Pede

So incredibly incorrect. For one this is a massive oversimplification, the JF17 was derived from the Super-7 project which was equal parts American and Chinese. Secondly the finished JF17 uses parts from across the world, soviet engines and cannon, American RWR and ejection seat and Pakistani firmware. They could not "spin up a few FC-1's", because they'd have to buy engines from Russia, RWR's and seats from the US and get permission from Pakistan to use their firmware. Furthermore, China doesn't have even trained pilots to fly them because they don't operate the jet. This is essentially the equivalent of calling the Japanese F-2, South Korean FA-50, or Taiwan's F-CK-1 "American jets" because the US was involved in their development.

Will be pretty difficult to drop LGB's without any sort of TPOD.

I use them in single fire, a single 90mm rocket is enough to destroy most targets.

That sounds like an issue with the Sa11 damage model. LD10 should have a ~20kg warhead, which should damage an Sa11 on a direct hit, even as HE/Frag. Also it not being susceptible to 23mm rounds is questionable; it uses the same chasis as Tunguska and Tor, which iirc is only adequately protected agaisnt HMG's not autocannons. Might take this one to ED.

I always wondered about this; the Air national guard is organized and managed very differently than their equivalent Army component. AFAIK even today the ground component is still under the command of state governments and not the pentagon unlike the ANG.

The F15E - F18 thread gets really indepth about the F15E's ACM. It won't be definitively better or worse, just different and it will ultimately come down to who is the better pilot.

It's definitely not. Between an AESA radar and PL15's it's arguably more capable than the most modern F16's, and thats not considering Pakistan would not be getting Aim120D or the F16V at any time in the conceivable future.

What was the target? LD10 has a tiny warhead. If you hit a gepard or other armored system, it won't do any damage because it won't penetrate the armor.

I assume in testing/training only? Kind of how it goes when a country is essentially never at war.

Essentially what the title says, can we expect YJ-91's to be carried as with some of the other more modern J8 variants, or were they incompatible with the PP's avionics?

Well your trip into space is a definitely a bug, I'd get a track file and drop it in the bugs section so they can fix it. Every single time I've seen a missile just go into space it's been a bug without exception. As for the FM, they adjusted drag on a bunch of different things, including the double ejector rack. You have to keep in mind that listed ceilings and speeds are generally based on a clean aircraft with nothing on it. Carrying about 2000lbs of air to air missiles is going to significantly hurt that, especially given that the JF17 is notably underpowered for a modern jet. If you could hit M1.6 or 55k ft ASL with stores, the model wouldn't be accurate to its real world counterpart.

Ah yes, the famous USAFE, also super cruise? This article is clickbait and yall took it hook and sinker.

Pics or it didn't happen. A random article on the internet is not a reliable source. For all we know, the article could be written by someone in this forum who was mad their thread got locked lmao.

Just follow the WEZ cues, they don't take loft into account so if you're not lofting they're accurate, albeit conservative; the SD10 has a noticeably larger range than the cues would indicate. If you're going for long shots, 30-40+nm just point your nose up 9 degrees before you shoot and the missile will loft, dramatically increasing your range. It's a bit of trial and error but once you get a feel for it it's probably the deadliest missile in the sim. I've found at 36k feet asl I can score kills reliably at 40nm if I loft.

Alot of that is just DCS; Lightning pods can ID and track targets at 40nm in game, which obviously is not realistic. IRL ambient weather conditions combined with the fact that the ground in the real world isn't 720p means it's much much more difficult to find and ID targets than it is in game. If you had a tank painted green in a forest, you're not going to find it a regular TV camera from distances like we see in DCS. TLDR; all TPODs in DCS overperform, but that comes with being a simulator.

I mean if we're being fair, an RPG-7 is a shaped charge (generally), so that explosion is a cone in the direction of impact, compared to frag warheads where the explosive pushes out equally in all directions, also a direct impact puts the target much closer to the source of the explosion than a proximity fuzed weapon. TLDR; getting hit with an anti-tank missile should do dramatically more damage than a MANPADS. That said there absolutely is an issue with AI helicopters (and occasionally even manned helicopters) not taking enough damage from weapons of all types. Especially heat seeking weapons that would in all likelihood target the engines which should result in a kill. Rotor wing damage models need a serious rework as a whole; even old coldwar era helos are very resistant to small arms fire and obviously no helicopter should be able to shrug off something like patriot. I've got quite a few notes when it comes to rotorwing aircraft in DCS and the damage models are pretty high up there on the list, right alongside the fact that DCS struggles to support realistic sized ground elements that are necessary when it comes to realism in rotorwing combat scenarios, although this might be addressed with multi-threading next year.

This is actually fairly accurate. Modern military helicopters are incredibly robust, much more so than fixed wing aircraft. Taking more than one manpad hit to shoot down is not uncommon, although I will say the helicopter damage models in general need work, the CH47 is difficult to shoot down, but not that difficult.

