lunaticfringe

Time and space. ASW isn't simply tedious, it's incredibly time consuming. And frankly, there isn't a viable operating environment size wise on any current or future proposed map for the methods that would be used on either side.

Have to make damn well certain there's a proper AAR platform functioning correctly for the E-2C, F-14, and F/A-18 before such a thing would be viable to begin with. Wouldn't be a bad job for noobs or the home-nagged who can't grasp the finer aspects of air combat- all they'd really need to do is mechanically learn landings and filling the tanks...

It's simply dead. Hasn't worked for me in over a month. Whether original disc plus Acceleration, or Steam version, FSX simply no longer shows a meatball on CV 63. I'd put it on Prepar 3D V4, but they haven't mentioned their process in porting it over in a month. *shrug*.

After Aeorsoft's Kitty Hawk essentially dying on me, I'll just be happy with an FLOLS based on the correct glideslope that lights up.

I didn't say the actual SPO would function differently. I'm saying we don't know how it's going to handle range based on emission strength, because it's going to be receiving substantially higher power from longer range. And until we know the point it designates a threat F-14 as priority, discussion on loadout is a moot point. There's a large difference between priority at 30 miles and 60 relative to time available to the advantaged party to set up, versus how long the aircraft in a defensive posture must look before they can consider playing for a shot. As to beating an F-15C's TWS in DCS, a substantial amount of that is based against functions of the -63 not currently modeled to even the MSIP with PSP configuration (as we're supposed to have right now). I wouldn't compare a neutered FC3 radar to a DCS level setup- even one as raw as the AWG-9, since a halfway competent RIO (here's looking at Jester as a start) can direct the system through analogous operations just about as fast as the APG-63's back end, and faster if he's on the ball. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as it were.

I like the part where, after much gnashing of teeth, "how many others exist- not many at all" becomes "well all of that doesn't mean anything!". Face it- you fanboy'd yourself into a position you can't actually defend without invoking other types by way of comparison, rather than evidence. And you even skipped over recollections of an F-15 pilot a few posts above yours, which outlined much of what has been previously discussed: it's altitude, type, and pilot that makes the difference- with the last being the greatest deciding factor.

The question isn't necessarily how the AIM-54 performs, but how various SPOs define what the AWG-9 is presenting as threat range. If the Phoenix has a reasonable Pk, a fast pair in Med-style 0-4-4 or 0-6-2 may have good opportunities to make it into good Sparrow parameters while the opposition is working on defending something they think is coming down on them via TWS.

Thread was making me *so* glad I've bothered to repeatedly share data here. Then comes Nick, reminding me I'm ecstatic at having shared substantially more with him. ;)

Use a keystroke monitor to confirm whether or not the keyboard is sensing an RCTL press, or try binding the combined press to your HOTAS in its software. Long time ago I had a similar situation with a cheap USB keyboard that, for some reason, the manufacturer had inexplicably set all three sets of modifiers as left, so I had no real RSHF, RALT, or RCTL. Attribute commands through software to controller buttons, though, and everything worked.

Not misleading at all, because he's discussing the entirety of the MiG-29's performance envelope. It's like you're mad he's in the middle of a conversation using layman's language, instead of pulling out a slide rule and protractor to give exact measurements and timing for various performance statistics. The quote is confirmed by the chart and the loss rate at 16k. Deal with it.

Nah, if I'm gonna raise a bar, I'll just let Snort kill two Adversary F-5s alone during Fighter Derby.

Real fans watch Speed and Angels, and get mad at the interspersed F/A-18 cockpit footage.

You're making an assumption not based on facts in evidence, because he never stated an altitude- simply highest and lowest potential roll rates. And as evidenced by the chart provided, take the jet down to the point I mention, it- a point that actually qualifies as "slow speed" with regards to ACM (which is what the pilot will relate it to as a matter of context), it falls in line with the quote perfectly.

Nobody considers Mach 0.5 "slow speeds" at 16k. Carry out the loss rate down to an actual "slow speed", just above the MiG-29's stall- right around 145 knots (M 0.3), and it'll be at 20 degrees per second.

The truly ridiculous thing is that the money issue wasn't for AMRAAM, but the rails. F-14Ds were carrying AIM-120 compatible and qualified software in 97, but the expense for the rails was prohibitive for the number required for the few squadrons carrying it. They uploaded the code in the event dollars ever became available so that it would be turn key and just require issuance of publication updates to make it viable, but the former never happened.

Tacview interpolates load as G isn't one of the object syntax areas, last time I looked at the format. Subsequently, I have a suspicion that it's calculating off of applied G versus airframe observed, meaning that the aircraft is seeing the 1+0.2: 1.2G while in the climb. And because it's having to interpolate based on range traveled, speed, and relative traverse, the nose isn't actually going much of anywhere during that period, hence the really low G readout. This is why an actual track, to see what the gauges were saying, would be useful.

