f16 F-16 Fighting Falcon: History, Performance & Discussion

[tripod2008 572]

2 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

Pilot can also turn off jamming the moment he gets a missile launched. So at that moment the HOJ will become useless.

"AOJ/HOJ" is effectively a way to get around noise jamming that works 100% of the time(though since noise is artificially induced there is still some performance loss), other methods work a little differently and require more finesse, and time to work properly

 

Taking a Sparrow as an example of a generic SARH, once it's off the rail the radar itself is no longer involved the guidance loop of the missile (only serves to point the illuminator in the right direction, and even then that can be slaved to other sensors e.g. AN/AAA-4, AN/ASX-1, AN/AVG-8 etc.) at all, and the illuminator (which is coaxially mounted to the array) still emits anyway and will continue to do so for five seconds (for an F-4E) should a track be lost, additionally the Sparrow is perfectly capable of guiding on a noisy emission source, without any further support if launched with a "Wide" speedgate setting.

Spoiler

 

2 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

Datalinks arent suitable to provide information for your initial launch apart from telling you  as a pilot where you should narrow your radar search to faster acquire a target. maybe if you get into 4.5 generation ( or highly modernized gen 4)  you start looking at advanced Multi Sensor target integration where you can click on a datalink contact and  use both onboard and offboard sensor which will in unison  aid and allow for acquisition of target for lock.

 The Inter-Fighter "Link 4C" datalink was used with the F-14A and subsequent variants and enabled the transfer of data between up to four aircraft at a time which let them employ the phoenix as a flight of four and sort targets as needed to accomplish their mission, it was also capable of "silent" ranging of targets using multiple IRSTS's and known angular offsets, and ranges to automatically triangulate ranges without the use of radar.

 

2 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

A Targeting pod with A2A modes. again not  something entering the conversation unless looking at maybe 21st centry era pods, where you can actually lock on with radar, slaving TGP to target and vice versa from TGP to relock target. But this usability still varies on aircraft sensor integration.. as on some TGP is only worth for IFF via Visual ID, and cannot be used on independent sensor, needing radar locks to slave to target.

These are all basic functionalities of Western TGPs / IRST / EOTS starting with the Pave Tack / TISEO(AN/ASX-1) on the F-4E.

 

2 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

IF all F16 C/D blocks are sparrow capable and if the case merely was that given air force merely doesn't use them then the use of said missiles should still be documented and illustrated in the manuals.  But its not.

The issue is most likely that there is a very narrow window of time between the F16C/D getting Sparrows(documentation says 1989~1992, at the bottom of the page) and the AIM-120 coming online(1988~1991), within a year or two of one another depending on the milestone in question, additionally Block -25 aircraft produced after 1986 went straight to the ANG, bypassing frontline service entirely.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by tripod2008

[RanchSauce39 395]

8 hours ago, tripod2008 said:

"AOJ/HOJ" is effectively a way to get around noise jamming that works 100% of the time(though since noise is artificially induced there is still some performance loss), other methods work a little differently and require more finesse, and time to work properly

 

Taking a Sparrow as an example of a generic SARH, once it's off the rail the radar itself is no longer involved the guidance loop of the missile (only serves to point the illuminator in the right direction, and even then that can be slaved to other sensors e.g. AN/AAA-4, AN/ASX-1, AN/AVG-8 etc.) at all, and the illuminator (which is coaxially mounted to the array) still emits anyway and will continue to do so for five seconds (for an F-4E) should a track be lost, additionally the Sparrow is perfectly capable of guiding on a noisy emission source, without any further support if launched with a "Wide" speedgate setting.

 

You seem to misunderstand. Its irrelevant if hoj can self guide you still need range information to know when to launch the missile.  IF you have to guess distance to targer yourself you can shoot a missile outside its max range.

 

If it worked 100% of the time,,, no one would use jammer in combat, if they knew they were going up against a adversary that had an ability to counter counter measures..  AS i described. HOJ mode only homes in on a signal when the Jammer remains on. A pilot turns it off the moment the RWR detects a radar based missile launch, HOJ will have nothing to home in in on.

