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

[tripod2008 583]

51 minutes ago, zzoega said:

So do you guys think the f16 will eventually get TWS? 

Yes an F-16 will probably get TWS at some point, though without AMRAAM's it will mostly be redundant and not really change much.

51 minutes ago, zzoega said:

do you think the israeli one will ever actually become a Netz variant or will it just stay as an f16a copy paste with less armament?

As with the US Block 10 & -15 missing a few niche items(e.g.GBU-8/B, GPU-5/A, AGM-45 / -78, etc.) things will likely be revised in the future just like it has been with the F-4's it's just Gaijin wanting to bring multiple nations to a baseline, before individualizing the aircraft as dev timelines are likely tight and these kinds of things take time to get right.

Edited January 20 by tripod2008

[ÖL 612]

1 hour ago, tripod2008 said:

Yes an F-16 will probably get TWS at some point, though without AMRAAM's it will mostly be redundant and not really change much.

As with the US Block 10 & -15 missing a few niche items(e.g.GBU-8/B, GPU-5/A, AGM-45 / -78, etc.) things will likely be revised in the future just like it has been with the F-4's it's just Gaijin wanting to bring multiple nations to a baseline, before individualizing the aircraft as dev timelines are likely tight and these kinds of things take time to get right.

Tws makes a big difference with or without amraam.

 

Yeah I don't think it takes a lot of devtime to give the israeli f16 more cm.. they're just lazy devs that depend on the community to do the research for them

[spacenavy90 1,402]

3 minutes ago, zzoega said:

Tws makes a big difference with or without amraam.

 

Yeah I don't think it takes a lot of devtime to give the israeli f16 more cm.. they're just lazy devs that depend on the community to do the research for them

 

But not *TOO* much research....

Gaijin is going to do what Gaijin wants to do. Bug reports are basically worthless at this point. Might as well sit back and see what Gaijin had (un)planned the whole time.

Edited January 21 by spacenavy90

[Cairn_67 537]

2 hours ago, zzoega said:

Tws makes a big difference with or without amraam.

 

Yeah I don't think it takes a lot of devtime to give the israeli f16 more cm.. they're just lazy devs that depend on the community to do the research for them

Wait a few months and we could have AI for research. ChatGPT doesn't provide references for its responses (at the moment). But Israel is developing similar AI software that is intended to provide reference materials / citations for its responses. 

[spacenavy90 1,402]

World Air Power Journal Volume 5

https://archive.org/details/wap-5

 

 

Edited January 24 by spacenavy90

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

Soooooooo when will be the F16s FM fixed? Never? Maybe after Su-57 is added? 

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,781]

15 minutes ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

Soooooooo when will be the F16s FM fixed? Never? Maybe after Su-57 is added? 

From what point do want it to be "fixed"?

If you're talking of removing FBW limits, then it's not possible as there is no option to override it while flying.

[EL337GH0ST 184]

4 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

From what point do want it to be "fixed"?

If you're talking of removing FBW limits, then it's not possible as there is no option to override it while flying.

There is an option for removing FBW, it's called gameplay reasons.

 

If a Mig-23 can pull 9G without problems in this game, then the F-16 should not be limited to 9G (and even less) like in real life, it should get the standard 1.5x increase in G limit. Otherwise the Migs and all other planes should get fixed to real life G limits making them explode when pulling 9G.

Edited January 24 by EL337GH0ST

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

8 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

From what point do want it to be "fixed"?

If you're talking of removing FBW limits, then it's not possible as there is no option to override it while flying.

From the point that the thing can't turn at altitude thanks to how FBW is impemented. I don't want to turn 13Gs all the time (even tho for some reason at sea level i can easily pull 11g...), but at least let me have my 7-8-9Gs at alt, its really ***** up when I meet a 2K at 25k feet and can't outrate him.....

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,781]

1 hour ago, EL337GH0ST said:

There is an option for removing FBW, it's called gameplay reasons.

 

If a Mig-23 can pull 9G without problems in this game, then the F-16 should not be limited to 9G (and even less) like in real life, it should get the standard 1.5x increase in G limit. Otherwise the Migs and all other planes should get fixed to real life G limits making them explode when pulling 9G.

 

54 minutes ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

From the point that the thing can't turn at altitude thanks to how FBW is impemented. I don't want to turn 13Gs all the time (even tho for some reason at sea level i can easily pull 11g...), but at least let me have my 7-8-9Gs at alt, its really ***** up when I meet a 2K at 25k feet and can't outrate him.....

More and more aircrafts are going to get those limitations,... and since F-16 is the 1st one you all complain,... but i didn't saw much of you people complainning on previous unbalanced things in the game, because as always it was in US favor,...

