aircraft/loadouts General Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcon

[pieve 3,578]

                       Amrerican

 

                                                                            Hello everyone, I made this suggestion of the F-16 I hope you like it because it took a lot to do this 

General Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcon

 

 

History of the great F-16 project:

Spoiler

 

The early years

The prototype YF-16 (# 72-1567) was launched in Fort Worth on December 13, 1973 and airborne by the C-5A to Edwards AFB on January 8, 1974. Its first flight was a short jump unintentional around the standard on January 21, 1974 at the hands of test driver Phil Oestricher.

John G. Williams, structural engineer of flight tests at YF-16, recalls:
During the first high-speed taxi test, a violent lateral oscillation was established as a direct result of pilot-driven oscillations (several maximum left / right commands) when the airplane reached spin speed (~ 120 kt). Remember, this was the first plane to have a fixed lever, and there was no opportunity for Phil to notice the plane until the high-speed taxi test. When the nose of the aircraft rose, the tail inadvertently scraped the trail. The left-hand missile and the static probe of the right tail also came in contact with the runway slightly. Phil decided to take off because the bird had begun to divert to the left side of the lane, and he came across plowing the desert or flying. Luckily he chose to fly and possibly saved the entire program. After taking off, Phil regained control and stayed awake for six minutes and landed uneventfully. Before the next flight, the arm sensitivity was reduced by 50% with the gear reduction. Later, after complaints of insufficient sensitivity, he returned to the original. "

The first scheduled flight was delayed until a new right stabilizer could be installed. It eventually took place on February 2, 1974, again with Phil Oestricher at the controls. It reached 400 mph and 30,000 feet.

 

The 2nd YF-16 prototype, seen with a load of 4 Sparrows. Given the absence of a radar (note the pointy nose; later to be enlarged to accomodate the radar), this configuration seems a bit odd.

The first prototype YF-16, 72-1567, during a test flight, March 1973. Edwards Air Force Base is visible under the airplane’s left wing. (Lockheed Martin)

 

YF-16 no 2 (#72-1568) was flown for the first time on May 9th, 1974 with test pilot Neil Anderson at the controls.

On two occasions during these early test flights, the F100 engine went uncommanded idle while in flight, forcing a dead-stick landing. Temporary flying restrictions were imposed on the YF-16 until the problem could be corrected. The fault was traced to contamination of the fuel-control valve which caused the valve to jam in the idle position, but while the curbs were in effect, the YF-16 had to remain within dead-stick landing distance of the airfield.

 

A YF-16 and a YF-17, flying side-by-side, armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

 

The flyoff between the YF-16 and the Northrop YF-17 began as soon as flight testing started. The two YF-16s reached speeds of over Mach 2.0, maneuvers achieving 9g, and altitudes above 60,000 feet. Although the YF-16 was designed for 6.5g at full internal fuel, 9g capability at reduced fuel loads and non-critical mach/altitude combinations allowed the YF to easily demonstrate the advantages of the higher g in air combat and to verify the effects of the 30 degree inclined seat. There was an attempt to get as many pilots as possible to fly both the YF-16 and YF-17. The Lightweight Fighter prototypes never flew against each other, but they did fly against all current USAF fighters as well as against MiG-17s and MiG-21s that had been "acquired" by the USAF.

 

Air Combat Fighter

Within the Air Force team, there was a strong institutional bias against the LWF, once they realized that it was a threat to the F-15 program. To avoid some of these suspicions, the program was renamed Air Combat Fighter (ACF) by the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway have begun considering possible substitutes for the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter. They formed the Multinational Fighter Program Group (MFPG) to choose the successor. The main candidates were Northrop YF-17, Dassault Mirage F.1, SAAB JA37 Viggen and General Dynamics YF-16. The ACF contest winner would probably be the favorite candidate, but the MFPG wanted to see if the USAF would buy the plane before making a decision. These countries wanted a USAF decision until December 1974.

