Dragon1-1

This is not likely to be in any manual, but it can be figured out experimentally. Go up in the Viper or the F-15C, get up there and note the fuel flow indicator with burners on, and the mach number you get. Once you have that, it's simple arithmetic to get how long you can fly like that on a full tank (since AAR is a thing, you don't need to account for takeoff). Calculate TAS from mach using either the formula, an online calculator, or the switch in the jet while you're there. Remove a reasonable bingo value from your fuel load to get combat range. Also note, I didn't say the MiG-31's supersonic dash is short ranged. I said it can't be called a cruise, because you typically don't cruise for 20 minutes. In fact, it probably compares well to the Viper, which is notorious for its short legs. Supercruise in fighters wasn't a thing until F-22, and before then, Concorde, Tu-144 and SR-71 were pretty much the only aircraft capable of it AFAIK, and that's only if you consider the "afterburner" on the SR-71 to be a full-on ramjet that just happened to be integrated with the turbine. Turns out, going supersonic and staying there without an afterburner isn't trivial.

By the Russians (USSR fell before 2000). And my point is, and always was, that US had a technological lead on Russia in mid-2000s, and therefore it is futile to look for symmetric counterparts to mid-2000s US modules among the Russian aircraft, because at the time, no such thing existed. It's not dev bias, Russian laws or anything, just technical reality of that specific period. That's the only point I ever tried to make. I'm looking through a prism of DCS because we're playing DCS. To deny airspace IRL, Russia would have used, first of all, what they're using in Ukraine today: SAM sites. MiG-25, was a solution to protect the vast tracts of Siberia that were impractical to plaster with SAM sites, and the MiG-31 is a modernized derivative with slightly expanded mission profile. They would be supplementing the SAM screen, not trying to establish air superiority over hostile territory. The frontline fighters were, in mid-2000s, Su-27S and MiG-29A, the latter being more or less exactly the same as what we're getting, maybe with a commercial GPS unit strapped on. I seem to have mixed up values in km and nm. Difference is not as big, but consider that it takes about two hours to get all the way across the subsonic combat range at Mach 0.8, compared to under 20 minutes for the supersonic dash. Since that one was about the exact definition of "cruise", then it's important to consider both time and range.

This is not cruising, they use afterburner to maintain that speed. Yes, it can go pretty far that way, but at that speed and altitude, it covers its 400nm combat radius in less than 20 minutes. "Cruise speed" usually means you can maintain it for longer than that. MiG-31's actual cruise speed is subsonic, just like most other aircraft of the time. At Mach 0.8 and 10km its combat range is over 1300nm. That is what we usually call cruising.

It's not un-simable, you just need a 10000$ motion platform to get that feeling. I've been meaning to make one myself, hopefully for less, but it's on backburner for now. Sadly, a full centrifuge for G simulation is beyond even that.

In what timeline is 1992 "mid-2000s"? Also, in what timeline is that year relevant to a discussion about mid-2000s? They won't, because MiG-31 does not "cruise" at Mach 2 at 20km. To reach that kind of speed and altitude, it needs full burner and a lot of room to climb and accelerate. More than we have in DCS on most maps, in fact. So this capability is largely irrelevant. In a typical DCS scenario, it'd be hard pressed to go much faster and higher than Tomcat usually does. It's closer to an armed SR-71 than to the F-14 when it comes to how it's flown. ...and that's really my whole point. Nothing to do with classification (it's IP licensing which was holding up ED making the MiG for a long time, not government veto), and everything to do with the fact there's simply no good red counterpart for most BLUFOR aircraft. Consider that you keep going back to a specialized interceptor that, while quite capable, is still 80s tech. Also, we're not getting a MiG-31 in DCS, as far as I know. Even if the phased array wasn't classified, it's probably too much of a one trick pony, not to mention it's a two seater that requires even more crew cooperation than the F-14 does. MiG-29 will be great for Cold War scenarios, and if we get Su-27S, it'll match up quite well with the F-14. We don't have the F-16A, and the period accurate F-15C is FC3, though I hope someone will eventually make it in FF.

This will probably be rebalanced for DC. There needs to be some way of making runway destruction useful, while not being the end of the world. IRL it also greatly depends on the weapon used to crater it.

Missed that one earlier. Aside from the Hornet, aircraft lights are not visible at a distance. This makes them practically useless and also makes night rejoins a huge pain. Hornet has its problems, but it's much better than lights not working at all, except up close. Likewise, landing lights and AAR lights. The former should illuminate the runway when on approach, the latter should light up the whole tanker when closing in. This needs to be looked at, and should be a priority, given the impact it has on night ops.

At night, the lights on the S-3 are completely invisible until very close to the tanker, at which point they suddenly pop into view. This is making night rejoins for AAR far harder than they're supposed to be. They need to be made visible from a long distance away, like on the Hornet.

