SgtPappy

If you mean that they're making the target go defensive right away you're right! not sure how close an AWG-9 would have to be to pick up a fighter-sized target in the notch because right now, you can hide from an F-14 all the way to 5 nm if you notch juuust right. You'd probably have much more knowledge being an SME, would you happen to know if that's realistic? However even in this game, the hard part of course is for the target to stay hidden! Does anyone know if E-2 datalink could be fed to the Tomcat and then to the AIM-54?

That's the ideal case. Far away enough, it seems that right now you can simply beam and split-S because that way you're in the maneuvering plane of the beam. You've changed direction completely and the AWG-9 is none the wiser by sticking with a track in the complete opposite direction. I'm no expert, but I think this is realistic behaviour.

From STT to TWS should be impossible, that makes sense to me. But for TWS to STT, consider this scenario: 1) Target knows there is an F-14 tracking it and decides to notch, coincidentally, as the F-14 launches an AIM-54A (let's say that because Heatblur said they have this data while the C guidance is still not all unclassified) at > say, 20 nm 2) The AWG-9 goes into 2 min track hold mode (putting an "X" over the track because it lost the notching contact) 3) The target ends up being detected again but at this point it is a different track (the "true" track) because it moved away from the assumed track hold "X" track. So the RIO decides to use the likelier track by correlating the new, true track to the DDD and STT's the DDD. I have heard in this case the AIM-54A falls back to STT/datalink. To me, this means that it could forget about the track hold target and any launched AIM-54 will default to the STT launch if there is no "true" track. Is this a correct understanding? Also as suggested above, you could turn away from the target at any time because the "track hold" function will still allow the AIM-54 to guide to the best guess target. Is this true? Does track hold not still need the AWG-9 cone around the track hold target? As i understand, the AWG-9 turning completely away from a track hold track would make that track disappear.

The 80's is my preferred time for air combat so I'm on there often but unfortunately, the red players always outnumber the blue players and they kill AWACs right at the start. No AWACs spawns and anyone joining Blue is left without eyes because there arent enough of us to have a chance or a dedicated SRS controller. Is there anyway to have the mission spawn another AWACs every, I dont know, 5 mins after one is downed? I realize this should be a very realistic scenario, but we need to account for an unrealistic gamer thing: being completely outnumbered from the start and no friendly GCI. The reds are such high in numbers and almost always have a dedicated guy doing GCI for them.

I was the host, and there were only three of us playing in total on my private server. I'm not sure if they had recorded anything. I was almost certain I was losing my mind!

No idea if this helps, but when I played one of my missions online with friends, they saw my AIM-7MH's track (this was on supercarrier launch day) but I could not see them track at all. The Sparrows splashed the Tu-22's on their screen but on my screen, they did not do anything but rocket forward.

So i did some testing and it appears that it only happens to player-controlled birds with AIM-7M and the AIM-7MH for me. AIM-7F's still guide. AIM-54A (both types) and AIM-54C seem to be working fine.

Did we ever get a confirmation that the R-27 will be updated? My 1980's scenarios need accurate Redfor missiles! :) Someone also mentioned the flyout, non-maneuvering range and speed will probably not change but the range against maneuvering targets will be updated based on CFD. Is that true? Hard to summarize this through all these pages

I don't know if the F-14A or F-4E will ever come to fruition even though I badly hope they do. The MiG-23MLA seems to be developing still and possibly the Mirage F1 and F-8 are still being worked on as well. I have a feeling once these are out, they can probably shift the combat to late 70s, early 80s allowing the planes like Mirage 2K, MiG-29A, F-15 and F-14A to be in the missions as well. Although I agree, the F/A-18C (and possibly the F-16C too) even with limited weapons would be too modern simply due to its other capabilities that are modeled unlike the F-15 and MiG-29A FC3 models.

Oh I had no idea that was the case. Thanks for the update. In that case I see what you mean. Something tells me all the FC3 radar detection ranges are off, but we'll see.

Where did you get the 3 m^2 value from? I cannot find true values of RCS anywhere from any website. I have only ever found some guy's forum post on aircraft RCS with no academic source. Furthermore, RCS is a messy thing that relies on aspect (i.e. even if you are looking down at a perfectly "hot" target, they may not be facing you directly since you are looking somewhat down on them and the RCS might not be exactly the value you found). Although I agree that the FC3 radars in general are nothing like the F/A-18 and F-16 radars and hope one day - probably just a dream - that they will be updated along with the RWRs and such.

Thanks Blaze, I figured that the -45 versions should be better than the Vietnam-era 25/27. Although I guess the issue was the high false alarm rate due to its high sensitivity which meant it was often put in a filter mode, hence the installation of fuzz-busters. It makes me wonder how the Air Force's ALR-56 compared. IronMike - thank you very much for all this good information, and I learned a lot! I very much enjoy the more realistic setup of your F-14 RWR as it is very immersive and makes me much more careful when flying around.

Just wondering, I noticed that padlock view was working yesterday despite it saying "disabled" in the MP menu. Every server I flew in had it working. Is this a problem on my end or has this been noticed as a bug before?

Understood, I must have missed that post. That's a bummer, hope it gets fixed soon.

I didn't want to create a new thread, so I'm just going to reply to this one as it doesn't seem there has been a confirmed resolution. I tried the triggers per the video as well but changed the target to a MiG-25 and me, the shooter, was an F-15. The trigger was also a sound and a message, neither which appeared whether I hit the MiG-25 with a gun round or any kind of missile. Has anyone had this issue and has any one resolved it?

Great find! Thanks!

