Aquorys

I don't know the definitive answer off the top of my head, the one thing that I can say is that it can track 10 targets simultaneously, so unless there is some other limiting factor, it should also be able to update the missiles with new information about each target USAF pilots do not talk about the radar in much detail at all, and many refuse to say anything about it at all, because the radar is one of the most strictly classified parts of the aircraft (along with IFF, ECM and air-to-air missiles). A few things that are kind of well-known are that the F-16's radar isn't all that great in general compared to other currently operational aircraft, but there is also some "war mode" that can be enabled by technicians, and it comes with a couple features that pilots said were surprising and quite advanced, compared to the capabilities of opposing forces' systems (like e.g., Russian, Chinese, etc.).

Never flown the F-4, I can normally take out any AI aircraft with the F-16, some are easier, some are harder. AI works best on the Veteran level, I have seen Ace AI fly maneuvers that do not make any sense, and correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, Ace AI has full knowledge of the player's aircraft and weapons' state, so yes, it is "cheating". Apart from that, I am quite sure that the AI MiG-15 is overperforming significantly, the MiG-21 might in a clean configuration. The way my dogfight test scenario is set up, I have the player and opponent configured with 80% fuel, opponent with 2 short range missiles (e.g., R-60/R-73, AIM-9M/X, Python, ...), player aircraft with 2 AIM-9X and 4 AMRAAMs. Non-cheating rather difficult opponents in my opinion are the F-18, JF-17, MiG-29 in a light configuration, and Mirage 2000-5.

The F-22's radar, being an AESA radar, certainly has way better detection and low observability than the traditional Captor radar of the EF. The Captor-E in the newest EFs, which is also an AESA radar, should close that gap somewhat. The one thing where the EF's radar is actually better than the Raptor's is off-boresight capability, which is significantly better than in the Raptor, but this theoretical advantage is easily compensated for by the Raptor's stealth characteristics and superior high altitude supercruise abilities, especially assuming that both aircraft are deployed in pairs at least.

Exactly. There are a few exceptions, the most prevalent of them probably being Airbus passenger aircraft, but those only keep flying level throughout turns because the fly-by-wire system automatically corrects the pitch attitude for you.

Procurement/availability-wise, even some small arms ammunition from certain manufacturers has experienced shortages or delivery delays, apparently, because of lots of orders for the military of a number of countries.

Instead of overflying a navaid like a TACAN or VOR and then flying the radial outbound to the desired distance, you can instead fly what's known as a DME arc. You can skip the ~90 degrees of DME arc on the side of the navaid that's facing you by flying directly to a point that is at the desired distance from the navaid perpendicular to your bearing towards the navaid. To do that, instead of continuing to fly towards the navaid, at twice the desired distance from the navaid, turn away 26 degrees and follow that heading (might need to correct for wind drift).

More interesting is the question, is it different from a "hot" start, or one where the aircraft is already flying? I remember some switches being in weird positions in those cases...

What he said - if you wanna learn flying IFR, you wanna do it on the Nevada map - it comes with IFR approach plates for various airports in the kneeboard. Definitely an excellent choice