Meanwhile, some US Navy officials were expressing interest in a low-cost alternative to the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, which at the time was experiencing serious initial problems and suffering from a number of surplus costs. This program came to be known as VFAX. A blatant version of the Tomcat (called F-14X) was proposed by Grumman, but was summarily rejected by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. On May 10, 1974, the House Armed Services Committee dictated that the VFAX would have to be a brand new aircraft, but apparently having forgotten the sad experience with the F-111, they wanted the USAF and the Navy to basically buy the same plane. . However, the Navy (unlike the Air Force) wanted the VFAX to be able to fill the air-to-air and ground attack roles.

In August 1974, Congress raised money for the VFAX and diverted it to a new program known as the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF), and determined that the aircraft would make the most of the USAF LWF / ACF hardware and technology. It would basically be a navalized LWF / ACF. However, most Navy officers were solidly committed to the F-14 and did not want anything with the VFAX or the NACF. However, Congress was insistent, and in September 1974 the Navy announced that it would select a single contractor to initiate NACF engineering development and solicited industry proposals. In response to this request, on September 27, 1974, General Dynamics announced that it would join Ling-Temco-Vought (also located in Dallas / Fort Worth) to propose a YF-16 based NACF project. The navalized YF-16 should have BVR radar, which was not part of the original planning of an F-16 USAF. If both the Air Force and the Navy chose the YF-16, General Dynamics would be the Air Force's top contractor and LTV would be the navy's main contractor. However, in retrospect, since both contractors were located in the same state, there was little likelihood of receiving a contract.

In October 1974, Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger announced that he was considering the production of the ACF contest winner to meet USAF, Navy and export requirements. Until that time, the LWF / ACF program had been largely an academic exercise for the USAF. The design emphasis would now be changed to that of a multifunctional aircraft. This would complement rather than complement the F-15 Eagle in the USAF service, somewhat relieving Air Force fears that the ACF would somehow deflect its Eagle program. The LWF's production form (now strictly known as ACF in Department of Defense press releases) would have a larger radar antenna, giving the aircraft some BVR capability. The USAF announced plans to buy 650 ACFs, with the possibility that this order could be increased to 1400 or more. This move was designed to assure potential NATO customers that the USAF would be firmly behind the new fighter.

 

YF-16 selected as the winner of the ACF contest

USAF YF-16A prototype, #01568 in a blue and white camouflage scheme

 

On January 13, 1975, Air Force Secretary John McLucas announced that the YF-16 had been selected as the winner of the ACF contest. The Air Force placed a contract for fifteen FSD (Full-Scale Development) airframes. Both single- and two-seat versions would be built, with the single-seater being designated F-16A and the two-seater F-16B. The reason given by the Secretary for the decision was the lower operating cost, longer range, and better transient maneuverability of the YF-16. Another advantage of the YF-16 over the YF-17 as far as the Air Force was concerned was the fact that the F100 turbofan of the YF-16 was the same powerplant as that of the F-15, and it was felt that buying more of these engines would advance the cause of the fighter that it REALLY wanted, the F-15. Political considerations also played a role, since with the F-111 program coming to an end, General Dynamics of Fort Worth needed the F-16 order to stay in business.

 

YF-16 And YF-17 Parked At Edwards AFB

 

The first flight of the YF-17 occurred on 6 June 1974 at Edwards AFB, California. The second YF-17 flew on 21 August 1974. While never flown head-to-head, the YF-16 and YF-17 went through the same highly structured evaluation process during the competition.

 

In the meantime, the F-16 still remained one of the contenders for the NACF order. One proposal from General Dynamics was for a single-seat naval fighter based on the two-seat F-16B but with the space ordinarily occupied by the rear seat being used for increased avionics or fuel. On May 2nd, 1975, the Navy announced that they had decided not to buy the navalized F-16, but opted instead for an aircraft developed from the YF-17, which was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet.

In February of 1975, the NATO consortium was offered the F-16 at a unit flyaway cost of 5.16 million dollars, based on a total production run of 2,000 planes for the USAF, NATO, and other countries. At the same time, the US government announced that it had cleared F100 engine technology transfer to these countries.

 

YF-16 No. 2 Debut

 

The second YF-16 sported a blue and white camouflage scheme during the lightweight fighter competition. The second YF-16 was delivered to Edwards on 27 February 1974. Neil Anderson was at the controls of the first flight of the aircraft on 9 May 1974. The aircraft was later painted to a red, white, and blue scheme similar to YF-16 No. 1.

