Skysurfer

Great job on these!

Flares are on the pilot, buddy, unless you set it otherwise. He does a decent enough job at chaff. Get a human RIO or look outside more in SP.

Interesting, sicne the manual specifically states no maneuvering.

We dont have a DFCS jet.

Try the same with a F16 or Mig-29 - the JF17 can be wonky with RCS.

The current 27R/ER match the published graphs and flyout charts EXACTLY for straight line shots and non-maneuvering targets. The manual specifically states that in the case of the target maneuvering or changing its speed these zones will change accordingly. Whether they bleed too much energy while turning for a defending target is a question of CFD and smoother guidence at this point. The ranges in said graphs are Rmax/aero afaik as they take the taget speeds and no evasive maneuvers into account.

SP PD still uses CW illum. for homing so it should give a launch warning.

Also, the argument for it not going active in STT but doing so in TWS (with even multiple missiles in the air) kinda defeats itself. Especially since you can control active distances with the target size switch. Just another grey-area I guess.

Well, given simple physics and the limitations of chemical rocket motors there are only very few effective ways to guide an A2A missile - google proportional navigation if you want to find more. I think what they are saying is that apart from some articles, reports and SME mentions there are no actual, official documents to use as evidence. It's a fairly slipper slope, especially on the internet when you consider how much bs is out there ragerding other missiles. While, it makes sense that it behaves more like a 120C for various reasons, I dont think we'll get any factual, hard evidence for it anytime soon. Improving CCM alone by a good amount, making the guidence and especially de-loft more smooth and the INS more relaible will go a long way already when it comes to effectiveness of the C, regardless whether it goes active under STT or not. That is only a fairly minor aspect anyway when you think about the range advantage.

The point is carry, not shoot. If you want to shoot that many munitions just enable unlimited ammo in your missions and go at it. You can also mod the .lua if you really wanted to carry a bunch of munitions on said pylons.

Which is fine and your decision to implement it that way *but* since the Tomcat basically came out and until now myself and many other could not see or measure a quantifiable difference in CCM between the A and the C. It does not help that ED basically broke CCM for most missiles in the last few patches making each and every one of them go for one or a couple chaff bundles, every time. But I think there is enough literature, SME input and hard data to say that chaff shouldn't really be this effective against the more modern missiles to begin with. And again, the CCM of the C needs to be significantly noticeable, which it never was, despite the changes made in the base weapons .lua, which I dont think really affects the actual implementation in DCS. Just something to consider and hopefully something that can be wrapped up after all this time so we have a solid, not constantly changing frame of reference for weapons employment in DCS.

Question remains, if it used so much advanced tech and especially tech shared with the AMRAAM why wouldn't it be safe to assume that it used very similar guidence methods? There are plenty of reports about its capabilities comapared to the early A models. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that the 54C guides and has INS + active commands similar to the AMRAAM. Obviously there will never be any actual documentation proving this as fact as most of it will remain classified. Because currently the DCS 54C really has no noticeable differences to the A, even in CCM or PN coefficient, which will hopefully change once ED is done with the missile API an it's fully applied to the Phoenix.

The GBU-24 once it gets the proper autopilot and flight model. It has a special low altitude release mode.

Being stationary on the ground should not result in any PD radar lock. Now, if it's a pulse lock (like on the Tomcat) you can get locked and Captain-Jack-Sparrowed.

The schematic should be in the D NATOPS.

The 120C in MPRF active should quite frankly ignore any ground clutter. Currently the AMRAAM in DCS is very susceptible to chaff and the notch gate. It's not like the guys at Raytheon don't think of all of this for modern missiles....

Sure. But having an updated pilot model with proper equipment etc. would sure be nice (I mean even Razbam did it).

They have enough SME's and knowledgeable people on the Hornet team to get this right. There are several issues apart from the flaps pitch moment.

Last thing I've read from ED they were reworking the pilot model for the Hornet with new animations etc. No idea about the status of that nor do I know where I read it. I do hope they do the same for the Viper and A-10 as well.

No, today's patch was only a small hotfix.

Yeah. I mean, we still have typos in the cockpit and some hydraulic gauges not animated, TCS internals being untextured etc. Guess it's just a matter of priorities (hopefully) and it will get addressed once the big tickets items are done.

If you look at the movie "The Final Countdown", those VF-84 jets dont have a TCS or fuel tanks/pylons either.

Good find. I still wonder how there can be so many issues with the model and various geometries being wrong when they scanned an actual Tomcat?

Good points. However where do you get the 15deg/s for the Viper? 50 DI at 10k feet is slightly less than 15 and a clean Blk50 at 10k is well above 17. Again, it would be great to have really comparable charts for the two, mainly with no stores on the jet and in 5k feet increments. Personally I dont think the 4X tunnel AIM7's will make that much difference in terms of L/D (boundary layer + lifting surface) but the LAU7/38 + AIM9's surely will. On a different note, are the early Block Vipers with the GE really that much lighter?

I'd personally be happy with a base TRAM variant. I imagine the SWIP variant with the extra digital interfaces would make it much more complex (SLAM-ER, HARM, HARPOON employment etc.). MK80's, cluster bombs and LGB's are the bread and butter of the A-6.