lunaticfringe

The loft video in question:

Let's make it easier for AMRAAM with the 60C. 1 for 2 at 80 miles against a defending Su-27 that attempted an 8G break away; lead shot turns to final retaining in excess of M 2.5, and connects at just under M 1.9. AMRAAM won't make that shot. AMRAAM also won't make a shot at 80+% of its envelope with that much energy available. The fundamental problem with this line of conversation isn't the Phoenix; it's that you want an LRM- which includes the limitations in the short to mid range environment that comes with adding the mass and overall dimension to carry enough fuel state to get out to a target 60, 70, 80 plus miles and engage them- with the same amount of smash on their control surfaces that they can catch defending opponents, to also function like a MRM, while subsequently failing to achieve the loft profile that permits the weapon to maximize its energy state on the flyout. TANSTAAFL. Tacview-20220903-180410-DCS-Long Green and High C60 Flanker.zip.acmi

Got a 90+ nm AMRAAM tacview I can see?

You got a 100 mile SD-10 kill tacview since the patch?

See update. My fault on not deleting a couple files before continuing a test series after last week's OB hit my machine.

Just noting where you can put it, as you said. The A is more difficult to use, but it's also important to keep in mind that TWS isn't the only employment option. The range is still there to get a shot off STT depending on the target, which greatly improves the seeker situation. Adjust what you're doing with the airplane post launch and consider how that is affecting the missile heading downrange as much as the weapon itself. F-14As could shoot Cs, so there's no intent to limit like that.

40 mile shot at 30k hits Mach 3. Tomcat doesn't hit Mach 3. Take it up another 10k feet and the pressure differential will let it hit Mach 4+. Longer range shots will hit Mach 5 because the missile can attain its full impulse climbout before having to dive back down, and will be at Mach 3 engaging a target above 20k feet in that particular endgame situation. It's all in how you take the shot.

The A is the A. Its going to be your 70s/early 80s weapon as USN, and permanent Iranian option in with the 47 engine. The C will be mid to late 80s to EOS weapon. Now the Tomcat gets its signature weapon defined based on its length of service, reflected as it should be.

43,000' launch at 660 knots at 70 miles range attains 2,870 knots at 76,000'; that's Mach 5, or, as we like to call it- "faster than an AMRAAM". UPDATE: Taking a mea culpa on this. Spent an hour trying to figure out why others can't reproduce, and why I couldn't reproduce, and it came down to an update error on my part; the test build files were where they should be, the timestamps are all right, and the Tacview recordings from prior to the last OB and after this show additional tests with the updated guidance logic; just looks like I didn't delete the necessary files before this particular test series. So yes- the engines on this Tacview were firing 30 seconds rather than the reduced value they should. Tacview-20220824-235655-DCS-MiG-31_Test_Intercept.zip.acmi

It's one thing at a time. You're welcome to get mad and stompy about it; not going to change the fact it's an iterative process.

Is there a chute where he's calling the bandit?

The INS performance and active mode recovery capability in the C are far more than worth the impulse loss. Addendum: Who was the one complaining about low level CFM performance that started the whole process of correction? Ya'll wanted more realism; don't be mad that ya'll got more realism.

So you're telling me there's a chance... Yeah!

27 seconds.

For sake of clarity (and Бойовий Сокіл has the gist of it): 54C in RL, in the event of a lost STT lock, would independently go active, and remain SARH all the way to the target if the lock was held. In DCS, to have the ability for the missile to go active in the event of a lost lock, the missile has to go active at some point in its flyout. So the C does this at the appropriate time. The flipside of this, and why you want to take your STT shots when appropriate, is the fact that STT isn't susceptible to all of the issues TWS has for maintaining a track. So you get all of the reliability of a STT shot, with the added bonus of the active fallback.