Spoiler

YF-16 No. 2 Com F-4 Phantom II

During the flight evaluation for the lightweight fighter competition, six pilots flew the YF-16. They conducted subsonic and supersonic AIM-9 launches, fired more than 12,000 rounds of 20mm rounds from the internal gun, and dropped ten Mk-82 2,000-pound bombs from the YF-16.

Spoiler

The YF-16 No. 2 issued by Edwards AFB in June 1974.

BAF airshow Brustem in July 1977.

 

Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway are

Neil Anderson's belly landed the second prototype on the grass in front of GD on May 8, 1975 while doing a practice show before Paris. On takeoff, he made what was then a unique maneuver ... almost when the wheels left the ground, the gear was pedaled, the aircraft was placed in a 270 degree bearing, and immediately placed in a 9g turn. Unfortunately one of the tires was slightly unbalanced, and this combined with the abnormal torque in the gear being on a roller caused one of the main gear tires to jam on a ledge when it got into the wheel well.

Neil had no choice but to put the wheels up and put them on the floor, right in front of thousands of GD employees and their families. He was not injured, but damage to the hand-built prototype was too expensive to repair.

According to John Williams:
"Neal's landing was more embarrassing than usual." The day before, during an aerial practice show, the landing gear struck a small holder on the wheel and knocked him down.No one thought much about the reason, but they were worried especially in preventing that from happening again. "So, what did they do?" "Strengthen the armband, of course." Then, the next day, when the gear hit again on the bracket, she leaned against it. for a longer time and try to release the equipment but ran out of fuel. A little over 5 gallons were found in the tanks after the landing. There was a USAF KC-135 sitting at the end of the runway on alert with engines running but was not authorized to take off because he was overweight.It probably did not matter because the equipment was well attached to the support. "

However, in May 1975, the first YF-16 made its first transatlantic flight for a sales tour to its potential NATO customers, and made an appearance at the Paris Air Show. On June 7, 1975, armed with the assurance of a USAF commitment to the type, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway announced that they had agreed to acquire the F-16 as a replacement for the F-104G. A total of 348 were in the initial production contract. In its new form, the F-16 offered more new technology, superior performance and a more attractive offset production package than any of its competitors. Initially, there was some criticism of the lack of BVR and all-weather capability of the F-16, as well as some concern with the performance issues that the F100 engine was encountering at the time.

The 2nd prototype aircraft was taken to the Paris Air Show in 1975. This picture was taken in June, just before the Air Show, at Bitburg AB Germany. (Lt. Col. L. Danner)

The First Four. YF-16 Nos. 1 and 2 parked with the first two full-scale development F-16s.

 

source:

Spoiler

http://www.avia-it.com/act/la_tecnica/la_tecnica_di_ieri/Tecnica_ieri_2016/Seg_art_giu_16/What_A_Wonderful_Airplane_YF_16_First_Flight.pdf

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2017/February 2017/0217lightweigh.pdf

 

 

The F-16 is a plane to Dogfight par excellence. Combines small size with admirable acceleration, ramp ratio and cornering performance; has maneuverability features that allow it to execute violent maneuvers without major concerns for the pilot; and both can incorporate new equipment for alternative actions as it absorbs major structural changes in order to explore other forms of flight control. this all increases your chances of success in air-to-air and air-to-surface missions. High perfection in combat was achieved by combining an extremely powerful and lightweight impeller with a sleek incorporating numerous aerodynamic innovations, new cockpit and flight control systems.

 

The USAF light fighter project, whose origins date back to the Vietnam War, officially began in April 1972. The high American losses in Southeast Asia resulted in part from the fact that none of its planes engaged in the fight were skirmishing in close combat against the small and agile Mig, Republic F-105 and General Dynamics F-111 had been designed for nuclear attacks, while the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom was originally a naval fighter aircraft of the fleet, operating missiles of medium range. Even armed with a cannon and fitted with flaps at the leading edge - which gave it greater maneuverability - the F-4 Phantom's victory ratio turned out to be insignificant on enemy fighters.  In order to cope with this situation, the American designers adopted, in the next generation of fighters, a technology not yet accessible to the Soviet Union.

