This man is clinically insane
1 Like
I want a remake once they add F-16C BLK 30, F-16D BLK 40 (USAF), F-16E blk 60, F-16V block 70, and F-16C PoBIT lol
Why do you want an F-16D?
Because it’s the first jet to ever get an AMRAAM kill
1 Like
I want it just because I want more two-seaters in the game…
2 Likes
In that case I want the MiG-25
2 Likes
Me too
On the topic of F-16 skins…
The Block 10 for the US only has one market skin, and it’s semi-historical at best (since IRL it was on a Block 15).
There are a few pretty nice skins from WT Live I hope to see it get over time…
(Speaking of, I’m still hoping someone will cover some of the FSD schemes at some point…)
1 Like
The guy who make those F-16 skins are my favourite, his skins are on different level.
1 Like
The thing is a UFO and the AOA should be limited to its IRL 25 degrees and going over 29 degrees AOA should lead to deep stalls.
F-16 overperforming in AOA and also ITR due to that // Gaijin.net // Issues
I should not be able to low speed scissor at over 30 degrees AOA and pull 50 degrees AOA and recover easily.
7 Likes
lol
6 Likes
The og right here lol
1 Like
Your report will probably be labeled duplicate and given a link to this report which of course has been collecting dust for a flight model report.
3 Likes
The F-16 doesn’t have PIDS. Neither does the AH-64D
2 Likes
Someone pending F-16C Block 25 (gulf war era 1990 ~ feb 1991)
3 Likes
Bug reports:
1- F-16A MLU & F-16AM: APG-66(V)3: Incorrect ACM patterns and missing features:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YgQ6qkTdE861
2- F-16A MLU & F-16AM: APG-66(V)3: Incorrect antenna beamwidth:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/sDoL7DmBwxYz
3- F-16A MLU & F-16AM: APG-66(V)3: radar MFD incorrect look and missing information:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/iPopfKU0vW4Y
4- F-16A MLU & F-16AM: APG-66(V)3: incorrect TWS search patterns:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VbcPcb7Wa23B
5- F-16A MLU & F-16AM: APG-66(V)3: Missing instant velocity vector for the selected target:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HT3gGRLGklgb
6- F-16A MLU, F-16AM MLU, F-16C: EEGS not displayed correctly:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/rTsoa3Udrbc8
7- F-16A MLU & F-16AM: APG-66(V)3: Missing SMT mode:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MDmi8RllhgKC
3 Likes
Just to note that most USAF F-16 pilots prefer RWS to TWS when engaging aerial targets, which in game is modelled as SRC PD, you get range, bearing and velocity info, but no target aspect.You get raw target contacts, not track profiles.
Under this condition, the APG-68, even V5, can track, or call it soft lock, up to 2 targets, and support the guidance of AIM120s.
So the article is right,(when RWS is applied) but it’s a different story with TWS.
But why? When tracking 2 targets in RWS. The radar doesn’t stare at the two targets simultaneously.
The radar keeps tracking these two targets by moving the antenna to point at these two targets for a very short time so that it won’t trigger the RWR of these targets(why we call it soft lock).Then radar moves away its antenna to scan a pilot designated area.
After scanning the area, it moves back to tracked targets again to ensure they are still there.
In a nutshell, the radar is doing TWS on 2 selected targets.And the pilot can still slew the radar around to maintain his SA. This is called SAM Mode in RWS
And that’s why the radar is saturated in DTT mode.
After all it’s not a AESA radar!
Also, because of the SAM mode in RWS MODE, pilots choose RWS in F-16s by default cuz it makes the radar process information faster.You don’t need to establish track profile for every single contact on your radar.
Gaijin has yet to model this useful function in F16s
But it’s already realized in DCS
It would be a viable functionality addition to APG-68 if suggested and accepted tho.
I’m aware of SAM mode hence my report for addition of SAM Multi-Target Track (SMT) mode above.
But the point is, if USAF pilots have to use the SAM mode for weapon guidance that means that the TWS mode doesn’t have sufficient track quality for AIM-120 guidance.
(At least not for more than two; I imagine you could have a “bugged target” and a “cursor target” in TWS mode and guide AIM-120s on those two targets as “bugged target” and “cursor target” get more frequent updates and higher track quality).
“The radar only has enough performance to guide two missiles simultaneously and no more” is pretty self-explanatory …
The similar limit on other radars such as N001VEP could very well be due to a similar reason (track quality deemed not sufficient for guiding on more than two targets), rather than a hard limit. You have to treat various planes the same way …