I hear you but I do not think it applies to setting up a server with these scenarios. If the records of real-life planes accurately predicted their capability in game, we would be seeing totally different results. The MiG-21's in Vietnam only ever had the worst rear-aspect AA-2 (R-3S) missiles at their disposal yet they did pretty well against US aircrews than what the US had expected primarily because of pilot skill or lack thereof on the US side - at least initially before Top Gun. Can you imagine if we put the best F-4 and F-8 with the best Vietnam-era tech in-game against MiG-21's with no special afterburner or missiles other than the R-3S? I bet you'd see the MiG's getting demolished which means there's something going on that's different: For the Lebanon war, the MiGs had no chaff, flare or all aspect heaters. I am not even sure if the MiG-23MF's had BVR missiles. Then again, the Israeli's had no jammers and had to rely on chaff and flare launchers that were inferior to what we have in-game. We can easily slap on the right weapons to balance the server. But most importantly, per Moscow's Lessons from the 1982 Lebanon Air War by B. Lambeth: "... anonymous senior IAF officer: 'The problem was that [syrian] pilots didn't do things at the right time or in the right place. They flew in a way very difficult to understand.... The pilots behaved as if they were going to be shot down and waited to see when it was going to happen and not how to prevent it or how to shoot us down.' Reflecting on this lack of aggressiveness and initiative (and apparent unfamiliarity with air combat) displayed by the Syrians, he added:. 'They could have flown the best fighter in the world, but if they flew it the way they were flying we would have shot them down in exactly the same way. It wasn't the equipment at fault, but their tactics.' " This is where the DCS pilots shine because we have the luxury of respawns, and lots and lots of practise to even out the score. Just because these planes got whacked in real life doesn't mean they will in these servers. Otherwise F-15's would never get shot down, MiG-29's would never score any kills but we see the opposite. Bottom line: There's much more to consider than just the planeset.

Absolutely no pressure! You do so much already for us with little in return. If you do one day have that kind of server, awesome! If not, then that's cool too because we have your already excellent server up and running. Keep up the great work! :thumbup:

The MiG-23 is in a funny place because it would rip apart the 1970s planes we have now and be a bit better than even a slatted F-4E. Yet it's worse than its historical opponents, the F-14A, F-15A/C and F-16A/C. If you limit the weapons and add in a MiG-29 with R-27R/T, you can get a very balanced set against 1980's F-15 (AIM-7F/M), F-16 (only AIM-9s!) and F-14A (only 2x AIM-54A's and limited in number). One thing I have always dreamed of was something like 1982 Lebanon or Desert Storm - lots of MiG-21's MiG-23's and MiG-25's (if only that were a DCS module) against the F-15C, F-16C, F-14A and F-4E. For Desert Storm, you'd add the MiG-29A/S and F/A-18. These would be fun historical counterparts especially if you limit the Blues to few or no AIM-54s. But this kind of thing is a long way off since we are waiting for quite a few planes/features. Just thinking out loud.

Honestly these are your missions, it's up to you. If you really don't want it I think people should understand why. But a vote is very kind of you. Apologies, I did not notice it was even brought up before. There are real world scenarios where the F-14 did not get air to air kills, including the Gulf War - F-14's were present but only shot down an Mi-8. Here there are plenty of other aircraft that could fight it out.

Ah that sounds pretty awesome. My soul still yearns for an F-4 that I feel won't be added in my life time but I'd still love to see that server once the MiG-23 comes. Agreed - but when is the only question. 1000x yes! Cold war 1970's and 1980's absolutely rule

I would absolutely love this. Alpenwolf, wasn't there an 80's server? Do you think you could bring that back up if possible? Once the MiG-23ML comes out, this could be quite a popular setup. Actually a realistically-loaded F-14 could still be in this scenario - just limit its payload to 2xAIM-54A mk 47's as was often done in real life. They're easy enough to spoof for the time being anyway.

It makes sense that the chaff should not be treated quite like a flare as it is now - however as I understand (especially for 70's and maybe 80's missiles), if the target is beaming a radar perfectly, near the ground and dropping chaff, it should give no return different from the ground. This would have the effect of putting the defender in that noise band on the AWG-9 that you see when you turn off the Doppler filter. Did radars at this time (especially in the early AIM-54A) have the ability to track the leading edge of targets dropping chaff? Is this technique applicable to targets beaming near the ground? Correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

This seems pretty in line with the R-27 plot we have - around 16.5 km at sea level. If only the published information said "speed at impact" instead of "Pk at impact = 0.7" so we could get a better idea of the energy in context with this launch range. Is that defined anywhere?

If we both feel this way can we both just apologize and be done with it? It's clear that we are misinterpreting each other. Actually this is all you commented on my math so forgive me - but surely you can see how your response confused me: I can see how that might have been picked up from what I wrote. I apologize, this was not my intention. I only meant to show that this high level diagram - designed for pilots most likely - was to be a quick high-level guide. It was made to be easy to interpret and that was all the pilot needed to understand when looking at those plots. I did not mean that is all the pilot needed to know about flying a plane, fighting in it and firing weapons. I am not attacking you. I was telling you that you made a conclusion that was never there. That is not attacking, it is a disagreement. Dude, I just want all of us to be friends and discuss this in a civil manner. I apologize for my "lol" but you have to admit that if someone makes a random conclusion as you did, it might feel a little awkward - almost funny? Let's both be civil from now on, yeah? Agreed, and i always agreed - i just wish we had more R-27 data. Sorry, I didn't see that image - it was very small. But honestly, we are both yelling at each other saying the same thing!