 

The firts operational F-16 unit was the 388th TFW, which was tasked with training the firts operational F-16 pilots for USAF and NATO. Each of the 388th's squadron's is represented in this formation, with each aircraft carryling a different ordnance load. ( USAF)

 

 

Hard choice

First, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, equipped with a Pratt & Whitney F-100 turbine of 10,807 kg of thrust, was flown on August 27, 1972. It was a machine based on modern technology of F-4, capable of flying from Da Nang in South Vietnam to Hanoi in the north, to dump its auxiliary tanks and, thanks to the thrust / weight ratio (of approximately 8.0) and low wing load, surpass any Mig performance. The F-15 Eegle also operated at night and under any weather condition due to the use of a very advanced radar; his armament included semi-active AIM-7 Sparrow missiles (radar-tracked). Still, the McDonnell Douglas hunt was not the ideal airplane. Easy to identify at a distance and costly, the F-15 Eagle would need many victories, in combat under numerical inferiority, to justify its choice.

 

An air-to-air right side view of USAF F-16A block 5 #78-0025 from the 34th TFS carrying an AIM-9J Sidewinder missile during exercise Boarder Star '81 held at Holloman AFB on March 1st, 1981. [USAF photo]

 

Studies have indicated that the technological sophistication of this aircraft would not compensate for the greater amount of Soviet fighter aircraft. In addition, the United States had delayed the development of its high firepower and air-to-air missiles, and the USAF did not allow for changes in combat rules that required visual identification of the target, sophisticated weapons. The decision was to start exploring the various technologies that could be used in a future light hunting. To that end, in April 1972. the US Air Force selected General Dynamics and Northrop, authorizing each to develop two prototypes. The first, designated GD YF-16, left the hangar in Forth Worth in December 1973 and took off on February 2, 1974; in May of that year, the second prototype of the YF-16 was also ready. Northop competitors (YF-17) flew in early June and in August 1974.

 

82-0914 / TJ General Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcon cn 61-507 US Air Force RAF Alconbury 21 Ju l85. Alconbury USAF Air Tattoo 1985. Operated by the 401st TFW based at Torrejon near Madrid in Spain.

 

USAF F-16A block 5 #78042 banking over Hill AFB equipped with only a pair of AIM-9 missiles on January 17th, 1980. [Photo by SMSgt Phil Lewis]

 

The general idea adopted by the two companies was to produce a low-cost, lightweight lightweight fighter that would incorporate major advances in terms of continuous curves, acceleration and climb rate. The harrow should not present dangerous driving characteristics in tight corners or at high angles of attack; the pilot needed to have an excellent field of view and a cockpit designed to provide good G-tolerance. As a basic weapon, the aircraft would carry only one M61 Gatling cannon and two AID-9 Siderwinder missiles.

 

Visibility of the Pilot

The design approaches of the two companies were quite similar in some respects. Both endowed their bubble-bonnet airplanes, following the tradition of the F-86 Saber, and accepted the downside of aerodynamic drag for better visibility back. General Dynamics went further than Northrop: fudged bonnet and windshield in one piece, eliminating the blind angle caused by the frame.

Both designs received high G force cockpits, with a higher inclination of the seat backs and higher rudder pedals (an idea already used in the British Spitfire, which had an extra pair of pedals for combat). Again, General Dynamics moved ahead of the competitor by putting the seat of its YF-16 with a 30 degree tilt and a sideways-mounted stick instead of the conventional stick. This provided the pilot with a right arm support during the maneuvers.

 

USAF F-16A block 5 #78039 based at Hill AFB seen at the open house held at Skrydstrup AB on August 10th, 1980.

USAF F-16A block 15 #83-1105 belonging to the 68th TFS is staionned at his home base under a light cloud cover.

 

General Dynamics adopted a Pratt & Whitney F-100 turbofan, similar to the F-15 Eagle, for propulsion of its device, believing that a single turbine would result in a smaller, lighter, less expensive aircraft. Northop, a traditional manufacturer of birreators (the F-5 and T-38, for example), opted for a pair of General Electric YJ101 impellers, 6,712 kg of thrust, seeking competitiveness in weight and cost. The YJ101, slightly shorter than the F-100 (which allowed it to "hide" it behind the fuel tanks), also had the advantage of reducing post burner use by virtue of its more regular thrust characteristics (less variable ).

