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

[spacenavy90 1,399]

10 minutes ago, Grimtax said:

The reason I was asking is that this manual states F-16A/B MLU (FACH Series) Block 10/15 have AN/APG-66(V2) installed. I don't know the differences of avionics on Block 15 regular, Block 15 MLU, and ADF.

 

 

On the other note, even this manual does not include the scanning speed in A-A mode (although it did state that in A-G mode targets take at least approximately 3 seconds to update), nor does it include any info on notch gates and specific conditions of detecting and tracking targets.

Do US manuals just not include this kind of info or is it just in a secret supplement?

 

 

This is referring to the Mid-Life Update (MLU), not the standard block 10/15. The MLU program upgraded various F-16s (including block 10/15s) to essentially F-16C block 50 equivalent.

The information you are looking for is usually considered confidential in nature, so it won't be that simple to locate but I'm sure there is information out there about it. Even the source you have there would not be accepted by Gaijin as it is newer than 30 years (their new standard for classified military information, anything older than 30 years is okay now).

I will check my own sources however.

Edited January 4 by spacenavy90

[Grimtax 87]

42 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

This is referring to the Mid-Life Update (MLU), not the standard block 10/15. The MLU program upgraded various F-16s (including block 10/15s) to essentially F-16C block 50 equivalent.

The information you are looking for is usually considered confidential in nature, so it won't be that simple to locate but I'm sure there is information out there about it. Even the source you have there would not be accepted by Gaijin as it is newer than 30 years (their new standard for classified military information, anything older than 30 years is okay now).

I will check my own sources however.

 

I was looking to find something like this manual for the MiG-29B, but for the F-16A ADF. This book has practically everything (unless you actually want a purely physical model with right antenna dimensions etc.) you might need to properly model the RLPK-29E. From description of FCS modes, to operational procedures, to details on scan and track conditions (notch speeds and so on), to binary codes sent between missiles and the FCS and even some algorithms involved.

 

 

It is understandable that the F-16 manual might still have some parts classified (I get notch speeds, but I would have expected scan speeds to be unclassified, given that details on scan patterns are given).

[MiG_23M 1,606]

8 minutes ago, Grimtax said:

 

I was looking to find something like this manual for the MiG-29B, but for the F-16A ADF. This book has practically everything (unless you actually want a purely physical model with right antenna dimensions etc.) you might need to properly model the RLPK-29E. From description of FCS modes, to operational procedures, to details on scan and track conditions (notch speeds and so on), to binary codes sent between missiles and the FCS and even some algorithms involved.

 

 

It is understandable that the F-16 manual might still have some parts classified (I get notch speeds, but I would have expected scan speeds to be unclassified, given that details on scan patterns are given).

The people who write these manuals make mistakes all the time, it does it's intended purpose. That information (according to the people who make these manuals) was not relevant to the pilot.
Likewise, in the Abrams lube orders and technical manuals you may still find mistakes even 40 years later.. they really ought to sit a committee of actual servicemembers who use these vehicles or equipment down to go over and fact check everything in these manuals.

[spacenavy90 1,399]

29 minutes ago, Grimtax said:

 

I was looking to find something like this manual for the MiG-29B, but for the F-16A ADF. This book has practically everything (unless you actually want a purely physical model with right antenna dimensions etc.) you might need to properly model the RLPK-29E. From description of FCS modes, to operational procedures, to details on scan and track conditions (notch speeds and so on), to binary codes sent between missiles and the FCS and even some algorithms involved.

 

 

It is understandable that the F-16 manual might still have some parts classified (I get notch speeds, but I would have expected scan speeds to be unclassified, given that details on scan patterns are given).

 

As far as I know, such a manual for the F-16 ADF does not exist online. Although I have submitted FOIA requests to the Air Force requesting such manuals (still haven't heard back yet but I expect them to be rejected).

But do you happen to have a link to that MiG-29 manual? I don't believe I have that one.

[[email protected] 4]

1 hour ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Even the source you have there would not be accepted by Gaijin as it is newer than 30 years (their new standard for classified military information, anything older than 30 years is okay now).

I will check my own sources however.

My understanding of this rule is that if the document is dated within the last 30 years then you have to prove that it's declassified before it can be used as a valid source but I could be mistaken... 