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, tripod2008 said:

Reveal hidden contents

 

 The Inter-Fighter "Link 4C" datalink was used with the F-14A and subsequent variants and enabled the transfer of data between up to four aircraft at a time which let them employ the phoenix as a flight of four and sort targets as needed to accomplish their mission, it was also capable of "silent" ranging of targets using multiple IRSTS's and known angular offsets, and ranges to automatically triangulate ranges without the use of radar.

 

 

Then we are thinking of quite different functions since its not possible to launch phoenix on Datalink information alone. I dont see what an IRST has to do with link 4A considering that was not a thing until F14D .  F14A (early)  doesnt have an IRST because the original one was so junk they decided to fly without any such sensor until the TCS became a thing.

 

That transfer of data you describe, Is basically " Fighter A detects target, Fighter B C/D dont  but they get a data linked contact show up on the  TID, to say there be a target we haven't detected on radar yet"

 

And remember the Link 4A could not be used simultaneously with Link 4C which was for Awacs, which could provide a much broader picture.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, tripod2008 said:

 

These are all basic functionalities of Western TGPs / IRST / EOTS starting with the Pave Tack / TISEO(AN/ASX-1) on the F-4E.

 

 

 

So once again you are conflating what i was describing of multi sensor target integration for acquiring targets with mere A2A usage of a Targeting pod. EG why a super hornet, or even just a late model legacy Hornet from comparable time frame has such advantages over an F16. even if both have Targeting pods  with A/A modes in the 2000s.

 

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/psa_apr/gaddis.pdf

 

 

Just because a certain aircraft has such functionalities does not mean other aircraft will automatically have such feature. dont conflate targeting pod with IRST or EOT , when i was specifically talking about TGP. Considering the limitations of the F4E pulse radar, the Tiseo is a band aid for the radar limitations. Also keep in mind early targeting pods especially had very sensitive gimbal roll limits. aggressive maneuvering  can throw the camera off a target.

 

as once again their A2A capabilities widely vary depending on the platform they are installed on, and the degree of which various sensors are integrated with one another.

 

As for specifics pertaining to the aircraft of this thread name. Ive looked at a 1990s F16's block 50's dash34. The Lantirn  A2A mode integration and its only for example capable of slewing FLIR to the bugged or outright hard locked target. A pilot can switch over to other screen to "point track" a target with the TGP,, which can allow the TGP to still track target if radar looses lock, however Lantirn does not generate radar tracks ( no MSI) on FCR [age or HSD page based on that information nor is it able to have the TGP able to tell the viper radar to require a lock based on its point track.

 

So in other words in the F16, the A2A mode TGP is only really useful for Visual ID/confirmation of  air target if thier IFF system is not working, rather that used as a tool to counter notches for target requisition. Further looking at ED simulation of more modern Litening 2 pod on a circa 2007 F16CM blk 50 viper. This also seems to be the case with that newer pod in that time frame. Hence how it varies on the pod, and how advanced its integration is for a specific feature.Perhaps its a different story with more modern software suites, and or more modern blocks and or versions of a specific targeting pod.

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, tripod2008 said:

 

The issue is most likely that there is a very narrow window of time between the F16C/D getting Sparrows(documentation says 1989~1992, at the bottom of the page) and the AIM-120 coming online(1988~1991), within a year or two of one another depending on the milestone in question, additionally Block -25 aircraft produced after 1986 went straight to the ANG, bypassing frontline service entirely.

 

 

 

 

so once again this is only relevant to certain export deviates that were modded with sparrow capability where the requirement was for a medium range guided missile but US was unwilling to sell Aim120's.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by RanchSauce39

[tripod2008 572]

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

IF you have to guess distance to target yourself you can shoot a missile outside its max range.

It's unlikely for this to happen, since seeker performance (see page 4 for Sparrow variants C~F stats) is generally paired to the missiles kinematic performance(around half the listed maximum range at altitude), and on top of that the emitter's are generally lower power than the illuminator, since they tend to be both broader band, and have to irradiate a larger volume (The Sparrow's illuminator, illuminates a 7 degree cone) of space, which permits for "Radar burn though" at some range, once the inequality of the half distance factor is overcome.