 

As no Mach 2 speed was required, the two companies opted for simple air intakes, designed to operate under high angles of attack, properly protected by the fuselage; General Dynamics located the only outlet on the underside of the plane, while Northrop placed its two outlets laterally under root extensions at the leading edge (also present on competitors' handsets).

 

Spoiler

F-16A Cockpit and instrument panel

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

(Specifications F-16 A Fighting Falcon)

Spoiler

 Version F-16 A  

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

Armament of the first versions of the F-16 only took only basic armaments

Spoiler

Features F-16A first basic version

Type: single combat fighter.
Propulsion: A Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan with afterburner and 10,807 kg of thrust.
Performance: Maximum speed (No load), 2,112 km / h or Mach 2; service ceiling, 18,290m or more; radius of operation, 1,102 km. (with six Mk.82 pumps of 227 kg on high and low mission), or 547 km (on mission at low constant altutide); reach of transfer, 3,565 km.
Weight: Empty, 6,865kg; gross for air superiority, with two to four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, 10,800 kg; takeoff, 14,966 kg.
Dimensions: Wingspan, 10.01m (with AIM-9 missiles) and 9.45m (without missiles); length, 14.52m; height, 5.01m; wing area, 27.87sqm.
Weapon: An M61A-1 20mm cannon with five hundred shots; up to 6,893kg of bellicose **** (conventional bombs, rockets, 4x AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, etc.) into nine brackets.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

source:

Spoiler

https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16-Supplement.pdf

https://pt.slideshare.net/matheusgaldino355/usaf-flight-manual-f16

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/F16S04.pdf

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=22

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament.html

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by pieve

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[Kalonian 46]

the F-16 is way too modern.  Gaijiin should focus on making the game balanced before going into more  and more modern aircraft.

 

i mean, jeez, there are still naitons missing helicopters and early supersonic planes of their own.  And now you want to add a 1979 aircraft to a lpane with aircraft from the 1950's and earlier?

[RanchSauce39 397]

 

Its not clarified which exact F16 variant is being suggested here? ( You offer documentation mixed from F-16A and C)

 

They are vary in capabilities, especially when going from F16A to F16C. and also within  so when looking at specific follow on  F16 production blocks and  taking consideration  that there also exist enhancement in capabilities with  post production modernization's of F16 blocks, compared to the aircraft of their Initial date of adoption.

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html

 

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[RanchSauce39 397]

36 minutes ago, Kalonian said:

the F-16 is way too modern.  Gaijiin should focus on making the game balanced before going into more  and more modern aircraft.

 

i mean, jeez, there are still naitons missing helicopters and early supersonic planes of their own.  And now you want to add a 1979 aircraft to a lpane with aircraft from the 1950's and earlier?

 

 

yea the late model ones like the F16C block 50 especially way too modern with thier AMRAAM's and modern anti radiation misssiles and given the availability of  FLIR targeting pods. and various long stand off A/G precision guided munitions.

[pieve 3,578]

40 minutes ago, Kalonian said:

the F-16 is way too modern.  Gaijiin should focus on making the game balanced before going into more  and more modern aircraft.

 

i mean, jeez, there are still naitons missing helicopters and early supersonic planes of their own.  And now you want to add a 1979 aircraft to a lpane with aircraft from the 1950's and earlier?

If you stop to read, you will understand that this is not impossible. these new jets that are coming to the thunder of the war, will quickly reach Mach 2, and even more we are entering the era of vietnam war jets ...
and in the forum if you look right already have suggestion of the F-15 Eagle, F-14 Tomcat are much more superior than F-16 in several aspects, so it is much more plausible to come F-16 with the more basic version

[pieve 3,578]

19 minutes ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

and which exact F16 variant is being suggested here?

