Guys do you have photos of sufa’s belly CM dispensers?
So now we will have 20 CMs less.
But if we manage to proof every dispenser of sufa uses 30 CM pods, we will get 240 in total. Those three 15 large CMs dispensers are such a waste…
Large caliber is over 2x the effectiveness of standard caliber. They are not a waste.
3 dispensers on the left side
1 dispenser on the right side}
Source: https://www.isradecal.com/product-page/f-16i-sufa-in-iaf-service
Author: Ra’anan Weiss
Had a feeling it might just be a modeling error.
The underbelly dispensers can be either or, it’s an interchangeable system and it’s up to the devs to model it visually and functionally to their discretion. We can only make suggestions based on the visual model and service usage, so it is possible to get it changes to all standard if we want to report it, but as Alvis said that’s not exactly a necessity.
@CobarGG
The countermeasure system that uses polygonal flares allow for 1x1, 1x2, or 2x3 inch countermeasures to be used.
2x3 is typically American only as they’re used on F-15Es in some use cases.
Both 1x2 and 1x1 are correct for flares.
Still no NCTR and GMTI planned for APG-68V7/9 ?
I wonder why Gaijin is treating the APG-68 SO UNFAIRLY
No sources for NCTR exist atm. If you believe you have sufficient evidence to suggest such a feature I suggest you make a bug report. Me and my friends combed through PDFs and all over online but found nothing that suggests it had such capability in way gaijin would accept.
with how shit aim120c5s are ingame this will be the worst 14.0
The Engine Thrust report has been shot down:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/v32FW8LApuP8
A friend of mine is working on a new one at the moment, I’ll post it here when it’s up, but I don’t know if that’ll go through either.
I think it’ll be plenty fine, for CAS especially. It’s a strike aircraft after all, that how the IAF uses it, not as an air superiority fighter. Besides there’s always the chance of Aim-120Bs once I get some actual sourcing for a better report.
PW-220 F-16 having more thrust than PW-220 F-15 engine: “Am I a joke to you?”
if aim120c5s werent gimped it could actually be usable at 14.0 though
Another report on Pw229 just got shot down, rip:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Q7c4h2LhgDpg
F-16i is a single engine jet with pretty good CM dispensers position. It doesnt have any problems flaring missiles like F-14 or F-4. Having 45 more CMs will help alot preflaring irsi-t’s and like. Are you sure you guys want to keep those 195 CMs with some of them being large caliber ones instead of 240 regular ones?
Which one do you guys want?
Because thrust is not static thing and values in statcard are useless. There is perfomance graphs for pw229 equipped export F-16 avaliable in internet. IDK if they restricted. But if not, they can be used to tune flight performance if you think that it’s wrong.
Add abilitiy to choose dispensers type in loadout menu allowing any combinations
It should at least get Python-4 for close range self defence.
Aim120’s can be easily evade with notching and multipathing, with Python-4 it can defend itself against superior airframes at close range.
к сожалению, мы не можем менять тип спд, переключаясь с крупных на стандартные, в этом проблема. Я считаю, что стандартные эффективнее из-за более долгого префлейра. Вот в чем вопрос заключается
It’s not Ru forum.
I couldnt reply in time to you in the bug report, but my hope was that they would at least look at the figures and implement a middle ground, rather than go with the static thrust.
I was also able to find a few of the docs you were referring to but all of them were export restricted unfortunately.
