Does anyone here know if the israeli f16c barak block 30 ever had a HMD like the block 40 f16d barak II?
Why does the F-16A blk15 ADF not have TWS even though theres substantial evidence that it actually does and is this small RWR thing on the F-16As a bug?
Why is it that the F-16C has less bomb payload than the F-16A?
The F-16A can carry 19 mk82 bombs spread across 5 pylons
F-16C can only carry 12 mk82 on 4 pylons
I would have thought it was the same payload
1 Like
No one is discussing the overperformance of the F-16 in this thread? I suppose it only matters when the aircraft is underperforming.
Ive discussed it in circles with friends but its hard to report since the only public manual with a rate graph is for the 16A but with a PW-200 when our F-16As have a PW-220.
Personally I find it annoying though the F-16C for example should not have drastically better sustained rate performance than the MiG-29 9.12 like how it does ingame if the F-16s were lowered to a more realistic performance standard then other nations top tiers like the Mirage 2000 would be a lot more competitive in dogfighting than they are right now. Currently most top tiers have pretty realistic performance but the F-16 is a glaring exception.
Its funny imo because the Mirage 2000 IRL is known to go toe to toe with the F-16 in dogfights but ingame the F-16 is vastly superior in every metric even in AoA fights, which is just goofy
Well I don’t know that the Mirage 2000 should go toe-to-toe with the F-16A block 10 in a dogfight, I know that the F-16 should not be having an easy time against one in the one circle. Certainly not beating it in every metric.
The F-16 should be forced into the sustained turn fight to win. It isn’t. It’s just pulling back the stick as hard as you can and putting nose on target while somehow retaining more energy as well. It’s ridiculous. And if it was modeled properly they could 100% allow pilots to do this… but I think the instability in that region that is the reason for the FLCS should also be modeled. Currently the F-16 can do wild 90 degree AoA spins and recover in less than 1/2 a turn as needed when the MiG-29 can hardly exceed 30 degrees in a horizontal turn without going into an unrecoverable spin.
@iso_gate I don’t mean to sound offensive to anyone, but do you think that the community doesn’t realize there is an issue with these FM’s?
I believe there are 2 ways to report its performance:
Reporting sustained rate performance (if its overperforming then drag would be adjusted and then holding energy wouldnt be so comical)
reporting low speed handling/high AoA
though I mostly focus on reporting systems and weapons and I do not delve much into flight models
The F-16A’s sustained turn performance is mostly accurate though, and that’s within the AoA limitations set by the FLCS. The issue is that you can exceed the limits set by the FLCS.
The FLCS sets those limits not to prevent maximum overload beyond 9.3-10G, and not to help pilot. It has those limitations in real life to avoid early departure from controlled flight. The FM in war thunder flies in the face of physics and permits the player to maneuver at AoA, yaw and roll rates that the F-16 would not be capable of in real life. The stuff I do with the F-16A block 10 in-game should result in dead pilots and wrecks and the worst part is that there isn’t even a drop of instability worth noting when doing it.
1 Like
are there any active reports on this that have not been shot down?
I’ve opened yet another one on the MiG-29 about the AoA since they said they’d fix it and bring it from 46 to 55-60 but it’s now like… 49… and the aircraft goes into the aforementioned unrecoverable spins or stalls.
My old F-16 report was closed as “not a bug” but they claimed they’d fix it and add the instability when they modeled the FLCS. The FLCS is here, they claim they fixed the lack of instability but there has been no noticeable change.
Here is what happens when you pull max stick and fight the roll / yawing motions in both F-16 and MiG-29.
1 Like
Developers did not want to make the aircraft suffer from high instability in previous updates until the FLCS could be modeled. They also did not want to restrict it to a lower AoA than what it might be capable of sustaining without losing control as compared to other aircraft or it would be at a disadvantage.
So instead… they gave it no instability, and more than twice the available AoA it had before reaching instability that it had in real life…
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1066148362497306684/1155308131644100648/image.png
In my opinion, if the aircraft was not able to exceed an AoA limit to prevent departure from controlled flight… they should model that. Giving it more available AoA at low speeds than it would ever really be capable of achieving in real life is nonsense and make believe. I’m perfectly fine with not modeling the G-limiter, allow the aircraft to exceed 9, 10, 11G’s at high enough speeds that it does not require >35 degrees AoA to do so briefly. In-game it’s pulling 45+ degrees with no consequence when stuff like the Mirage 2000 is limited to it’s historical 28-32 degrees. Doesn’t make sense.
2 Likes
F-16A ADF uses APG-66V1.
TWS was not added until V2 or V3, I forget which specifically.
@Elijah1573
6 bomb smart racks stopped being used, and they’re not present in manuals either, so it’s assumed they cannot use them anymore.
so how is it possible for Air National Guard units depoy the Aim-120 with F-16A blk 15 ADFs? like they did historically
It doesn’t require TWS to fire, can be done from a hard lock. It’s also possible it was added later or upgraded without an official block number change. Similar to the MLU program.
2 Likes
I know how but the documents that I have in the F-16A blk 15ADF are restricted.
why would the USAF allow that?
also what declassified sources say that the APG-66V3 got TWS and the APG-66V1 didnt? Where are the sources?
The same reason our Abrams SEPV2’s were upgraded with more powerful turret drives from the SEPV3’s program or retrofitted with the improved CROWS, APS, improved thermals, strengthened towing mounts, etc but are still just “SEPV2” with no change in designation to speak of.
Well, both videos show the absence of any reasonable flight-model.
Agreed
1 Like