You can also use the radar version as a cruise missile, keep the parameters default except set the target size to small, in Direct it'll fly to the SPI, turn on its radar and fly into the nearest vehicle. It is important to note that if there isn't a vehicle there, it'll just fly off into the distance.

That is true, however I've seen nothing to doubt that ED will prevent it being modeled accurately. While pilots might not know the algorithm(s) the missile uses, I'm certain they have an understanding of how they function and ultimately that is all that is required because it's a simulation of the missile and not the missile itself. As for documentation, there isn't really such a thing as "public" documentation. For instance I can go out and get a copy of the F15E's -1, however ITARS prevents people from other countries from doing so (this is as I understand ITARS so anyone more privy to its intricacies feel free to correct me). As I understand it, most of what we have in DCS in regards to full fidelity modules is not based on public documentation. The only people that need be privy to the actual documentation are the developers and as I understand it, there is generally a lengthy process for the devs to get ahold of such documentation and the permission to use it. For example, the vast majority of us will never have access to documentation regarding the KA-50 and it's systems, however ED has secured that documentation. Since HB is actively developing the EF2000 and has former pilots within its team, I'd say it's safe to assume they have met the proper documentation requirements to make such a module.

In general ED does handle the munitions, however in some cases like the Aim54 which is also modeled by HB or the JF17's unique A2G weapons, they are handled by the third party. I assume the Meteor will also be managed in this way. I can't speak for the airforce, but on the ground we were required to understand exactly how our systems worked and had manuals to that effect. Not only for the sake of understanding capabilities, but also to be able to troubleshoot issues in real time. My assumption is that pilots similarly are required to have such an understanding (and also documentation) to an even greater degree.

Mostly correct as I understand it, however there are some caveats; for one the meteor has a small traditional solid stage launch motor so the initial impulse should be similar to conventional rocket motors (albeit a much shorter impulse as it is only a launch motor, which once fully burned out forms the pathway for the primary liquid boron motor). The second caveat is that because the primary motor is inherently reactive to ambient atmosphere, depriving it of oxygen it dramatically extends the burn time while providing a lower impulse. There would be a point where a conventional rocket motor system would be outpacing a meteor at high altitude due to a higher specific impulse, however because that total burn time is increasing, the meteor could continue to accelerate for many times longer so while there is a window where the meteor will be slower at altitude, it would eventually be faster as it would be accelerating while a conventional missile would be decelerating. To be frank the primary tradeoffs the meteor suffers from are complexity, resource intensity, and cost (the meteor being about twice as expensive as an aim120D). As for tactics/employment, I have no idea about the meteor's use and capabilities however I do imagine it to be a dramatic shift from its contemporaries, and likely much more complex to employ.

As I understand it, the meteor will be modeled by HB, the project lead flew the jet and has first hand experience with the platform.

I know this is incredibly off topic at this point, but the meteor is not an "air breathing" missile any more than the AMRAAM or any other rocket powered missile. This is why it is important to note that the Meteor is a ducted rocket and not a ramjet; a ramjet is an air breathing jet engine that uses its momentum to produce thrust, a ducted rocket is a traditional rocket engine that uses ambient atmosphere as its oxidizer instead of carrying oxidizer internally. The purpose of the ducts on a ramjet is to control the compression of the airflow into the engine, the purpose of the ducts on a ducted rocket is to control the oxidizer flow into the active chemical reaction. In regards to the Meteor specifically, it does in fact translate to a generally lower impulse (even at max burn) compared to traditional motors. However it's required atmospheric intake is dramatically lower than that of a ramjet or scramjet engine so there is no massive performance drop off at high altitudes (leaving aside for a moment the lower motor impulse compared to a traditional rocket motor). As an aside, there isn't really a way to gauge the maximum range the Meteor could fly without specifics on the boron based compound the fuel consists of or the total battery life of the missile. This is due not only to the unique flight characteristics that come with a ducted rocket using ambient atmosphere as an oxidizer, but also the fact that the Meteor can entirely shut down its motor and reignite it at any time in its flight. The boron-based compound spontaneously combusts upon contact with ambient atmosphere which not only allows for this capability, but also means there is no minimum ratio for the motor to die out, with the exception of total vacuum of course.

They are only moved in the menu, not in how DCS world sees them. TOR can 100% target the LS series of glide bombs and shoot them down. Are you certain you set up the TOR site correctly? I tested this when 2.8 was released and it engaged my GB6's at about 2nm, LS-6-500 at about 3.5nm and LS-6-250 at less than 2nm (although this was too close for TOR to intercept them)

Out of curiosity why would you need this? The Jf17's DTM can load data directly from the F10 map which imo is dramatically simpler than manually entering the coordinates?