relevant organization.

 

On a separate note I personally have never really understood why exactly Classification ratings were not coalesced into Distribution R estrictions system / limitations as they seem to work in parallel not unison which seems to have massive potential to cause issues like these as the unclassified documents while I'm sure aren't exactly things you want floating around, but don't exactly reveal a lot about the substance especially at these lower grades as they aren't a "Need to know" thing as they would otherwise be controlled.

 

Another was that some documents (e.g. Provisional 1972 F-14A Flight Manual) had classified pages that were inline with unclassified ones instead of them being in a separate document so I have no idea exactly what would have been done about those IRL and it really did seem like a strange artifact of an earlier time.

 

 

Edited January 18 by tripod2008

[oom1992 613]

6 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Well the F-16C is the obvious answer, question is which block?

Block 25 and 30/32 are rather uninteresting (aside from improved engines) compared to the block 40/42 which were compatible with the LANTIRN targeting pod.

 

So I hope the block 40 or 42 is next.

Personal I think F-16C Block 40 might not come to this year event is interesting multirole fighter aircraft because developer not ready Air-to-Surface Standoff & subsonic cruise missile, guess developer might consider could add F-16A Block 15 OCU & F-16C Block 32

I was getting a little worried about F-16C Block 40 may be impacted of State Security ?

Edited January 18 by oom1992

[tripod2008 565]

1 hour ago, oom1992 said:

I was getting a little worried about F-16C Block 40 may be impacted of State Security ?

Not particularly, as it is still an F-16 so would theoretically be close enough to model closely by taking known values for prior variants and interpolating performance based on what characteristics we know were changed of the Block 25, 30/32, 40/42, 50/52 etc. But there certainly will be less info available about it so bug reporting things will be much harder as there are less valid primary sources, so things are probably going to be much more up to Gaijin to set the balance and pace of powercreep. Though with F-16.net's image archives and articles, ordnance selection is going to much easier as I would assume that many obstacles would be reduced due to a lack of conflicting info and photographic evidence.

 

1 hour ago, oom1992 said:

add F-16A Block 15 OCU & F-16C Block 32

At least for the US tree with potential access to so many capable Air to Ground options that saw service (e.g. F-4E/-G, F-111D/-E/-F, F-15E, A-10C, A-6E, F/A-18A/-C, F-14B/-D, ect.) I think that post block 30/32 F-16's aren't likely to appear for some time if they aren't skipped over for the F-35, and as the best performing(best overall T/W ratio) F-16's that entered service the Block -25 or 30 would be the strongest candidate for addition once early AMRAAM's propagate through the tech trees to provide a low end counterpart to the F-15A/-C as the F/A-18A/-C would be better as a foil to the F-14/B-D.

 

 

The only reason I could see for the US tree to get the -15OCU at this stage is that the next step for the F-16's is to roll the F-16A and -15ADF's ordnance options into a single Aircraft due to the performance of a theoretical -C-30/32 being to strong, or wanting to leave AMRAAM's in the back pocket for a later update / variant.

Edited January 18 by tripod2008

[MiG_23M 1,593]

1 hour ago, tripod2008 said:

Does that somehow make it not a crime to have received / taken possession the document at any point in time regardless of the source, if things were pushed I don't think it would stand up in court as a defense to say "I needed to obtain a whole copy of the document to ascertain whether or not it was legal for me to posses and peruse the document as I wish", especially with the way minimum sentencing seems to be everywhere the judge / panel / jury really doesn't care about the why of things only if the law was broken or not, and so their hands are tied should things go to trial and I doubt that the prosecution would offer a deal / bargain, as it would be unlikely that people caught up in this would be of any level of assistance in tracking down the "source" of these leaks, assuming that it isn't some attempt at Entrapment or Counter-Intel by the relevant organization.

 

On a separate note I personally have never really understood why exactly Classification ratings were not coalesced into Distribution R estrictions system / limitations as they seem to work in parallel not unison which seems to have massive potential to cause issues like these as the unclassified documents while I'm sure aren't exactly things you want floating around, but don't exactly reveal a lot about the substance especially at these lower grades as they aren't a "Need to know" thing as they would otherwise be controlled.

 

Another was that some documents (e.g. Provisional 1972 F-14A Flight Manual) had classified pages that were inline with unclassified ones instead of them being in a separate document so I have no idea exactly what would have been done about those IRL and it really did seem like a strange artifact of an earlier time.

 

 

If the holder of the document posts only the title page without revealing any confidential information and his interest is in determining the restriction level of the document it is perfectly legal to have received and taken possession of it as long as he destroys it as required depending on who's document it is and what their policy is should it end up being restricted.

 

I find the system to work quite well, it makes sense, and it keeps people who do not have access to secret, or top secret level data away from it.

 

 

[Prince_Mononoke 1]

17.01: F-16 https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/another-war-thunder-leak-player-reportedly-posts-restricted-f-16-documents
18.01: F-15 https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/two-days-two-leaks-sensitive-f-15-data-posted-by-war-thunder-fan
19.01: F-14 is waiting…

[Nostalgistic 310]

20 minutes ago, Prince_Mononoke said:

17.01: F-16 https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/another-war-thunder-leak-player-reportedly-posts-restricted-f-16-documents
18.01: F-15 https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/two-days-two-leaks-sensitive-f-15-data-posted-by-war-thunder-fan
19.01: F-14 is waiting…

And? How exactly is this contributing to this F-16 Falcon thread discussion?