[[email protected] 193]

1 hour ago, Grimtax said:

(I get notch speeds, but I would have expected scan speeds to be unclassified, given that details on scan patterns are given).

What I have is +-55 kts for MLC for search/detection according to the IEEE APG 66 performance doc. There's no tracking info. I will read in depth when I have a bit more time.

>These high velocities were surprising, since the radar uses a clutter notch of + 55 knots Very few ground moving targets had been expected to exceed this speed, especially in this age of 55 mi/h speed 

a comment during false alarms on ground objects getting detected as they were going too fast lmao.

>The bulk of the main beam clutter return is rejected by the canceler and the residue is rejected by ignoring the Doppler filters around the main beam. Only those filters not within 55 knots of the main beam clutter frequency are allowed to pass to the detection circuits.

 

>In its downlook mode, the AN/APG-66 transmits a set of eight PRFs during each antenna dwell time. This set of PRFs has two important properties:

a) the return from any target whose LOS ground speed exceeds 55 knots is "visible" with at least three of the eight PRFs (that is, there are no blind speeds outside of the main beam clutter notch region)

 

What I found interesting is this

Quote

In the literature on radar, the term "false alarm" is usually applied to the effect of the crossing of a threshold by noise as discussed in Marcum [8]. In the AN/APG-66 downlook mode, however, false alarms resulting from this phenomenon are virtually nonexistent because of the adaptive CFAR, and the 3-of-8 target reporting algorithm it uses to prevent false alarms from other more significant source.

.....

.....

There were very few "ghost" target detections. The single-channel STC postprocessing was found to be extremely effective in preventing false alarms of this type.

....

The detection and false alarm performance of the downlook mode of the AN/APG-66 has been presented and explained in terms of the nature of medium PRF clutter and the signal processing of that mode. We have included a description of the sources of some false alarms and pointed out that at least two categories of "false alarms" should be regarded as unexpected categories of targets that can be detected with this radar: stationary jet aircraft with their engines running and moving trucks. Operational performance has reinforced the conclusions of the flight tests.

You get little to no issues when flying at low alts with antenna looking down or flying at low alts compared to soviet/russian airborne radars, which due to quite alot of clutter and poor filtering suffer with their detection ranges falling down quite alot + increased amount of False Targets,

 

Edited January 4 by [email protected]

[spacenavy90 1,399]

5 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

My understanding of this rule is that if the document is dated within the last 30 years then you have to prove that it's declassified before it can be used as a valid source but I could be mistaken... 

 

That is correct, but any information from official sources within the last 30 years that is relevant to us would likely be restricted in some capacity. This change was a recent one, as previously it had to be manuals from before 1980, 30 years ago now is 1993 so according to the tech mods manuals from 1993 and before can be used without proof of declassification.

[[email protected] 4]

4 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

would likely be restricted in some capacity

So are you basically saying your boy is leaking classified documents... 

[spacenavy90 1,399]

8 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

So are you basically saying your boy is leaking classified documents... 

 

There is a difference between classification and distribution.

Most documents you see here will almost certainly be unclassified, but have a restricted distribution statement (meaning they shouldn't be shared publicly). The difference between the two is small, but important.

[Grimtax 87]

10 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

As far as I know, such a manual for the F-16 ADF does not exist online. Although I have submitted FOIA requests to the Air Force requesting such manuals (still haven't heard back yet but I expect them to be rejected).

But do you happen to have a link to that MiG-29 manual? I don't believe I have that one.

https://forum.warthunder.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=687418&key=7e8b7809828102c4c3badec6b73b7f83

[Grimtax 87]

10 hours ago, [email protected] said:

What I have is +-55 kts for MLC for search/detection according to the IEEE APG 66 performance doc. There's no tracking info. I will read in depth when I have a bit more time.

>These high velocities were surprising, since the radar uses a clutter notch of + 55 knots Very few ground moving targets had been expected to exceed this speed, especially in this age of 55 mi/h speed 

a comment during false alarms on ground objects getting detected as they were going too fast lmao.

>The bulk of the main beam clutter return is rejected by the canceler and the residue is rejected by ignoring the Doppler filters around the main beam. Only those filters not within 55 knots of the main beam clutter frequency are allowed to pass to the detection circuits.

