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.

Those are complex, large tactical exercises with lots of aircraft and different missions. They are hardly useful as a comparison of the performance of two aircraft that are both part of the mission, rather, the performance of the flight or package, the training level of the air force that flies them, etc. - too many factors involved. Yes, and usually with WIC instructors in the F-5 and with students in the F-15. That does not mean that the F-5 is an aircraft that is competitive against the F-15. The F-15 will probably win 95% of the time against the F-5, just as the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen will against the F-16. Hardly, I even commonly fly the livery of the 64th at Nellis in DCS. If you see a "Shark" colored one with tail number 977 online, it's probably me. DCS is a fun game, but I doubt that what happens in-game would be realistic enough to make predictions about what would happen in real life. Many details are way too inaccurate or simplified for that, especially in newly released modules. You might remember how many times the flight model of the F-16, the performance and guidance characteristics of various missiles, or even just the general drag model were changed in past. If by "GS" you mean "Growling Sidewinder" videos, then those will be about as useful as watching another Hollywood movie or flying around in Ace Combat 7.

F-16s have never fought any fighters of the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen trio. They have merely participated in exercises, and those exercises are typically highly regulated, often asymmetrically, because the purpose of an exercise is training and not a one-sided turkey shoot. Can it do Mach 1.2 at 45k ft on dry thrust? Well, reproduce that with a 4 AMRAAM + 2 Sidewinders loadout F-16 against a 6 Meteors + 2 ASRAAMs loadout Eurofighter/Rafale, all participants 150nm away from their home base, and if you get to go home before running out of fuel, ideally also having shot down the opponent first, I'll say you have a point. If you are just talking about an exercise with a clean/guns-only Viper doing exercise drills against an F-15 in the 1970s over their own airfield, then maybe not so much.

As I said, the AMRAAM could do it reliably, so the AIM-9X being a dedicated dogfight missile should be able to compete. The fact that there seems to be a complete absence of air combat instructors across the entire world who teach any tactics that involve low-speed, low-energy, low-maneuverability (or rather, no-maneuverability in this case) as a viable option to defend against a missile. Missiles that are sufficiently able to intercept high-speed maneuvering targets are usually able to intercept low-speed targets on a ballistic trajectory. In fact, at least western missiles have over-performed rather than under-performed compared to their specifications. An AIM-9X shot down a hot air balloon, and it was not exactly designed for that type of target. An SM-3 shot down an out of control satellite reentering the earth's atmosphere, and it was not designed for that type of target either, but performed flawlessly (that target was destroyed by the kinetic energy of the collision, there was no explosive warhead on that weapon, that is how accurate modern guidance systems can be).

I will elaborate a bit on why I said what I said: I am not sure whether you are referring to BVR or ACM here. BVR the F-15C has a better radar, more missiles, better high-altitude performance and more fuel, so it can play cat & mouse with an F-16 all day. ACM, the F-16 should be more maneuverable and easier to control, although the advantage could be rather marginal. There is no such thing as "never". There are records of F-18 pilots winning against F-22s in exercises. The question is about how likely that outcome is. Another important factor is what the rules of engagement are in an exercise. If you lose 19 out of 20 times, I would say, there is a clear winner in that contest. BVR, even the non-stealthy Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen have a smaller radar cross section than the F-16, much better high-speed/high-altitude performance, significantly better radar, sensors and fire control systems (if supports are available, such as AWACS/AEW&C, warships or a wingman's sensors, that includes, for example, the ability to launch at datalink targets, and the ability to launch "over-the-shoulder"). The chance that an F-16 would be able to launch first at any of these aircraft, or would be able to keep a tactical advantage, is rather slim, because of the limitations of the F-16's radar and fire control system compared to systems used in these other aircraft. There is not too much that pilot skill can do for you when e.g. an accelerating Eurofighter at a 100kt lower speed can lead-pursuit an F-16 that is losing energy. The Rafale has a bit less thrust, and the Gripen is a lighter single-engine aircraft like the F-16, so any weapon loadout has a larger impact on performance than on the Eurofighter/Rafale, but the Gripen is still more maneuverable than the F-16.