 

They are vary in capabilities, especially when going from F16A to F16C. and even more so when looking at Lat F16 production blocks and their post production modernizations 

If you read it right, you can see that it has the first version until the last, the suggestion is very detailed about F-16

 

20 minutes ago, RanchSauce39 said:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html

This site is in the source too, and it is very well detailed also in question about it

He even talks about his weapons too.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament.html

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

+1

[RanchSauce39 397]

 

22 hours ago, pieve said:

If you read it right, you can see that it has the first version until the last, the suggestion is very detailed about F-16

 

 

 

 

 

I did "read it right" and its only detailed with regards to its development history, and its initial adoption.  All in all the only variant that is detailed enough is the F-16A ( block 1 -15). however there is no general specification for the F16A.

 

Just because you copy pasted specification from wikipedia regard F16CBlock 50, doesn't make it detailed with regards to the block F16C family let alone block 50. ( all to convenient becuase it was on Wikipedia eh?)

 

 

 

22 hours ago, pieve said:

 

 

This site is in the source too, and it is very well detailed also in question about it

He even talks about his weapons too.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament.html

 

 

 

 

Yes And those weapons dont all apply to the same blocks. and the avionics suites differ.

 

F16A wont be using Sparrows unless its the ADF or MLU ( latter is export upgrade only).  AGm184 harpoon anti shipping missile would only apply to F16C block 30/32 or later.  Laser guided bombs wont be used for self designation unless its the F16C block 40/42 or later with its Lantirn targeting pod. F16 wont have GPS guided bombs until F16C block 50/52 and retrofit of GPS unit via modernization of earlier blocks.

 

Again  the capabilities and weapons widely vary on the model.

 

F16A block 1-15 is only carrying Aim9 sidewinders and  is largely reliant on unguided munitions.  It has older cockpit and does not have any targeting pods. The AN/APG66 radar is more limited than the AN/APG68  and has less operating modes.

 

 

 

 

F16A ADF is updated  AN/APG66 radar to include compatibility for Aim7 Sparrow and can equip and use that Missile for intercept.

 

F16A MLU is a modernization for export customers,  and some for USA essentially upgrades F16A to F16C avionics ( Glass cockpit)  a  further updated An/APG66 radar ( but not the AN/APG68 like on the F16C)

 

 

F-16C Block 25 + ( glass cockpit),  new AN/APG68 radar, which has Track whilst scan . It  has ability track 10 air targets at a time whilst actively  scanning for other targets, as well as considerably better A/G mapping resolution.

 

image details differences below.

 

 

 

a video detailing difference with the introduction of the first F16C blocks.

 

 

 

  and across later blocks sees newer even more powerfull engines, newer guided muntions,  NEwer radars, targeting pods, and in post Gulf war era adoption of the AMMRAM, and various updates to the AN/APG68. ( V1-9)

 

in the  early 2000s F16C block 40/42 and 50/52's  go through CCIP upgrades. this means colour displays, digital HSI , integration of JHMCS, Aim9X,   SADL datalink ,  EGI, and JSOW glide bombs, and at this time replacement of the now aged  Lantirn TGP with Litening 2  TGP ( interim solution)  followed in the mid 2000s by the Sniper ATP.

 

 

 

Hoenstly the only aircraft from the F16 family  that isnt to technologically advanced right now would be the F-16A block 1- 15 models as they dont have any Fire and forget A/G munitions, and whilst it does have a search radar, it doesnt use radar guided missiles., however even these obviously would require much newer foreing contemporaries as it would still manage to whip late model mig21's like the BIS and still be able to easily come out against most MIg23 models (save for the MLD).

 

 

22 hours ago, pieve said:

I
and in the forum if you look right already have suggestion of the F-15 Eagle, F-14 Tomcat are much more superior than F-16 in several aspects, so it is much more plausible to come F-16 with the more basic version

 

Sure F16 might not be advanced the F15 or F14 tomcat ( in radar detection range or track as much targets)  and have in tomcats cas a longer extending missile.  but  considering as per your claim " suggestion Its for all " depending on the version will  have Aim120 AMRAAM , something the F15A and F14 never had, and can employ various standoff precsion  guided muntions neither had.

 

 

NO one is going to play ground forces if they are spammed by fire and forget AGM65 missiles from 5-12 miles away from the GF area,  , or have a GBu12 dropped down thier  turret roof  from 10,000 feet or if they have a glide bombs coming towards them from 50 miles out

 

This should be a suggestion about the F-16A block 1-15 ,(maybe F-16A  ADF or an early F-16C block 25)  Honestly  any later variant  is too much of a tech leap right now,   certainly too OP against ground forces at any point in time irregardless of how far other nations air forces progress.