Feel free to ask him whether he was able to sustain a 9G turn with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders on the wings at corner speed. There are basically 2 possible outcomes: No, because that's not possible Yes, but the F-16s performance in DCS is very unrealistic, because it bleeds speed like a friggin' parachute (try it yourself) I just checked, and it seems there are some in service by now in Taiwan, so ok, let's assume the F-16 has an AESA radar too now. So to summarize, you are suggesting that real results show that the F-16 can expect to "win quite often" or "has a good chance of winning the fight" against any of the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen trio, as opposed to "will probably lose most fights" or "does not have a good chance of winning", which is what I am saying. But ok, you want real results, how about those for something that is somewhat close to real results: Gripen pilot: DACT Gripen vs. F-16 & F/A-18: https://youtu.be/x31Zjhb2C4Q?t=813 Gripen vs. Eurofighter & Rafale: https://youtu.be/x31Zjhb2C4Q?t=1451 F-22 pilot (flying a Eurofighter in the UK): Eurofighter performance wrt. acceleration and turn rate: https://youtu.be/YWhj6cyavUo?t=889 DACT Eurofighter vs. F/A-18: https://youtu.be/YWhj6cyavUo?t=1634 Quick summary for those who want to skip the video watching part: The F-16 bleeds off more energy than the Gripen when turning The F/A-18's high alpha capabilities are more of a problem for the Gripen than the F-16's high speed/high G/high turn rate The Gripen has no problem winning against both in BFM/ACM Tactics and systems/sensors/EW are more important than thrust/weight, speed, turn rate, etc. High speed is more interesting for BVR & missile ballistics than for dogfighting The Eurofighter going 60-70 degrees nose up at 120-130 kt and accelerating is actually a standard "performance takeoff" maneuver, so certainly no empty tanks The turn rate of the Eurofighter is similar to the F-22's, except at low speed (where the F-22 is significantly better) Radar and low speed maneuverability were the Eurofighter's weaknesses (but this is compared to the F-22, not the F-16) Even for the F-22 vs. the Eurofighter the go-to game plan is low speed super-maneuverability, not high speed rate fighting The Eurofighter regains speed even faster than the F-22 (you can draw your own conclusions about how that compares to the F-16) The Eurofighter won against the F/A-18 Now if you go back to my first couple posts, I'd say, that's pretty close to what I said from the start. I don't have any sources with regards to the Rafale readily available to quote right now, but it is in the same ball park as the Gripen and Eurofighter, with some strengths and weaknesses compared to the other two, so the results would presumably be similar as well.

There are currently at least 16 operational Eurofighters with an AESA radar, and the first Rafale with an AESA radar was operational in 2013, so there are probably more Rafale with an AESA radar than Eurofighters, and it seems that there are at least 12 operational Gripen with an AESA radar. It was also you who said that you don't need IRST in a dogfight, unless you lose visual contact, and only one of the two opponents has it. Anything can go one way or another, but the question is one of probability, and the odds are stacked against the F-16. That is not possible with only speed, you need a higher sustained turn rate to do that, and all of the opponents have a higher sustained turn rate than the F-16. Which is a disadvantage that gives your opponent more options Well, could the F-16 do it with empty tanks at least? If not, we don't even have to ask about the Eurofighter. ...if you are flying either an unarmed F-16 with no tanks and no ECM, or you're doing 600+ kt. The actual combat loadout, even just air-to-air, has quite a severe impact on the F-16's performance, and as I said before, the impact for the same mission set is less severe for opponents like the Rafale and Eurofighter. I am a bit less confident about the Gripen, since it is a lighter one-engine aircraft like the F-16, and therefore, adding weight has a bigger impact on the thrust/weight ratio, AoA, etc. than with the other two aircraft.

Not the case in the scenarios I tested, because in most cases, it hardly maneuvered at all, and then missed by flying essentially straight and low. I'll see if I can make a video and/or track of it, so y'all can see what exactly I mean. It should be easy to get it on camera, since it reproduces so consistently.

Which is possible if you have supports, but hardly if you don't have them and you have no idea where the opponent is, or even that there is an opponent, until you are already at a tactical disadvantage - the key here being the ability to detect and track. What is your estimate of the range an F-16 can detect and engage another F-16? Now divide the opponent's radar cross section by 4 at least, and try that again. Except they reach those 9Gs at a lower airspeed, which makes them more maneuverable, because it results in a smaller turn radius, and they can keep pulling whatever Gs they are pulling longer, because they do not lose as much energy, and if they do, they are able to regain it faster. You can't just keep flying giant circles when your opponent sits inside your circle with the nose pointed at you. You could go vertical, but so can your opponent. The UK, Qatar and Oman use the ASRAAM. Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain use the IRIS-T. I guess you are underestimating the performance gap between the F-16 and aircraft like the Eurofighter (which has the most thrust out of the EF/Rafale/Gripen trio). It is certainly bigger than just "a few hp more". I vaguely remember a pilot saying that it will accelerate out of less than 200 kt with the nose pointed 60 degrees up. I cannot imagine how the F-16 would counter that level of performance with regards to retaining and regaining energy, especially considering that the F-16's bad performance at low speed is quite well documented. That was said in some publicly available interview with a pilot on some YouTube channel, if I am able to find the source, I will post a link. He said, "F-16 actually was a good surprise actually [sic], I found it to be a pretty good aircraft. I think the most challenging was the F-16, it’s a pretty small jet so it’s easy to lose sight of it." Not sure who flew his Eurofighter (aka Typhoon) aggressor if he thinks it's a joke, because pretty much everyone else is saying the exact opposite. The Rafale and Eurofighter have similar performance. As far as I know, the Rafale has a somewhat better instantaneous turn rate, the Eurofighter has a better sustained turn rate and more power. The Gripen has a better instantaneous turn rate than both of them, but cannot keep up with the other two in the vertical plane.

