Also looking for GBU-53 on the F-16 I also found that they have also been tested with Harpoon too so that’s also possible.
Look, just to be clear: there is no technical limitation preventing this loadout. You know, the only real requirement for full functionality is using standard adapters, like the ADU-552, to interface the LAU-129 rail (which, let’s be honest, has been the standard for decades) with the pylon. Since the MIL-STD-1760 digital architecture is already in place, the SMS (Stores Management System) has everything it needs to communicate with the AIM-120D safely, without any risk of hardware damage or electrical conflict between the pylon’s sensors and the missile.
1 Like
Sure but then the issue then becomes if it would physically fit in the volume reserved to avoid interfering in a worst case emergency landing, or project into the dispensed countermeasure’s flightpath(from the PDISU’s magazines, which is why for chaff they use a standard MJU-11 bucket but Flares have their own design) and so cause self-interference, or have the fins of a mounted missile interfere with a Fuel tank, or other large store loaded next to it should the wings flex.
ADU-229/E, of wich the 830 shares a form factor with
I’d personally think that the ADU-830 (USAF don’t own any, only used by the AV-8B+ for their own AMRAAM capability) + modernized LAU-7 (MLR family) would be most likely used to allow for the potential retention of commonality with equipt ALE-53 units to be retained. Or just rawdog the LAU-128SE once that becomes available.
I don’t think spacing would permit a side by side dual rail, don’t forget the F-16 is smaller than the F-15 by a fair amount, and the F-15 doesn’t need to consider stores loaded on other wing stations in most cases.
1 Like
I’ll be the first to cheer if the PoBIT gets the 128SE to go with the PIDS+ but with the current standards of what is and what isn’t accepted as evidence, if there isn’t a picture of the PIDS+ mounted with a LAU-128SE then it won’t get past the tech mods and even if it somehow does, it will then have to get past the devs.
I’ve probably got enough evidence that a circumstantial argument could be made relating to the fact that since the LAU-117A/A is itself a STD-1760 store and carries Maverick Missiles, it’s already satisfied and that there is a case to be made for similar “STD-1553B” & “STD-1760” missiles such as the Sidewinder & AMRAAM since that station is already known to be cleared their use.
1 Like
6 Likes
Polish Air Force is upgrading their F-16C Block 52+ to F-16C Block 72 as part of the “Viper Mid-Life Upgrade”. I’m not quite sure, but it seems very similar to the PoBiT upgrade.
Polish Viper MLU program is already paid for and waiting for implementation. In the Foreign Military Sale documents it says, that Poland along with stuff like AN/APG-83 SABR radars, also bought:
three (3) Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), GBU53/B Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); eight (8) SDB II, GBU-53/B Captive Carry Reliability Trainers;
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2024/10/mil-241023-dsca01.htm
so atleast the GBU-53B integration is expected in Viper MLU program.
the question is, is PoBiT the same?
As the GBU-39 is already a UAI store, and the F-16 with either the M6 or M6+ tape is UAI Certified, the GBU-53 is basically just a drop in replacement on the BRU-61 once Airframe certification occurs.
Problem is that airframe is a F-16D Block 52, so would probably be rejected since similarly
“F/A-18E != F/A-18F”
https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/3819
But there are definitely other F-16s that have similar capability
more than kh38mt
1 Like
Yep
Yep
Hi since we got the PoBIT, the RWR on it (AN/ALR-69A(V) ) should have 360 degree coverage while in game it only got Front Rear ± 45 degree coverage which missing the top and bottom coverage right now.
Also the flare/chaff dispenser model on blk 50 and the blk 52 (PoBIT) are the same but in dev server it is set to 120 normal and 30 big + 60 normal is there any chance that those problem will be fixed?
1 Like
Bug report about it has been accepted so good chance we might see this
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4uMb6qUWosBV
Bug report about this was denied
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dd6On4B7gTwG
1 Like
2 Likes
Yeah a lot of waiting for this…
2 Likes
Its weird, I feel like they’re not commenting on this because its more of a balancing issue since we’re adding two more Aim120D. I think the devs are forgetting how they didn’t make the D good and how they gave su30 and typhoons 2 more missiles they shouldn’t really have. Gaijin, it’s an f16, give it two more missiles it won’t break the game like BMPT did. However maybe its because the bug report involves fixing other f16 and thats why…
3 Likes
I mean you’re not taking more AIM-120s than without the pylon it just would give you the same amount so I don’t see how it would be that bad of a balancing issue if anything this would be a positive thing as maybe it would be the increase in US win rate there looking for since no other top tier US aircraft (other than the strike aircraft) currently have a MAW.
1 Like
It will give the new F-16C a needed boost (more CMs and MAW) to actually stay at 14.3 and it would give both F-16AMs some actual upsides over the 13.7 F-16C to compensate for their downsides.
Seems like a win-win situation for 3 nations, I don’t see a single truely negative aspect for this change.
1 Like
Yeah the Norwegian F-16AM is in dire need of this change with its 45 internal CMs.
1 Like