ttaylor0024

Except high mach at 35k ft is ~300kts IAS, meaning you have little to no maneuverability if a missile is launched at you. You can't get to Mach 2.2 with external stores, and even if you tried you'd be out of fuel in less than 30min. In the off chance you sometime make it to mach 2.2, now you're at an extreme disadvantage in maneuverability because your turning radius is the size of Texas at those speeds, so evading a missile from a head on shot becomes a dangerous game in the corner coffin. Not only that, but especially with most aircraft at a low altitude nearly every missile you will fire will be in look down mode, meaning they're even easier than they already were to evade. The highest I go is about 20k feet. It gives you a good middle ground between range and maneuverability. You can easily out range 5k ft F-15s for the first jousting shot, as well as split-S, get down to notch, etc. After I get brought down to a lower altitude I usually stick to about 5k feet unless driven to the deck. Because they're at 35k ft and I'm hiding in the mountains with 6 AMRAAMS... :D But in all seriousness, I did take on 3 yesterday in the same scenario. Saw them coming at me, dropped into the mountains and maneuvered around a bit, then turned around in their direction low level, came over the ridge and was on their 9 o'clock at 3 miles.

Agreed. "A good fighter pilot must have one outstanding trait- Aggressiveness." - Major John T. Godfrey, USAAF "Every time your opponent attempts to dive at you or attack you in any way, the best thing to do is to turn on him, pull the nose of your machine up, and fire." - Lt. Colonel W. A. "Billy" Bishop, RAF Few relatable quotes from Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering. I'll tell you one thing, I'm not going down without a fight.

My favorite Tomcat video. Good footage and pretty funny QCmEFrWDAUY

I wouldn't think there'd be a ceiling to effectiveness IRL either. The more chaff in the air the higher the chance the beam could be reflected on any piece of foil. Is it a linear increase in probability per chaff bundle? Absolutely not. I do not know exactly how it's modeled in game, but I have a hunch that it IS linear, in which case it should be changed. I'm sure GGTharos can comment on this part better than I. The first bundle deployed should be a baseline effectiveness, with each bundle subsequently a lowered effectiveness (such as 90% the effectiveness of the bundle released before). That way the more you release, the greater the probability of it missing, however it's not so crazy that you're not punished for releasing half your chaff on one engagement.

Correct, it will take time to update. Like I mentioned before, I'd go look for reputable sources on the details you want looked at and submit them to ED. Not only would it help speed up the fixes but you'd learn as well. Hopefully someday a dynamic campaign like Falcon can come along, because it'd be a huge hit

You don't have to play a server that doesn't replicate what you want.

Not sure what you're trying to get at with this video. Maneuvering limitations of SAMs are (usually) much less than that of an air to air missile because of a range of factors to include the weight and size of the missile. It's much harder to maneuver a telephone pole than a fence post. Because of this simple junking maneuvers are more effective. With older SAM systems radar lock was also easier to break by maneuvering as well.

Well, first of all there's hardly a complex approach at all when it comes to FC3 aircraft; they're the simplest aircraft in all of DCS. Missiles need to be looked at, so if that's a huge priority then you can look for the reputable sources on their characteristics for yourself and submit them. Addressing the servers themselves, if you don't like the mission then don't play it. Servers like the 104th aren't realistic in the first place, it's more of an FPS style. IRL, nobody would be stationed 30 minutes away from the enemy base, it would be more of a 12hr sortie round trip, and you can't even create that in the modeled world of DCS at this point, and even if you did you'd have to find people that want to do that exact thing, in which case 99% don't want to give up their entire Saturday for one mission in which case, realistically, they're lucky to find a bandit on the radar in the first place. You have to play the sim how it's made, take the changes and adapt, that's all there is to it. Am I happy the AMRAAM is really only an 8nm missile? No. How about the abysmal range on the S530D? Nothing I can do to change it so you adapt. Myself, Hadwell, and a few others had K/Ds above 2 on average on the 104th last year in MiG-21s. Hadwell continues to fly them and achieves even higher than that now. There's no sense complaining about something. Submit a solution to the problem and your issue will be looked upon in a different light.

