Dragon1-1

Yeah, it came at the end of the Cold War, but it is a Cold War aircraft. It went into service with the Soviets in '83 and changed little from 9.12 to 9.12A. Yes, most of its service wasn't during Cold War, but its avionics and performance are representative of the era. It represents the last batch of truly Cold War era designs. It is an 80s aircraft at the core. Also, the Cold War ended in 1991. What started in 1989 could have ended very differently if it wasn't Gorby leading the USSR. Indeed, that transition period is quite a fertile source of alt historical timelines when the USSR wasn't accommodating of its satellites revolting as it was IRL, so to speak.

The 9.12A is very much a Cold War aircraft, a contemporary of our F-14 variants. That it didn't change much into post-CW era is another matter, but in a mid-2000s Fox 3 fight, it's outclassed, even if the R-27ER can give it a surprising bite against sloppy NATO jet drivers.

A "useful aspect" that makes the radar able to see anything but the inside of your own nosecone. What is the main reason for zero doppler filter, then, in your opinion? Yes, the radome is mostly transparent to radar, but not perfectly, and it's close, so the return is fairly strong. BTW, in most proper formations (and all you'd want to be in when in combat), you'd never see the rest of the division on radar, except in trail, where you often want to have the lead on the scope (though if flying radar trail, you want to lock onto him anyway).

Worth noting, that's not the main reason for the zero closure filter. It's there so you're not getting returns from your own radome. That is also why it can't be turned off, the radar would be quite useless without it. All it'd see would be parts of your own aircraft, which quite obviously have zero closure (if they don't, you have bigger problems, so to speak ).

I think that a control on the throttle would've been clunky, plus it would have complicated things a lot. For instance, you'd probably need a motorized nozzle lever, like with Tomcat's wing sweep handle. Also, the STO stop is an important part of safely operating the Harrier, and implementing it on the throttle (or digitally) could also be complicated. Seeing as the control configuration worked just fine, this would have introduced unnecessary costs and complexity, all for a relatively minor convenience. The Harrier doesn't have a full HOTAS like Hornet or Viper do, in any case.

Because you want them separate, nozzle angle and throttle are two different controls. How would coupling them work, anyway? For VTOL, you want the throttle set fairly high, but nozzles full down. For a short landing, you need the nozzles angled, but a low-ish throttle. Not to mention VIFFing, which relies on independent nozzle control. Without a separate control, you wouldn't be able to control the jet properly. Also, remember that the Harrier family started out in late 60s. It has spiffy color MFDs, but it's not an FBW jet. Its HOTAS is rather more limited than in a Hornet, despite looking broadly similar. Trying to have a computer of the era control the nozzles likely wouldn't be very safe.

Just go and hire BD and Reflected to make training material for the free modules (modern and historical, respectively). Those two know how to make training fun. Couple that with a free or at least cheap FF jet trainer (for WWII, TF-51 would do) and the initial hurdles become much lower.

Only if its airframe is made out of vibranium. Missiles have structural G limits, those tend to be large compared to fighters, but during an F-pole maneuver for instance, the fighter is very much capable of forcing the missile to make a 20G+ turn. Missiles are typically very fast when fired directly at the target, and that means even a gentle maneuver will generate a lot of Gs. Of course, missiles that loft are less vulnerable to this, but the longer the range, the more lead the missile must pull. Sweeping your nose across from one gimbal to the other very much does defeat the missile. If it can't follow your turn due to hitting the G limiter, it'll pass behind you. Same if you get the missile to bleed off all its energy trying to make the turn. The nice thing is, unless the missile is lofting, it'll be either fast enough to have G issues, or slow enough that the maneuver will bog it down. In fact, that's exactly how they dodged SA-2s in Vietnam. It helped that the version of SA-2 they faced didn't have a particularly high G limit. The way I've seen it explained was that NEZ was defined as the minimum range where the missile can chase down the target if the target turns cold and maintains its current speed. The MAR is a related concept in BVR timelines, and might actually be slightly shorter than the NEZ defined that way, since the defending fighter might unload to accelerate.

Your understanding is incorrect. NEZ is the no escape zone, not no dodge zone. There's no place in any missile's envelope where it's impossible for it to miss, though tail aspect shots tend to have very high Pk... if you are in range in first place, since range against a receding target is very short compared to range against a closing one. With any other shot, the missile has to fly to a point in front of you in order to hit. At long range and high speed, this point is quite far ahead, so if you crank one way to the antenna gimbal limit, then pull through to the other extreme, you're forcing the missile into a high G turn across the entire angle. Even if it's within the missile's G limit, such turns cost energy (just like they do for you), but the missile can't regain energy (unless it's a fancy, extremely long ranged one like the Meteor). In most scenarios, such turn, if properly timed, will result in the missile bleeding off all of its energy. As such, what happens inside the NEZ (if you can't avoid going there) is that you switch your defensive strategy from simple turning and running to something like the F-pole maneuver/SAM break (they're both actually the same concept, just applied against AAMs or SAMs), plus expendables. Outside of it, turning cold and plugging in the blower is guaranteed to trash the missile. In fact, there's usually no point in wasting expendables in such case. Inside the NEZ, you have to put actual effort into defeating the launch. Incidentally, a high G barrel roll would work along the same way as the F-pole maneuver, with an important tactical disadvantage, that you're locked into driving straight towards the missile. The F-pole maneuver allows you to manage your closure with the bandit, by varying the angle of your crank, and also puts you in a position to shoot your own missiles when you're pulling your nose across, which the barrel roll would complicate. Likewise with SAMs, doing that IRL would probably put you within flak envelope. Not saying they'd hit you, either (especially if radar guided, manually aimed ones might get lucky), but at some point you have to stop flying towards the SAM site and do something.

