In 4.34 there are 2 missile launch tones for some RWR systems. One have file name called Launch.ogg and another is LaunchRecycle.ogg.
What is the difference between them? Why there are 2 tones now?

IIRC it was possible in old BMS 4.32.

Russian or NATO flares, it makes no big difference. It is still the flare that works like a flare. It is still just a small point for FPA seeker. They may have different energy rise times and so but they are still just small point for a seeker, nothing like aircraft. You have to forget anything about previous seekers when you think about FPA. Flares have different shape than aircraft, simple as that. In some situations AIM-9X may be fooled by flares, but in most of them flares will get rejected.

Brinks and ADT developed invisible light spectrum bulbs for the consumer market that completely render IR and thermal, starlite, all imaging useless.

You mean IR dazzlers, right? Well, TOW-2A and TOW-2B both uses optical tracking in IR spectrum, but thanks to beacon sending pseudo random sequence of strobes it is no longer working against them. Guess why late T-90s went off production line without SHTORA systems installed. It was simply no longer working. Guess why DIRCMs are installed now instead of simple IRCMs. Because regular IRCM (that works much like SHTORA, it sends a pulses to confuse tracking system) is almost useless against modern missiles. It blinds the FPA sensor, but only from very short range. It may increase miss distance, but the fragment will nail the target anyway. This is why they need DIRCMs, because they can concentrate all the energy at a small area and then have much longer working range.

Flare rejecting code for BMS seems to work resonably in 4.34. I noted that in certain situations even weak AIM-9P can reject flares in BMS. Expecially when they do not intersect with engine plume. AIM-9X seems to hit the shit most of times. This seems right because flares, both in BMS and in reality, are not a magic decoys that works in every situation. Well, nothing is perfect and under certain conditions even 9X can be fooled i think. Especially from longer range when there is no easy way to distinguish what is flare and what is not (from distance both the aircraft and flare are just about one pixel, so only filtering by things like energy rise time and trajectory may do something about it).

EDIT: Just have fired some IRIS-T to check the heck in instant action. Seems to be preatty good at flare rejection just like AIM-9X is (same sensor so makes sense). Fired some of them on targets popping flares (both in head on and tail aspect), all of them hit. The problem with them is that they have very low range (at least DLZ says so), so the proper flight model is probably not yet implemented (they seems to be no better than AIM-9P at range).

Why MICA IR has so good seeker range?
And does anybody knows if any F-16s in BMS can carry it?
What about IRIS-T? Has it working flight model (in 4.33 it was not working well, it had range much shorter than AIM-9M)?

Sniper pod is just targeting pod with no navigation capabilities. Things that are not implemented in BMS include RCCE mode (recce mode for automatic picture capturing of wide area for reccce purposes), multi target tracking, video datalink and so on. Also things related with focus, contrast and boresighting are not implemented.

Combine lantrin NAV pod with Sniper? Why not? May be usefull for night missions.

The real Sniper pod also has no fluid zoom, rather than that it zooms in steps:

@Master:

Can you link that manual plz?

I seen many of them, can’t recall which one it was but i think it was one of those for HAF series F-16C.
The detailed data for the panel (rather than just generic info and fault list for PFL) is in the classified supplement that have not yet leaked

Could be that one: http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/HAF-F16-34.pdf
Starts at page 511 regarding PFL.
Pages 847 and 848 for panel.

@Master:

When BMS makes SAMs able to engage missiles, we should also be given the MALD to be able to saturate them.

Or rather more advanced jammer with RANRAP, DRFM, VGPO, RGPO, angle deception and so. Real ALQ-184 has it all.
Detailed data is classified, but assuming that it is software defined almost anything we put in it will be more or less realistic.

I seen some data in one of the manuals, the complete fault list with enormous ammount of position for that ECM pod was available (manual was not classified), most of them were related with some of the mentioned techniques. Also some very generic data on that panel was mentioned.

Constrains of this makes it very thermal on the terrain. IRL it works, but in perfect conditions. Intercepting a HARM and a Scud are two different things.

Yes, if the SEAD flight is using terrain masking (just like the strike flight is) there is very little time to intercept HARM. Turning radar on and trying to acquire it may be a suicidie for the radar itself It is also why HARM is HARM and not just ARM. It needs a speed to give enemy less time for reaction.

To interrogate you use TMS left actually, TMS right is for RWS>TWS and TWS target stepping in CRM mode.
I also wonder why the comm switch had positions called IFF in and out. Maybe some earlier blocks made some use of it? It is normally used for L16 and IDM, at least in later blocks.
Another misleading thing is IFF ident button, it is not really related with IFF but with mode 3/A transponder and serves the same function as so called ATC ident buttons in civilian aircraft.

In reality it does for sure, even old SA-2 could do that, at least in theory.
AFAIK in BMS SAMs do not engage any missiles.