Increase load on F16s/Migs

[Liquid_Cow]

I would not see a problem with all the fighters carring a single LGB under the fusulage, if possible.

...mongol...

Show us a picture of an F-16 carrying ordinance under the fusalage and I'd consider it, but I don't believe they ever do (fuel tank or jamming pod only).

[maverick551]

I would be completely satisfied with 4 Aim-9's and 2 Aim-120's and 2 Maverick missiles. That would be a great load out, expanding the 16's capability as well as give the 16 a more realistic role, and of course, the MIG would also receive the same upgrade. I actually find myself flying the 16 and using the Aim-120's/Aim-9's I have left over as ATG Missiles to attack tanks and other assets. Hope it is considered.

[CAS_117]

Yes in during the Bekka Valley war Israel scored over 80 kills on enemy planes and killed several SAM sites. The fact remains that the whole point of there being any aircraft is to decide the outcome of the war on the ground, which is where the world tends to be located. You yourself admit that there are several engagements with enemy MiG's, whereas there have been thousands of times that F-16's have engaged SAM sites and vehicles, structures aside. 80% of the time that F-16's have flown, its been with bombs.

Edit:

I would not see a problem with all the fighters carring a single LGB under the fusulage, if possible.

Theres no hardpoint in the middle.

I fully agree with lead, f 16s should be primarly fighters.

Well unfortunately he's wrong. The F-16 is used primarily as a bomber in reality., and even ingame, despite their lack of air to ground weapons.

[fartknocker12345]

CAS has hit the nail on the head,

The F-16 is not a primary "fighter" It is a multirole aircraft. To say that it can only carry air-to air weapons really shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. I think this following loadout would be perfect.

2x Aim-9
2x Aim-120
2x AGM-65
NO FUEL TANKS Fuel tanks on such a small map make no sense. You also land like every 5-10 minutes, so fuel would not be a problem anyway.

If you have ever flown in pr you know that 97% percent of the time you are in the air, you are looking for something to attack on the ground even if you are flying the f-16. The range on the mavericks should also be increased so you dont have to fly through the clouds to fire a missle IE:you are able to lock on to that "laser" from a further distance)

The laser has become an abosulte NUISANCE in pr. On any jet map, I see a WHOLE squad DEDICATED to sitting on a mountain and "lasing" **** for the jets. No, these squads arent going to HELP the team or capture flags, no they are going to sit and "lase" things for jets that usaually last around 5 minutes. It needs to be taken out, its HURTING gameplay. Pr was SO MUCH better before this rediculous "laser" At least make the bombs dumb, this would help. It would make the a-10 acually be able to do stuff without somone on the ground wasting the teams resources.

I know somone is going to say: "HOW CAN YOU TAKE 0UT TEH 1337 LAS3R!!????" Listen if you immediatley dicredit someone's idea like that without thinking, you really are a dumb jack-***.

[LeadMagnet]

So quick translation; "Take out the laser, it's hurting us leet lone wolf pilots that should be able to kill everything on the map." I've seen CAS (don't get confused with the dev CAS) squads with a spotter absolutely raping everything in sight on Kashan very effectively. PR to the best of my knowledge tries to promote teamwork which you are asking to have taken back a step. Perhaps you like to fly on servers where the teamwork is lacking?

Also, once again you have trouble in reading the physical words I put on a post and you're comparing apples and oranges. I said that on maps where ground attack aircraft are present then the F-16's on the map should be loaded with air to air or one loaded with a mix, not both. Otherwise you've just set 4 jets with guided and unguided bombs and very powerful guns against 2 dedicated AAV's, aka fun for 4, not 64. For maps that have no A-10's or Su25's I have no issue with a mixed loadout.

As for your vaunted stats did you ever compute the percentage of sorties where enemy aircraft were present to those where bombs were dropped? I'll help you with that. In almost every instance where the enemy posed an aerial threat in the AO you can bet your *** those birds were loaded air to air.

[Tirak]

The whole point of laseing the target was to encourage teamwork between the air and ground assets. By making air units dependant on ground units, teamwork became paramount. I like the idea of lasing, it allows squads to designate important targets to a unit that can respond quickly. I was playing Kashan, my squad was over attacking South Villiage when MEC Armor showed up. Our tanks weren't in position to support us so we lased the MEC Armor and sure enough, the A-10 came along and saved our butts. I do like the idea though of the F-16 getting at least one LGB, although maybe only on maps where it's present but not any ground attack aircraft.

EDIT: It appears I've been beaten to the punch...

[Hotrod525]

Lets give them Maverick, and if its dosent work just remove it then, but i still think F16/Mig whit AGM would be awesome and make them more "teamwork" efficient.