 

The fact is you all wanted this at a certain time of the game, when you all did cried over the newly added G-lock feature,... Gaijin heard you, making pilot more G resisting at the time, and using the x1.5 rule of structural limit for all wing ripping.

 

Now, i'm having a fun time to see how many of you are complainning (again) because of something built realistically in this game!

 

You want something to change? Then call back old pilots which G-locked for 20° turn at Mach1.

 

Nasa researchs shows that for a pilot position, the maximum G-limit it can take before being uncounscious is following those numbers:

 

On 23/12/2022 at 14:49, Cpt_Bel_V said:

as per NASA charts:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930020462

For a pilot position pulling up(taking positive G forces, with blood going from head to toes):

At +18G you can stand 0.6s

At +14G you can stand 1.4s

At +11G you can stand 6s

At +9G you can stand 18s

At +7G you can stand 60s

And now try to have similar G number in game, and give me the time you got before G-lock, you'll be surprised on how easy gaijin is going on players already

 

Do the test with a F-14 or something fast enough to reach those peaks.

 

You'll also see why the F-16A having G-limits is interesting.

 

And also, Neg-G peaks in the game is like a cure, while in real life it shall simply destroy your veins and lungs by overpressured them from high positive G to high negative G.

 

Let's talk about removing F-16A limiter when you all does the testing of G-lock feature.

Edited January 24 by Cpt_Bel_V

[Grimtax 88]

The problem with the F-16's flight model is not the fact that it is limited with FBW. IIRC, the devs said they haven't even implemented it, it is configured like any other plane would be. The problem is that it doesn't even reach the G-loads it should be able to at altitude.

[tripod2008 583]

55 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Nasa researchs shows that for a pilot position, the maximum G-limit it can take before being uncounscious is following those numbers

Is this for a standard vertically arranged seat or is this accounting for the inclined arrangement of the F-16's seat, because with the recline the apparent (Head-to-Toe) G loading of the F-16's pilot is always lower in comparison. So in fact the F-16 should have some edge in performance over other aircraft in terms of G-LoC resistance.

 

55 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

You'll also see why the F-16A having G-limits is interesting.

The AoA limiters are actually bypassable (sort of) in the F-16 you just need to remove specific fuses in one of the panels that either feed power to various AoA sensors, or enable maintenance mode and run the bypass / system check, though I do take your point about it not being toggleable by a pressing a button somewhere in the cockpit, or requiring weight on wheels and ground power to enable.

 

It definitely represents an odd case as other aircraft are not similarly constrained by their listed loading limits in their respective manuals, it doesn't help that the F-16 doesn't obey the known documentation for the Limiter (see the Sustained Turn Capabilities chart in the spoiler below), for now either.

 

Spoiler

 

Edited January 24 by tripod2008

[MiG_23M 1,623]

2 hours ago, EL337GH0ST said:

There is an option for removing FBW, it's called gameplay reasons.

 

If a Mig-23 can pull 9G without problems in this game, then the F-16 should not be limited to 9G (and even less) like in real life, it should get the standard 1.5x increase in G limit. Otherwise the Migs and all other planes should get fixed to real life G limits making them explode when pulling 9G.

MiG-23 manual in real life suggests not to exceed 7G in earlier models, and 7.5 in the ML. The MLD is limited to 8.5, the thing is that it's just a safety limit mostly to do with stability and airframe longevity.
The manuals describe the upper limit as 1.5x the safety limit. This means that the MiG-23M should be able to handle 10.5Gs, the ML 11.25G's, and the MLD 12.75G's. This is realistic.

 

There is no FBW modeled in the game.

 

2 hours ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

From what point do want it to be "fixed"?

If you're talking of removing FBW limits, then it's not possible as there is no option to override it while flying.

In-game you can use elevator trim to overcome any compression and pull upwards of 14G's if you'd like in the F-16.

 

Quote

as per NASA charts:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930020462

For a pilot position pulling up(taking positive G forces, with blood going from head to toes):

At +18G you can stand 0.6s

At +14G you can stand 1.4s

At +11G you can stand 6s

At +9G you can stand 18s

At +7G you can stand 60s

These apply to an average pilot, there are pilots in the world who have been shown to handle 9G for 30s or 10G for 15-20, whatever the case.

This guy can handle 11G's for well over 10 seconds... I think about 20? It says in the citation above he was only supposed to handle 6... hmmm 

Spoiler

 

 

53 minutes ago, Grimtax said:

The problem with the F-16's flight model is not the fact that it is limited with FBW. IIRC, the devs said they haven't even implemented it, it is configured like any other plane would be. The problem is that it doesn't even reach the G-loads it should be able to at altitude.