Of course there is, NEZ refers to the missile being able to chase down the target if it turns and runs at the moment of launch. That doesn't mean a kinematic defeat is impossible. Even if the missile has enough energy to hit you, it doesn't mean that it has the G to do so.

That reason is actually that getting the missile going from zero to speeds needed to intercept a high speed aircraft takes a pretty big rocket, especially if said aircraft is also flying high. Early SAMs did have rather large warheads, but that's more because they were expected to be used against large, nuke-armed bombers, where merely damaging the aircraft wouldn't be enough, you wanted it to disintegrate. The modern trend is to reduce the warhead size and expand maximum range and altitude, as well as maneuverability. In DCS, the blast radius should be pretty accurate. An important matter is also that fragmentation, even without an expanding rod warhead, retains the missile's velocity, and thus is more of a cone pointed ahead of the missile. If the missiles can't point its nose in front of the target aircraft (it's basically like trying to shoot it with a shotgun), then the fragments will miss.

Phantom wasn't just Vietnam, though (though it was certainly its most famous outing). You could do something on Kola (more of that low level toss bombing?), Germany, or any of the Middle Eastern maps. An IRIAF Phantom campaign on PG, maybe? That'd certainly be something that's rarely seen in DCS.

Depends on what you want out of it. Given your previous choice of aircraft, you may want to give the AJS-37 Viggen a try. It's quirky, but very well made, and it has three good campaigns built in. That's assuming you want something like a Mirage, though. If you want solid training in how to fly an aircraft, give a thought to the C-101 or the L-39, because they have detailed basic flight training campaigns (albeit on the latter, it's a separate purchase). Once you learn the basics of realistic flying, go with the F-14, with Reflected's Speed and Angels campaign and Zone 5 as advanced and graduate level training campaigns, respectively. You'll have a lot of fun with other Tomcat content after that.

Mirage 2000 is a very bad place to start due to ongoing RAZBAM drama. Until that plays out, it will not get any updates, including for the campaigns. Stuff that gets broken can be expected to stay broken.

The way this issue is described, it sure sounds like a bug. The way I understand it, it appears that using an incorrect switching procedure allows you to essentially keep using mode 3 with the radar still operating.

The Phantom really needs AWACS or GCI, and if that's not available, the F10 map. Its radar is not a search radar, it's an FCR. It's not suitable for building SA by scanning the airspace, this is realistic. That capability only came with the F-14 and the Eaglejet.

Do note that in DCS, we're able to practice fighting "real" missiles in ways that would, IRL, be considered too risky to ever try to use. Physics say that this should work, but if you tried that IRL, you'd be called a madman. If you get it wrong, you get a SAM right to the face. Generally, you defend against a SAM launch by turning cold and getting out of its WEZ. That said, Stroke 3 famously dodged a whole swarm of SA-3s by maneuvering alone, during the Package Q strike. Of course, Stroke 1 and 2 weren't so lucky.

It's no use bumping this. Until the RAZBAM situation is resolved, none of the modules will get any updates.

It's a fairly common thing on Navy jets, they signal a night cat shot by turning on the exterior lights, so it's handy. In the F-14, flipping the master switch will actually do that (though amusingly enough, it'll work no matter if you've actually turned any lights on).

Do note that "legal matter" doesn't necessarily mean "ongoing court case", either. It could be at any point between "last warning before we take legal action" and "heading to court". It's in interest of both sides to avoid a full blown lawsuit, they'll probably want to use something that'll allow them to keep it quiet (Ron's proclamations notwithstanding).

Do you? In that case, care to tell us if the status of your NWS light when the jet spins out? We should distinguish minimal rudder input from minimal NWS input. The former won't do much at all at 50kts, rudder in the Tomcat becomes effective at around 80-100kts. The latter, though, will send you spinning if you use it at speed. NWS in the Tomcat has a far higher angle than land-based planes, such as anything you might have flown in your career. It's meant for tight turns on the carrier, unlike the Hornet, the Tomcat doesn't have any way to toggle the angle, as such, its NWS is extremely touchy. IRL, you'd track down the runway first with rudder, then differential braking, and use NWS only when at taxi speed. If you don't have differential braking, your best bet is to point the jet the right way while the rudder still works. It really doesn't need much runway to slow down. 100% brake will definitely make it worse, too. Just like you shouldn't brake heavily when taking a turn in a car. The anti-skid system in those old jets isn't perfect, and slamming the brake to 100% is a good way to spin out (and unlike in a car, you've only got brakes in the rear). The particulars of DCS ground friction and suspension mechanics are a bit suspect, but here, I suspect the problem is that you're turning the nosewheel far more than you think you are.

This would be extremely unlikely to happen in any case. It's not worth the performance to check for bullet to bullet collisions.

It doesn't take Vulkan to make taxi directors wait for a salute before turning the plane around, doesn't it? That alone would greatly improve the singleplayer user experience with taxi directors.

Those things tend to happen once a 3rd party developer, possibly one from the region, takes an interest. ED themselves seem mostly interested in wars involving the US and Russia, with focus on the former.

It's also possible it wasn't quite ready on time, Su-27 came a bit later. The datalink would have been useful, just less important given the MiG-29's role.