KlarSnow

Considering I flew and trained with the aim-120D both in peacetime and in combat from 2015-18 in strike eagles, and then have trained with it in growlers since 2019, I think your sources might be a bit out of date or unreliable...

Radar makes no difference in which variant of amraam it can support. F-15s and 16s of various mech scanned or Aesa radars, just like the hornet/super hornet with the 73 or 79 can support all variants of the amraam no problem.

https://cdn.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1909/5723156/1000w_q95.jpg Middle jet is a C other 2 are E’s

It works with everything AFAIK, If its operational its getting implemented, how many will actually be available to the VMFA guys who knows, probly not since they are usually last in the bucket for ordnance and funding regarding that stuff, but the software implementation is pretty straightforward. Just be whatever the next version of the OFP is needed. Which sometimes comes out before the missile, cause these things sit in development and test for a long time...

Aim-120D has been in service since at least 2015, and yes its a pipe dream in DCS. Better to go back and do an AIM-120C and an A, and then give us an actual C5 improvement, for a little variety, rather than just the B/C5 that we have. Gives you the ability to better match ordnance to time frames, even if you can’t do the jets.

Sounds crazy but this is the state of DCS missile fuzing and net sync right now, as I've said, if you dig, its been all discussed and laid out before, this is how it works right now. What it all comes down to is, your rage about something that should have killed a dude but didn't is just game mechanics at work. Until a massive overhaul of several DCS systems get fixed(if they ever get fixed), this is what you have to deal with.

Its been discussed to death elsewhere but long story short, the prox fuze only fuzes off the pilots head. That's the distance it is using to measure whether or not it detonates. So on a big aircraft like a Flanker or Tomcat if you have a 50 foot prox fuze, its completely possible in DCS for it to fly 2 feet behind the tail and be 60 feet from the pilots head, and fail to fuze. In Multiplayer it gets even stranger due to desync issues, and due to the speeds and time frames involved can lead to some seemingly impossible results. Trying to make sense of it can just make your brain hurt but basically missile and plane positions aren't 100% synced between the clients and server at all times, and the shooter's client is responsible for determining if the missile is a hit or not. This is how you have missiles that (especially in tacview) seem to fly thru a plane and not detonate, or blow up a mile or more away from the target killing the target, the positions are not 100% synced between all clients and are severely affected by any lag. This all gets exacerbated by longer missile time of flights (more time for this desync error to grow).

As did the SA-2 in Vietnam with a 5,000 lb missile (if Wikipedia is accurate) a patently worse missile in just about every aspect to all of those mentioned above that was specifically designed to shoot down bombers and high altitude planes. Shot down plenty of US fighters throughout the conflict. Missile size has nothing to do with how effective it is vs a target.

Hornets/Superhornets of any variety will not be winning the run away game vs any of the russian/soviet threats, especially on the deck. Straight wing, too small engines, fixed intakes (in the superhornets case, draggy pylons) Most jets below 5000 feet MSL really start to top out at mach 1.0-1.1 cause your limit down that low is usually your CAS, not mach number. Unsure of the hornets Vne, but 750-850 is pretty normal for just about any fighter, on the deck thats at most mach 1.2ish. (keep in mind that limit is usually a structural heating limit, not an instant fail limit, so some jets may very well be able to accelerate past their redline speeds up at altitude, the designers have just deemed its not safe to do so because you will start damaging things, usually melting the windshield or radome)

You wont find detailed information on this hardly anywhere unfortunately, and the P Sparrow is even worse. The P is essentially an iterative design of the MH, so for DCS terms better CM resistance still, but very similar if not the exact same guidance. It is really much more similar to the MH than the MH is to the M, but the M and the MH are essentially the same missile with a software change and some minor hardware changes. The end result of this is that the M, MH, and P are all very very similar, and most of the stuff that changed will result as far as DCS is concerned in improved CM resistance throughout, and the lofting mechanic. Thats probly the only detail that 1)they will be able to find and 2) they will be able to model more than likely. its not 100% accurate but a good way to think of the M, MH and P are like an AIM-120C5, C6,C7. They are really the same missile, just some rather minor differences usually in software, that again, in DCS terms would only result in more than likely a CM resistance change unless they do a massive overhaul of seeker stuff, but even then, the details on what is going on there that separates them is going to be virtually impossible to find so It will still probably be just slightly better countermeasure or notch resistance.

