lunaticfringe

Iran should generally be 2x Phoenix, max, Sparrow less than 50% of the time, and late war sometimes only Phoenix and the gun. They'd run all sorts of shortchanged cycles, including two Sidewinder/one Phoenix.

Here's two dead Ace AI F-16s in BFM from an F-14A. Do I get a cookie?

Protip: leave the flaps up. Use maneuvering flaps with whatever control you have them set on to deploy them fully. The reduced lift provided increases your rate of acceleration and reduces the amount of ballooning/porpoising- thus allowing your takeoff to be smoother and in shorter distance.

The reason the wings are always in oversweep, no matter starting choice, is a state limitation in DCS. If the wings were designated unswept for hot starts, they would be unswept no matter the location. Including the tight spacing of carrier decks. Further, procedurally the F-14 would not be unswept until turning the corner onto the runway at the earliest, or lined up at the latest. Thus, this is the correct process and way to start for takeoff.

The manual sweep switch on the grip can only honor or exceed the sweep program; it can't unsweep below the schedule. That requires the utilizing the emergency sweep handle. There is validity in using the sweep handle because the program was changed from max lift coefficient to max specific excess power in early blocks, as the airframe and wings were designed to withstand it; the original program has roughly 0.1-0.2 Mach variance versus the later. The issue is that the onset rate is higher in the former, and maintaining a higher net available G and drag in those respective areas versus having the wings program aft. It also has effectiveness at altitude, as relative Mach goes up versus calibrated speeds but the energy on the wing isn't comparable to down low. Up high you can use the handle forward and maintain a good bit more maneuvering capability than you normally would with the schedule. If you think the A is underpowered or can pull its wings off easily now, manually control the emergency sweep handle- because you're either you're going to see even more drag, more G, or perhaps youll find a balance with regards to how it was originally set up and be successful with it, as the original crews were.

Opfor specialists who spend their days red teaming expected threats don't operate to the mean; they present the threat to a higher degree than the actual force themselves in the aims of increasing the reliability of tactics and weapons performance. These are the environments in which tactics are developed, and the raw tested performance of weapons are backed down from. When that 95% of the time baseline gets cut back to 85% to make a published tactic, the difference in reliability is night and day. You tell a man how far out he can shoot and at what sort of angles, he's going to shoot there whether it's an edge case or 99% reliable. But if you want to structure your planning and tactics schemes to what gets him out there, gets the enemy downed with the lowest risk to him, and gets him home- you don't build to edge cases and wishful thinking.

This. Same net impulse within a few kilos, simply a different burn profile. Impulse is impulse. Same net energy into a body gets the basically the same distance, give or take. Primary difference is rate of initial acceleration versus rate of decoration against the longer burn time motor. Plus smokeless versus slightly smoky.

Others.

Testing the mission repeatedly, it appears there is an issue with the parking slots or pathing at Bandar Abbas, or something with the nature of the Flogger's ability to use certain slots. The MiG-23s won't take off in H or F parking lot series slots. They do take off from B parking or the J series hangars. And curiously, changing them to MiG-21s, and they will take off from the original H parking positions. The mission was originally broken as a matter of scripting, but this is something entirely different, and has been submitted for correction.

You've got to run the latest Open Beta version for it. Is your DCS version Stable or Open Beta?

Move it to 68, then wait fifteen seconds. It will then permit you to move it into oversweep at 75 degrees. There is a physical interlock in the sweep mechanism that freezes the handle at 68 for that duration to make sure all control surfaces are neutral, as well as the wing sweep bags are deflated, before being able to proceed with bringing the wings all the way back for parking.

Turning into the notch is actually defending, whereas making a random 9G turn like an airborne Sit 'n Spin doesn't necessarily do anything useful against a radar. In the 7MH video, the turn into the notch is at 1:42, and the eventually 90-degree beam angle is easily seen by zooming out on the missile from directly overhead. The defender doesn't need to make a massive turn, because being AI- it knows the angle required against the intercepting missile radar. This is a byproduct of two issues: one, it's defending against the wrong radar, and two, the notch and chaff (which is also shown as being used) are too reliable against said wrong antenna. The MiG should be maneuvering against the F-14's radar, and it isn't- because the AWG-9 never dropped the lock. You don't beat an SARH missile by spoofing the little antenna in the round; you've got to get the big one doing all the emitting- otherwise that missile is going to keep coming. The same is exhibited in the 7M video at 1:56. Turn into the notch, one chaff bundle drop, wrong antenna goes dead.

Endorsed. Albeit a tad cheaty*. (*- not on Coxy's part) That said, it's the magic, all-knowing AI with the overwide notch that is causing AIM-7s to get trashed. Kinematically, the 7M will easily go 25+ nm on a maneuvering target, and the MH will do 35+ with it's loft. When they're passing within 1-2 miles with enough energy, it's a tracking issue caused by better than human defense, rather than the weapon itself. And the followup MH kill in the second ACMI is 13nm. That is, 10 is in no way a hard limit. 34nm 7MH - 13nm 7MH - Tacview-20220911-124654-DCS-Sparrow 1 v 1 Mig-29s Long Range New BVR Test.zip.acmi 24nm 7M - Tacview-20220911-123413-DCS.zip.acmi

I build test sets as individual aircraft rather than flights to circumvent that. They just didn't do anything; RNG must have come up roses in my favor.