 

>In its downlook mode, the AN/APG-66 transmits a set of eight PRFs during each antenna dwell time. This set of PRFs has two important properties:

a) the return from any target whose LOS ground speed exceeds 55 knots is "visible" with at least three of the eight PRFs (that is, there are no blind speeds outside of the main beam clutter notch region)

 

What I found interesting is this

You get little to no issues when flying at low alts with antenna looking down or flying at low alts compared to soviet/russian airborne radars, which due to quite alot of clutter and poor filtering suffer with their detection ranges falling down quite alot + increased amount of False Targets,

 

 

Dunno if I understood this (3. Single Channel Postprocessing STC in the IEE APG-66 performance doc) correctly, but does this just say that this radar has basically no Altitude Line Clutter and thus does not need a notch for ALC, meaning that the only notch that remains is the ­±55 knots MBC notch? So having near 0 closure speed with the radar will not hide the target.

 

On "ghost" targets. MiG-29 filters out practically all clutter in High PRF mode, but has some (minor?) problems with false targets in Medium PRF mode.

[[email protected] 193]

11 hours ago, Grimtax said:

Dunno if I understood this (3. Single Channel Postprocessing STC in the IEE APG-66 performance doc) correctly, but does this just say that this radar has basically no Altitude Line Clutter and thus does not need a notch for ALC, meaning that the only notch that remains is the ­±55 knots MBC notch? So having near 0 closure speed with the radar will not hide the target.

I have the same conclusion for the sidelobe clutter, its doesn't speak of the ALC but it applies to it also.

>Section III shows how the combination of the CFAR and the single channel STC described below prevents false alarms due to sidelobe/reflection lobe clutter. On the other hand, as explained in Section IIB, the combined effect of clutter and the CFAR circuitry is to raise the threshold and reduce the detectability of a target whose ambiguous range and Doppler coincide with the range and Doppler of sidelobe/reflection lobe clutter.

>In the single-channel processing illustrated in Fig. 5, the medium PRF range ambiguity is resolved by 3-of-8 correlation (as described in [4]) only on those detections which exceed an appropriate STC function for that true range. All but the very strongest RCS sidelobe discretes are weaker, at their true range, than desired main beam targets at that range. Thus, by combining the STC and range correlation, only those targets are displayed that have an amplitude at the true range that is large enough to be a main beam target of interest. In this way, the great majority of the sidelobe discretes are rejected by the postprocessing STC.

 

Using Med and Multiple PRFs you can locate the range by correlating the returns in range bins, ,needing 3 hits to declare detection from what I understand correctly. HPRF has less range gates so its harder, it all looks compiled in less range bins.

 

It doesn't have a ZDF like the F14.

_____________

The MLC 55kt notch isn't a bandstop filter like on the AWG 9 but just a value for the radar display. As it doesn't speak of tracking targets, but if MLC is narrow or low enough for above to happen a plane can continue tracking through it or up to a Vc where there are no more hits.

 

>The AN/APG-66 Doppler filter bank covers Doppler frequencies well below 55 knots even though the radar does not report targets in that region. The instrumentation can, however, observe target spectra in that region (under conditions in which the main beam clutter present is sufficiently weak, or narrow in Doppler). By examining such spectra it was found that the ground movers had a strong skin line below 55 knots which, of course, was not detected because of the blanking operation of the main beam clutter notch,

 

_____

11 hours ago, Grimtax said:

MiG-29 filters out practically all clutter in High PRF mode.

It can filter but not well, there's not much info about sidelobes but it happens. But looking at detection ranges chart, it suffers alot from clutter

 

Mig 29 for 3m² 

using HPRF

-70km Look up  IF the MiG is above 3Km and drops to 65km when flying under 3km.

A 10% loss in detection range despite being look up just for flying lower

 

-65km Lookdown IF above 3km and drops to 40km under 3km.

after 10% just for looking down, its suffers another 40% loss. 

 

So just for flying under 3km and in a LD situation, It only has a 57% total detection range.

___

Using MPRF

- Lookup 30km if above 3km

- Look Down 18km

 

And in MPRF it only has 60% range when under 3km and LD.

