SgtPappy

I've heard the APG-63(v)3 is better than even the F-22's APG-77. So then you've got a longer-ranged radar in the Su-35S than even the F-22! Although since the F-22 is stealth and has LPI capability, I suppose it doesn't matter as much.

Surprisingly, I've had about 3 kills on bandits while climbing straight from under their bellies. Like the F-15, I think they don't get any warning if you're right under them. So is SS like FLOOD but instead of sending out a warning, it locks what ever is in the circle? Like a giant boresight mode? I heard it looks at everything that can be seen on the VSD but I'm not sure the parameters it needs for lock. On that note, often I will use FLOOD mode to trick the enemy into thinking I've fired. They go defensive, lose energy and try to dupe a non-existent missile. It almost always works but sometimes I try not to use it when I feel like I'll lose their position once they defend. If I were more confident about my SA, I'd use it more. I often cannot fly with a wingman due to my schedule so it appears that I'll only ever win against enemies with less SA, which is one reason I fly with Sparrows - to improve SA and good strategy.

To join in on my extremely fun and masochistic 1980's hallucination party, of course :D

Wait what? Can you do this in DCS? If so, that would make close-range engagements and dogfights much easier for me. Pr1mal's problem is mine as well. It's hard to look outside and have to lock a target blipping from one side of the VSD to the other in a second.

If I hold a soft lock, will the enemy know I'm soft locking them? With the F-15's RWR, I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but I don't know much about the SPO-15.

Yea, I found if I locked someone too early, they'd be that much liklier to turn towards me and fire first. Preferably I like getting so close, they're at the bottom of the VSD before I fire. It's tempting to lock people because the information the scope gives you in STT or TWS soft lock helps with my crappy SA.

As these new planes come out, I think it only makes sense to have period-specific servers with corresponding loudouts. It will be overkill with the modern aircraft, so hopefully there will be 80's, 90's and then modern servers so balance can be applied through historical means.

I will experiment with staying high and being more careful. The other day I flew high and found a bandit who snuck up on me within 30nm, but while diving, I didn't pay attention to the closure rate. We merged, I lost him and was hit by an R-73. I should have extended to reset the fight. If I practise flying high and diving in the right direction and at the right time, hopefully I'll be killed less.

For the last month, I have been flying almost exclusively with AIM-7M's and AIM-9M's on servers like the 104th and 159th. I like flying around with a 1980's combat load, and since no one else does 1980's servers, I decided to just fly with the weapons I like. I also feel I'm more careful with Sparrows since I only have 4. So far, I have had fairly good success. I fly around primarily near the mountains or hills and use them as cover. On good days, I'll have a K/D of 1:1, but sometimes I'm lucky enough get 7:2 or unlucky enough to get killed a few times with no kills. Does anyone have any tips/advice on flying with this loadout? I find that my primary problem is running out of fuel because I'm forced to fly low. As a result, I'm very hesitant to get rid of drop tanks because I want to keep as much fuel as possible. I get killed often while trying to drop them. Also, I end up having to merge a LOT, and if I lose the enemy for a second, I will have to run behind a hill or I'm dead. and that happens sometimes.

Are you saying that the R-73 should be even better? If so, in what regard? Also, the discussion sounds like people want flares to be less effective. Aren't these 1980's missiles supposed to be relatively easy to spoof with flares? Not sure where to get hard evidence on actual flare-rejection characteristics of IR missiles.

It certainly is easier. It's very rare for a Sabre to kill a MiG in the game. But you try to fly without a G suit and see how well you do :P Plus, I'm still suspicious about the stall characteristics of our DCS MiG. It should stall very, VERY badly (superstall condition) according to virtually every test ever made out there on the MiG but none of that is modelled in the sim. Don't know if it ever will be, but DCS 1.5 or 2 will introduce the lack of G-suit.

The AI flies unrealistically, don't compare your performance in any plane to them. I haven't seen anything unrealistic in the Sabre's engine thrust. For its time, the F-86F was just a bit better than mediocre in acceleration with a nominal T/W ratio of about 0.397. That wasn't too high nor too low for the time period. If you're slipping or buffeting, this will negatively affect your acceleration. I find it accelerates quite well compared to the anecdotes provided in many texts. If you are at 0 rate of climb at, say, 10000' you will accelerate quite well so I'm not too sure what you're experiencing. I also find that the speed brakes work well, except maybe when you're landing. Make sure you aren't diving at the same time. If I'm level and my brakes are out, I'll need a lot of alpha to stay level under 300 knots. Trust me, watch your vertical speed indicator and keep it at 0. Your plane will slow.