 

Spoiler

 

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

If it worked 100% of the time,,, no one would use jammer in combat, if they knew they were going up against a adversary that had an ability to counter counter measures.

Modern "Noise Jammers" are employed to impact the gain in the tracking loops of modern systems which assists whichever track braking method is used(targeted radar dependent) work faster(due to the way gain compensation, and noise reduction algorithms work), or pulsed as part of a network to produce stronger "phantom" targets(Constructive / Destructive interference, and Master Slave pulse repetition) among a few other niche uses.

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

AS i described. HOJ mode only homes in on a signal when the Jammer remains on. A pilot turns it off the moment the RWR detects a radar based missile launch, HOJ will have nothing to home in in on.

The thing is with the Sparrow, the instant the jamming stops, Noise is reduced and so only the signal from the illuminator remains, and as such continues to illuminate the target (the array will keep slewing at the rate it was doing so when the jamming stopped, to keep the illuminator pointing in the right direction. and attempt reacquire the track automatically) so the missile's guidance is unaffected(though in this case with a "Wide" speedgate setting, it is somewhat more vulnerable to ground clutter since the filters are bypassed deliberately, so if combined with situation dependent maneuvers to introduce a look down situation may be easier, than it would otherwise to defeat) and so would continue on to complete the intercept should the kinematics otherwise be satisfied.

 

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

Then we are thinking of quite different functions since its not possible to launch phoenix on Datalink information alone. I dont see what an IRST has to do with link 4A considering that was not a thing until F14D .  F14A (early)  doesnt have an IRST because the original one was so junk they decided to fly without any such sensor until the TCS became a thing.

The other thing to note is that the AN/ALR-23 (The "Early" IRSTS) was analog, not digital so while quite sensitive(it uses a Nitrogen cooled, InSb detector) could only give bearing information, which was only enough to slew the radar to further interrogate the return, which meant that the F-14 in question could drastically shorten the time needed to engage from a "Cold" set, and even if there were problems with reliability that isn't modeled in WT anyway, though I do get that the sensor was removed after a point, I don't know when that changed, though it is likely that the F-14A "Early" should have it as an option (I think its an F-14A-60 or -65 as of April 1977, since it has access to both the AIM-9D and -9H, the initial(1974) variant only had access to the -9G, also worth noting that both SAC's state that the IRST was "optional")

Spoiler

I don't know when the below photo was taken, I don't think it has the IRSTS installed(due to the dome's color), though the faring remains

This one is from Operation Frequent Wind, so some time in 1975, and appears to have a fairing so likely has the AN/ALR-23 installed.

 

 

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

That transfer of data you describe, Is basically " Fighter A detects target, Fighter B C/D don't  but they get a data linked contact show up on the  TID, to say there be a target we haven't detected on radar yet"

It also provided "priority" information, for contacts between the networked fighters to prevent the use of multiple missiles against any single target unnecessarily, and was more than enough for an AIM-54 that went active off the rail, and the Radar / IRSTS could be automatically slaved to rapidly acquire a given target for fast engagement.

 

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

And remember the Link 4A could not be used simultaneously with Link 4C which was for Awacs, which could provide a much broader picture.

Unless the AWACS really needed to micromanage the flight's final stages of an intercept of a (larger) group of targets for whatever reason(where an Inter flight datalink could be best used for fast target assessment, sorting and engagement) I don't really see that as too much an issue, since it only relates to the displays, and does not preclude the use of radio's to remain in contact with the Controller. and should situational awareness need to be maintained, target sorting could still be done manually, it would just take more time and focus to get done right.

 

10 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

so once again this is only relevant to certain export deviates that were modded with sparrow capability where the requirement was for a medium range guided missile but US was unwilling to sell Aim120's.

The thing is Block -25 were only ever delivered to the USAF / ANG, with the possibility of some of the latter's having Sparrow compatibility(I'd have to check some dates and block numbers, which may take a while), so I still see it as a possibility to avoid the "need" for advanced IR missiles earlier than planned, or lower the BR to keep it competitive.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by tripod2008

[RanchSauce39 395]

On 08/08/2022 at 01:25, tripod2008 said:

It's unlikely for this to happen, since seeker performance (see page 4 for Sparrow variants C~F stats) is generally paired to the missiles kinematic performance(around half the listed maximum range at altitude), and on top of that the emitter's are generally lower power than the illuminator, since they tend to be both broader band, and have to irradiate a larger volume (The Sparrow's illuminator, illuminates a 7 degree cone) of space, which permits for "Radar burn though" at some range, once the inequality of the half distance factor is overcome.

