thawall

This! I had the exact same thought some days ago.

In my opinion scaling should only process aircraft, which are at the outer limit of visual range and would therefore be currently rendered "smaller" than a pixel. By making these sub-pixel planes at least 2 or 3 full pixels large, their contrast would vastly improve. This effect would just counteract the deficites of our monitors (which is the purpose of all of this) and for nearer distances everything could stay the same. Additionally I think all the low poly LODs should be reworked to address the already reported issues of aircraft disappearing all of a sudden from various angles (even at closer distances). Also the material and colors of the LODs should be reworked. AFAIK they don't currently reflect the selected paintjob of the aircraft, so it may happen to be a dull green LOD for an otherwise brightly colored plane. I don't think, the engine needs major rewrites to accomplish this. It just needs a combination of the right tweaks.

Look here: http://theaviationist.com/2015/03/01/iriaf-f-14s-overhauled/ Seems like the modernization program will keep them flying until 2030. Just google F-14AM. The new paint schema: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Grumman-F-14AM-Tomcat/2239264/L/

Just make it so, that each command for the rio can be mapped to any key. I have plenty of buttons available on my HOTAS, which i can reuse in combination with a modifier to issue commands. What I *don't* want, is having to move my hands of the stick and throttle all the time.

Hi! I'm looking for an affordable Cougar Throttle, optionally including also the Stick, for a mod project. As such, I'm also interested in broken ones, if the mechanics are still ok. If you got something like that lying around, drop me a PM. Thanks, Thawall

Damn!! Made me want the Viper in DCS even more ;-)

The F-14 will be uber with the Phoenix alone. No need for unrealistic AMRAAM loadouts. Also, its not only the pylons... The Tomcats radar could not handle them and would have needed some updates.

No suprise there... Or was there a rumor regarding a chopper that I missed?

Enjoyed the vid! Thx for sharing!

Thanks for posting the articles. Very informative! (Already sent you +rep for your previous post on IRST, so it won't let me do it again for this one...)

Thanks for the clarification. PIRATE seems to be able to handle about 200 targets simultaniously, although constant tracking seems to reduce the number quite a bit. Also for fast maneuvering targets it might be required to use STT mode at some point. But as you said, there are likely more fighters involved, also friendlies, which means target information from PIRATE could also be shared via data link, after targets have been sorted. Never the less, I see your point and read the articles you posted concerning LPI radar. If it works both systems would still be a very good complement. Do have links to additional material? Other than that, we still don't know, how radar performes against enemy stealth fighters, meaning the radars detection range might also be very short. If ECM and target spoofing is used, it might be rather useless.

Stealth Capability debate I fully agree and never said anything else (I do not fully agree on the last two sentences though). Thx for the vid btw! Concerning ranges, there are different reports. Here is an overview including the sources: http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroFIRST_PIRATE#Reichweite 50-90 km frontal aspect subsonic flight and 54-98km for mach 1.7 seem to be the most realistic guesstimates. Coming back to the original topic of stealth capability: even 50-60km detection range against a stealth plane make IRST a serious tool (if the weather conditions allow it). With future improvements even more so. Edit to clarify on your last 2 sentences: I don't think, PIRATE can be used to replace the radar and I agree it should be used complementary and when apropriate. But under 'identification' I understand that I can identify, probably the type of the plane and if it is hostile. And why would it be lacking against a fast manouvering target? I mean the tracking capability seems really good. Edit 2: What is the official/assumed range that a F-22 can detect another stealth plane eg. a F-35 using their radar? I would guess, that it would be not much more than 50km also.

Stealth Capability debate @Invader ZIM: Thx for posting all the detailed data and facts! I don't think, that you can compare 80s IRST like OLS-27 of the Su-27 with PIRATE, because the latter is much more sophisticated. The jump in technology is probably comparable to the improvements from 80s radar systems to AESA. For example, the software suite for PIRATE will automatically detect false positives and disregard them. Furthermore IR paint will not work against PIRATE, because it is not only looking for heat signatures but also for "holes" in the background clutter. To keep invisible, a plane would have return the same signature as the background clutter itself. The system is built with countermeasures in mind and meant to defeat them. EDIT: also, PIRATE will represent its information usually not in form of FLIR video, but similiar to a radar screen. Have a look at this: @Blaze: I'm no expert and granted, I simplified it greatly. If you have any documents/articles on modern AESA radar systems you can share I'd appriciate it. My common sense suggests that if I use radar to scan a target/area, I would need at least so much energy that the signal can travel the distance that I want to cover (e.g. 40 miles) including all the way back, after it reflected of a surface. If the target has radar absorbing coating (stealth features) I might need even more energy to get enough information in the reflected signal back. So by this logic, and correct me if I'm wrong, I would assume, that a modern RWS suite could detect my signals at about 80 miles. I might be able to trick older RWS by jumping frequencies or not painting all the time but that would only mean that RWS tech would have some catching up to do. Sadly for us, developments in this sector are highly classified (at least I didn't find much up to date information on the topic), which means we can only speculate.

Absolutely.

