near_blind

Trigger versus pickle is a Navy vs Airforce thing. The Navy mechs aircraft such that trigger = weapons that go forward, pickle = things that go down. The Air Force on the other hand generally mechs things such that trigger = gun, pickle = missile/bomb/whatever. The F-4 primarily used the trigger for A/A weapons, however it could actually use both depending on the setting. Don't know about the Crusader but I would assume it too was trigger. In the F-14 this isn't a safety feature and you don't have to hold the trigger. Broadly speaking, the three second delay is the F-14's fire control system configuring the missile for launch, passing it information on relative location and state of the target so the missile knows how to orient and where to look post separation, and then getting the missile ready to physically disconnect. This time can also be shortened by raising the ACM guard, the system is purposefully skipping steps with the assumption that the target is close enough it won't need the fine configuration and speed is the more salient requirement. Compared to the F-4, my understanding is there was a similar process where the Sparrow had to synchronize with the radar after getting a valid STT lock, only it was manual. The crew had to remember to wait a certain amount of time before firing the missile otherwise it wouldn't track. With newer jets the hold is probably a combination of transferring target data and a safety interlink to make sure you don't go accidentally rippling missiles off when you don't necessarily want to.

Be that as it may, PAL is RCS limited, not Range limited. PLM exists for locking up only close targets directly in front of you.

As Skysurfer said, PAL lock range is determined by the RCS of the target rather than any discrete range. 15NM is the range PAL can acquire the default RCS value in DCS, which happens to be that of an Su-27. Larger targets like Backfires and Transports can be acquired significantly further out.

Jester having access to the next launch button would be a massive boon when flying with another player F-14.

IIRC it was a collision over the South China Sea. The F-14 recovered safely back to Singapore.

seems plausible

That's an extremely broad topic. Even when shooting well within the indicated DLZ, your altitude, speed, target altitude, closure, target maneuvers post launch, chaff and ecm all effect whether or not the missile will hit. Right now ECM and chaff are especially potent against the AIM-7, and the AIM-54 has a more complex post launch support requirement, and tends to bleed speed when going active due to an issue with its APN. If there is a specific scenario you think the missiles are not performing like they should, I'd recommend attempting to reduce the variables to the simplest form and presenting that as evidence (I.E. stop the AI from using chaff, ecm, manueverint, etc.).

1) That is an IR marking beam, which is a different spectrum from the beam used to guide weapons. The LANTIRN doesn't and won't have one of those to my knowledge. 2) As long as you have the laser code right and keep the laser on, his Maverick should be capable of seeing it. 3) No. If he wants the coordinates you need to relay it to him over the radio and he has to hand jam it into the system. Alternatively the Hornet pod will have something called Laser Spot Search (LSS). This would let his pod lock onto your laser spot, and then he could designate that position to get CCRP and all that jazz.

Jester doesn't sort the shoot order in TWS. That's entirely a function of the AWG-9 itself. Which one he bugs isn't of huge import as you can tell the range to target via the range lines on the TID.

Did you call ready pre-contact and did the tanker clear you to contact? In Single player the tanker will always have the drogues deployed, but you won't be able to actually connect until you've gone through the radio procedures. Otherwise, approach the basket slower, and try to focus on where you are in relation to the tanker, not the basket. Focusing only on the basket tends to cause pilot induced oscillations (the porpoising up and down)

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-EO-Systems.html An AN/AXX-1 Television Camera System, which is pretty much exactly what it says on the tin: a EO TV camera. It has no IIR functionality, and generally isn't going to work too well after the sun goes down. The very first production variants of the F-14 had an IRST, but it was wildly ineffective and quickly removed from all aircraft. The F-14D had a newer, more effective IRST model that was paired with the TCS and was considered effective. Neither IRST was an IR Imager, they produced a blip when they detected a heatsource, probably at an azimuth and elevation on the DDD. Think the EO modes on the Flanker/Fulcrum rather than a LANTIRN or TGP.

Did you miss the part where every jammer causes this, the part where it effects every missile that's had the new API updates is affected (so ***not the R-77 and R-27***), or just the whole gist in general before immediately jumping to the "accuse Heatblur" phase of your rant?

@KlarSnow is correct. I'd sooner physically throw the AIM-54 at a fighter then shoot at one in PD-STT. That's asking for a snipped lock and a useless missile.

