ShadowFrost

I've heard around 8KM and they are designed to kill light amour, infantry, and structures. I don't know how many hits will be needed in DCS to kill a tank. Apparently they are supposed to be fired in multiples to overwhelm ADS systems on tanks and hit the softer turret amour. Supposedly one can do it but will have to see how it works in DCS to know.

JF-17 should have farther reaching weapons than F16 (C802AKG) and LS-6 (should be slightly less than JSOW in range) but no cluster munitions. But cannot carry as many as the F-16. So it all depends, deep strike it can be better. But in total CAS ability worse.

Yeah, I think the JF17 on paper can be better than the 16 in some regards. But overall they are very comparable aircraft. I think the main advantage the JF17 has to the 16 is if its released in a more complete state. I think Deka could use some good marketing/trailers before release as everyone I talk to seems very interested in the aircraft its just they have not heard of it before.

Point defense appears to not be operational on ships. All weapon systems engage anti-ship weaponry (and aircraft) until around 100ft above the water. Then the missile will fly uncontested for the rest of the journey. Point defense does not fire at any aircraft launched anti-ship weaponry (RB-15 and Harpoon variants). Open Beta - 2.5.5.34644 pointdefense1.trk pointdefense2.trk

Well I imagine it would be quite hard to get a MWS warning then.... But this is DCS so I wouldn't be 100% sure lol. :lol:

A-10C and M2K have missile avoidance warning systems, so is it a radar spike/launch warning or a missile warning via the other sensors. Just asking to make sure it wasn't overlooked.

Yeah.... definitely wouldn't look anything like this. (From tiny news)

It has a TPOD, but no IRST. (I believe IRL, IRST may make it to block 3). Now, I dont know how the RWR performs IRL, but DCS implementation is something along "active missile within distance = warning" which is displayed through the RWR however it has been programmed to display. I believe that it is set by a certain range (I havent tested, personally) but when a missile is within say 15km of target. The aircraft will get a warning, where as the missile could have been active before 15km but due to DCS's code, it wont receive warning until 15km or whatever is set. But the above is only what I've heard and haven't personally tested myself. Edit- I think it has a good chance to sell very well, especially if released before the F-16. Though everyday its looking less and less likely. But ultimately, if its as far along as they seem to mention, feature wise it will be very capable on release. And over time, I think will become a favorite of many and earn a good reputation if the quality is there.

The f-15 (most stable launch platform) as the missile was in the game, but I imagine its a place holder (and not what they have internally, or not the final state of where it should be at least) so ultimately what I found doesn't matter. https://streamable.com/cupzi (Here was the first comparison I did, but like I said, its most likely a placeholder) (Like 99% sure) I had guessed that maybe the extra burn time to was to overcome certain issues with DCS missile modeling, but even then it overshot the performance of the actual missile (as far as I could find) by a good bit. (And ultimately was getting the range performance the wrong way, not lofting or etc) 122+km (ingame) intercept vs 100km (supposedly factual) against target (and launch platform) at mach 1.2, 10,000m. Obviously I could only compare it to what I know/found, but everything data wise was telling me it was over-performing by a good margin and will likely be similar to the aim-120C on release as it should be. But with what I found data wise, it seems to indicate that it should be better than the Aim-120B and slightly worse than the C. So it should be very comparable, but ultimately, its DCS, we will see how it performs when it is out on launch day.

Im not sure ED really allows new FC3 level aircraft, I think the J11 was an exception because of how close it is to the SU-27. But an entirely new aircraft, I believe, has to be made to clickable and AFM quality.

I did a lot of the testing on the PL-12 and Ammram, ultimately they are supposed to be very comparable missiles. IRL the PL-12 is regarded to be better than the B but worse than the C from what ive found. So I imagine the PL-12 that I tested was just a placeholder. I imagine upon release that will be where the PL-12 and Aim-120 stand, very close in performance to one another. So it can really be said to be a benefit/negative other than it can only carry 4 PL-12s. The SA of the JF17 may (most likely) be better than the F-16 (DCS RWR implementation is generally quite basic) so it should be as good as F-16/18/15 albeit presented in a similar but slightly different way. It has a rearward missile warning system which is more than the F-16. It also apparently has datalink, look in the forum "tiny news" and youll see pictures. Very similar to how the west generally presents information in their aircraft. It will lack in total payload capacity but will make up in distance of which they can be employed compared to the F-16's payload. The C802AKG will likely be the longest range A2G weapon in DCS if it is released before the SLAM-ER of the F/A-18. (The SLAM-ER and C802 are comparable weapons). They also have LS-6 glide weapons and some other very interesting additions. TL-DR It will have some very interesting toys that can go the distance (generally equal to or farther) than the western counterparts. But it just cannot carry many of them. It will be a very interesting aircraft and from what I know, it should fit mostly at home with everyone else with the more western cockpit design.

I believe the current version is block I, but they have said they would look into doing block II if it made sense down the road.

I don't believe block 1 has datalink, but not certain. Most of that payload is correct for EA, but there are some items that aren't confirmed for release or at all. Edit- I belive all the weapons except the ALCM/JSOW will be in. We will have the C802-AKG for long range engagements to air to ground targets. But it has not been confirmed if we are getting an ALCM. Most of the weapons we will get, but maybe not in the exact stores configuration (not all have dual racks yet) on release.