Ran it again for giggles since I didn't trust the lack of response from all but 1 MiG to make sure the file wasn't set "No Response", and it wasn't. They just didn't balk for some reason. Two killed by Phoenix, one by Sparrow, one returned the favor due to my bad SA thinking that three had been hit based on smoke. Shots 61 to 56 miles. Tacview-20220910-152009-DCS-1 v 4 Mig-29s Long Range New BVR Test.zip.acmi

At 30 miles you should be shooting a Sparrow. You absolutely need to be shooting longer; the chart-matching Phoenix is like a fine wine- you have to let it breathe. 1v4, just because I have the mission ready, 14A with 4x 54C-60s against 4x veteran MiG-29s. 3 for 4, with a dropped lock at 40 miles. Shots were taken between 64 and 58 miles. Tacview-20220910-145137-DCS-1 v 4 Mig-29s Long Range New BVR Test.zip.acmi

Somewhere he's still getting slapped by A's, so it all balances out.

"Missile?" "Yeah, RIO?" "I want you to hit that target 30 miles outside Rmax." "It'll be hard, but I'll give you my maximum effort! Wait... you said thirty- three zero?" "And if you can't get to it, I want you to not even try." "But... look at the range- why are you shooting me? FCS, back me up, son!" *pushes button* "WAIT, BRO?!" *WHOOSH*

DLZ doesn't go into MAR/TID blinking for TWS until 40 miles at that altitude and speed. He's got a hot trigger all the way and can shoot, but the DLZ isn't at fault. As to the loft profile, the weapon is literally attempting the only thing it can to achieve that range, and it made sixty miles before battery timeout.

I deleted nothing. In fact, I added: "... and shoot a missile thats two and a half times as large as an AMRAAM and get 120 mid range performance out of it..." as to further reinforce how silly all of the kvetching over this is. So yeah- it looked just swell, because what you bullet pointed is still in the post.

That you note my stating what a former F-14 pilot says about shooting the Phoenix as telling you to "git gud" says a lot more about where you're coming from than it does me.

Let's put you in the role of tester: provide a Tacview of a level shot Phoenix, ie, non-manually lofted, of any type, that performs a loop or over the shoulder response. Herein, again, lies the problem- its not the testers saying "git gud"; there is nobody on this side of the table who doesn't want people to have their Phoenix launches connect. The SMEs confirm the profile. The materials confirm the profile. The devs express this, and the testers reinforce with hundreds of shots during the lead in to release. Update drops. Community outliers choose to not accept the guidance provided, perform their own routines, and come back and claim everything is broken. We literally witness Tacviews where the claim is made there's no attempted loft, have the images shown here, and oh, look- there's a manual loft you can literally see in the missile smoke trail. Actions that need to be discredited are going to be discredited in practice. That's not being a fanboy, and not defending a developer blindly. That's expecting people to actually use the weapon as intended, rather than making it up as they go along then coming back complaining that it's broken. Sorry, but no. When some of us have manually shot 100, 200 or more Phoenix rounds against varying target types in all ranges and looks, plus group MP test sessions, and none of them become moonshots based on simply honoring the shot profile, they're rare. HB works through the flight dynamics and increases the guidance capability while expressing the limitations under which the weapon must be fired, the player base needs to then own their part of the equation and use it like it's being explained, and own up when they aren't. Everybody loves Victory's comments. He says center it up. Everybody jumped for joy over Puck's 75 minute 10 Percent True interview. He discussed the limited azimuth shot envelope and 20-30 mile hold. But nobody wants to honor those limitations, wants their big angles and manual loft and shoot a missile thats two and a half times as large as an AMRAAM and get 120 mid range performance out of it, then come back and complain when it doesn't work. Sorry- you can't have it both ways. You can't call for realism, then complain it doesn't work when shot in an unrealistic fashion.

Not trying to be aggressive with that remark, just that things are lost to time- whereas the difference is essentially built in to the model here based on the full amount of power delivered. At two seconds, the difference of total impulse spread across 27 versus 29 seconds isn't going to definitively show at that duration by copious differences in performance; as we already see, the difference for 20 versus 27 seconds is already marginal, so 27 versus 29 is going to legit come out in the wash. Conversely, when the Phoenix is the second choice tactically in their guidance for the 20-30 mile region- and that's literally showing in the sim, things are validating like they should. It doesn't make it a focal point because, "oh, it matches HBs 54 being weak in the short to mid game" , but because of the data and test that went into said tactical development.

15+ years out of the Tomcat, two seconds off the burn time of every Phoenix he ever came in contact with. Are those last two seconds really going to matter when the net impulse is correct? No. There are points to chase, and points that fall below the grain.