Look, I'm not saying, that radar is useless or that IRST is the ultimate tool. Any fighter will require both, especially for multi role mission profiles. But this discussion is about stealth capability and IRST is going to to play an important role in future combat against stealth planes. PIRATE and other modern sensors, show that it is already possible and this capability will be improved upon. The T-50 has likely also a better sensor than the Su-35. Also, similar to radar, the exact operational ranges are a well guarded secret, so 35km can be assumed to be a lower estimate. Never the less, PIRATE shows, that at least in clear weather conditions, ranges similar to radar detection ranges are possible (~100km for super sonic fighters from frontal aspect). Also in a modern avionics suite radar and IRST can be used together (called "sensor fusion" in the EF), to search and track targets. So the systems complement each other increasing the chance of detection (although also increasing the chance of being detected). As we are discussing stealth here: radar by it self can never be "stealthy", because it is an active sensor, sending out and receiving signals. You can vary the frequency all you want and narrow the beam, but in the end, when you lock the target, it will know. And searching targets with a narrow beam won't be very effective. Some months ago I read an interesting article, where it was stated, that it is no problem to track and intercept signals, even if the frequency changes several times per second. So it basically only a question of when this functionality will be integrated into modern radar warning receivers. Utimately it will come down to tactics and who can play its advantages best. But in my opinion, stealth is a necessary improvement for some mission profiles, but not an "I win button" and can be defeated. Best combo in my opinion would be lower number of more expensive multirole stealth jets (such as the F-22), which includes a modern IRST sensor to complement its radar and SEAD capabiltiy for A2/AD missions. Combine this with a higher number of less expensive non-stealth jets with serious A2A and dogfight capabilities (e.g. EF, Rafal), high sortie rates and A2G capabilities and you have a winning team.

Stealth Capability debate Both statements are backed by direct sources, which you have obviously ignored. I make it simple for you: http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-follows-uk-lead-infrared-systems I don't know what your experience is wih thhese systems, but i think there might be one or two systems available, which you might not know. Also afaik for none of the Tiffy to F-22 evaluations/trainings have the ROE been released, so the published results are not really worth anything. EDIT: But to fuel the competiton: I liked their description of 'Raptor-salad' [emoji16]

Stealth Capability debate That may be the case for the US fighters, but here is a rough translation for what PIRATE has been designed todo (sry didn't find an english source quickly): "Der Sensor wurde explizit entwickelt, um sowjetische Tarnkappenflugzeuge auch unter schweren elektronischen Gegenmaßnahmen auf große Entfernungen orten zu können." "The sensor has been developed expicitely to detect soviet stealth planes at great distances and against heavy electronic counter measures." http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroFIRST_PIRATE (The original source is from Flight International) This is the reality of things... I'm not making things up. EDIT: Further quote: "Im Jahr 2010 erfolgte die Evaluierung von PIRATE gegen Stealth-Kampfflugzeuge vom Typ F-22 Raptor, welche auf „signifikante Entfernung“ geortet werden konnten. Bis zum Jahr 2013 konnte die Ortungsreichweite von PIRATE durch Software-Updates weiter gesteigert werden." "In 2010 PIRATE has been evaluated against the F-22 raptor, which could be tracked at 'significant distances'. Until 2013 the range has been increased via a software update. " http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroFIRST_PIRATE

That may be and I'm not questioning the capability or that the F-22 is far superior to the F-15, but you seem to forget that the rest of the battle field evolved too. So the F-22 may need all of its advancements in the end to do basically the same job as the F-15 in its timeframe. And thats exactly where numbers again come into play. An F-22 might face a T-50 and modern Flankers. If one F-22 equals 2-3 F-15 squads in your calculation, then a loss of one F-22 equals the same loss in force.

I'm not saying that it is becoming the primary sensor in every mission, but in air combat it is likely to play a major role in the near future. Why else would it be added to almost all modern interceptors and air superiority fighters? Its *not made up stuff* thats a fact. And it can be used to locate and identify stealth planes, which is the current topic and that's why I mentioned it.

What about the cost required to maintain the RAM coating and increased costs/time in maintainance due to stealth? Regarding numbers: what is essential is that you have enough operational planes to fly the required missions. The lower the sortie rate, the more planes you need. This is what dictates the numbers. Simple example: Lets say, 80% of F-22 are operational at any time (153). Now, if the sortie rate of the F-22 would be 20% below that of the F-15, then those 153 operational F-22s could only fly the same number of missions as 122 F-15s, effectively reducing their effective use. I'm not saying that the same numbers are required as in cold war times, but 192 may be even less than it seems.

Because active radar gives away your position, and then even with stealth features, you can be easily detected... Also 192 F-22s is *not* many in comparison to the 1600 built F-15s it replaces (about 400 are still in use, afaik). Furthermore, its sortie rate per day seems to be less also, which means that the impact of its low numbers is even worse.

A stealth plane does definitely have its advantages and for some missions it is currently even a requirement (eg. A2/AD). But the biggest disadvantage of stealth in my opinion is currently cost. There is simply no stealthplane, which is produced in high numbers. If the F-35 ever will be, remains to be seen. And numbers are definitely important in a symetrical air war! I think, passive sensors are the way to go: IRST like PIRATE (EF) have TWS capability and ranges for frontal detection are estimated from 50-90km but up to 150km ranges seem to be possible. IRST also allows to automatically identify targets based on the IR signature of a plane (identification is still huge problem in BVR combat). Coupled with a mid/long range IR missile and no active radar emissons (plus e.g. some frontal RCS reduction measure) even a 4+ gen fighter is a very dangerous combo for a stealth plane (for much less cost & maintenance). And even stealth planes can't hide from IR...

Absolutely stunning!!!

Nice find & good thinking, but I simply cannot accept the fact, that we should ignore all the avatars, which point to the Tomcat.

I'm also basically clearing all default mappings before I setup a new plane, so +1 for a "clear all" button. I find the current solution very flexible, especially as you can define your own modifiers (I use 4 layers on my HOTAS ;-)) The only two features I miss are: - being able to map the comms menu to the HOTAS (layer 5 xD) - create a graphical button mapping out of my configuration The latter takes a lot of time, if you do it manually, but otherwise it gets too confusimg for meI if I switch between different aircraft. Usually it only takes a look or too to remember all the assignments but without it I'm lost.