Also keep in mind if/when prox fuzing and the host of DCS-isms that surround why they don't really work in game right now happens, even if you successfully prevent a metal on metal intercept (what is essentially required right now) that even if you do outmaneuver it endgame you may not generate enough distance to prevent it from fuzing.

There is usually a way to enter in a wind table, so if you are dropping from 20,000 feet, and you have a product which tells you the local area winds, you can then enter in the winds at various steps below you, that way it can be more accurate. It "should" always correct for the current winds that are affecting the aircraft, and then extrapolate that down to ground level somehow. Obviously entering the winds for various levels below you will make it more accurate. Some aircraft (F-15E) can capture winds into the table as it climbs, so for example in a pop up attack it would capture the winds in the climb up, and then use those for the release if you have it setup that way. Don't know if the hornet does that, but its plausible.

The INS in the F-18/F-16, anything with an INS should be getting the wind correction for its current altitude on its own. It knows the aircrafts heading, Groundspeed vs True Airspeed, and Course. Any difference in ground v true or heading v course equals wind at the aircrafts current altitude. It should be automatically taking that into account with any navigation or bombing mode, without any entry or selection by the pilot.

Real World F is an improved E, with a sensitive enough seeker to fully exploit the range capabilities of the radars in the F-15/14 for longer ranged shots, has some kinematic improvements as well. Essentially still an E at core though. M is a essentially a completely new sparrow. M stands for Mono-pulse, as it uses a mono-pulse seeker which gives it significant seeker improvements and advantages over the E/F. Think better sensitivity and accuracy of the seeker, far better countermeasure resistance, and overall just a better seeker and guidance system. MH, or H build sparrow (as you'll see it labelled some places) is a variant of the M that includes further minor seeker enhancements and adds the ability to loft, increasing its kinematic performance at range. In Game In game the primary differences are in CM rejection capability and whether or not it can loft. CM rejection from best to worst; Best: MH Middle: M Worst: F The M/MH both seem to be able to loft off the hornet right now if you toggle that option. I cant recall if the F will or wont, I almost never fly with it.

All active missiles in DCS go active 15Km or 7.5 ish miles to their target, rough rule of thumb I use is 2/3rds the range I shoot it at. For example, if I shoot at 30, it should be active around 20 miles, if I shoot at 20, it should be active around 13 miles, if not a little further. Rule of thumb, so its not 100% accurate, but I'd say it is on the side of being more conservative (missile is active) than not (snipping the missile and leaving early) !!THIS RULE OF THUMB ONLY APPLIES IF YOU CRANK 50 DEGREES OR GREATER!! (if you dont crank you will be much closer when the missile goes active) Also with the way missiles in DCS work right now, there is not much point to supporting your missile past it getting active. if the target notches your missile, it doesnt matter if you hold the lock or not, the missile doesnt continue to guide on your lock if its own sensor is notched. Bit dumb but thats how it works right now.

R-27ER is considered to be fairly good against fighters, weighs 350Kg (750 ish pounds) Before it burns its motor AIM-54 weighs 1,000 pounds R-40 and R-33 weighs ~1,000 pounds as well Sparrow, R-27R, and R-23/24 All weigh ~500 Pounds AMRAAM weighs 350 Pounds if we are going with bigger equals worse against fighters, than the R-40/33 and the R-27ER are right up there with the AIM-54. Keep in mind this is all before it has burnt off its propellant, so depending on what the fuel portion of each missile is, its endgame weight will be significantly lighter than this. This is still not even the half of it because other than ITS BIG IT MUST NOT BE ABLE TO TURN WELL, nobody has really said how that matters? Tomcat's a lot bigger and heavier than a fishbed, as is an F-15. Both of those can fly circles around the fishbed with a decent pilot. The people who have done the math (heatblur/IASGATG) to a higher level than anyone else in this forum and have posted their proofs (IASGATG's white paper) before they implemented it, probly have the best idea outside of the actual USN/IRIAF how this stuff works and what the phoenix can/can't do. There's lots of DCS-isms right now that make the phoenix not operate as it should, both hindering and helping it out but that's all pending change.