Yes, same range. The range where the AIM-9X would miss very consistently was about 2 nm to 3.5 nm. I tried the same distance range with the AMRAAM, and it hit its target every time.

I was going to say, that might be part of the problem, because since there are virtually no other options, there is also no pressure to fix problems. BUT the harsh reality is that there is no shortage software products that are buggy, unreliable and unstable in completely different areas of information technology that are offered in market segments where there is a lot of competition, so even having competing products available on the market does not necessarily mean that you will get a better product from anyone. As I said before, I guess, it is what it is, but to be fair, not only in DCS.

It seems that you are still misunderstanding what I said. The initial question was "what fighter jet gives the F-16 the most trouble", not "can a very elite pilot in an F-5 beat an F-22 flown by a fighter pilot trainee in a simulated dogfight over the home base". Therefore, my interpretation of the question was something like a scenario where two aircraft of each side, of roughly the same generation, enter the same airspace, without any other supports, with equally and highly qualified pilots, so that a lack of pilot skill is not a factor, with the intention to sweep that airspace, without any restricting rules of engagement. My conclusion was, that the F-22, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, J-20 and Su-57 are all significantly superior to the F-16, and therefore, will most likely win most engagements. For the F-22, F-35, Su-57 and J-20, it is pretty obvious why, because the F-16s probably can't friggin' see them before their RWS goes "M" and the Viper pilot goes "oh sh*t" and hopefully is lucky enough to turn around and escape. For the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen, which are not 5th generation stealth aircraft, it is somewhat less obvious, but the odds are still pretty clear. All of them have a radar cross section that is a fraction of that of the F-16. All of them have a way more capable radar than the F-16. All of them are more maneuverable than the F-16. At least the Eurofighter and the Rafale have significantly better high-altitude/high-speed performance than the F-16, especially considering fuel consumption. Those former two also have significantly better performance with the same combat loadout as the F-16, because they are bigger, heavier aircraft with stronger engines in the first place, so adding weight has less of an impact percentage-wise on their thrust/weight ratio than it does for the F-16. As for skill, what would you suggest could be done with pilot skill when you are getting shot at, but your radar can not provide a firing solution for a counter-attack? As a consequence, there will probably not be a dogfight, because you're probably not going to get that close. But okay, let's say all the aircraft just met around the corner of some huge mountain, so we really want to know about dogfight performance rather than BVR performance. Each of the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen trio has significantly better maneuverability than the F-16, especially at low speed. All of them have either the same or better dogfight missiles. All of them have a radar with superior off-boresight ability. The Eurofighter and Rafale have an IRST sensor. The Eurofighter also has significantly more power. A car analogy would be: I am saying, the 1995 Ford Escort RS Cosworth was a pretty fast car with ~220 hp at ~1275 kg, but a 2015 BMW M4 with ~430 hp at 1580 kg will win a race on the Nurburg ring against the Escort RS most of the time, especially when both are carrying 4 passengers, provided that the drivers of both cars have comparable skill, because of the significant performance difference between those two cars. You on the other hand are saying, no, the Escort RS would still win often, because even skilled drivers will often make small mistakes, so the outcome of such a race is not really predictable in most cases.