 

so HOJ is unnecessary if the likelihood is your burn through range is comparable with the max range of a missile for example.

 

On 08/08/2022 at 01:25, tripod2008 said:

 

Reveal hidden contents

 

Modern "Noise Jammers" are employed to impact the gain in the tracking loops of modern systems which assists whichever track braking method is used(targeted radar dependent) work faster(due to the way gain compensation, and noise reduction algorithms work), or pulsed as part of a network to produce stronger "phantom" targets(Constructive / Destructive interference, and Master Slave pulse repetition) among a few other niche uses.

 

yes so it has important use then for both air to air and air to surface. This comes back to original point denying your enemy range is a feature i would like to see  as well as the Self protection jamming, which serves to break locks. completely omitting EW (besides simply having a RWR or countermeasures)  would be unfortunate since thats one of the most important ( yet most sensitive) parts of air combat.

 

iT will ultimately up to the player discretion when and where to use jamming and when not to use it.

 

 

On 08/08/2022 at 01:25, tripod2008 said:

The thing is with the Sparrow, the instant the jamming stops, Noise is reduced and so only the signal from the illuminator remains, and as such continues to illuminate the target (the array will keep slewing at the rate it was doing so when the jamming stopped, to keep the illuminator pointing in the right direction. and attempt reacquire the track automatically) so the missile's guidance is unaffected(though in this case with a "Wide" speedgate setting, it is somewhat more vulnerable to ground clutter since the filters are bypassed deliberately, so if combined with situation dependent maneuvers to introduce a look down situation may be easier, than it would otherwise to defeat) and so would continue on to complete the intercept should the kinematics otherwise be satisfied.

 

 il note HOJ is also dependent on the radar system and not  just IF your missile has such a capability , if radar does not you wont be able to make use of it. for example F16C radar AN/APG68 for example lacks a HOJ mode. Ive looked Dash 34. there is no description of with Aim120' and HOj. Whereas for example you do with the F15.

 

 

Also to point out the CW illuminator is only used for pulse radars. or older generation PD radars that can still operate in a pulse mode like tomcat. Tomcat can  launch after lock in either PD-STT or P-STT. Only in the latter case is CW illumination used for Aim7F.

 

The Aim7F is the last Sparrow to be used with a radar CW illuminator, Missiles that had inverse monopulse seekers like Skyflash orAim7M's use PDI.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by RanchSauce39

[tripod2008 572]

 

3 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

so HOJ is unnecessary if the likelihood is your burn through range is comparable with the max range of a missile for example.

Yes, though as you can't guarantee what future threats will be armed with, or how the current threat will evolve in response to your own advances. Relying on current characteristics as a "reason" for omitting or including a system seems unwise, considering how many things impact "maximum" range, though in the case of the F-16A specifically it probably wasn't focused on the interceptor / interdiction roles (until the -15ADF / OCU came about), and as such would bee unlikely to benefit much; since early variants were only armed with Sidewinders at best until 1989 / 1991~-92, and their short range limited the usefulness of  BVR radar capability(would be interested to know if the AN/APG-66(V)2 or -J had HOJ capabilities).

 

As systems evolved ECM, "barrage" jamming fell out of common use for exactly that reason, and were replaced by "Call and Response" systems, that would receive / record, analyze, synthetize, randomly delay, and retransmit received signals in order to delay / prevent an accurate response

 

Spoiler

https://archive.org/details/electronicwarfarefundamentals_201908

 

3 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

would be unfortunate since thats one of the most important ( yet most sensitive) parts of air combat.

I agree that DECM would be a nice to have (especially for less well armed and or worse performing aircraft), though it may need to be significantly "simplified" (hard coded) for gameplay purposes, especially for players on the receiving end (especially SPAA, should Anti-Radar missiles also be present), since very little would be telegraphed, and difficult ascertain the cause for dropped locks / weird missile guidance, and separate other issues from these mechanics during live gameplay.