Launch and Leave = I support the missile until it goes active and then turn around, rebuilding distance. As per HB's podcast back in the summer, the PH ACT switch should eventually offer a workaround towards overriding the time to active counter. As per closure, unless you literally turn around after shooting, you will always have to accept some form of closing range to be an offensive actor, that's just the nature of the game. The AIM-54 is ARH, the AA-10C is not: you will be able to beam or exit before he will and still expect the possibility of a kill, he cannot. The AIM-54 outranges the AA-10C, 40NM is a perfectly reasonable shot in the heart of the DLZ for a Phoenix while 30NM is the max range for a AA-10C due to battery issues. The A pole for the Phoenix in that situation is going to be 20+ NM, the F pole for the Chuck is going to be at best 15NM. In a defensive situation with a wingman you have the option of setting up a grinder where you never enter the lethal range of a Flanker's missile and they cannot get within 20 miles without an AIM-54 going active on them. In an offensive situation you have the option of leaving without danger, or forcing the bandit defensive to follow up with additional shots. I generally expect a Pk of .5 with AIM-54Cs. Whether or not you accept a merge is up to what mission you are trying to accomplish and your risk appetite. Generally speaking I exhaust my Phoenixes with enough breathing room to set up a 20NM Sparrow shot if needed.

Nothing about jamming in DCS right now is particularly realistic. Aircraft that have jammers just do brute force noise jamming that might set back the radar a certain distance. This was fine for Flanker and LOMAC and all aircraft were essentially using the same radar with the values tweaked, but how do you account for that with across multiple generations of radar each with different techniques and designed explicitly to defeat the previous generation of ECM? That framework doesn't exist in DCS, and until it does there's not really a point in modelling the nuances of the ECCM capabilities of an aircraft. What is the AWG-9s burn through range versus a fictional version of the Sorbitsiya that doesn't work in anyway like the actual Sorbitsiya? If you're interested, here's what the state of the art of DECM looked like circa 1960-ish

Throw Phoenixes at the enemy. The primary threat considered were Fulcrums and Flankers with AA-10Cs, and the Phoenix was considered an acceptably capable overmatch. Part of it was range, part of it was launch and leave capability. FWIW DCS uses an extremely simplistic modelling of chaff, and is overly conservative estimating how a missile seekers vulnerability to the notch. The best analogue we have in DCS would be how well the Hornet's APG-73 handles TWS, so imagine that but with the power turned up to 12. I want to caution it's almost certainly not a direct analogue, but the computational bits of 73, 71 and 70 are apparently common or closely related. I would also point out it's nowhere near as simple as taking the Hornet's radar and putting it in a Tomcat. Unknown. Most of the guts of the radar are taken from a family of radars that support the AIM-120. I've read that they still needed to do the software integration. I've also read the software integration was completed and the only thing stopping adoption was the lack of funding to test and produce a compatible launch rail (I personally rank this with bigfoot sightings in credibility, neat if true though). There's a lot of hearsay on the subject Unknown, but with enough work, probably. The radar is clearly capable of generating a datalink and providing midcourse updates, the question is could it be made to "speak" AMRAAM. This is all kind of wishful thinking though, we're almost certainly not getting an F-14D due to lack of available information.

Jester doesn't turn on the oxygen for the RIO position.

You're not meant to take long range shots with the AIM-54 in pulse. Pulse and the AIM-54 aren't compatible beyond simple sensor slaving, and only really intended as a last ditch emergency option when a target appears at close range. The way the AWG-9 talks to the AIM-54 while in flight requires certain features only available in the PD modes of operation. Any Phoenix shot beyond the range of the missile seeker is intended to be guided via TWS or PD-STT.

The AIM-54 shouldn't receive any guidance in PSTT, its active off the rail. It looks like your missile was notched when the target went vertical.

The list should be weighted towards AWACS -> Carriers -> AEGIS ships. In something I just threw together, the AWACS is the first option despite being the most distant provider.

In addition to echoing that the Prowler is too slow, I'd like to add that currently it seems to be configured as a transport, and has CAP, CAS, Intercept and Ground Attack missions, but not SEAD. I would argue that given the loadout and mission of the aircraft IRL SEAD, Reconnaissance and Anti-Shipping (yeeting HARMs at boats) would be more appropriate. Otherwise this is a great addition for mission makers and thanks to the creators for sharing it with us

If it'll help. I experienced the double engine fire on the Caucasus map. Temperature was -7 degrees C. I air started at 25,000 feet and Mach .85 with four sparrows, four sidewinders and two fuel tanks, full fuel. Accelerated in MIL until Mach .9, then engaged burner. I accelerated to ~Mach 1.12 in a shallow climb before my engines exploded at 26,000. I don't have a track but I can go recreate the scenario if one is desired. Sparrows work good though!

Initial prognosis is looking very good! The missile is hitting a lot more and while I'm still seeing misses, they look to be explainable either by the target notching or battery life time. Thanks for the work HB and ED!

These are all Excellent! One word of advice though? The old school AIM-54A skins on the seventies themes are great, but they've got blue bands over the booster. This would mean that motor is inert, and doesn't actually contain any propellent. Live boosters are colored with brown bands.