Correct!

 

 

Edited January 24 by MiG_23M
forgot to add the 12G overload video

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

 

More and more aircrafts are going to get those limitations,... and since F-16 is the 1st one you all complain,... but i didn't saw much of you people complainning on previous unbalanced things in the game, because as always it was in US favor,...

 Wow, who put salt in your café? US favor.. yeah   we all forget how the mig23 slammed everything for 1 year, till the F14 was added. Not to mention how helicopters were introduced with broken hellfires and STILL overperfoming vikhirs and atakas. But thats a different tale to tell.

 

1 hour ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Now, i'm having a fun time to see how many of you are complainning (again) because of something built realistically in this game!

Personally i'm not complaining because the plane has a 9G limiter IRL, but because its not implemented as it should be, so in game its not 9G but 11-12G at tree top level, and 6G above 20k. How is this realistic? 

 

1 hour ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Nasa researchs shows that for a pilot position, the maximum G-limit it can take before being uncounscious is following those numbers:

 

On 23/12/2022 at 14:49, Cpt_Bel_V said:

as per NASA charts:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930020462

For a pilot position pulling up(taking positive G forces, with blood going from head to toes):

At +18G you can stand 0.6s

At +14G you can stand 1.4s

At +11G you can stand 6s

At +9G you can stand 18s

At +7G you can stand 60s

And now try to have similar G number in game, and give me the time you got before G-lock, you'll be surprised on how easy gaijin is going on players already

What are you trying to tell me with this article? I quicky run through, but its pretty scientific. It observes the acclerations in space and mostly in z axis tolerances.

You think this should only apply for F16 pilots? or what? I don't get it. Its true for all aircraft in the game.( flatspins should also G lock you...yet...)

 

1 hour ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

You'll also see why the F-16A having G-limits is interesting.

 

And also, Neg-G peaks in the game is like a cure, while in real life it shall simply destroy your veins and lungs by overpressured them from high positive G to high negative G.

Yeah the limitation is for the pilot. As the plane can pull even more. Also the whole G-lock mechanic is implemented poorly, as you should not be able to control the plane at all. No throttle, no stick, no rudder, etc etc. There is no total blackout as in real life, you still see something, like missile launches and dots(planes). The neg G xxxx makes me even more upset. If you pull -4G for seconds your pilot should be brain dead. This whole mechanic needs to be reimplemented properly.

[tripod2008 583]

17 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

This is realistic.

In a sense, that doesn't mean that the plane would come back in serviceable order at all though even if the flight envelope specified in the manual were exceeded without causing a critical failure of the wing doesn't mean that it wouldn't be warped, deformed, cracked, etc. and need to be serviced / checked before returning to flight and recertified or written off.

 

It doesn't mean that F-14's would have their wings snap off at 9G's due to the restrictions(6 G's) placed on them in order to extend their service life, or raised to 19.5G's since one was clocked pulling 13G's during test flights.

Edited January 24 by tripod2008

[MiG_23M 1,623]

1 minute ago, tripod2008 said:

In a sense, that doesn't mean that the plane would come back in serviceable order at all though, even if the flight envelope specified in the manual were exceeded without causing a critical failure of the wing doesn't mean that it wouldn't be warped, deformed, cracked, etc. and need to be serviced / checked before returning to flight and recertified or written off.

 

It doesn't mean that F-14's would have their wings snap off at 9G's due to the restrictions(6 G's) placed on them in order to extend their service life, or raised to 19.5G's since one was clocked pulling 13G's during test flights.

The MiG-23 would certainly have a very short lifespan pulling 11G's every flight, no one is arguing this. The fact of the matter is that you go to battle in a brand new plane and so they do not model such things in war thunder.

 

The F-14 limit was 7.6G's, they also have a 1.5x safety rule. 11-12G's in war thunder will snap it's wings quickly, but it is possible to hold up to 13G's in some scenarios in war thunder but you do risk snapping the wings at that overload. Peaking at 13G's in test flights does not suggest they should have 1.5x that performance though, the "safety limits" do not correlate with what has been done in testing.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,781]

2 hours ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

US favor.. yeah   we all forget how the mig23 slammed everything for 1 year

Skill issue btw... (I was playing Mirage F.1C since it was out on the last 2.5 months period, and i was more often killed by F-4's than MiG-23's,...)

 

i did also used my own phantom F-4/F-4EJ/F4EJKai versus MiG-23, and apart the All-aspect thingy, they were both pretty usable.

 

And i played a lot of F-5E which was the real unseen beast,... able to do the job, even using only 2 AAM.