[CAS_117]

In almost every instance where the enemy posed an aerial threat in the AO you can bet your *** those birds were loaded air to air.

Well heres one.

"F/A-18 pilots were credited with two kills during the Gulf War, both MiG-21s.[12] On the first day of the war, U.S. Navy pilots Lieutenant Nick Mongilio and Lieutenant Commander (now Rear Admiral) Mark Fox were sent from the USS Saratoga in the Red Sea to bomb an airfield in southwestern Iraq. While enroute, they were warned by an E-2C of approaching MiG-21 aircraft. The Hornets shot down two MiGs and resumed their bombing run, each carrying four 2,000 lb bombs, before returning to Saratoga. Mongilio and Fox become the first pilots to register air-to-air kills while still completing their original air-to-ground mission.[9][1]"

In almost every instance where the enemy posed an aerial threat in the AO you can bet your *** those birds were loaded air to air.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2002/0602bekaa.pdf

SAM's were engaged first, I'll be taking your *** now.

*Edit, you'll notice that there wasn't a SOFLAM in sight.

[Liquid_Cow]

NO FUEL TANKS Fuel tanks on such a small map make no sense.

You're right, however fuel tanks are a fact in REALITY, and since this is a reality mod... F-16's almost never fly w/o wing tanks, tanks must stay and birds must loose those hardpoints.

The laser has become an abosulte NUISANCE in pr.

Agreed, I was a big supporter of them back when the SLOFLAM was first incorperated then removed. I think they are still an OK device to carry and use, but I think the LGB's should also have a free fall mode (which they do IRL) where you can used them as dumb bombs. You'd never use a 2000lbs LGB to kill a tank (besides the dificulty of lazing a moving target, all modern tanks have laser detectors and that would make the tank react very differently than currently seen).

LGB's and JDAM's are used for hitting entrenched troops or units in hardened positions. We're using them to hit lone tanks, not reality.

I'd also love to see a bird with cluster bombs which is used for exposed units and armor.

[Tirak]

The way I understand it is Cluster Bombs lag to death. Although considering the lack of cooperation in most Public Server matches, an option to drop freefall does seem reasonable, but keep the SOFLAM in as it gives accuracy to those bombs and lets you drop much closer to friendly position without having to worry about team kills.

[Liquid_Cow]

Looks like a working model...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fH1vARfNuU[/youtube]

[CAS_117]

Due to network problems, the cluster bomb does not work online.

[MarineSeaknight]

Why?

*Let me clarify: When was the last engagement of an F-16 with another plane? (Greece and Turkey aside). Then compare that with the number of bombing engagements it has had.

Because in the fictional near-future stage PR is set in, the F-16 is currently set on Kashan Desert, where it's primary role is air supperiority; to clear the air of enemy aircraft so the A-10 can be used for CAS.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm totally supporting the F-16 carrying some A-G ordinance as well, just not on maps where the multirole F-16 knows it's going to encounter some air to air battles, thus having an AA loadout.

Though, because of the limitations of the engine where we cannot change the loadout of the F-16 after the skies are clear, I would not complain if it got an LGB, Maverick, or two.

[Liquid_Cow]

What no takers on my A-10 replacement question? Come on ppl!

[turnpipe]

What no takers on my A-10 replacement question? Come on ppl!

Ok. I sorta gave a damn and looked for it.
What was your A10 question?

[Liquid_Cow]

OK, lets see, it was like 3 pages ago

Does anyone know what plane was supposed to replace the A-10? Prior to the 1st Gulf War the USAF was transfering all A-10's to Reserve/Guard units with planes to eventually phase them out complete, but the A-10's performance was so shockingly good it reversed its decision and even decided to upgrade the A-10.

[turnpipe]

Looks like it was or is the F-35.
Pentagon bypasses D-M for new F-35 | www.azstarnet.com ®

[Liquid_Cow]

Looks like it was or is the F-35.

Time frame, it was during the 1st Gulf War that the A-10's shined. F-35 didn't even have a number yet back then. Try again.

[MarineSeaknight]

After some intense searching, the A-16, which was intended to be a CAS version of the F-16. I was interested in the question, myself, so I gave it a shot.

"Shortly after the war, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.[9]" - Wikipedia

A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

F-16 Versions - A-16, F/A-16, F-16A (30mm gun)

... which would have proved to be a big step down for CAS, as this former A-10 pilot explains that "CAS is a very tough mission...and high[er] speed only makes it tougher."

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.p ... mber=44318

[CAS_117]

I don't know about giving the F-16 mavericks. The A-10 is slower and since they're powered, takes better advantage of the standoff. Bombs on the F-16 would pretty be the same thing but easier to line up. I think the A-10 fired about 80% of the AGM-65's in GW1 anyways.