Blaze1

I was alerted to this by another member and thought it needed clarification that the statement on the manual isn't a classification, it's just the museums policy. I have the same manual, but an original and not from the museum, so doesn't bear that statement:

I don't think they will.

The AWG-21 equipped 'E's' could carry the AGM-78 and assumed the Iron Hand role from the A-6B. TRAM was introduced in 1979 I believe and the STARM was removed from service in 85 or 86.

Okay, there are some errors here that I hope you don't mind me addressing. So all versions of the the 'B', (there were three I believe) could drop bombs. The Mod 0/1 aircraft had the tracking radars and some of their attack systems removed, meaning they lost a lot of the capabilities that made the A-6 an accurate and potent strike aircraft, but they could still drop bombs. The PAT/ARM version retained all the 'A's' avionics and attack capabilities, while the Mod 1 TIAS jets also had some of their primary attack systems removed, but again could still drop bombs. The 'B' was never HARM capable. The 'E' model had better basic bombing capes (even without TRAM) than the 'A'.

MRTX, do you have a source for this?

Beamscanner, the high drive rate also allows for updating of multiple priority target tracks while in TWS and that includes out of volume target tracks. The articles listed state that the antenna is electronically rotated.

Not yet I'm afraid.

Okay, I think I know the supplement you're talking about as you listed them earlier: TO 1F-105B-34-1-1S-3 to -5 Those supplements (called Operational Supplements e.g TO 1F-105B-34-1-1S- ) are just updates to the unclassified TO 1F-105B-34-1-1 volume. There also exists Safety Supplements (e.g TO 1F-105B-34-1-1SS- ), that provide safety updates to the standard TO 1F-105B-34-1-1 volume. Both OS's and SS's are typically fully incorporated into the manual at a later 'Change', they're not separate manuals. Think of them like 'Change' pages to the manual.

What supplement do they now have?

TO 1F-105B-34-1-1A is the classified supplement which doesn't appear on the Smithsonian index, so they probably don't have it. I don't have it either, I have TO 1F-105B-34-1-1, which is unclassified.

I see no reason why the -34-1-1A/-34-1-1-1 couldn't be declassified if it isn't already.

The digital version is on one of my external HDs somewhere. As soon as I get it I'll upload it for you.

I think I have both of those manuals. One of them I bought a few months ago (hardcopy), the other is in digital format somewhere. I don't think I have the Operational Sup though.

That's great video mvgas! Thanks for posting it. It's very rare to see footage of the AB light off at that angle, with the spark igniter going off. Really excellent. I'm surprised by the length of time it took from the spark igniter firing until initial AB light off and then again from AB light off until the minimum burner, inner gutter had formed a complete circle, unless of course the timer isn't ticking up in seconds.

Cheers DummyCatz, I appreciate that.

I didn't realise it had been name as such DummyCatz. Do you have any more information/links about it?

Nice post toilet The following is a quote from an FCS developer/engineer (maybe even for the Viper). The mention of '7x' was a comparison of the Viper's FCS, to that of the Dassault Falcon 7x which does have an integrator on the roll channel: "It is just a classical closed loop system with gains designed for a desired roll mode. The one bit of an oddity with the F-16 is the lag filter on the roll command path. It uses one time constant for commands "coming in" and a different (faster) one for commands "going out" (stick releases or reversals). That implementation is definitely a player in stopping rolls quickly (i.e. containing bank angle overshoots.) (Apparently, the analog hardware implementation for that bit of logic was a real challenge.) As to the 7x, that is a bit curious. It may be that it's more of an outer-loop kind of function, more like an autopilot. Or, maybe they are just taking the hit on getting a classical response to pilot inputs. Hard to tell." So as per your assertion, an integrator in the roll channel can cause response issues. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale both have three axis auto-trim, but of course they're much later designs than the Viper's.

I believe so, yes.

SEMPER VIPER! - Code One Magazine "This self-correcting feature is why you see the horizontal stabilizer moving around so much when the airplane is taxiing. The flight control system is not getting any input from you, but is feeling the aircraft move as you taxi across all the bumps on the taxi route. So what you see is the flight control system trying to smooth out the taxiway. This is also why you don’t have to put in any check command to stop the roll rate as you try to do any number of precision point rolls. One minor drawback of the self-checking feature shows up in what has been described as roll ratcheting. You will recall earlier that I talked about how different the flight control system is, compared to what you’ve been using. The ability to do smooth rolls requires some concentration on your part until you become completely familiar with this different airplane. What’s happening is that you’re putting in some amount of roll command. Since the roll acceleration of the F-16 is so good, you make the subconscious decision that if you’re rolling this fast and this quick then in a couple of seconds you will be rolling at nine million rpm. The natural tendency is to want to slow the roll rate. With a conventional flight control system, we simply decrease the amount of stick deflection. In order to accomplish this, we relax pressure on the stick and allow the self-centering forces to move the stick closer to center (i.e., less aileron deflection), thus slowing the roll rate to what we want; then apply sufficient pressure to keep the stick at the new position. This relaxing of the pressure will normally go to zero momentarily, and with the F-16 this is sufficient for the self-checking feature to stop the roll rate completely. (Remember — you don’t have direct control over the amount or direction of the control surface deflection.) The roll rate deceleration is ALSO rapid, so your body and hand tend to couple with the aircraft motion and probably make stick inputs that weren’t intended. The end result is some pretty sloppy rolls until we get used to the system. What you need to do is (1) learn to adjust the roll rate with subtle pressure changes to the stick and (2) get away from the stick position cues you’ve been used to using. Once you can get yourself tuned to using finite pressure changes to control the roll rate, you’ll be able to make smooth roll inputs. This is so despite a force-per-roll-rate slope that isn’t constant. There are two distinct changes in the slope of the curve. This is to make sure that the airplane isn’t too sensitive for small inputs, and that the force required for max inputs is not too high. Those devilish engineers also used two different roll time constants for small and large roll inputs. All this is nice to know, but if you simply pay attention to the amount of force you’re using on the stick, you’ll be able to do very nice rolls with the F-16. By now I’m sure all of you are asking why it’s necessary to use such a markedly different flight control system. Well this self-checking feature is really one of the main reasons this flight control system is in the F-16. It allows an aircraft design that uses new and different aerodynamic principles."

The following footage is from a Litening Pod and the video has it labelled as Litening II video from OIF: F-16C targeting pod video from OIF. This version doesn't appear to exhibit the MTC function.

The Litening AT certainly has Multi-Target Cueing options, namely MTCM and MTCA. EDIT: I can see llOPPOTATOll already answered this.

It would make a nice touch even if purely visual.

This is a slight nitpick considering the ECM functions in DCS are still being developed and may have already been mentioned before. My understanding is that there are two slightly different ECM control panels (both called C-9492B) associated with the AN/ALQ-131 and AN/ALQ-184 and depending on the jammer pod loaded, a specific control panel must be installed in the cockpit. I've included a picture showing the two different control panels: The installed panel is associated with the AN/ALQ-184, while the panel at the bottom is used in conjunction with the AN/ALQ-131. As can be seen, the difference between the panels is merely the pushbuttons legends, which are representative of functions and status' unique to each pod.

It's an excellent interview. For clarification, in that example it was the Sparrow that still managed to kill a target that was on the edge/just outside of parameters. The Phoenix, while still being able to hit the drone, isn't a great missile against manoeuvring targets, at least beyond 20nm away!

Tank50us, I hope you have an NBC grade bunker in close proximity available to you.