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…)
The guy who make those F-16 skins are my favourite, his skins are on different level.
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.
lol
The og right here lol
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.
The F-16 doesn’t have PIDS. Neither does the AH-64D
Someone pending F-16C Block 25 (gulf war era 1990 ~ feb 1991)
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
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 …
F-16AM MLU ability to slave AIM-9 and FCR to TGP and vice versa:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IJGjPWBvgFPq
Info from F-16.net indicates that APG-66V2 on MLU birds can do Six-on-Six launch of AMRAAMs
Though similar with APG-68 in antenna size，the 66V2 has older versions of software and slower processing speed.
(As you know, APG-66V2 came with MLU Tape1 back in the 90s.And we got a M6.1Tape F-16C Block50 with 68V7 radar for USAF and others with 68V5)
Still, it guides 6 AMRAAMs.
And I gained more insighs on why Viper pilots prefer RWS SAM.
In a nutshell,
TWS sacrifices a little max detection range
They are experienced enough to interpret information like target vector and closure in RWS
(they exploit TGT HIS and frequent updates)
I hope that’s getting us closer to the facts XD
When the official statement of an active F-16 pilot and a USAF official/commander published on the official USAF website doesn’t count as a source, obviously f-16.net doesn’t count as a source either.
Again, the statement is pretty self explanatory and makes the discussion about the radar mode irrelevant …
AGM-65D/F/G IR Maverick incorrect FoV :
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c0wIZ1uBCdhO
AGM-65E/E2/L/F/G Warhead:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/elXPRxl5e8GA
Litening II weight:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/k091OhJj9cVl
AV-8B Plus & AV-8B (NA) TPOD field of view:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uOxBQxBf0QY2
AV-8B Plus & AV-8B (NA) TPOD angular limits:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/UhZ4CTWQJF30
Anyway……you have any intelligence on APG-68’s NCTR and AN/ALR-56M’s band coverage?
Cuz the currently in–game F16 seems to be lacking NCTR and low band signal detection capability.
As for NCTR, there was at least provisions for it in the interface.
As to whether any variant of APG-68 or APG-66 actually had NCTR or not, I haven’t found any sources yet
It seems NCTR was not mentioned in manuals for F16 with OFP earlier than M3 tapes.