 

3 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

I've looked Dash 34. there is no description of with Aim120' and HOJ. Whereas for example you do with the F15.

It may be because the AIM-120 is an Active Radar missile so it may well be an automatic system; should sufficient jamming appear (after the onboard radar goes active), allowing any doppler filters to be bypassed, though the phased array likely simplifies directional error finding, it may not even be needed for anything bar the most extremes of edge cases.

 

3 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

The Aim7F is the last Sparrow to be used with a radar CW illuminator, Missiles that had inverse monopulse seekers like Skyflash orAim7M's use PDI.

The AIM-7E uses a "conical scan" seeker and can only use CWI(Vertically, or "Clockwise" polarization only) for target tracking.

The AIM-7F still uses a conical scan seeker but has an improved autopilot (solid state), and can use either CWI or PDI(aka. Hi-PRF / HPRF, vertically polarized only).

The AIM-7M (and subsequent variants) use an "inverse monopulse" seeker, and has a digital autopilot and can only use PDI for target illumination, since CWI can't "encode" the additional guidance information it would need easily.

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by tripod2008

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,498]

On 23/07/2022 at 19:42, tripod2008 said:

The Issue with the 15ADF is that it is "solely" Air to Air focused, which defeats the point of having the F-14 or F-15 in other lines as "attractive" Air to Air options and as a minor "specific" modification would likely be reserved for Premium / Event status.

The F-16 simply has nothing to offer over the F-15. The F-15 is the greatest thing to grace this earth and her skies. If you think the F-16 is going to divert any functional and real technical incentive to play an aircraft, you simply are not based and boogerpilled. The F-16 will get the greater traffic as expected due to it’s common pedestrian aesthetic appeal but the F-15 will simply have the traffic consisting of 100% true, grade-A, wide brain individuals. If it can’t exceed 3000 km/h in a straight line I don’t want it. “If it’s Mach 2 class, it’s a**,” as they say.

 

To be clear, this is bait. This is a troll. This is a joke. This is a partially uninformed string of statements. However, I am actually still more of an F-15 guy.

 

React with the confused reaction to submit to F-15 dominance.

Edited August 11, 2022 by PickleJarOfDeath

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,498]

and I quote,

I expected nothing more or less than that reaction because, even when you spell it out for them, they fall for it.

 

Also:

16 hours ago, PickleJarOfDeath said:

React with the confused reaction to submit to F-15 dominance.

HAHA

 

But hey, the F-16 was good enough to keep in service so I’ll give you this: it deserves some respect. Just don’t get me started on the F-14.

Edited August 11, 2022 by PickleJarOfDeath

[RanchSauce39 395]

F16C ( likely either block 25-32) features demonstration video

 

 

[spacenavy90 1,399]

 

 

 

F-16 AOA indicator and others discovered in dev server files. (Note: _c and _n refer to color (diffuse) and normal maps, not the F-16C).

Edited October 14, 2022 by spacenavy90

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,765]

And that's normal to see F-16 coming in the game as it was used by lot of in game countries:

USA

Italy

Israel

Japan (yes it's F-2 variant not direct F-16, but it's still more an F-16 than the FCK-1 from Taïwan)

Taïwan (which Led to the FCK-1)

 

So about 5 of the 9(10 with announced Finland) used one or another variant of F-16.

 

That's basically an aircraft easy to make to a lot of country for the game and to make people happy with it. (When all matchs would F-16 vs F-14 and F-16, alongside 2 MiG, and 1 Mirage 2000C).

[Suizu_Aika 59]

5 hours ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

That's basically an aircraft easy to make to a lot of country for the game and to make people happy with it.

Specially Italy etc. need CAS for top tier

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,765]

1 hour ago, Suizu_Aika said:

Specially Italy etc. need CAS for top tier

That however could be filled by a Harrier II AV-8B+

[DracoMindC 308]

1 minute ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

That however could be filled by a Harrier II AV-8B+

or the AMX

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,765]

2 minutes ago, DracoMindC said:

or the AMX

I see the AMX as a potential Premium for Italy(there is not a lot of aicraft Italy could put in there.