Big bird btw is the EW radar, not the engagement radar for the SA-10, so by DCS logic since it can see you at 180 miles or more, your RWR will light up. The engagement radar is the FL (flap lid) That's the one you have to watch out for regarding Mud or Singer indications (ground radars don't follow the same terminology of nails and Spike that air intercept radars do)

How far has the wave travelled to get back to the radar that sent it and register as a lock and detection... twice as far as the range to the target. (if the target is at 30 miles, the wave has to have traveled 30 to the target, bounced off and a further 30 back to the locking radar) So if you have an equally sensitive sensor on the other side of the target, at least as far as twice the range you can successfully detect something... This would be a good minimum guideline

nozzle and bypass (if it has those things) If you were to just suddenly reduce the RPM in a fast spinning turbine at high speed and temperatures, all of that hot gas and pressure in the combustion chamber will try to flow FORWARD (vacuum of low pressure where you have reduced the incoming air) instead of back thru the nozzle. This will result in stagnation and torching your engine, even if you cut off fuel flow completely (this is a compressor stall/stagnation). You have to keep air flow and positive pressure through the engine in order to get it to cool down and blow that temperature away. Go hop in a n ME262 in another popular modern flight sim and after you get the engines running and are airborne try moving the throttle quickly to idle while at high speed, note exactly how quickly your engines catch fire, and then realize that is what the tomcats systems (and all modern jet engines) are preventing from happening.

Radars have beamwidth, they are not laser pointers. if you have a 1 degree beamwidth (a really good tight beamwidth for an A/A radar) the beam is physically 1 degree wide expanding out into space. Remember thats vertically as well as horizontally. At 30 miles that beam is a half mile wide, at 60 miles its 1 mile wide, and yes it is absolutely radiating in front of and beyond the target. You could be more than twice as far away as the locked target and still be receiving the same or more energy than the reciever on the threat radar that is locking your buddy.

I haven't tried it against anything bigger than a flanker, but a flanker sized target you will see in pulse around 60ish miles away. Even if you can lock him in pulse, you will not be able to guide a phoenix against him, so if you know hes there, just wait in a PD mode until he stops beaming you. Or change your geometry to try and break him out.

With the low fidelity SU-33 you would only get "full interactivity" on the russian carrier, the kuznetsov. It is not going to be modelled at the same level of detail systems wise as you are used to. It will really functionally be exactly the same as the F-5 if you tried to put it on a US carrier, no Instrument landing stuff, the ball and LSO will be innacurate, really all of the same problems. Russian jets use different systems that arent compatible with US stuff to begin with, and the FC3 jet that the SU-33 is will not have fully clickable systems like the ones you are used to. However you can take off and land from the russian carrier with the SU-33 (it doesnt use a catapult but rather a ski jump and the SU-33 has enough thrust to take off that way)

I mean, if you are attempting to land an F-5 on a carrier, than other than the challenge, it doesnt really sound like you have much of an interest in actual carrier ops. In which case, understand that the Supercarrier is supposed to be a highly accurate representation of carrier ops, which the F-5 doesnt participate in IRL, isn't designed for, and cant access a lot of the systems that are specific to carriers and carrier landings (ACLS/ICLS, aformentioned incorrect AOA, will always be too fast for the LSO if he even recognizes you as trying to land on the boat). Thats all stuff that this module brings that will most likely be useless to you in the F-5. If however you have an interest in carrier ops, consider picking up something that can actually make use of it, the Hornet and tomcat are both great modules. You can even pick up the hornet and the carrier in a bundle they are offering right now, for significantly cheaper than both separate. If thats not something you are interested in, then again if you are interested in seeing all the work they put in like the animations in single player, then nobody will knock you if you think its worth it, you have to decide. Just based on what it sounds like you are doing, you probly will not derive much extra fun out of the carrier over what you can already do, just due to the module you are flying, so if that is true and your intent I definitely wouldn't recommend it. no judgement, at all just making sure you don't expect something that you wont be able to make use of.

If you dont have a carrier plane I wouldnt get the Carrier. While yes the F-5 has a hook, you wont be able to do a cat shot, and almost zero scenarios this will ever get used in online will have any reason for you to land an F-5 on a carrier. the Case 3 and all the landing stuff won't apply, since the F-5 isn't designed to land at the correct AOA's and everything for the carrier. If all you want to do is land an F-5 on a boat, the default Stennis is plenty, unless you really like looking at all their animations and stuff.

the way to think about nukes if they are being employed is that IF its time for that to happen, they are all that the show is about. Everything will be supporting and revolving around that drop. the situation where there's a general war going on and then oh hey guys in 2 minutes I'm gonna just drop this nuke over here... doesn't happen.