TobiasA

The F-16 is more stable with the brakes already open (ground effect, as someone already described), also it is faster to close the brake than to spool up the engine. Due to these two reasons, F-16's land with the speedbrake open. You need them either way after touch down. You should fully extend the speed brake once the front wheel touches down. Also, pulling the stick full aft after the front wheel touched down converts your elevators into a speedbrake. Look at that video at 3:30 when the second F-16 lands. Speedbrakes are open before you touch down. When the nose wheel touches the ground, extend speed brakes fully, stick full aft. The F-16's brakes won't extend fully when the gear is out unless you have weight on wheels because they would touch the ground first if you get your nose too high so you gotta manually extend them fully after the nose wheel is on the ground.

I am probably the only one with custom chaff/flare programs and using them..? I have mapped the CMS and flick the programs. - One program for defending against radar missiles solely dispensing chaffs - One program for defending against IR missiles which quickly dispenses flares, mixed with a chaff just in case - One program for pre-emptive chaffing if you encounter radar guided AAA or during BVR - One program for pre-emptive chaff and flares if you enter the WEZ of MANPAD's during a popup or similar - One emergency program dispensing both chaffs and flares (the oh-fu-button) <--- This is my "bypass", it is the emergency program next to the throttle mapped to a shortcut Programs are pre-selected for the expected threat type, usually being program 4 as a standard. If things go bad, this isn't wrong. Flying the F-16 usually means you will run out of fuel before you run out of countermeasures, just do reasonable programs with Baileys DCS CMS Editor found here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/de/files/3311389/ and there you go. Remember to put the file back after each update. The predefined programs aren't very bright and leave a lot of room for improvement since they are all the same. Real life programs are classified afaik. But the above should you give an idea on how you can make effective use of the CMS by just mapping 3 functions- CMS up, program up, program down. It is quite sure that you'll need CMS right and CMS down later for the jammer, so it is probably wise to map CMS as a whole now. It probably also depends on if you fight AI or human players. If you go single player, it might be worth keeping flares and chaffs but against humans, you better drop plenty. If you get hit with a full CMS container, you didn't take all your chances for survival at that point.

Of course. I'm just curious if they will give us the V7 or reduce to the numbers of the V5. Or if said numbers are for the V7....

Hmm... Yes, you are right since it is the area that receives a specific power of a wave that decreases by a power of 2 with range. The effect should be neglible then, which would give a detection range of about said 55-60nm for the V5 and 60-65nm for the V7.

It is like I said: 56nm for a 5m² target is a number I could find, which is probably for the V5. Given 10% more RCS (5.5 for the Su-27) + another 10% more for the V7 would bring us somewhere there. However, there is little to no data about it... I'd say a 50-ish range is realistic.

Given the AN/APG-68 has a detection range of about 56nm against a 5.5m² target its performance against the 5.5m² Su-27 is not too far off. 10% more RCS would equal about ~65nm and we have 77. However, I think the numbers are for the V5 and we have the V7 in the Blk50/52, the V7 having a roughly 10% plus in range compared with the V5 so it would be more or less on point. It is difficult to find numbers, and given the fact that the V9 has a 30% higher detection range on the same size, apparently size is an important factor but not the only thing determinating the detection range. The V7 would be fair, given that the US upgraded all the older blocks afaik. It is all classified though. If you have any reliable numbers about the radar range, I'd be interested. I didn't find much, and what I found, supports the current numbers in DCS or show the DCS radar slightly overperforming by about 10% detection range. However, literally all the sources show the F15C with AN/APG-63 is underperforming, the Flanker radar probably sucks IRL because of its age... But those are FC3. Can't say anything about the hornet, but the AN/APG-73 is probably slightly worse given the fact it is older afaik. I expect a slight decrease in the F-16's radar, they will probably model the V5 to have less gap to other comparable fighters. They could also just say it's the V7 and we would be fine, dunno how they decide. Again, you probably will not find numbers anywhere. It is highly classified for a reason.

