nighthawk2174

Do we have a early to mid 80's manual for the 9.12?

Do you have the -220 manual?

Yes as far as i'm aware the tin shield is the most applicable SR for the current S300 version we have in game. Surprised it took as long as it did to add it (S300 has been in DCS from the start).

@BIGNEWY^ see above, as such shouldn't it be renamed in game to not list it as an SA5 specific search radar?

It's just what the charts happened to be at as far as i'm aware

With I believe. Without drops it a bit.

tbf from the charts we have the F4 had a peak rate advantage over its adversaries of at least a few deg/s. Including a climb rate and acceleration advantage at most altitudes as well. You can't fight it like say a mirage or F18 (flight model issues with both jets aside). Its far more like an F16/F15 where you need to fight differently to really shine. Its issue lies at low speeds its wing (B/C/D in particular) design does not allow it to float like the delta on the 21 does. And something I've noticed is that most new people I see (and from descriptions of engagements from some reports available online this hold true irl) when BFM'ing just yank on the stick really hard often at the wrong time. The mig can fight this way the F4 can't. And this as far as i'm aware holds up irl even, with F4 aggressor pilots utterly humiliating an active duty squadron who even had some mig killers in their ranks. The kill ratio's we saw speak volumes imo to the performance advantage the jet had over its contemporaries. The mig would gain ground as you go higher in altitude, one of the benefits of a delta. But iirc it only matches the F4 at 30k feet or higher. There is a whole massive thread on the Russian section with performance data from Russian manuals. I'd need to find it again but I think their conclusions match what I have said above. As I was saying earlier take note how the delta while having a relatively flat sustained turn rate curve it holds its performance over a much wider band than the more conventual wing designs. F4 is at 65% internal fuel. External load is 2028lbs MIG21BIS is at 40% internal fuel. External load is 460lbs F5E is at 50% internal fuel. External load is 380lbs

From what i've read the biggest reason for these rates was not the jets themselves but a significant lack of spare parts that had been allocated for.

^ This I've been using this for quite some time its a really nice mod. I wish ED themselves would just tune down the values themselves.

Do we have any sources that actually list numbers of aircraft on both side for some year in the 80's?

TBF it would have been the most common high tech threat to the F15 until the SU27 showed up in usable numbers in 89-91 due to production delays. Plus this thread is about the MIG-29 and how it'd fair, and facing off against the F15 is part of that.

Notching isn't the end all be all tactic, if it was so effective irl then it would be the go to defensive tactic instead of a split-S and outrunning the missile. Monopulse seekers have tricks up their sleeves to allow the detection of targets even in the notch. The above is a more modern teqniques (ARAAM level of tech) but its just an evolution of other teqniques.

Need to be clear though if its an F-14A that may be the case especially if flown by newer pilots. The F14 is not a plane you fly well quickly and without a lot of practice. Currently thrust wise we know that the A is overperforming in mil and underperforming in AB. B was about right although a change a few months ago had a knock off effect that had a bunch of effects on its FM that they are fixing. As far as i'm aware the MIG-29 is more or less right, it even went through another FM revision sometime last year or earlier this year.

is it referencing the -54C, and would you be willing to share said documents if not in the thread than via DM?

I mean, with the amraam the datalink helps prevent this (potentially 54C too). If you have a solid STT lock (for better update rate) even when firing into a furball the missile will dump targets that aren't the one the main radar sees. I've had a rhino piolt tell me straight up they train to fire into furballs and that he'd rather risk hitting a friendly then not potentially save than friendly from a HOBS missile.

Agreed, the fact that the nomenclature is literally the exact same heavily implies extreme similarities. The AIM-54A lacks the ability to go active on its own as it is fundamentally reliant on the AWG-9 for everything. Not only to give it positional updates but to keep it on course. Without the AWG-9 the missile has no ability to know its range to the target, no ability to know if its in range for its seeker to activate. When the AWG-9 calculates the missile should be in range for its seeker based on TOF then its told to go active. The whole point of adding an INS system would be to eliminate this weakness of the system. The entire electronics package of the 54C was rebuilt essentially from the ground up. I see no reason that this limitation couldn't and wasn't fixed. Even with the lack of hard -1 type evidence we can still make educated guesses, we shouldn't hamstring ourselves just because we can't have a 1000% accurate simulation. We have a bunch of other indications that the 54C is a bit more advanced than an A with just better chaff resistance. The facts that it was upgraded while the 120 was under development, didn't have the same space restrictions that delayed the amraam till 91, that his was done by the exact same company even possible with some overlap in personal, and anecdotal evidence that the missiles shared guidance algo's should be more than enough.

I'm sorry but the fact that it outright states that the functionality of the inertial system was incorporated onto the 120 should be more than enough. As has been said terms like strap-down inertial guidance are used to describe very specific functionality. And we know that this system allows the amraam to go active on its own and that this system was also added to the 54C. This should be more than enough secondary sources to show that the 54C has at a minimum a high probability that it acts like the AIM-120A. Which should be enough to change its behavior, exact documentation on the 54C is not going to show up for a while, and you guys know that. So you have to make best gueses based on what we do have and all that we have points towards functionality mimicking the 120A, such as new lofting, optimal control, active by itself, and probably MPRF.

Any updates on this?

This would be a new setup we didn't have access to before so we won't know what the folder structure or any of the names will be. Which iirc you need in order to make sound mods work. Plus I thought that didn't work for the sounds for the FF jets? I thought i'd read somewhere that a bunch of those mods stopped working even if you put them in the saved games folder.

I think Baghdad in the gulf war had something like 60 sam sights defending it. In DCS part of the high number of sam's is due to how poorly modeled they are, they don't really keep players out unless there are so many you just can't dodge all of them.

Im just afraid that like all the new sounds they'll be locked behind encryption.

I believe though that the AIM-7F has somewhat superior range nothing major but enough to matter. Especially with its APN guidance given it an edge over the R27 in energy drain. Ignoring ECM and radar performance ofc.

Flip the fuel weights for boost and sustain and the math makes a lot more sense. Additionally its likely that it is only at the listed thrust for part of the 4.5 and 11sec with a small transition period where the thrust is either increasing or decreasing. This also makes the math make more sense. The exact math ED used is somewhere in this thread and is largely from a AIAA document about how you calculate a lot of this stuff, where they used the AIM-7 as an example.

That is a possibility, especially with the work for the more accurate INS-datalink interaction finally underway.

Sure in comparison to ESA's mech scans are blind. But they are far from unusable. Especially in a well coordinated flight where each person can be made responsible for an altitude band (low or high) and a sector. That doubling the RCS does not result in a 33% increase in range only a 19%. Additionally I checked the SU-27 manual again and DCS, in lookup against a 3m^2 target detection range is ~65km (not tracking range which is 10 km less) not 86km. Lookdown is 54.5km for detection and 48km for lockup. yeah but head on its ~6m2 which is probably a local maximum value. I don't really think so as this is echoed by every pilot I ever heard talk about the subject. Too speculative for a hyper in depth module yes but to get an idea about the radars performance not so much. From what I've been told is that they were in extremely limited quantities especially back in the 90's. whoops guess I was bit more tired than I thought while typing that. What I ment to say was that above 59% internal volume is considered as being an "internal drop tank" by sukoi. The jet was really designed around that 59% (~10.5k lbs) of gas. ? Being able to get that fast even with external tanks indicates they may not be as draggy as you think they are, and as such aren't as much of an impediment as you thought Which would require more frames and also reduces your capacity to keep cap's up for as long or to fight for as long at longer ranges. Sort of, and I don't think its SA is particularly bad. Having datalink is very nice for sure but you can compensate for it with better training, AWACS, and good flight coordination. Yes the advances in processing power, and also the reduction in cost of said electronics, are allowing the tech to become far more practical and capable. But it still has the same limits as the older systems in terms of weather. Maybe not as pronounced but still there hence why the systems are still a supporting element to the main FCR.