 

Why 3km you may be asking? due to sidelobe return and poor filtering.

11 hours ago, Grimtax said:

but has some (minor?) problems with false targets in Medium PRF mode

I would not call it minor at all  and not say HPRF has good filtering

 

Also a a thing that goes ignored. 

>I n the N019, the criteria for detection is having a 50% probability of detection and for tracking is 90% probability of detection. So at the max range you have a high false alarm rate which translate to seeing false targets and prone to ground clutter. Especially in MPRF.

 

50%, Pd to declare a hit... and obviously it can only do tracking when it has a good clear return which is 90%. criteria. Therefore, after doing the math, you get 90% probability of detection(good) at ~73% of those ranges. You can only track at 73% of those ranges.

 

Then on american radars, the Pd is 85% for detection + Really good filtering. Look at the F16.

>The standard method of summarizing a per-scan curve is to replace it, not with a single range number corresponding to a specified value of per-scan probability, but with the range Rp at which the cumulative probability of detection has some specified value, usually 0.85 (R85).

 

From 100% to 80% of those Mig 29 max detection distances you have a high chance of false targets....

 

AND AS YOU CAN GUESS. 

YOU CAN DETECT AND TRACK AT TARGETS LOW AND LOOKDOWN IN THE MIG29 USING HIGH ALT LOOKUP RANGES

 

 

Edited January 5 by [email protected]

[MiG_23M 1,606]

51 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I have the same conclusion for the sidelobe clutter, its doesn't speak of the ALC but it applies to it also.

>Section III shows how the combination of the CFAR and the single channel STC described below prevents false alarms due to sidelobe/reflection lobe clutter. On the other hand, as explained in Section IIB, the combined effect of clutter and the CFAR circuitry is to raise the threshold and reduce the detectability of a target whose ambiguous range and Doppler coincide with the range and Doppler of sidelobe/reflection lobe clutter.

>In the single-channel processing illustrated in Fig. 5, the medium PRF range ambiguity is resolved by 3-of-8 correlation (as described in [4]) only on those detections which exceed an appropriate STC function for that true range. All but the very strongest RCS sidelobe discretes are weaker, at their true range, than desired main beam targets at that range. Thus, by combining the STC and range correlation, only those targets are displayed that have an amplitude at the true range that is large enough to be a main beam target of interest. In this way, the great majority of the sidelobe discretes are rejected by the postprocessing STC.

 

Using Med and Multiple PRFs you can locate the range by correlating the returns in range bins, ,needing 3 hits to declare detection from what I understand correctly. HPRF has less range gates so its harder, it all looks compiled in less range bins.

 

It doesn't have a ZDF like the F14.

_____________

The MLC 55kt notch isn't a bandstop filter like on the AWG 9 but just a value for the radar display. As it doesn't speak of tracking targets, but if MLC is narrow or low enough for above to happen a plane can continue tracking through it or up to a Vc where there are no more hits.

 

>The AN/APG-66 Doppler filter bank covers Doppler frequencies well below 55 knots even though the radar does not report targets in that region. The instrumentation can, however, observe target spectra in that region (under conditions in which the main beam clutter present is sufficiently weak, or narrow in Doppler). By examining such spectra it was found that the ground movers had a strong skin line below 55 knots which, of course, was not detected because of the blanking operation of the main beam clutter notch,

 

_____

It can filter but not well, there's not much info about sidelobes but it happens. But looking at detection ranges chart, it suffers alot from clutter

 

Mig 29 for 3m² 

using HPRF

-70km Look up  IF the MiG is above 3Km and drops to 65km when flying under 3km.

A 10% loss in detection range despite being look up just for flying lower

 

-65km Lookdown IF above 3km and drops to 40km under 3km.

after 10% just for looking down, its suffers another 40% loss. 

 

So just for flying under 3km and in a LD situation, It only has a 57% total detection range.

___

Using MPRF

- Lookup 30km if above 3km

- Look Down 18km

 

And in MPRF it only has 60% range when under 3km and LD.

 

Why 3km you may be asking? due to sidelobe return and poor filtering.

I would not call it minor at all  and not say HPRF has good filtering

 

Also a a thing that goes ignored. 

>I n the N019, the criteria for detection is having a 50% probability of detection and for tracking is 90% probability of detection. So at the max range you have a high false alarm rate which translate to seeing false targets and prone to ground clutter. Especially in MPRF.

 

50%, Pd to declare a hit... and obviously it can only do tracking when it has a good clear return which is 90%. criteria. Therefore, after doing the math, you get 90% probability of detection(good) at ~73% of those ranges. You can only track at 73% of those ranges.

 

Then on american radars, the Pd is 85% for detection + Really good filtering. Look at the F16.

>The standard method of summarizing a per-scan curve is to replace it, not with a single range number corresponding to a specified value of per-scan probability, but with the range Rp at which the cumulative probability of detection has some specified value, usually 0.85 (R85).

 

From 100% to 80% of those Mig 29 max detection distances you have a high chance of false targets....

 

AND AS YOU CAN GUESS. 

YOU CAN DETECT AND TRACK AT TARGETS LOW AND LOOKDOWN IN THE MIG29 USING HIGH ALT LOOKUP RANGES

 

 

So bug report it.. I want to see you waste your time trying to show that radars need to be modeled as though they don't just work perfectly (like all radars in-game are).

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,756]

On 03/01/2023 at 19:40, spacenavy90 said:

 

AIM-9X first, IRIS-T would be for European aircraft (some of which also used AIM-9X).

don't forget MICA IR

[spacenavy90 1,399]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

don't forget MICA IR

 

Talking about missiles on the F-16... in the F-16 thread. MICA isn't relevant here.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,756]

9 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Talking about missiles on the F-16... in the F-16 thread. MICA isn't relevant here.

then Magic-II is relevant, as it was tested on F-16

Edited January 5 by Cpt_Bel_V

[spacenavy90 1,399]

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

then Magic-II is relevant, as it was tested on F-16

 

Sure, Magic 2 is fine. But MICA isn't, which was your original post.

 

 

 

Over an even better missile: the ASRAAM!

 

[Ziggy1989 1,545]

I am slowly changing my position on the status of F16A.  Once tamed Its really rare I die by any opponent I am aware of.  Maybe I am just getting better with the F16, but I am slaughtering in the IAF one right now in particular.

 

I personally like the regular A model better than the MLU and ADF. They are faster in acceleration and climb. It feels lighter and turn performance seem identical. 

Edited January 7 by Ziggy1989

[Ziggy1989 1,545]

On 05/01/2023 at 15:33, spacenavy90 said:

 

Sure, Magic 2 is fine. But MICA isn't, which was your original post.

 

 

 

Over an even better missile: the ASRAAM!

 

Israeli F16 pythons 3 missiles when?

[SlowHandClap 510]

So have the devs confirmed anywhere that this is the finalised flight model? 

[MiG_23M 1,606]

15 minutes ago, SlowHandClap said:

So have the devs confirmed anywhere that this is the finalised flight model? 

No, the opposite. It has been confirmed it is not final.

[SlowHandClap 510]

29 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

No, the opposite. It has been confirmed it is not final.

OK cool, was that confirmed on the forums or on stream?

[MiG_23M 1,606]

53 minutes ago, SlowHandClap said:

OK cool, was that confirmed on the forums or on stream?

Forums I believe, MiG-29 and F-16

 

F-16 has current bug reports showing incorrect FM performance

 

Devs said they're looking for specific info pertaining to MiG-29 critical AoA and high alpha

[SlowHandClap 510]

5 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

Forums I believe, MiG-29 and F-16

 

F-16 has current bug reports showing incorrect FM performance

 

Devs said they're looking for specific info pertaining to MiG-29 critical AoA and high alpha

I really hope they improve the F-16. It's meant to be an amazing dogfighter, but currently it struggles to turn with any kind of speed against fighters it would destroy without the G-limiter. It's weird to start having realistic G-limiters now.

[MiG_23M 1,606]

46 minutes ago, SlowHandClap said:

I really hope they improve the F-16. It's meant to be an amazing dogfighter, but currently it struggles to turn with any kind of speed against fighters it would destroy without the G-limiter. It's weird to start having realistic G-limiters now.

I don't think that's the issue, and it already destroys everything in the game.