PiedDroit

IIRC SAAB withdrew it's proposal because the requirement where biased toward F-35 and they didn't want to waste their time. I think they will make a proposal if a new process with new requirements is started. http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-withdraws-from-rcafs-cf-18-fighter-replacement-programme

I'm not sure to understand this, care to elaborate? I think there is a mix up of terms here, if I understand correctly, "Doppler notch" threshold is simply used to eliminate slow moving objects from radar picture (i.e. any object within ground clutter with a doppler giving a speed < Xkts is rejected, effectively filtering ground vehicles). Any object that has either high S/N ratio (i.e. not in clutter) and/or high doppler (i.e. moving fast enough) would be kept. Notch angle would be something else that could "widen" or "narrowing" (?).

Impressive work! :thumbup: Makes we want to do a similar one too :music_whistling:

If I may, let me add something to avoid people think notching is a magical thing: It can actually detect such a target, I mean, even if you fly zero doppler you still give a distance and azimuth - keyword here is "pulse", the radar is not continuously emitting, therefore it can get distance readings. However the zero doppler will allow you to mix better with the environment clutter: ground, clouds and chaffs.

I think it's a very balanced choice, I'd love to see Canada choose this one as well.

+1 As long as the missile can receive updates it's fine. It's not linked to the type of guidance (Semi or active).

Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to say :thumbup:: SARH don't loft because no enough info to perform loft. On the other hand, ARH with datalink (e.g. AIM-120C) = enough info to loft. ARH without datalink: not enough info to loft either. It's all about keeping/re-acquiring the target after lofting.

What would be the difference between the two (SARH-ARH)? I mean, they both face the same challenge when lofting, which is to lose the target then require it. My understanding is that missiles that have a datalink are able to loft because they get updates on target position, other don't. If your ARH is using datalink before going pitbull (i.e. not using reflected energy from ownship's radar) then it can loft I think (the AIM-120C works like thisIIRC). Other possibility is to have a seeker that allows to keep the target in detection cone at all times, but I don't know much about that. Again, that's my understanding :smartass:

Good points :thumbup: The idea seems attractive, and, in a way, is already implemented: B1-B performing CAS, AC-130 gunship - we yet have to see an implementation for air to air. For fighters and interceptors, speed is important and a large platform which is fast at the same time would be expensive to operate. At the moment those have issues on their own, large platforms are too vulnerable and/or expensive, unmanned vehicles lack the fast reaction time due to remote control. Once those issue are sorted out I'm pretty sure we'll see a new breed of systems appear. If I had to bet on something I would put my money on unmanned platforms rather than big ones, they should be cheaper to operate and more flexible. The big platforms would exist to fill the gaps (need for logistic transport, extremely long loiter time and/or range, whatever). But this is for a far future, maybe the best defence will always to be able to maneuver or to be small and/or expandable, so big platform that do everything may never happen.

Very cool, I can't wat to do that myself :thumbup: I got a few questions, it seem that the bandits are timing their turns to dodge the incoming 530's at the right moment, they seem to know where the missile is (I wonder if a human pilot would be that accurate)... Also, how many flares was he carrying? I counted more than 16 for sure. Is it a valid tactic to spend all the flares at the merge (i.e., is it the part of the fight where most vulnerable to heaters)? I know those questions are not directly related to the M-2000, I'm trying to understand some basics :D

mmm "next"? oh no :cry:

There's already a thread with speculation wildly going :D: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=155145 Please no derailing... Thread are closed because of that

I know what it is, but the few times I attempt it (with MiG-21), I got back in the air or I destroyed my landing gear (when putting the nose down) - So I use the parachute instead...

The aerobraking is pretty mysterious to me (I mostly flown SU-25T, A-10C and MiG-21BIS, never used it), I hope there will some good tutorials about it.

Nice, very nice, too easy landings are no fun, hehehe.

Care to share some tips/stories? :smartass::pilotfly:

From the wikipedia page (I know, not the best source, etc), they say the Viggen was mean to replace both attack and fighter planes. The AJ version (initial variant) was meant for attack with a secondary intercept role. Which explains the A2A radar. I don't know the technical details...

Good idea, I hope this one will stay on track :thumbup: Here's a link to the old thread, for reference: DCS Mirage 2000C Discussion

was it a safe landing? yes: bug report no: Guinness :D

This has been reported since day 1, they should be aware of the issue. The current implementation is easier to tweak so it will probably stay like this until release.

As added bonus, soon to be released. I'm sure there are other better answers though. Most planes that dropped lgbs during 90's gulf war would fill the bill too I guess. edit: actually F-117A is a good match too.

People gave their most obvious choice (and the f-117 was listed), I gave only one answer myself, if I had cited more than one aircraft the count would have been different. Here's a counter example, so you think the MiG-21 would have been a primary choice in such a list ? Probably not, yet everyone loves it.

I assumed this was implied by his requirements (no MFD). It's not ground attack but it can do all things he mentioned.

Mirage-2000C does ;)

Also you can jettison them one by one when they get dirty, to keep a clean view.