Fair.
What about it is inaccurate? F-16AM Block 20 MLU is as accurate as can possibly be.
Not saying you said such, you’re questioning an altercation between me and another person. I’m simply stating their view point.
If it was in US service, I’d agree. But as far as I know it had a different designation in ROCAF service, making it inaccurate when talking about Chinese F-16s. Just like how the Danes called the J 35 the F-35 (to use your earlier example), or the British called e.g. the P-40D the Kittyhawk Mk. I, etc.
Until Gaijin embraces multi-line designations and stops sticking with just one name, the operator’s designation should have a higher priority than the original nation’s or the manufacturer’s.
1 Like
And what did they designate it as?
I ended up using your data mines and forgot to credit you, but I also wanted to thank you for the contributions you’ve made to the War Thunder community. Your website was incredibly convenient to use in determining whether the F-16A MLU does in fact use large calibre countermeasures or not.
I might have worded that poorly, but I meant in-game. When selecting each split, they aren’t actually labelled, so since both are 30 large and 30 standard, you can’t determine which is which by the countermeasure count (unlike the Mirage 2000-5Ei).
Unless the order shown in the data mines reflects the order they appear in-game, I figured you’d have to test their effectiveness to determine which is the large-calibre set and which is the standard set
2 Likes
Most common I’ve seen is simply F-16A战斗机, sometimes specifying Block 20 (mainly after the purchase of Block 72), but not MLU.
The order should be the same, but test it to make sure.
2 Likes
The operator’s official designation for the aircraft is authoritative, as they bear full responsibility for it and are the ones actually operating it. Lockheed Martin only manufactures the aircraft. While Lockheed Martin is an authoritative source, it is ultimately the manufacturer, not the operator. The operator determines the designation used for the aircraft within its own service, while Lockheed Martin’s publications may use manufacturer or programme terminology that does not necessarily match the operator’s official nomenclature.
I haven’t found a single source that refers to the aircraft as the ‘F-16AM Block 20 MLU’. Would you mind providing a source, just as I did in my previous message to you?
Not trying to nitpick, but the F-16A Block 20 operated by the Republic of China Air Force never received MLU packages, at least to my understanding. It was built and delivered to the RoC with that standard already incorporated. If you’re referring to foreign operators, however, that’s still not true, as not all operators chose to upgrade their F-16As to the MLU standard.
MLU standard as in upgrades developed by the European Participating Air Forces
I also provided that source not for what the reporter had to say, but for the response from the bug report manager.
If you’re referring to the Viper modernisation, they actually don’t. That would be the F-16V, not the F-16AM. I haven’t been able to find any sources supporting that during my own research, would you mind providing one?
Stage 1, 2, and 3 for the F-16A Block 20 are non-official, academic designations used simply to distinguish between the three phases of F-16As operated by the Republic of China. According to a congressional hearing, the F-16A Block 20s operated by Taiwan initially lacked the ability to fire the AIM-120, likely due to a software limitation.
I’m pretty sure the Sharpshooter was a later modification introduced on Stage 2 F-16A Block 20s. Iirc, the initial Stage 1 aircraft didn’t have the ability to use the Sharpshooter.
Authoritative in the sense of being entirely accurate in that context. ‘MLU’ is commonly used within the defense industry and by analysts as a descriptive term, which is why I’m cautious about relying on descriptive sources (such as the one you’ve provided). While I acknowledge that one of my own sources could also be considered descriptive (the first source I provided), I also cited Lockheed Martin that clearly refer to the aircraft as the ‘F-16A/B Block 20’.
This source interestingly mentions both the European F-16 MLU upgrades and the RoC’s F-16A Block 20s
I don’t personally understand the need to include personal remarks, such as calling me ‘oblivious’. I’m not all knowing, so when I’m wrong, I’m open to being corrected. But the way this is being handled isn’t the right path. Just because I said lying requires intent doesn’t mean I’m going back on my own words; I’m simply reminding you that I don’t have a reason to lie and that if I made a mistake, that’s not a lie, but a mistake.
All I said was that descriptive sources such as the source you’ve provided (and it originally being the only source) should be taken cautiously, as ‘MLU’ is commonly used among F-16 operators in a non-official sense. I’ve gone through sources I’ve decided not to post here and haven’t found a single one that refers to the aircraft as either the ‘F-16AM Block 20 MLU’ or ‘F-16A Block 20 MLU’ (outside of one congressional hearing).