But you're talking about late Cold War all the time. Discussion is about "modern" DCS timeline, which is smack dab in the middle of a period in which Russian aircraft production really wasn't at its best. Half of your post is arguing about how things were before USSR fell, at best or right after. This doesn't enter into discussion about modern-era DCS modules. If nothing else, it proves the point that to get true peer to peer combat, you need to go back to late Cold War. In that timeline, 4 MiG-29 vs. 4 Viper would handily go to the Viper with its AMRAAMs. 4 F-14 vs. 4 MiG-31 would likely to to the Tomcat, as all they have to do is survive BVR. Against an airframe like this, the best option is to banzai across the MAR and force a WVR engagement. Which, with Phoenix outranging the R-33, the F-14 is very well set up to do. Add to it that the F-14 we have is not the latest model, that would be F-14D, with an even better radar, fancy HUD and MFDs. Also, I'm talking in context of DCS multiplayer, and there, players would find assets like MiG-25 or MiG-31 disappointing. Between its limited WVR capabilities and its weapons, the MiG-31 would still be fighting from a position of disadvantage most of the time. Not to mention, its cockpit design is far from modern, and its datalink does not compare favorably to Link-16 (it's more like Tomcat's Link-4). My point is, at this point in the timeline, there's no "red" aircraft (other than prototypes) that would have a glass cockpit, Fox 3 and all that, maybe except the Su-30MKK. At the same time, the US had a full fleet of Block 52 Vipers, Hornets, Strike Eagles, and the F-14 was still alive and kicking.

MiG-29S was produced in tiny numbers. Su-30MKI went to India. Su-30MKK went to China. MiG-29K went, again, to India. China is on the "red" team, but India isn't really (undisputed masters of fencesitting is what they are). None of those were in service in Russia until after 2010. They made better fighters for export than they had for themselves. Fox 3 came to the Viper before 2000s, so my statement is true of any post-90s Viper. Sure, MiG-29A could throw down with any heaters only Viper, but with the -29S being canceled, it couldn't keep up during the era DCS is set in. The F-14, while it was designed, first of all, for fleet defense, is very much not just a flying SAM site. For one, it is fully capable of engaging fighters in BFM, which MiG-31 can't do. Also, it can't carry a lot of bombs, while F-14 was designed for that role from the start (yes, even the A, they planned to pitch it to the USMC). MiG-31 is limited to interception, unless we consider the recent modification which can also launch the Kinzhal.

Yes, it can intercept fighters, too. That doesn't put it on par with US aircraft as far as overall capability is concerned, and it's definitely not most people who want modern red air are asking for. It's a flying SA-10 site more than an F-14 equivalent. The point is, the most advanced fighter in widespread service in Russia in the early to mid-2000s was the Su-27S. You will not find a direct counterpart to F-16C in "red" air forces until well into 2010s.

MiG-31 is a 1980s aircraft that ceased production in 1994. So no, aside from the radar it did not match US planes in technology.

The 9.41 that India got was developed from 9.31 prototypes, though. Russians restarted the program because India was buying a carrier from them, and they wanted planes to go with it. The Indian version was produced from 2005, and it was a Russian aircraft, just not used by actual Russian air force. And yes, the modern MiG-29KR is a different beast, newer than anything we have in DCS.

IMO, for parts that break not as the customer's fault, they should be eating that shipping cost. I get that they likely don't have a large volume contract like Aliexpress does, but in such case, they should simply pay for shipping themselves, out of pocket. Would be great for incentivizing getting it right the first time, too. I didn't feel like paying for replacement springs when they failed, either, fortunately it was something I managed to fix myself.

TBH, if we take "modern" as "mid-2000s", like DCS does, then Su-27S would pretty much be as close as it gets, and it's been mentioned as a "maybe". Also remember that in that time period, neither Russia nor China had anything that could match US fighters, except very limited numbers of Su-27SM. MiG-29K was made in Russia and then sold to India (sadly, they're no more open to sharing their data than Russia is). Even in 2012, only half of Russia's Su-27 fleet had been modernized. Any peer opponents for the US aircraft that we have are all very new, at least by military aircraft standards. I'll be happy if they manage to make Su-27S and Su-33 (same avionics, just with a few carrier-oriented features). While not quite as flexible as, say, a Viper or a Hornet, they're on a similar level when it comes to air combat, and they're not bad bomb trucks, either.

These look like something related to game avionics mode.