Did I actually read that as JF17 when it was J11? Whoops...

As it stands currently, the PL-12 is looking to be the better A2A missile than what is currently the DCS aim-120. Now a lot can change, but the PL-12 appears to be hitting what people think the aim-120 "should" do while the DCS aim-120 is massively under performing (40-60%) in a straight line compared to what those people think. PL-12 was like 5% better than what people think the aim-120 "should" do. Real world, they are considered quite comparable, so it would likely come down to tactics if they were to change the modeling of either missile. I imagine the aim-120 will be improved in the future as it undergoes certain changes with the F-18. This is what I've referenced to what people think the aim-120 "should" do http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

I've been under the impression they've got a lot done, at the end of the day its only a guess from me. Whenever it releases, I just want it released in a good state. Obviously we all want it soon, just not rushed.

As much as I'd love for it to be soon, my money is on September/October as reasonable expectations it will either be released or we will have data on release date not to far from then.

I'd say the JF-17 has a good chance of making it this year, now I don't have inside information but what I can say it they were targeting summer for EA this January. So I don't know how far behind they are schedule wise, but I'd say it has a good shot of releasing this year. Maybe before the F-16, but that is looking slim. But I think the JF-17 will be more feature complete on release than the F-16 so that weighs in too. I personally hope they can get it out before the F-16 for business reasons, but I imagine it will be a favorite of many even if they don't get it out before the F-16 if it is made to high standards.

Good to know, just let us know when you have more information in the future. Thanks, take your time with it. We all want it, but we want it released in a good state (not rushed).

I believe it was asked before (100% certain it was) and I believe the answer on that day from uboats was (80% certain) something along the lines of no, not currently planned but open to the option for some things from block 2 later down the line if it made sense to do. I don't know if that is the case today, but probably not. Edit- Uboats reply was "currently block 1" when asked about the aircraft being block 1,2,3. So probably no, though it could happen but just unlikely. But who knows, that is just inferences from me. Edit- I am apparently blind, what I posted was for the JF-17 not J-11

Yeah I'm curious to know as well, but I'd imagine of all the factors that it'd (burn time) be the easiest to get correct in terms of coding unless its performance currently is just a complete placeholder. Though are we getting the SD-10A or B? as that makes a difference. I imagine they've gotten data for the SD-10 (or at least enough) just like the rest of the weapons, the hard part would likely be how it actually acquires track and etc. but no missile has that correct in DCS yet. Even though it has an extremely long burn time (I'm thinking 18 seconds (DCS PL-12)) But, there are reasons that the burn time might be longer than it should be real world compared to DCS. (Now I have no clue if they are doing it for this reason, if they indeed are) But a missile should have different drags depending if the motor is on/off, DCS's missile API doesn't support changing that yet so it might be a work around they've done to hit the performance numbers they want to hit. (Think Heatblur and the bandaids for the aim-54 which will be on it until they can adjust the things they need) Now, I think that is probably not the case buts its a possibility. Either way, I'd rather it have a slightly longer burn time and hit correct straight-line performance data (if that is the case) than not until the missile API is where it needs to be once it is corrected. I'm sure Deka/Uboats will fill us in once they are at a break in their work schedules.

That someone who compared the missiles would be me.... In short, and I know people love to have this argument. I imagine the PL-12 is closer to where it should be than the aim-120. The aim-120C barely goes 12 miles straight-line at 5,000ft .83mach launch. I wish ED would tell us what type of performance targets they are trying to hit with the aim-120cs but either way it seems that it has been under-performing as of recently. The PL-12, while much better in comparison to the DCS aim-120C, hit the targets of CFD data for the aim-120C based on a 7.5-7.7 second burn time. If I recall correctly, it was like 5% better in most aspects than what the aim-120 "should" do from the data I've seen. http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf Compared to the data above (which you can argue is or isn't accurate), the aim-120 is under-performing somewhere around 40-60%. Now if that is what ED has matched to their own dataset that is fine. But I doubt that is the targets they are trying to hit internally (the performance of the aim-120 currently). The above pdf is what I used as reference to what a real world aim-120C-5 should do, the PL-12 just barely surpasses that by around 5% in straight-line comparisons at various altitudes. So while it is way over-performing compared to the aim-120C-5 (DCS), when they should be comparable missiles by most accounts. That may be due to issues with the aim-120c in DCS currently. TL;DR The PL-12 is close to what some people think the aim-120C-5 (IRL) should do, but is way better than the aim-120C-5 (DCS) in game.

I do like the howl it has on landing.... Maybe if we keep posting videos Uboats will be summoned and give up some information... lol I know I can't wait for it...

Are we going to get the MAR-1 ARM at some point? I know it won't make it for early access, but will it be developed? Or couldn't get the information? Really looking forward to this aircraft, keep up the information when you have it. Thanks, Shadow Edit- I don't know if the planned payload is for EA or all that will be more or less for this aircraft. If there are any extras I would love if you could share some information about them. But even then, the payload is pretty advanced.

A Mig-29M would be fantastic but I doubt they could ever do it with all the legal prerequisites needed.