1 Like
For the Blk.52 specifically, it is insanely crazy that this thing shares the same BR with F-15C GE which not only has twice as much missiles but also a better radar. You would think that devs would let the BOL pods not being used with missile pylons slide, but no it doesn’t even get the countermeasures or maw to remedy the issues with the aircraft. At least superbug is (slow but) nimble enough to abuse angle gating mechanics…
I guess I’ll keep playing the Block 50 until developers decide it is Viper’s turn to have fun in top tier meta…
1 Like
This is just wrong on a basic level, you should know this
And more CM’s
The most fun I have with F-16s is with the 13.3 F-16A MLU or the Israeli F-16D/C with derby.
The MLU with some more CM’s over the ADF makes it bearable to play, and it’s a simple jet I find very rewarding to do well with against 13.7’s
F-2A is also very fun to play.
MLU was peak before the Su-30 premiums. Nowadays, i prefer having an HMD above 13.3 so i usually play the Block 50 more. And Block 5 or ADF is… very mediocre in my opinion since your early and mid game presence is very limited.
The F-16D has HMD and a lot of CM’s. Its nice at 13.3
Oh… i don’t have the Israeli TT unlocked so I wasn’t aware of it. I assume it will be fun with Derby missile.
And the FM isn’t as bad as people think
Tbf basically every 13.0+ FM is good enough at this point; a pilot who knows what they’re doing can outfight someone who doesnt almost regardless of matchup. Only exceptions being like, the KWS.
1 Like
At 13.3, the Kfir C10 is pretty garbage. F-14A is also bad. At 13.0 there are also bad FM’s
Once again, since you didn’t seem to catch the question that time, what about it is inaccurate?
By Danish records it’s noted as a “SAAB 35XD”, their service designations holding the standardized “F” prefix and whatever other additional duties it holds. It’s still a SAAB 35, and naming the F-35 “SAAB Draken” in-game while the Danish don’t widely designate it as “Draken” is in no way inaccurate.
The P-40D’s American domestic name was Warhawk. Both Tomahawk and Kittyhawk were endorsed export names by Curtiss-Wright. It would not be incorrect to call any possible P-40 in the British tree a Kittyhawk, as that was its official name by both the manufacturing nation and serving nation.
Third time now, can you explain to me how it would be incorrect, given that other anecdotal vehicles harbor names granted by both manufacturer and exporter, to call the F-16A Block 20 in Chinese service an F-16"AM" Block 20 “MLU”?
Multi-line designations? What do you mean?
So why is it then not named as F-16AM? They were built to the MLU standard, of which Gaijin listed that as its name. F-16V is also not the ROCAF’s official name for that aircraft, but Lockheed’s outward marketing label for Viper-standard F-16s.
So, once again, why strip down what we have instead of act to build up what could be?
Already provided, are you lost?
They received MLU standard Block 20s with their initial procurement order in late '92. They were to be newly produced airframe built to the standard of the currently developed upgrade package, of which they then added stipulations such as the radar mod and IFF.
Indeed it was, hence why it’s an MLU Falcon.
Who gives two shits about “all operators”? We’re talking about F-16s in ROCAF service.
Indeed, the MLU upgrade was endorsed and tested by EPAF nations. It’s a standard spec upgrade specifically tailored to European customers, though even now it’s been supplied to Jordan, Chile, Romania (I refuse to call Romanian European), Argentina, Pakistan, Thailand, and Indonesia with both new-builds and eMLU packages.
Lol, as if that’s from someone more credible.
I’ll probably come back for the rest, I’m tired and that’s a lot of stuff to respond through. If I’m taking too long, tag me or somethin
People sleep on Barak-II C but I think its the best F-16 model at 13.7.
You get tons of countermeasures, really good flight model with powerful GE engine and ability to mount both Aim-120/Derby for any situation.
Once again, did the Chinese designate it as MLU themselves? We’re talking about a vehicle in the Chinese tree, after all.
I was specifically pointing out how in Danish service it’s F-35, not J 35. The Danes don’t use the Jakt mission modifier, that’s a Swedish Air Force thing.
Similarly, I was specifically bringing that example up as the P-40D was designated Kittyhawk Mk. I in British service, not P-40D. Colloquially using “British P-40” is fine, but when we talk about exact designations, it’s not a P-40, it’s a Kittyhawk.
Are you talking about examples of the operator country changing or adopting designations down the line (e.g. Dutch F-16AM), or Gaijin fabrications? (e.g. “early” and “late” B.KhL.1K, or “early” AJS 37)
Examples
1 Like
I’m sold, gimme gimme gimme gimme
2 Likes