Since we do not have a proper NAS in DCS, I was thinking about scenarios like Reflected's Speed and Angels, where Nellis is turned into one. Presumably, the lens would be towed to it and a box temporarily painted on the runway. Both can be handled using DCS objects. The point is to allow DCS players to do FCLP, even on airbases where it's not usually done. Of course, ideally we'd have NAS Miramar and/or Lemoore (I have a fondness for the latter due to it being in an ancient Super Hornet sim). Yes, USAF arresting gear does shut down the runway for a while, especially since aircraft using it is typically in no shape to taxi back. It should do that in DCS, too, particularly in DC, where this would impact the strategic picture. Still better than losing an aircraft. Ground crew running around unhooking and hitching the aircraft, then stowing the gear would be icing on the cake, maybe after Supercarrier crew gets finished we'll start getting things like that.

HB is making the A-6. Tornado is being made by someone else (forgot the name), I don't know if HB is helping with that one.

Well, the lens is a mobile unit (see the wheels on the trailer?), so in theory, they could set it up for FCLP purposes just about anywhere. I agree about using the arresting gear for short field landings, but OTOH, emergencies are not exactly unknown in DCS. While the DM is still a bit too basic, you can eat a flak round and have some systems knocked out, which could require cables or even nets on the runway.

She's German (it's a German helo after all), that's their default facial expression.

And in the very next post I corrected myself, which you would have known if you bothered reading and comprehending what I said. I stated the point multiple times. To reiterate, it is that due to fixed multiplier and general lack of OC options, Ryzen X3D series is not susceptible to similar degradation to Intel. Yes, that is the point. You're fixating on a minor misuse of a single term, because that's the only thing that you did get right, while choosing to ignore the real point even after I served it to you on a platter. I have one of those CPUs myself, and yes, I did tune it. I've been doing this for a while, too, albeit on Intels, because everyone used Intels before Ryzen came along. If you think you have some mystical OC knowledge that I do not... well, you really don't. In the context of how Intel versus AMD are at risk of hardware wear, undervolting is not a relevant OC technique. That is the point, and it is so because any undervolting decreases the wear as opposed to increasing it. Please address the bolded part, instead of latching onto a minor terminology slip.

Only after you tell me how you are overvolting your CPU and getting better temps that on stock settings. So yeah, lmao. If you're trying to tell me you're cheating thermodynamics, pull the other one. Next you'll tell me it runs on cold fusion for cheap power. You're undervolting the CPU. That's the only way anything you said makes sense. You may also be increasing the boost clock manually (note that this is not something AMD says you should be able to do), which can let you squeeze it for a bit more, but it's not on the same level as what you can do with a multiplier-unlocked CPU. I don't bother with that because the increase is marginal in real applications. And I can't help but notice that all this time, you failed to address my core claim: any undervolted configuration is going to be less demanding on CPU when it comes to wear than defaults, even if boost clock is increased. It's simply not the kind of overclocking we're talking about when it comes to Intels. People most affected by the degradation crank up voltage and use it to run up the multiplier, giving a considerable increase in clock speed, at expense of power consumption and heat. Since Intel had the bright idea to do more or less that out of the box already, it's easy to reach the point at which silicon simply can't keep up for very long. X3D series Ryzens do not have this problem, as the tuning they usually get is undervolting.

You're describing undervolting, I do that, too. It helps with X3Ds' tendency to run hot. Naturally, better thermals will usually result in higher average clock speeds. Also, undervolting doesn't kill your CPU, quite the opposite, in fact, so the underlying point still stands. I admit, it's not quite a fixed clock (which hasn't really been a thing since a long time ago), but they do have a locked multiplier. Either way, the "classic" overclocking done by combining an oversized cooler with an overvolted CPU and looking how far you can take the die is not really a thing with the X3Ds.

One thing about the Cobra, rarely noted but explained by GS in one of his videos, is the effect it has on the control zone in a guns-only fight. Basically, it shifts the control zone further behind the aircraft that can perform the maneuver, because if you get too close, a Cobra can make you overshoot, so you have to hang out further back. Why does it matter? Because landing a gunshot from that zone is much more tricky. In that way, the capability to do a Cobra already protects you to some extent, even if you never actually do it. Of course, that's assuming heaters are not in play. In general, like other high AoA maneuvers, it's a great tool for turning your opponent's excessive closure into an overshoot. Tactically, it has to be weighed against other options, but if he's bearing down on you and closing for guns, the possibility of exposing yourself to his wingman later is offset by averting the near certainty of eating cannon rounds right now. It can be a replacement for guns-D in some situations, too, but you have to make it messy and gain altitude during it. This will result in great loss of forward speed combined with upwards movement that's very hard to follow, unless you misjudged the distance, in which case it just makes you a huge target. You don't really need the capability to do a full Cobra for this, a Hornet can also "stand on its tail" to pull one over an opponent who can't go as slow, but Cobra gets you there faster.

Someone could link this thread up in a comment to that FB post, if that's not done already. Of course there's interest in HB-quality F-16A.