If it happens in that order, I'd buy it because I own the Viper. The one thing I'd like to see before placing a pre order is a feature list of what is included in EA. And some progress on the Viper is mandatory, don't need another F-16. I might actually pre-order for the sake of contributing to seeing the module, since I enjoyed longbow 2 back then until it didn't run anymore.

Is there any manual for the Block50/52 available as a public source? All I know of is the F-16A MLU manual, I know of no other manual describing the operation and function of the Blk 50/52. There is the HAF F-16 manual, but it describes the plane itself, but not HOTAS operation or avionics systems. Been looking for such a manual for quite some time but didn't find any.

You people make me curious about combined arms actually.

Y'all need a bigger screen, folks

At the current state of the plane I can understand that. You should come back later

There is little to no point about adding JDAMs and similar munitions before you have an air to ground radar, because this is the major sensor for it. It goes STPT -> radar -> TGP with each sensor being slewable to the one on top of it. Having no radar, but the weapons behind it might mean that you have to rewrite parts of it. IMHO they should bring a mediocre AG radar with only GM mode (basically what the Viggen has) and then continue with integrating more weapons that rely on exactly that sensor. It makes everything more complicated if you want to integrate the radar later.

Nice! Wait for the AG stuff to come, it will be an excellent wild weasel in these days.

Without buying early access, we wouldn't see many advanced modules. That being said, I will neither buy the Hind or Apache until they show that they actually care about the F-16 instead of pushing new modules without finishing what they started. The flight model is off at slow speed, basically everything below Mach 0.5. There are plenty of discussions about it with clear proof that the current flight model is underperforming. But: These points are known by ED and I am pretty sure that they do care. Because it affects DCS as a whole. Like what would probably happen if you could pull a large part of the community of "that other sim"? But... Those guys over there (I fly there as well) don't even take DCS seriously. It is currently not an option for most people. So they won't buy the module, no maps, no campaigns, no other planes. Until DCS proves to be able to provide the same amount of fidelity and depth. And I am pretty sure that ED knows that. The F-16 is "burned" to a certain degree and as of now, it is a missed chance. I see how other developers handle early access and it makes me believe in the concept as such but as for ED seeing is believing. I'd say we wait for the hornet being out of early access and see what happens. I decided to give ED a chance with the compromise that one module where half of the stuff isn't working is enough. Everyone deserves a second chance. However, I can totally understand the frustration about seeing the Hind and Apache being made without any real improvement made on the F-16. And I share it to a large extent.

So here is a track. As long as the TGP is not timed out, you can not enter a laser code. I don't know if this is intended or not. If you can't play the track or it does not show the expected outcome, I will repeat it or upload a video. Whatever you need F-16_TGP_minimal.trk

No current ETA for anything. Expect one at autumn or so.

The key to endurance is discipline and altitude. Go for angels 25-30 for travel. Don't go burner all the time. With two bags, you can go on a two hour trip with a fuel flow of about 5- 6k/h at altitude. If you have below 7.6k fuel, the external tanks are empty and you might jettison those.

Wait what? That wasn't a placebo back then? Is there any official source for it?

That might indeed by an explanation for the keybind not working. Thanks!

When you try to enter a laser code in the DED before the TGP is ready, it will not accept input and default to a blank field. When the TGP is ready, the laser code will then appear on its own when you return to the DED page. I think at least the later one is incorrect, but I think that not accepting the laser code input is incorrect too. Also, pressing return on the ICP with the keybind sometimes does not return to the main page.

So I am not the only one with that feeling.

Didn't know if I was getting used to it or if it is really better. It felt different but I haven't flown heavy loadouts yet.

Currently not, unfortunately. Dang. Would have been a nice deal, considering they are probably the same in price I think the teasing is probably a sign of having being "nearly there". I'm actually thinking of starting the WW2 stuff, it is for sure easier to learn... Seriously, I actually think such a teaser is nice, because it shows someone is really working on something.

Hey, wanna buy Bk90?

Both would be nice. I know tons of people who are waiting for a Gripen and if HB would announce it many of them would pre-order it. But I think that this is somewhat unlikely. The F-4 would be a good choice which would also attract a lot of people. A lot of countries flew it.