Lukos – BFZ about Turkey in U.S. exercises on the linked page. Evidence of your statement please.

Nice way to sneak a nasty slur into the thread, Fedaykin. Although it’s par for the course over there.

And “liar” means “one who tells lies”. Plain English.

M31 – you are correct in that all kinds of active jammers are available for the F-16. However, the only option taken up by the USAF is a pod, and the most modern pod in existence is apparently the ALQ-131A, but nobody can produce evidence that it is in service.

Likewise, the US digital RWR offering for the F-16 is the ALR-69A, but as far as I am aware it’s not on USAF F-16s yet. I may not be correct on that point but, again, nobody has provided contrary evidence.

And as the 2009 NDIA paper cited by all and sundry makes clear, on p5, AGM-88D was discontinued in 2002.

The conclusion, which none of the F-35 fans have factually challenged, is that the most likely USAF F-16 lineup in GF would have been limited to analog RWR (aside from limited capes in HTS R7), non-DRFM jamming, and 1990s AGM-88B/C variants, possibly with a GPS upgrade. Therefore the notion that they would be targets by threats that the F-35 would evade, while quite probable, is not high praise for a newer airplane with $80 billion in investment behind it, nor does it say much about what other jets today could do.

ENDEX.

Now, a final forum-related point: any posters more upset about my treatment of Lukos than by Lukos’ outright, flaming porkies (USAF AGM-88E, USAF F-16s using AGM-154C/HTS in combat) belong among the f-16.net loonies and not in civilized society.

And thanks, in a way, to all the liars. You have helped build the case that the presentation of GFW 2015 was a PR campaign.

It proved what wrong on DRFM? Where did I say USAF didn’t fund DRFM? And does the doc show 131A in service today? It’s R&D only.

“All you need to know is that it was.” Where and how? Don’t try to weasel out. R7 is the only HTS claimed to work with anything other than HARM and entered service in 2006, and when have F-16s done SEAD since then?

By the way, USAF doesn’t use AGM-154C either.

Lukos – you are graduating from cats to dead horses. There was never any USAF money in AARGM. The USAF has not bought any AARGMs. “Advanced HARM II” in your post is not AARGM. I cannot determine the age of the information in the source document – it was published on FanKiddyNet in 2008 but is clearly older than that because AARGM was a program by then. It appears to be the only place where that identifier is used.

The R7 pod is doubtless cool but entered service almost 10 years ago. So once again, the best that the F-16 force could have brought to GF is a ten-year-old targeting system, analog RWR, non-DRFM jamming and 1990s ARMs.

Lukos – lots of evidence but nothing that supports your original false assertion that USAF F-16s carry AGM-88E. (It was never called HARM II). Yep, HTS allows launch in range-known mode. That’s what it’s for.

Back to start point. Can anyone here produce evidence that any USAF F-16 force would have had digital RWR, DRFM jamming (both now state-of-the-art, rather than future concepts) or the ability to counter a radar that shuts down under direct DEAD attack?

Lukos – there is no need to post links that confirm what I told you, to wit, there are no AARGMs in the USAF inventory. A simple “sorry for posting bull****” would suffice.

HTS R7 may be quite good, but whether it was available in this exercise is unknown. As M31 points out (although I did so earlier) we don’t know these vital details, so only dumb fanboys will go running around proclaiming the F-35’s invincibility.

F-16s survived in 1990s conflicts with the support of SEAD, DEAD and Prowlers. So using that to ASSUME (that word again) that the simulated threats were top of the line is unsound.

So is ASSUMING that ALQ-184 matches anything else just because it is new and American.