The 54A lacks a good INS, so if the track gets trashed and not recovered, the missile is lost as it doesn't get the "active" call from the radar, whereas the C can do so independently. TWS or STT lock lost, it'll make an intercept against last known target postion and relative movement. Missiles should always be supported as long as you can support them, with the intent being they go active themselves based on target range/AWG-9 activation signal. Dropping it and failing to recover early loses an A outright, whereas the lost update information has the potential to increase miss distance as the C flies out. If the target of your C doesn't continue into the relative area of airspace it *thinks* its headed when the track or lock is dropped, it doesn't matter if the missile went active or not if it was too far away to see the target to begin with.

Only Cs can go active on a lost STT lock to begin with. But because the way the sim works currently, the C has to go active at some point to have that capability.

Roll changes your lift vector, so if you're trimmed out to level, rolling away from lift "up" 90 degrees from the horizon is going to lower your nose (as the full extent of your lift is now moving away from maintaining level flight), whereas using yaw through the rudder is going to keep said wings in the level flight trim condition. Throttle also changes your nose pitch position relative to level flight trim state. Get stabilized and trimmed to level flight. Walk it into the basket, and think ahead of what your inputs will do.

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." Recommendation after a month of shooting this in test is to experiment with launch altitude and speeds. They're both capable of similar reach and endgame Mach (ie, they're both very good at reaching the a target with roughly Mach 2 or thereabouts on them to maneuver) on long range (50-60+ mile targets), but the speed at which they'll reach out, and the altitudes they'll attain while doing so, are slightly different. This can slightly alter your approach to using them on a situational basis.

Try changing the axis type setting to "slider" in the axis tune menu for the applicable axes. If you have to go to 50%, the axis is being registered with a center, rather than linearly, and will likely only go "hot" once you break that midpoint at 51%. Otherwise, you could circumvent this using the custom curve option, setting the first value (rotator axis at 0) to 50%, then do the other 10 in 5 percent increments- 55/60/65, and so on.

And what source is that? Mhmmm. Like I said- the pilot is just randomly throwing out the number that he's seeing on the HUD because he's holding a random conversation with the RIO. Grumman's technical documentation laughs at this premise, wholesale. A United States Navy Aircraft Mishap Board finding excessive G loading caused a catastrophic loss of an F-14, with a metered value between 6 and 8 G. You can literally witness an F-14 pulling over 7.5 G in the video I presented in excess of two seconds as a function of degrees turned versus speed. You were off by more than half last time you attempted to solve the problem; try again.

They delivered new Ds with the fishbowl; there were new Bs with it, too.

Never let it be said I didn't attempt to preclude him from once again failing at math repeatedly in public. He'd done so badly in the last thread (see the rivet and lying FAA copypasta here that made an appearance last time), which is why I'd told him straight up how to find the answer on the manual page that was later deleted- so he could attain the solution himself based on the actual math, as performed by professionals, privately. But here we are.

Normally, I'm not a fan of people putting words in my mouth, but this time, I'm going to allow it: You have been mathematically incorrect at every attempt in this thread, not by simple rounding or carrying error, but by orders of magnitude that a fundamental understanding would catch on even back of the napkin math. And like your continual mistatements, halftruths, and outright fabrications ("airplanes are disposable"), at no point in this conversation have I said a Tomcat would sustain 7Gs worth of load for in excess of a minute in this thread. I'm saying it now, categorically: A F-14 Tomcat, with the necessary altitude and entry speed, and within its lifetime expected hours and maintenance, would have zero issue sustaining 7.5 G for in excess of one minute, and Mistang- as evidenced by your own work in this thread, there isn't a single thing you are capable of providing to disprove that fact. Not mathematically- as you have repeatedly failed to do, not documentarily. The airframe and crew would absolutely survive that experience; your ego and contentions, not so much. You should try it sometime, bro.

We're literally talking turns Mach 0.6-0.75, but you do you. You didn't just move the goalpost a couple yards- you've moved it to another state in the attempt to remain relevant.