 

Can we just move on? Everyone make mistakes.

Edited January 18 by Nostalgistic

[Prince_Mononoke 1]

2 minutes ago, Nostalgistic said:

И? Как именно это способствует обсуждению темы F-16 Falcon?

 

Мы можем просто двигаться дальше? Все делают ошибки.

Sorry, I was flipping through Aerotime and thought it was funny. I look at it in a humorous way, and this news will definitely popularize the game.

[Cairn_67 537]

15 hours ago, WolfOfWarThunder said:

Clearly the only solution here is for all of us to chip in and buy an F-16A. Then we will all meet with our tools and take it apart piece by piece till Gaijin bends the knee. Don’t forget hazmat suits for the Hydrazine bath. 

After a lotto jackpot or two you could probably buy one of Israel's F-16As.

 

[ÖL 594]

14 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Well the F-16C is the obvious answer, question is which block?

Block 25 and 30/32 are rather uninteresting (aside from improved engines) compared to the block 40/42 which were compatible with the LANTIRN targeting pod.

 

So I hope the block 40 or 42 is next.

Which of the blocks have the better engine? I mean like best of block 30 vs block 32?

 

Did both engines have the same requirements or were one of the "brand" of the engines clearly better?

Edited January 18 by zzoega

[spacenavy90 1,399]

2 minutes ago, zzoega said:

Which of the blocks have the better engine? I mean like best of block 30 vs block 32?

 

You can see this information in the first post of this thread under specifications > engines.

The block 30 and 40 used the General Electric F110-GE-100, while the 32 and 42 used the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220.

The F110-GE-100 on the block 30/40 is far superior in both thrust (mil and AB), and fuel consumption.

[ÖL 594]

18 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

You can see this information in the first post of this thread under specifications > engines.

The block 30 and 40 used the General Electric F110-GE-100, while the 32 and 42 used the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220.

The F110-GE-100 on the block 30/40 is far superior in both thrust (mil and AB), and fuel consumption.

Thank you, I was trying to understand it in the post but with no luck. Then I really hope we get the general electric engines

[loloigos1 0]

16 hours ago, ACOMETS said:

@spacenavy90  my country bought 80 F16 block 10s 40 years ago ( agh never received one!) so I guess we are a rightful owner of one.

just go to tuscan aircraft boneyard and take one, in, take plane, out, easy

[WreckingAres283 4,245]

2.23.0.70 changes (might not be live yet) :

• AN/APG-66 & 66J
  • PD "range": 35000.0, --> 45000.0,
• F-16A Block 20 MLU
  • Cockpit, new line:  "isDoubleBulletImpactLine": true,

 

[spacenavy90 1,399]

1 hour ago, WreckingAres283 said:

2.23.0.70 changes (might not be live yet) :

• AN/APG-66 & 66J
  • PD "range": 35000.0, --> 45000.0,
• F-16A Block 20 MLU
  • Cockpit, new line:  "isDoubleBulletImpactLine": true,

 

 

Interesting changes to the APG-66 radar.

Has anyone bug reported or does Gaijin know the MLU cockpit 3D model is wrong (currently copy pasted block 10, should be closer to F-16C)?

[[email protected] 193]

6 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

Interesting changes to the APG-66 radar.

should've been 50km...

[MiG_23M 1,593]

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

should've been 50km...

I guess he didn't see that comment
Perhaps we can work on getting TWS modeled and stuff?

[ACOMETS 960]

7 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

I guess he didn't see that comment
Perhaps we can work on getting TWS modeled and stuff?

Nope instead we are going to add another radar mode to Mig-29

[MiG_23M 1,593]

5 hours ago, ACOMETS said:

Nope instead we are going to add another radar mode to Mig-29

Totally useful sarcasm comments

[ACOMETS 960]

3 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

Totally useful sarcasm comments

poor @spacenavy90 did 90% of the research and shared the data with @_David_Bowie_ . devs had other priorities 

[MiG_23M 1,593]

21 minutes ago, ACOMETS said:

poor @spacenavy90 did 90% of the research and shared the data with @_David_Bowie_ . devs had other priorities 

Unfortunately their priorities may not match up with yours. It might not be as simple of an issue as you want it to be either. It may still come, you don't know.

[ACOMETS 960]

14 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

Unfortunately their priorities may not match up with yours. It might not be as simple of an issue as you want it to be either. It may still come, you don't know.

Parallel development could have been achieved , there is almost no development on F-16 front .

Edited January 20 by ACOMETS

[MiG_23M 1,593]

14 minutes ago, ACOMETS said:

Parallel development could have been achieved , there is almost no development on F-16 front .

A bug report was made, the radar range was improved very quickly after. Simple fixes come quickly, more complex stuff waits its turn in the list of priorities. 

[ÖL 594]

So do you guys think the f16 will eventually get TWS? And do you thi k the israeli one will ever actually become a Netz variant or will it just stay as an f16a copy paste with less armament?