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/generaldynamics/f-16falcon/to-1f-16a-1-flight-manual-f-16a-b-blocks-10-and-15.html
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/generaldynamics/f-16falcon/3513f-16afalconblock1-10standardaircraftcharacteristics-march1984.html
 

[pieve 3,578]

7 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

I did "read it right" and its only detailed with regards to its development history, and its initial adoption.  All in all the only variint that is detailed enough is the F-16A ( block 1 -15). however there is no general specification for the F16A.

 

Just becuase you copy pasted specification from wikipedia regard F16CBlock 50, doesnt make it detailed with regards to the block F16C family let alone block 50. ( all to convinent becuase it was on wikipedia eh?)

so you just read F-16C Block 50 specs that basically are in the source, it looks like you did not read either, and all your flight data is there

and another, the source of the wikipedia are the same data of speed and armament of the document

6 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/generaldynamics/f-16falcon/to-1f-16a-1-flight-manual-f-16a-b-blocks-10-and-15.html
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/generaldynamics/f-16falcon/3513f-16afalconblock1-10standardaircraftcharacteristics-march1984.html
 

Yes, those documents are also at the suggestion.

[Trotrodor 2,670]

Right after the f100 !!!!!??? c'mon are you serious ... there is a TON of vehicle between the F100 and the F16

Edited January 14, 2019 by Trotrodor

[pieve 3,578]

11 minutes ago, Trotrodor said:

Right after the f100 !!!!!??? c'mon are you serious ... there is a TON of vehicle between the F100 and the F16 

hahahaha you guys are cool, that does not mean it's going to be after the F-100. I'm saying it may come in the same line as the F-100, but it looks like we'll expect a lot of jets yet.
Problem that folks do not understand, that this is a F-16 suggestion, does not mean it will come so soon. this can take up to 1 year or even longer

[pieve 3,578]

500 rounds of ammunition were test fired from the General Eletric GPU-5/A (GEPOD-30) four barrel 30mm gun mounted in a pod on the centerline of an F-16A fixed to a test stand at Fort Worth. Gun was fired by remote contro. Flight tests with the pode are scheduled for 1984. (General Dynamics)

Spoiler

 

[Warlock_Leader 292]

1 hour ago, Trotrodor said:

Right after the f100 !!!!!??? c'mon are you serious ... there is a TON of vehicle between the F100 and the F16

Nah, thy have a lot to go through before they get there. They have to brave the consequences of the Vietnam War before they truly learn how to build the F-16. This means...

F-104

F-105

F-4

F-5

F-8

F-111

and then maybe, there's still variants of previous mentioned aircraft... maybe then they can get their F-16.

[RanchSauce39 397]

1 hour ago, pieve said:

so you just read F-16C Block 50 specs that basically are in the source,

 

 

 

Just because you spam sources in a suggestion thread and not actually write anything about it besides copy pasting general specs. Of s model doesn't mean it is adequate for all models. What about f16c block 25 block 30/32? Those were overlooked entirely.

 

 

You thread based on your own writingdid not go into detail about the f16c  besides posting general specs for the block 50 nor expand in the differeations between f16a and f16c let alone block versions within a and c models.

 

My generalized post did more to educate on added capabilities and differences in production than yours did.

 

 

1 hour ago, pieve said:

 

 

 

it looks like you did not read either, and all your flight data is there

and another, the source of the wikipedia are the same data of speed and armament of the document

 

 

It doesn't matter that wiki genral specs match information from  the block 50 fm. Your missing tjhe point. See earlier quote response.

 

Besides more importantly id further add thar if your intended to have a suggestion thread of all f16s then your polls are quite biased and not very fair

 

Because its forcing people to vote either yes or no.  ( i refuse to vote)

 

Someone could may well want  f16a block 1  through 15 or an f16 block 25 etc etc but not want a block 40/42 or a block 50/52. They may want only f16c blocks but not want f16a models.

 

Or they may not care for having the same plane with different engines. From those blocks. ( ie block 50 instead of block 52)

 

That should be reflected in the poll if ia meant to pertain to all f16s.

