DSplayer

Idk what document this specifically comes from but I think it comes from an F-4E flight manual: And here’s a forum post from another forum about the F-4E’s systems: https://www.f4phantom.com/drupal/content/various-questions-f-4e-ordnance-radar-avionics-tiseo

I really like how RAZBAM was able to model the countermeasure system for the Mirage with the Eclair pod's loadout being selectable through the pylon menu. I think the F-14 can go for a similar approach since, iirc, moving the sliders on the loadout page for the chaff and flare will mess up your CM loadout while you have to edit your ALE-39 loadout through a Ground Crew menu. So I think you can make the LAU-138 AIM-9s their own weapon (similar to the Magics with the DDM and how you don't use the Mission Editor for this option anymore) and make a pylon "9" for the ALE-39 loadouts that we have in the Ground Crew menu already. A helpful quality of life addition that could exist is that the kneeboard also showing the initially loaded countermeasure loadout number (Kneeboard shows you have 0 Chaff from ALE-39 but 40 Chaff from the LAU-138 and 60 flares from the ALE-39). Mockup Screenshots: Base: AIM-9s with Pylon Selection ALE-39 Loadout Selection Kneeboard

I've read somewhere where the F-4E's APQ-120 radar in later models had a feature where it could automatically determine what a target was against ground clutter and allow for easier target acquisition. Will our F-4E get this MTI-like radar function? Edit 01/04/22: This function is called Computer Automatic Acquisition (CAA).

You would press the same button again. Like if you're in PAL, press the button that activates PAL to get out of it.

They did say a 2022 release tho. I would think that at least something is complete externally or something.

It appears like the upcoming patch for the RAZBAM Mirage 2000 will feature the possibility of interference if 2 Mirages are operating their radars near each other. With the possibility of this feature existing in DCS, will this perhaps come to the F-14 in the future?

Looks like 420th learned how to defeat the Phoenix ! From my experience, it seems like a maneuvering target (either notching or other defensive maneuvers) will cause the AIM-54 to overpredict a loft (or get so high up it can't get out of a loft quick enough) and basically cause either a super steep decent angle or an overloft situation like shown. Edit: I'm rewatching it again. I have zero idea why it went so high and didn't kill him. It lofted to 120k+ ft, that's altitudes for a ~95+nm shot while you shot at ~70nms. I'd assume the missile thought the closure rate was too slow and distance was erroneously large because that's basically the only explanation I got here. This is the only time I guess a negative loft would've perhaps benefited.

I think the range and speed is pretty optimal. My one suggestion is to get to 40k. Target size small is working normally.

Ah it appears that you lofted your missiles at a pitch beyond 12 degrees. In my experience, the 54’s new guidance doesn’t like manually lofted missiles beyond 12 degrees since it will cause them to not leave the loft fast enough.

This currently is not the case since the motor values for AIM-54C-Mk47 are weaker than the 54A-Mk47 counterpart. Iirc, the 54C-Mk47 has worse performance than the numbers stated within the whitepaper while the 54A-Mk47 has numbers that exceed that of the whitepaper.

Imo the biggest issue for the 54 in terms of guidance (outside of the notching) is that when it is in its loft stage, it doesn’t lead the target but merely points at the target until it actually goes active. That will cause the missile to either lose all its speed or get easily defeated since it wasn’t in a good position to kill the target.

I just did some testing both with a lock and without a lock using the same mission. Seems like the 54 will track when there is a lock already and the ACM cover is up. The first couple of tries with the ACM cover up and no lock resulted in a couple of the missiles not tracking but idk if it was a fluke or not. Then I continued to retest but I had 1 time where all the missiles had missed (idk if the target was too far away from the ADL or if it was an actual issue caused by the possible bug). I did seem to discover a bug where if you get an PAL P-STT, drop it (or not), then flip the ACM cover up, it wouldn't actually go into boresight mode automatically. That might've been the reason why some of my missiles had missed but I'm not too sure. F14ACMTestFeb15.trkF14ACMTest2Feb15.trkF14ACMTest3Feb15.trkF14ACMTest4Feb15.trkF14ACMTest5Feb15.trkF14ACMTest6Feb15.trk

I’ve had similar problems but this was before the 54 patch and I had written a bug report a couple months back and nothing came of it.

Considering the speed (which seem low in terms of DCS combat) of the target drones, I think it would be easier for those hits at those distances IRL in comparison to doing those against maneuvering targets going at like Mach 1. Also, did the actual Navy tests actually show that target aspects that the target drones were at? The aspects of the targets are definitely important to the kinetic performance of the 54. I do not think GS server is a very good measure of stuff considering the server does have lag which trashes missiles and tracks since people just warp around sometimes.

The radar’s performance should be on par or better than how the current F-15C’s radar performance. In terms of A2A weaponry, it will be the same with the possibility of 9Xs. Speed is probably the only major factor you’ll see worse since the CFTs are mounted.

I meant like the last time they sent pictures of the Eurofighter cockpit.

Compared to previous images of the cockpit that were posted earlier, did you guys decide to redo the textures from scratch or something? Or were those WIP pics from late 2020 just using some placeholder assets?

Yeah they don't work for AIM-54s atm for some reason. Sparrows Phoenixes

Yeah. The recent updates made the AWG-9 super sensitive to internet issues

In my testing with the Mk60 motor variant, the lofting guidance seems to be wonky (missile basically drifting in an attempt to turn towards the target and sometimes overshooting the target if it fails to exit the loft in time) if you pitch your plane up beyond 12 degrees before firing your Phoenix. It will go a little bit higher but also leave the loft at a super steep angle while also not having as much energy compared to if you fired it at 10-12 degrees loft. Idk too much about the Mk47C’s performance however since that missile, in my experience, has always lofted so high and always had the lowest energy when terminal of all 3 variants. Lofting the missile at a high pitch angle and getting less terminal speed does make sense however. You’re basically trading more altitude for less horizontal distance. There is a certain amount of pitch before what you’re doing becomes basically detrimental to the missile’s performance.

Yeah. Recently I’ve been having problems (while having a human RIO on a stable server with all below 120 Ping) with losing tracks that were just travelling in a straight line. In terms of contacts flying off the TID, Ive had experience where 2 contacts basically get close together (either in closure rate or actual distance) that the AWG-9 can’t differentiate the targets and basically trash the target with erroneous data.

Of course this doesn’t apply to DCS though.

Dats a me. I could’ve committed the missile at around 100nms but I didn’t want to push the envelope of the missile since it’s still unknown against maneuvering targets.

The HB manual.

When will be able to get the full functionality of the TCS on the F-14s like the ability switch to PD-STT and P-STT directly from an optical track by the TCS? I find the TCS to be a pretty unique system that no other aircraft in DCS has without having to mount a TPOD (and those aircraft can't guide their weapons using those tracks) and I would like to see it have its full potential shown in DCS.