 

So, yes,... technically big nations didn't complainned much when they were BOTH stomping on minor ones. 

[CodyBlues 322]

24 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Skill issue btw... (I was playing Mirage F.1C since it was out on the last 2.5 months period, and i was more often killed by F-4's than MiG-23's,...)

 

i did also used my own phantom F-4/F-4EJ/F4EJKai versus MiG-23, and apart the All-aspect thingy, they were both pretty usable.

 

And i played a lot of F-5E which was the real unseen beast,... able to do the job, even using only 2 AAM.

 

So, yes,... technically big nations didn't complainned much when they were BOTH stomping on minor ones. 

Seriously, everyone complained how the Mig-23 was OP when the F-4+F-5E combos was far scarier.

 

 

[tripod2008 583]

1 hour ago, CodyBlues said:

Seriously, everyone complained how the Mig-23 was OP when the F-4+F-5E combos was far scarier.

 

 

Mostly because the MiG-23 had clear advantages over the F-4E / -4J & F-5E / F-8E that could be easily exploited if they were left unsupported (and needing friends or the matchmaker to give diverse teams was a crapshoot), as the R-23/-24T was much harder to notice than the AIM-7, since the IRST allowed for silent missile cueing, and Notch widths and general radar mechanics were much worse making Sparrows trivial to dodge, and it was much harder for the F-5E / F-8E to get in close without support where they had the advantage as they had no way to remain on the offensive if focused and going defensive wouldn't reduce the edge they had in close, considering the lack of All Aspect IR missiles.

 

So yes if it was a 1v1 the MiG-23 was the much superior option, against a diverse team that played to its strengths it could be wrangled into a fair fight.

 

Edited January 25 by tripod2008

[[email protected] 2,186]

20 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

The F-14 limit was 7.6G's, they also have a 1.5x safety rule. 11-12G's in war thunder will snap it's wings quickly, but it is possible to hold up to 13G's in some scenarios in war thunder but you do risk snapping the wings at that overload. Peaking at 13G's in test flights does not suggest they should have 1.5x that performance though, the "safety limits" do not correlate with what has been done in testing.

The weapons loadout and fuel carried changes what the game sets as a structural g-limit and that is consistent amongst all planes.

F-14 will rip at 11.2g with 30 minutes of fuel and 4 Aim 7s + 4 Aim 9s.
It will rip at 12.6g with minimum fuel and no weapons.
 

F-14 has IRL G-limit of 7.5g according to EM chart while carrying 4 Aim-7s + 4 Aim-9s.
7.5 x 1.5 = 11.25g = structural limit.
 

So yes it is consistent and you are wrong. Again.

[MythicPi 565]

18 hours ago, CodyBlues said:

Seriously, everyone complained how the Mig-23 was OP when the F-4+F-5E combos was far scarier.

 

 

 

This is a load of crap.

 

The WT community has a REALLY nasty habit of forgetting how things actually happened along WT's history.

 

The F-5E was added back in the "Red Skies" update on June 2nd, the same update the MiG-23M was added. The F-5E was a problem due to having MANY modelling issues leading to unrealistic advantages, chief of which was its insanely low fuel burn rate while using afterburner which let it run min fuel and afterburn the whole game with no issues, making this plane an absolute nightmare from the fact that it could pull 180 deg turns at the merge and catch you because it just didn't lose any speed, and also due to how it was a dogfighting god due to the reduced fuel rate of the plane. The MiG-23M was never a balancing issue for the game, although it did have a nasty bug in that whenever its wings were swept back, it could not be targeted by radar missiles, which made F-4's struggle against them and often waste ordinance trying to kill them (I wrote the bug report and did the testing myself, though it took a while to figure out it was related to the wings sweep). Once the issues with the F-5E were resolved, it became much less of a balancing issue, although the Americans did still have the more balanced team performance.

 

Then came the MLD and it tossed the balance clean out the window and dominated from its addition in "Ground Breaking" on October 28th all the way until the F-14A was added during "Danger Zone" on June 15th (7.5 months). It dominated so badly gaijin had to raise the BR ceiling for air vehicles from 11.0 to 11.3 in under a month of it being introduced:

And before you argue "but they mention the EJ Kai in that post!" the EJ Kai had been in the game for 2 months already before the MLD, and 3 before the change without much concern shown by gaijin. It was likely only added to that posts line to make it seem less like an "oops we accidentally broke the game by being idiots and jumping from one of the earliest mig-23 variants to one of the absolute last variants in one go" situation.

 

The MLD was downright dominant for roughly 2/3rd's of a year, with no real competitor or area in which it struggled as all radar missiles had been nerfed HARD in December 2021, and the nerf was only reverted in September 2022 making the BVR and head-on issue of limited concern during the entire time the MLD was dominating. 

 

This isn't the first time whataboutism has been used to justify a nation dominance in WT, and despite whataboutism itself already being a horrid argument to use, its even more infuriating that the people using it try to bend the reality of the history of WT to make it seem like they're more justified than they are.

 

 For the record, I don't think the MLD dominating is a good reason for another nation dominating either.

Edited January 25 by MythicPi

[MiG_23M 1,623]

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

The weapons loadout and fuel carried changes what the game sets as a structural g-limit and that is consistent amongst all planes.

F-14 will rip at 11.2g with 30 minutes of fuel and 4 Aim 7s + 4 Aim 9s.
It will rip at 12.6g with minimum fuel and no weapons.
 

F-14 has IRL G-limit of 7.5g according to EM chart while carrying 4 Aim-7s + 4 Aim-9s.
7.5 x 1.5 = 11.25g = structural limit.
 

So yes it is consistent and you are wrong. Again.

So you agree with what I just said? You said yourself 11.2G with a certain loadout it is possible to rip, in others nearly 13 exactly as I said?

 

My argument is that it is consistent with the real life limits even on the MiG-23 which you didn't believe until you were shown the manual elaborating on the 1.5x limit...?

Edited January 25 by MiG_23M

[CodyBlues 322]

1 hour ago, MythicPi said:

 

This is a load of crap.

 

The WT community has a REALLY nasty habit of forgetting how things actually happened along WT's history.

 

The F-5E was added back in the "Red Skies" update on June 2nd, the same update the MiG-23M was added. The F-5E was a problem due to having MANY modelling issues leading to unrealistic advantages, chief of which was its insanely low fuel burn rate while using afterburner which let it run min fuel and afterburn the whole game with no issues, making this plane an absolute nightmare from the fact that it could pull 180 deg turns at the merge and catch you because it just didn't lose any speed, and also due to how it was a dogfighting god due to the reduced fuel rate of the plane. The MiG-23M was never a balancing issue for the game, although it did have a nasty bug in that whenever its wings were swept back, it could not be targeted by radar missiles, which made F-4's struggle against them and often waste ordinance trying to kill them (I wrote the bug report and did the testing myself, though it took a while to figure out it was related to the wings sweep). Once the issues with the F-5E were resolved, it became much less of a balancing issue, although the Americans did still have the more balanced team performance.

 

Then came the MLD and it tossed the balance clean out the window and dominated from its addition in "Ground Breaking" on October 28th all the way until the F-14A was added during "Danger Zone" on June 15th (7.5 months). It dominated so badly gaijin had to raise the BR ceiling for air vehicles from 11.0 to 11.3 in under a month of it being introduced:

And before you argue "but they mention the EJ Kai in that post!" the EJ Kai had been in the game for 2 months already before the MLD, and 3 before the change without much concern shown by gaijin. It was likely only added to that posts line to make it seem less like an "oops we accidentally broke the game by being idiots and jumping from one of the earliest mig-23 variants to one of the absolute last variants in one go" situation.

 

The MLD was downright dominant for roughly 2/3rd's of a year, with no real competitor or area in which it struggled as all radar missiles had been nerfed HARD in December 2021, and the nerf was only reverted in September 2022 making the BVR and head-on issue of limited concern during the entire time the MLD was dominating. 

 

This isn't the first time whataboutism has been used to justify a nation dominance in WT, and despite whataboutism itself already being a horrid argument to use, its even more infuriating that the people using it try to bend the reality of the history of WT to make it seem like they're more justified than they are.

 

 For the record, I don't think the MLD dominating is a good reason for another nation dominating either.

Wow, that’s a real rant there. How easily forgotten is the F-4s forcing everyone down to the ground, then the F-5 coming in and moping up everything that was crawling along it. The mig-23MLD was a pain but I still hated fighting the F combo much more.

 

We have the same thing happening now on a more advanced level with the F-14+F-16. 

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

I think we are getting more and more offtopic, I didn't want to bring up old (bad)memories(at least for US and anyone other than soviet mains). The way FBW on F16 is implemented is bad. F14 was introduced too early (f16 should have come first but topgun smh) etc. 

 

So back to topic? When will we get more realistic implementations of airframe and pilot limitations in game?

[ÖL 612]

Planes in wt should fly as the performance charts say they fly. And when the wings snap can be at 1.5x more load than reality for gameplay purposes. I'm happy with that. I don't think the f16 should get a 1.5x flight performance boost as some people has suggested