[Suizu_Aika 59]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

That however could be filled by a Harrier II AV-8B+

yeah you right I guess it could fill Air to air combat and high G maneuver

[Faster_Boiiiii 740]

15 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

Note: _c and _n refer to color (diffuse) and normal maps, not the F-16C

thanks for including this... its really annoying to see how many believed that this was for the f-16c 

[RideR2 5,039]

and if someone has any doubts:

 

and yes, that's from the F-16A version, in the C it looks slightly different.

 

We are probably getting the Block 5 or 10

 

I wonder if they will model the 9G limit properly (and by that I mean that the plane couldn't pull more than 9G).

Edited October 15, 2022 by RideR2

[[email protected] 684]

19 hours ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Taïwan

As I understand it, their A blk 20 's were delivered w/ avionics and armaments mostly comparable to the C blk 50 of the same time period, wouldn't that be a step too far to appear alongside a potential A blk 5 or 10 ?

 

 

4 hours ago, RideR2 said:

I wonder if they will model the 9G limit properly (and by that I mean that the plane couldn't pull more than 9G).

I recall from the Drone Age devserver datamines that the Mirage 2000C S5 has lines in it 's FM relating to Fly-By-Wire, though I can't speak for what effect those lines actually have in regards to it 's controllability.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,765]

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

As I understand it, their A blk 20 's were delivered w/ avionics and armaments mostly comparable to the C blk 50 of the same time period, wouldn't that be a step too far to appear alongside a potential A blk 5 or 10 ?

have you ever heard of artificially nerfed aircrafts/components in this game? Gaijin makes it really good,... telling that their truth is the one, claiming on sources that they don't show.

so,....

[tripod2008 572]

9 hours ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

have you ever heard of artificially nerfed aircrafts/components in this game? Gaijin makes it really good,... telling that their truth is the one, claiming on sources that they don't show.

so,....

The only issue with that is that there are a variety of sources which we have access to that describe the ordnance of the Block -20 and sales / shipments of armament to Formosa, so "lowballing" their equipment makes no sense considering that they have  other alternatives e.g. F-16/79, F-5G, F-20A, F/A-18L, and various other "eastern" designs from the PRC to fill the gaps.

 

 

[ÖL 612]

i get the feeling gaijin will give the f16 to israel and italy and leaving it out from the us at first to milk all the f16 fanboys wallets

[DracoMindC 308]

2 hours ago, zzoega said:

i get the feeling gaijin will give the f16 to israel and italy and leaving it out from the us at first to milk all the f16 fanboys wallets

I don't think italy will get their F-16 anytime soon simply because they used the ADF with AMRAAMs and its their only jet that isnt a harrier or eurofighter with amraams which will be their only competition against things like F-15Cs and F-16Cs with amraams long down the road, Italy recieved their F-16s in the 90s for reference

[Gatsby_WT 134]

On 15/10/2022 at 15:13, RideR2 said:

I wonder if they will model the 9G limit properly (and by that I mean that the plane couldn't pull more than 9G).

In WT, planes usually use a certain modifier (1.5x If I'm not mistaken), so in WT F-16 should pull 13,5 G max (limited to).

[ÖL 612]

4 hours ago, DracoMindC said:

I don't think italy will get their F-16 anytime soon simply because they used the ADF with AMRAAMs and its their only jet that isnt a harrier or eurofighter with amraams which will be their only competition against things like F-15Cs and F-16Cs with amraams long down the road, Italy recieved their F-16s in the 90s for reference

wait since when did the planes get their best missiles?

[Flame2512 3,366]

17 minutes ago, PhantomRiderWT said:

In WT, planes usually use a certain modifier (1.5x If I'm not mistaken), so in WT F-16 should pull 13,5 G max (limited to).

Gaijin multiply the flight manual structural limits by 1.5x. But that is not what he is referring to. The F-16's fly by wire system would restrict control surface movements, to prevent the aircraft ever pulling more than 9G. If the F-16 this modelled properly it should be physically impossible to pull more than 9G, regards of the structural limits.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Flame2512