I’d go the other way around, early '00s Block 42s were given -229Ds that push higher installed thrust than the -129s. If we had that alongside the initial CG-40 with LANTIRN and a 110-100 while the higher-BR CM-42 was granted the exact same spec as the current CM-52 PoBIT (which honestly is worse than the CM-42 PoBIT iterations), we’d be set for the CG lineup.
It is good to note that they were -167v3s, which are VERY different from the initial ALQ-167. Originally they were simply loaded with data cartridges and transmitted preset signals to simulate enemy radar effectiveness, but with the v3 they were given full DRFM capability.
Sniper doesn’t function alongside HTS.
We at the 112FS still run Litening G4s, as I’d imagine you guys do as well (or at least the AT). We obviously don’t have HTS, but Litening G4s are the only pod in modern supply that still interface with the WAR HUDs.
2 Likes
Technically, among so many TGPs that have been integrated into F-16:
Lantirn, LITENING II, LITENING AT, LITENING G4
SniperXR and maybe some other subversions
How would you rank them from the best to the worst?
(yeah Lantirn is a bit outdated)
I’ve only ever ran with LITENING G4 and SniperXR, but had very limited time with the Lantirn. I’d say it’s the lowest of the low, but the IR integration on the HUD is nice as a novelty function.
LITENING G4 and SniperXR are somewhat comparable in feel. Sniper, being far newer, does have a good leg over the litening for multitasking though.
1 Like
Litening III targeting pod equivalent ?
Domestic USA & USA Allies aircraft equipped Litening AT pod
Maybe the first 4th gen targeting pod
Better, AT is a modernization of III. Overall it’s:
II → ER → III / AT → G4 / SE → LA.
To this day I believe Shaw is the only place to get the LA models, and that’s just for field testing in red flag events.
1 Like
how does LA compare to Litening 5?
Pretty much worse, I’d call it more similar to the SE.
V is more so an electronic upgrade granting it better cueing capability with multiple target tracking. Video processing is worse than LA, its graphics processor is worse, image stabilization is slightly worse (more comparable to AT), fidelity over range is worse than the LA, and overall contrast is supposedly worse than the LA.
The LA can mount a MMW radar because the entirety of it was made larger, the V can’t as it’s still the original pod’s dimensions.
1 Like
I’m not 100% sure if Sniper indeed cannot mesh/function with HTS cause we frequently run both HTS and Sniper at the same time. This is the first time in a good 3 or more years I’ve seen our birds with any kind of Litening pod.
Ik you guys at the 112th have Block 42’s and ofc we at the 157th are I’m pretty sure still the only front line (non test/FMS Training/or demonstration) unit with Block 52’s (Gunsmoke go brrrr lol). That being said I’m not sure what kind of upgrades y’all got for your jets in recent years. Ik y’all have at least M5+ or M6+ OCP Block 42 CCIP’s (last I checked) but it’s entirely possible our birds have different equipment than yours that makes it possible to run both simultaneously. We had our unnamed CJ/CM specific upgrade program back in 2020 that gave us SABR and some of the other stuff for testing/better operational lethality that eventually made it’s way into POBIT for the rest of the Air Force in 2022. I know the SEAD birds typically get a little extra attention and love when it comes to upgrades so I’m uncertain of wether or not it is indeed a issue of compatibility or wether it was just that’s what better fit the mission requirements. Unfortunately I don’t think I’ve seen any document (at least that I can remember) that says one way or the other (aka it can or cannot function together).
1 Like
Being in a CG squadron we almost never touch the HTS, though from what I remember Sniper lacks HTS line of bearing authority and many other data seeding functions that litening has. I think it has to do with the fact that Sniper wasn’t designed to interface completely with the 1553 bus in mind, so some features are inoperable.
The last full upgrade package we received that wasn’t incremental was M8.3. To my knowledge most other 16CM ANG units were being pushed to 8.3 from 2019 onwards, so I’d imagine you guys have it as well.
It did add capabilities that made HARMs and other ARAD weaponry far more functional without HTS seeding, but that still doesn’t change the Sniper’s inability to fully utilize the HTS.
It technically is named, but again, most states’ ANG squadrons ride the incremental upgrade struggle bus. We only recently got the ARC-210 Gen 6 suite, which is pretty funny given that was pushed out in one of the M7 iterations. I can’t imagine what bullshit you guys have going on.
Gotta say though, I thank you guys for your spider harnesses!
1 Like
I do love the CG’s though. Definitely very high on my wishlist of 16’s (I still would love one of the Arizona Tailed UAE Block 60’s as well)
Spoiler
I wish we had one with GBU-27’s in the game (bye bye Iraqi bunker!). The Night Falcons are fun and definitely underrated/underrepresented in games.
Yeah, again as you said it’s all over the place what state, squadron, or even jet sometimes has what at this point. With the Lockheed plant in Greenville, SC being the one that they build the 16’s at now it can be very easy for us to get the “latest and greatest” so to speak.
Yeah that tracks with about where I figured everyone would be at this point. Again I’m glad the Night Falcons are getting some love. We typically are one of the first to get the new stuff but I’m not certain which things we have it’s getting hard to keep up.
Oh yeah for sure. At least we aren’t the Army then we’d really be on the struggle bus 😂
1 Like
I’m still crying over the fact that a CJ was chosen over the obviously superior CG alternative… But a desert falcon would be beautiful. I’m still jealous of the whole “it’s too costly to put ABRs into our falcons” thing.
I’m just glad we got a Swamp Fox jet in general tbh. I thought it was gonna end up being an event vehicle if it got added at all because it’s a Block 52 and the only frontline unit that has them 🥲.
I’m sure with new ranks we’ll get more variants of things.
I’ve said it somewhere else and included more countries (I think one of the Rumor around Up’s)
I’m hoping for the US we get a Block 40 or 42 CG Night Falcon (Triple Nickel immediately comes to mind for the Block 40)
the F-16XL
Arizona Block 60 Desert Falcon (Falcon Eye among other things like SLAM that they run would be hilarious especially with that GE-132)
Block 30 (Aggressor schemes would be fun)
and of course the F/A-16 from ODS over with the Boys From Syracuse.
1 Like
I want gaijin implemented Litening AT for F/A-18C MLU 2, F/A-18A+ (USMC) and F-16CM Block 52
Litening Large Aperture (LA) targeting pod maybe 5th gen targeting pod
Is that the same with IVEWS or Viper Shield?
IVEWS seems to have new antennas for both the “Beer Can” receivers on the wings, and the receivers on tip of the fin
Viper Shield probably still uses the same antennas for its DRWR system as ALR-69A. L3Harris were already the manufacturer for those sub-assemblies on ALR-69A
The antennas on e.g. Bahrain, Taiwan, Slovakia etc. Block 70s, don’t look different to how things were on the Block 50/52+ with ALR-56M. Which is what the USAF replaced with ALR-69A on PoBIT within the same form/fit for the antenna fairings.
3 Likes
Semi off-topic (but related to what you’re saying): I really like the early design of the F404 exhaust petals.
Thanks, iirc IVEWS is only tested on Block50 atm?
AFAIK IVEWS use ALR39
1 Like