Get a few people to fly with. I find more often than not that if I go solo I'm always faced with a 4v1 or 5v1, in which case I immediately turn around.

Marines just selected their first F-35 pilot out of training command a couple of months ago. Navy side of the house has 2+ years until we select pilots for it. Maybe one day

UBA3X3-r9jw Bonus points if you know where the soundtrack is from

I didn't have to dive at all, as a matter of fact I had alt hold enabled the entire time.

Nah, it should be faster than that. Interesting that you're system is different than ours. I'd suggest checking your axis and making sure your throttle is going all they way forward (which the fuel burn on the pictures look like they are), but otherwise I'm stumped.

Don't want to sound condescending, but how long did you have the aircraft level? It takes a very long time to accelerate to 2.2 now, which is accurate.

Just do freeflight takeoff and you should be able to easily get it. If not, something's wrong with your setup... Maybe check that you're getting full axis movement in your throttle

Instant action takeoff. It could possibly get to 2.21

Making that gunsight WORK

Except you have no clue what power setting he's at, which is most likely not idle. At a higher power setting, 85-95% for example, the aircraft will still do this if the T/W is below 1.0, and the engine will still be sucking air at a much higher rate than idle. This also doesn't take into account that you don't know what airspeed he was really at. Airshows play on viewing angles to make normal operations look dangerous.

Just edited my previous post, but fits here so I'll repost for visibility. Per the manual, the SNECMA M53-P2 produces 21,400lbs thrust with afterburner Configurations of the aircraft: Max Takeoff weight = 37,500lbs = 0.57 Drop tank, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 27,908lbs = 0.77 NO droptank, 100% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 25,408lbs = 0.84 70% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 23,316lbs = 0.92 50% Fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 21,921lbs = 0.98 530Ds weigh 606lbs, Magics weigh 196lbs MiG-21 Thrust 97KN with EAB, max takeoff weight 10,400KG. Thrust to weight at max takeoff- 0.93 You also have to remember that the MiG has ~5min of EAB time if I remember correctly, then it all changes.

There are more factors than that. Wouldn't be very useful for an aircraft to only be able to fly 30-45m sorties for most countries. EDIT: Got some numbers for you guys to think about how the aircraft is supposed to be accelerating. Per the manual, the SNECMA M53-P2 produces 21,400lbs thrust with afterburner Configurations of the aircraft: Max Takeoff weight = 37,500lbs = 0.57 Drop tank, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 27,908lbs = 0.77 NO droptank, 100% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 25,408lbs = 0.84 70% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 23,316lbs = 0.92 50% Fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 21,921lbs = 0.98

Yep, that's all you can do. Kind of like with weightlifting, you can really only go up to your own personal physiological maximum in my belief anyway. I don't think everyone could sustain 12Gs like that airshow pilot with training, I believe part of it is genetics as well. It would be nice though! All the US pilots with 9G aircraft are trained and ready for 9G at any point as well. You have to be qual'd in order to fly it. Yeah, mentioned a few pages back the 9G aircraft the US services has pilots wear a new ATAGS suit for 2-3Gs of "help."

You do a 6g profile in primary jet training without a G-Suit, however the profiles thereafter depending on your final airframe selection is done with the suit on. No doubt some people (very very few) can pull that amount of G. There's civilian airshow pilots that pull 12 sustained with no suit at all.

Like GGTharos said, a ton of small factors go into it, the things he mentioned, as well as even lean body mass and blood pressure (higher is better). For 9g profiles (F-16, F-22) in the USAF I believe they hold 9g for 15s in the centrifuge. Most other pointy noses in the US armed forces are 7.5g profiles, and have lighter amounts of centrifuge training. 7.5g will it you to sleep quickly if you're not prepared, let alone 9.

It's an ED issue that we've been told has been brought to their attention. Hopefully they will do it soon.

They're bugged right now, but as long as you wait to shoot you can still get >50% PK. As of now this is the logic I follow for a high probability of a hit. Once these missiles are updated it will change everything (supposed to be comparable to the AIM-7 and AIM-9), but for now this is what you have to do. R530D Head on- 4-8nm (depends if your target will maneuver or not) Tail- <2.5nm R550 Head- 2nm Tail- <0.8nm