In DCS: Have not tried in a while, so this is probably about 2 years ago, and it might have changed, but I'm gonna say an AI-controlled MiG-15, because its flight model and performance were very unrealistic. It easily outmaneuvers the F-16 without losing energy. Your best move against an AI-controlled MiG-15 is to go supersonic, then fly some 40 miles or so in a straight line, then turn around as fast as possible and shoot it with a couple AMRAAMs. Other than that, AI opponents, in ACM, probably the F-18 and the MiG-29. In BVR, the JF-17, F-15C, Su-30/J-11. Haven't tried any mods, so this is Vanilla DCS (Beta). In real life: BVR, if you run into a Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-22, J-20, Su-57, you're dead. I guess against an F-15C probably too. ACM, same, except the F-15C, and maybe except the J-20 and F-35, not sure about their ACM capabilities, especially the F-35 Navy versions (B/C), which are limited to 7.5G - you might have a realistic chance.

I have had it on inside the cockpit or HUD when it should not be, and toggling HUD blanking and cockpit blanking off and on again solved the problem. So... have you tried turning it off and on again?

Nope. Different view angle, about 3 seconds later. This missile is not headed anywhere where this F-15 could ever have ended up, with or without maneuvering. Meanwhile, I had time to test in singleplayer missions. I was able to dodge an AMRAAM by departing controlled flight. I did not try this often, it worked on the second attempt, no idea how easy it would be to reproduce this. Needs more testing if anyone feels inclined to try, I'm not too motivated to try perfecting my skills in doing completely unrealistic things. Also not sure if I broke the record with my 84.7 degrees AoA in an F-16 at roughly 160 knots. Didn't know you could flat-spin it... kind of... What's possibly more surprising is that I was able to recover from this departure. I also believe that I have a reproducer for the AIM-9X failure that happened on the multiplayer server. Turns out that the AIM-9X in DCS can not track targets head-on. Tried it 22 times, with and without radar lock, slight variations in position and angle, slightly below and slightly above, distance within the no-escape zone, mostly between 3.5nm and 2nm, got 19 misses and 3 hits (one of which was from 1 nm, which seems to work better), for a probability-of-kill of approximately 14%. This also reproduces with Veteran AI, so this has nothing to do with Ace AI. I flew almost all of those engagements until I splashed the F-15, and almost all of the missiles fired later at different angles hit, so I am pretty sure it wasn't me doing something wrong every time when firing the first missile, and then somehow always getting it right the second time - extremely unlikely. I also tried reproducing the same situation, but with AMRAAMs (some 10 times or so, 5 of them within the same distance, some of them even without a radar lock) for comparison, and all of them hit, so this is also not a case of being impossible to guide or maneuver for a missile in general.

Explain this, especially considering that you just said

An easy temporary fix would be to link the Ace AI level to the Veteran AI level, so that selecting Ace and selecting Veteran effectively do the same thing, until the Ace AI is fixed to behave properly, and the missile guidance is fixed not to fail because an AI aircraft pulls off maneuvers that only work in Hollywood movies, but would be ineffective in the real world.

Sounds like what I did Well, it is in DCS, because the AI chased me to my home airport, despite multiple friendlies in the area, which is another problem with realism. There are very few pilots in the real world who would go on a suicide mission to shoot a couple more missiles at a random enemy aircraft. As it is now, AI aircraft in DCS are all Kamikaze pilots. To be fair, getting shot at while landing at my own home base is also a very common problem with mission design (this was on a public server). A couple years ago, I published several training missions in various levels of difficulty for the F-16. If you look around in these missions, you will see that the airspace near the home airbase is covered by an air defense system. Which is why I survived that long. A kinematic defeat means that a properly guiding missile is unable to reach you, that was not the case with the AI aircraft. Especially in the second case, the missiles did reach it with energy to spare, they just flew by instead of guiding properly. I guess that it was (as I mentioned, this happened on a public server). If the "Ace" level behaves irrationally and causes the game to glitch by doing so, it should be disabled. And I am not talking about super-human skill, for example, with regards to reaction time, precision, G resistance, etc. - none of those are a problem, a setup like that can be useful for training purposes. However, training against an opponent that gives you irrational and/or random results instead of an indication of how effective your tactics are against less capable opponents doesn't do anything for you.