Yes. 1980's all the way please! That way, everyone's got SARH missiles. Sure the AIM-7 will have the advantage but there will be more balance for those who hate AMRAAMs, my F-15 won't be able to run and kill you at the same time and I will be happy flying in a Cold War scenario :) I've been telling others that when the F-14 comes out, hopefully there will be way more 1980's missions to satisfy the Top Gun feel and to make a timeframe more logically associated with the F-14A/B.

That's what I figured. It seemed inconsistent with everything else I've read. I mean if the AIM-9B could lock on a signature almost instantly, then I don't see missiles having that much trouble locking a target especially WVR. Where do you think the guy got these figures from? Sounds like you know the guy, Tharos :P. And I also thought that. If BVR (or at least pre-merge) weapon employment was so useless, why would air forces invest so much time and money into building the weapons

After some practise, I finally got my first guns kill on the 104th! Both AIM-7's having missed and already out of AIM-120's, I press into the merge.

Does it actually take up to 30 seconds for an Su-27 or F-15 radar to achieve STT on a target? I was reading about BVR combat here: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/, which analyses how effective BVR combat has been in the last 50 years or so. If you read down near the bottom, a post by P.N. Sinha (post 8 in the comments under the article), he/she quotes how radar systems take time to achieve lock - up to 15 or so seconds and an IR missile takes 1-3 seconds. It even goes as far as to make an example using an F-22 in a hypothetical ECM-ridden situation taking 30+ seconds to lock a target. Is this true? If so, I would assume it should be commonly known, but in DCS, lock ons are instantaneous with any type of missile.

Thanks, Yo-Yo!

Looking at the wing design of the MiG, it makes sense for it to be able to pull so hard without wing drop. Less sweep and huge wing fences make this possible. The issue I think has moreso to do with the T-tail. When the MiG does stall (and it currently is extremely difficult to do so), the T-tail was supposedly the cause of a nasty, unrecoverable spin, which we do not see at all in-game though we are told - albeit only anecdotally - that it should fall out of the sky in such circumstances. I have only ever stalled the thing once and it was a completely gentle, recoverable spin. To the topic at hand, I see what OP meant. It's been over a year and no manual. The MiG-15 has its manual already. Other than that, the Sabre looks and flies fantastically, except maybe the rudder; an issue which both the F-15 and MiG-15 share. It's fun and it's a nice break from missile combat.

Thanks Mirmidon! Ragnarok (And correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I think:) I think our F-15C might benefit from the upgraded thrust rating of the F100. The charts we referenced are pre-1988 and I think the F-15's engines were producing ~23770 lbf of thrust each, but after the F-15E came out, their engines (the same F100-PW-220's at the time) eventually were producing 25000 lbf of thrust. I don't know if they simply trimmed the engine or something, but you often see two different figures for the F-15's thrust. In DCS which is supposed to model modern F-15C's, this is probably the thrust we're working with, as you said, a 5% thrust increase.

Oh thanks so much for the info gentlemen. Hopefully more information will come to light sooner than later. mirmodon, would I be able to trouble you for that page? I'd like to have a screenshot of the diagram just to keep my documents consistent.

I was wondering if anyone knew the source of these images: I'm interested in finding the Su-27's level flight acceleration (Mach number versus time) and was hoping the technical document that holds the above images might have that information. Thanks!

Do you think if they produced contrails from vortices or pressure drop across surfaces, we'd be able to see them more easily as we maneuver? If so, it would be nice to add to the game, perhaps when EDGE comes around. It might change how people fly.

Ohh okay! No problem. I will patiently wait then :)

This sounds like it will be a blast! There should be more missions like this. For anyone interested, I'm GMT -5. Hopefully I can join you in this campaign. EDIT: Can't find the server (or anything called operation spearhead) :( It is 16:30 GMT +1 right?

Ohhh you're going to make me sooo happy! :thumbup: