The point is that the implementation on the dev server assumes the option was exercised (Not that it wasn’t) as the study asserts that otherwise there is a need to slew the radar to the HMD’s LoS first, before SEAM takes over.
So things are actually backwards from how they should be even though it is obvious that the F-16 has both capabilities and the actual actioning depends on the the setting of the relevant SEAM related switches
It’s mentioned on page #11 [PDF #14] of the study.
The relevant VTAS pages prove that there is historical evidence that the capability to optional select either system to interface with existed, they are after all now asking about systems that are actually in active service so it should be expected that a lower bar for implementation should be accepted.
There isn’t absolute proof, that US Airframes couldn’t be refit to carry them. As there are Client nations that use the F-16C that do / did, [ Iraq, Egypt, Bahrain, and Singapore] and that the refit is non standard as Sparrows do not show up in any of the documentation that is available online relating to other nation’s F-16C’s of similar vintage.
Could the Have Glass V F-16CJ (2010) that has been presented carry Sparrows, without modification? Almost certainly not, as there would be no need to be able to upload and fire stores that are no longer in stock considering the AMRAAM exists.
Also if you take a look at the following excerpt note how it mentions carriage by user counties F-16C/D , where it directly mentions the Block F-16A/B-15ADF in US service.
So should the US F-16C get access to AIM-7’s, No at least in my opinion as it isn’t accurate to the USAF Airframes (outside the F-16A/B-15ADF which is already present in the tech tree for this explicit reason).
If it did though assuming that the AIM-9M wasn’t being added they should be at least be able to be carried by the AMRAAM capable stations, of which they had been test fitted to which is apparent good enough for ordnance in some cases.
Well, “There isn’t absolute proof, that US Airframes couldn’t be refit to carry them” is kind of… You know, applicable to any plane and missile. Like, R-73 can be installed on F-16C if the latter gets an upgrade
Anyone know of a source I can share here that explains the elevation marks of the HUD? I know the longer one in the middle is for 0° elevation and that each of them are spaced 10° apart, but I can’t find a doc that I can use for a bug report.
Very glad to hear that the F-16’s will no longer turn like a brick compared to every other plane.
The new F-16C looks very promising too, especially if the rumors of Fox3/AMRAAM coming later this year are true.
Well it depends on a lot of factors, one doesn’t simply out-rate the other. They have different acceleration depending on speed, one has improved T/W over the other at lower vs higher speeds. It’s not a simple “this one is better”. If you want that, you’ll need to look at factors other than sustained turn rate.
In the future, all F-16s coming after block 50 will have worse sustained turn rates, maneuverability.
Peak sustained turn rate varies depending on airspeed, one could be better at a certain speed and the other is better at a higher or lower speed… what’s so difficult to understand