This is funny, how we go from "THE EAGLE IS PULLING 14G (in lag spikes)" to "THE EAGLE'S DAMAGE MODEL DOESN'T TRACK OVER-G YET!" Nobody said they don't have a problem with the F-15 getting a damage model update that begins showing structural effects from over-G. What the conversation was, instead, was that the excursion as originally demonstrated originally needed to be explained. And it was. Ascertaining why something happens in a non-vacuum is separate from whether or not it is a first-order concern. As to why ED would "restrict one plane and not others", now you're getting into the realm of data accessibility. Eagles have done 12+G without immediate issue. The aforementioned F-15 which hit 12.5 and was the downed permanently had repeated excursions to that area earlier. Now, how do you balance that? It'll already withstand more than the Flanker in system, and the prevalence of effective OWS usage to optimize performance puts a damper on the immediacy. So let's say the F-15 gets a progressive limit based around 12.5G- are the tears going to become that it remains more resistant than the Flanker, or are we going to migrate into more MP lag excursion complaints because what what the server reports isn't accurate to the flown model? Because if it does, it's going to simply prove this isn't an accuracy complaint, but a Red v. Blue complaint. Me, I don't care either way, because I'm not someone that should be getting beat for not flying the numbers.

Just to make sure I understand you properly: A ineffective, and wholly unusable transient load divergence is less important than a literal control lockout bug. Absolutely. The direct control mode issue with the Flanker was tactically advantageous; you're welcome to run the rate and radius numbers- based on when CL and Q would converge to permit this transient in the F-15, it's not generating numbers more exceptional than driving it correctly. Is it overperforming? For some reason, perhaps. Is it permitting Eagles to pull anything related to what we saw with the high G in the Su-27? Not even close. And the Flanker hasn't had a bug that caused it a control lockout; that's a sad flaw, and you wouldn't hear anyone in their right mind complaining to see it fixed were it affecting Red Air. Which is to say, you didn't have it locked down. But I do:

Or you could just... oh, I don't know- initiate a smooth pull, listen for the OWS, and relax appropriately. But that would actually entail max-performing the airframe, and nobody does that.

Somebody is mad the patients are unimpressed with prescriptions that don't help the symptoms, let alone the disease, and are apt to make the ailment worse. Not a good look, doctor. You want to fix MP, you start with actual changes in scenario design- not a bunch of supposed "realistic" bandaids that are ludicrous and unmanageable.

You missed the part where the request for the original recording of Razer's track was made, with a response that while it wasn't available and could be tested (which as GG showed, doesn't actually work), the Tacview from the engagement in question shows a highest record of 11.3 in the same turn. Now you're welcome to go review Tacview's documentation on recording speed frequency, and then come make a case that 1. a legitimate pull up to 14 G and release or drag induced speed loss degrading that stick position down to 11 G would occur between stamps, and 2. such an event would be tactically advantageous. Until then, it remains moot.

It's a lag spike. A lower G makes the same turn. And the Tacview interpolation to 3G less validates the contention that it's a spike, because the turn would have been made with less. 14 G didn't kill the defender. Hell, even 11 G didn't kill the defender. A mistaken nose-high reversal killed the defender. And if he doesn't turn, we're not spending pages on a non-issue.

In a conflict situation, it can be upwards of hours for a SAR helo to reach a downed pilot, let alone anyone hour or more on a range such as in thexcess continental US. Are we going to model evasion from capture and the potential for being taken as a POW, too? Does your avatar have to have SERE certification before being allowed to take part? Persistent servers refresh their scenarios every 90 minutes to four hours or so. So what makes you think someone is going to wait around until half an hour before a reset occurs, knowing it takes them ten minutes to start up and taxi, rather than just finding something else to do with the rest of their free time?

Emergency sweep invokes a proscribed limitation of 4.0G. The interesting aspect regarding this is two things: 1. Wing sweep functions at full speed in all regimes at 4G, slowing down at higher loads, and 2. there is no transsonic G prohibition whatsoever in any version of the manual I can find- and nothing in the NAVAIR directives and updates, either So what this infers to me is that the limit is set to keep the sweep actuation working correctly without the influence of the CADC to reduce it's functional speed, rather than an actual airframe restriction. The other inference is the old standby- the Tomcat is operationally leaving plenty of performance on the table if 6.5G is safe at lower altitudes when the compressibility comes on. There's a point where having the wings fully unswept is't going to be so much a danger as it is a hindrance from an energy standpoint. But to figure out where the danger lay, and how much there really is, one would have to calculate actual load at the increased compression density on the exposed wing area- compensating for the pancake, in the transsonic regime at 6.5, then work backwards from that value with the wings fully exposed.

A SARH missile only uses the aircraft radar for illumination; it's not using it for signal processing and the line of sight work that determines guidance- that's all in the missile itself, and is also why an active missile would automatically have a higher ECCM (as mentioned earlier): you're talking two independent radars needing to both be spoofed, versus only needing to defeat one antenna process cycle- whether the one in the jet, or the one in the missile, to make a SARH go dumb. With ED putting both sets of work on the shooter radar (as SARH's, mentioned previously, are handled seekerlessly except for the ECCM values), the one question I would ask about the recognition of chaff outside of the main lobe is if it is based on the dynamics of intercept geometry plus tactical employment (see: cranking) and what total amount of non-main energy the seeker would have visibility of in the reflection, thereby illuminating chaff. I doubt that's the intent, but it's the only thing that comes to mind in short order that would justify that extent of excess coverage.