 

[pieve 3,578]

5 minutes ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

Just because you spam sources in a suggestion thread and not actually write anything about it besides copy pasting general specs. Of s model doesn't mean it is adequate for all models. What about f16c block 25 block 30/32? Those were overlooked entirely.

 

 

You thread based on your own writingdid not go into detail about the f16c  besides posting general specs for the block 50 nor expand in the differeations between f16a and f16c let alone block versions within a and c models.

 

My generalized post did more to educate on added capabilities and differences in production than yours did. 

Spoiler

but even so it will give the same thing, that hug. and another thing, I copied only the specification data from the F-16C Block 50.
So I put the sources, for Gaijin vascular the most suitable to enter the game

 

12 minutes ago, RanchSauce39 said:

It doesn't matter that wiki genral specs match information from  the block 50 fm. Your missing tjhe point. See earlier quote response.

 

Besides more importantly id further add thar if your intended to have a suggestion thread of all f16s then your polls are quite biased and not very fair

 

Because its forcing people to vote either yes or no.  ( i refuse to vote)

 

Someone could may well want  f16a block 1  through 15 or an f16 block 25 etc etc but not want a block 40/42 or a block 50/52. They may want only f16c blocks but not want f16a models.

 

Or they may not care for having the same plane with different engines. From those blocks. ( ie block 50 instead of block 52)

 

That should be reflected in the poll if ia meant to pertain to all f16s.

You must be a very rushed little boy.
This suggestion is being updated shortly, you have to be calm my little grasshopper

 

 

[VictorSubtil 5]

Too early to add her. F-16 is, of course, one of the most awaited aircraft by the comunity, but there are a lot of other  aircrafts in the same tech tree to be added first, like F-105, F-111, F-4, F-5, F-14, F-15, etc.

[_Sunshine 6]

NO, not right after the F-100 you dimwit!

There are many vehicles between the two that should be added first and BR would probably be around 13.0 because it's a 4th bloody generation jet!

But generally I support this suggestion and would like to see this bird in our game someday.

Edited January 14, 2019 by _Sunshine

[pieve 3,578]

8 hours ago, VictorSubtil said:

Too early to add her. F-16 is, of course, one of the most awaited aircraft by the comunity, but there are a lot of other  aircrafts in the same tech tree to be added first, like F-105, F-111, F-4, F-5, F-14, F-15, etc. 

Yes, I have the same thoughts as you, but just as I said this is a suggestion and it will be a while longer. But one thing is for sure, we're going to have Mach 2 speed jet in the game anyway.

 

4 hours ago, _Sunshine said:

NO, not right after the F-100 you dimwit!

There are many vehicles between the two that should be added first and BR would probably be around 13.0 because it's a 4th bloody generation jet!

But generally I support this suggestion and would like to see this bird in our game someday.

Why do you say I'm an idiot? You give me the right to say the same about you.

[LowfirE 75]

The book is on the table.

[Cpt_High_Ground 117]

+1 yas gib pls

[Gavin_Mactavish 943]

On 14/01/2019 at 04:31, pieve said:

If you stop to read, you will understand that this is not impossible. these new jets that are coming to the thunder of the war, will quickly reach Mach 2, and even more we are entering the era of vietnam war jets ...

A man can dream

Only took us 5 years to go to mach 1.....

Sure but not yet

Edited January 15, 2019 by Gavin_Mactavish

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

A few Pictures which might help modeling

Spoiler

 

[Trotrodor 2,670]

On 14/01/2019 at 14:05, pieve said:

hahahaha you guys are cool, that does not mean it's going to be after the F-100. I'm saying it may come in the same line as the F-100, but it looks like we'll expect a lot of jets yet.
Problem that folks do not understand, that this is a F-16 suggestion, does not mean it will come so soon. this can take up to 1 year or even longer

I know, but you modify yout pool name ;D, because there was a "right after the f100"

And I perfectly understand what is a suggestion but i know that if one day we get the f16 than it will open a whole world of crazy aircraft (even if it's the f15, f14 or i don't know which other...) #Mirage 2000 #Mig 31 #Rafale .... and so on ... probably a pandoras box to a new game : War thunder Call of battlefield edition 2025.