red_coreSix

I have this on sensor fusion in the Typhoon. The argument that the F-35 somehow does magic that you can't do in any other jet doesn't hold up. Sensor fusion is mainly software, but the F-35 has superior ELINT capabilities so that might play its part.

That loadout seems like a preset one. Most pilots make their own. Of the AIM-9s the M is the best in all categories. The P5 is worse but still an all-aspect missile while the P is the worst and only has a rear-aspect capability.

Also, take a look at the motor exhaust. It protrudes a little on the ET and is "flat" on the T.

Nono, you see this is water vapor.

Mach 4.5? With an R-27T launched "up-hill" from standstill? Are you kidding me?

I agree, the Meteor might be the missile with the best range-performance and longest Rtr but I don't know if that really matters that much to justify the cost. An AIM-120D already has more range than you'd ever really use in a realistic engagement (you wouldn't shoot your missiles at 100nm, right?), it doesn't need a booster to get it up to speed so it's close range performance is a lot better, and it costs less.

:doh:

ED just knows the thruth.

I wonder if that is a different F-15 as we see flames after the impact, which isn't the case in the video I posted. But there is that weird roll thing so I'm not sure.

Okay, I'll bite. In your world how would that "silent shooting" work if you want to guide the missile somehow? You'd still have to send stuff through the uplink right? If it even has an uplink, I'm not sure. Maybe you can put a source that the SA-6 has a missile uplink and is not purely SARH. Yea, you can do that with ESA radars where you can have more than one target in STT, you might not even have to be in STT the whole time either but you still have to tune the missiles. But the SA-6 is not an ESA. Also most of the SAMs you're thinking off are TVM not SARH. Yeah, naturally but what does that have to do with anything. And no you can't launch with radar off, you can try and it won't work. And how would they know that they're at max range then?

Nonsense for SARH, this can work with command guidance SAMs like SA-2/3 where you can guide them via TV track, but not for the SA-6. Wrong, every SARH missile has to be tuned to the FCR before launch, and usually, once they're tuned and spun up, you have to launch them pretty soon too. It's true that some SARH missiles have a datalink proiding mid-course updates when the seeker is out of range but that doesn't mean you can launch them in some TWS-type mode like you do with active missiles.

What we have in DCS is noise jamming, likely some form of barrage jamming as well. It emits random noise on all frequencies it can at max power. This denies any range or doppler information so the radar has to fall back to some degraded angle-only tracking of the jammer (HOJ). It's true that every radar could theoretically do this but since you don't know range it's very hard to judge when to fire and the Pk for these shots isn't great either. Realistically noise jamming is never done by fighter jets. What they do is deceptive ECM where you try and deceive the radar tracking you and make them tracking a false target or break lock alltogether. Good deceptive jamming won't even be detected by the radar unless you have a well trained human looking over it and even then there are times when you really can't do much against it. This just as basic knowledge to be aware of. No, they mostly don't. Their radars are built with LPI in mind and jammers are actually more effective when you use them on stealth planes as the jammer has to use less power than one that has to cover a huge skin return from a non-stealthy aircraft. That's a story told by media, a shot like that is impossible, SARH missiles such as the SA-6 used in this instance have to be tuned to the FCR, i.e. it has to be emitting. If you don't do that the missile will track very badly or likely not at all. What fighter? That varies wildly between aircraft, F-15/Su-27 cover 120° fore and aft, jammers that use AESA can have 360° coverage. They are, of course, but also remember that the jammer always has the advantage as its signals only have to go one way, the radar faces two-way propagation loss. Burn-through distance will be higher obviously though.

IIRC the offical range of the R-27 series proximity fuse was 11m, the AMRAAM's might be more. The actual range depends a lot on what angle the missiles passes, how reflective the aircraft is and so on. In my opinion an R-27 should trigger well over 11m against something like an F-15 but that's just me.

Great fight with the 104th, we had a blast! S!

Lighter, faster, higher payload capability and larger combat radius. And the lift fan can't break lol.

Your IAS will drop because the air pressure in the pitot tube drops. TAS will stay the same. You can actually go a lot faster at high altitude because of less air resistance, e.g. in the F-15 you'll struggle to go above Mach 1.1 at see level but can be above Mach 1.4 at 40.000ft in no time.

Added one more member.

OP updated. Added one more member.

It's literally in the same sentence: "The initial boost phase accelerates the Stinger to Mach 2.2 within only 2 seconds, and top-speed at motor burnout can be as high as Mach 2.6 for certain trajactories." You're like a flat earther, denying evidence that's right in front of your eyes. Despite, why don't we talk about how, now that you went up from "less than a second" to 6, the MANPAD theory makes more and more sense. That's what you wanted to disprove originally by saying they burn for "literally less than a second" right?

I won't argue about this motor burning anymore, it's hopeless. I've proved my point already, you went from "literally less than a second" to "2-2.5 seconds". So what were you saying again? How's that? Maybe you just have no clue what you're talking about? Source? You're confusing wing-tip vortices with contrails I think. LOL, sarcasm.

I just love how you take a 240p video where it might just be hard to see the rocket motor during the intercept, but try to tell me about contrails in a 720p video where you can very clearly see the complete flyout. Look again, the MiG is visible shortly after impact and then in the next couple frames. Enough to get a rough trajectory of the plane, which, as we can tell from the missile trajectory, flew pretty much straight. And how would that work? Have you ever seen planes with engines out produce contrails? I surely haven't. What you're looking at is smoke from the engine exhaust, open your eyes. No, they're produced by chemtrails, everybody knows that. How does this fit in with "missing a MiG-29" or simply not doing anything about it?

Pretty low? Are you kidding me? You can't even see the ground, there is no reference at all. Look at 3:25 in the same video you genius, I'm gonna say that aircraft is "pretty high" and the missile is burning on intercept? Where's your logic there? Yea I can. And I can see the target, maybe have your eyes checked. IR missiles don't know range, that's the point, which is why they use LOS-rate zeroing to guide. And how is that not "vapor" now? Your logic is so inconsistent it's adorable. You bend reality to fit it to your horrible theories.

So you're saying the smoke trail we see in all those video I linked is actually just vapor right? Let's look at the video I linked in post 148. I'm sure you know how IR missiles guide by maintaining a minimum line-of-sight rate, so as the missile speed decreases the lead angle increases. If we look at the video in question however we see the missile taking a large lead angle in the beginning (almost as if it's at low speed) and then continously decreasing that angle until intercept (almost as if it's accelerating). But there's probably another, totally obvious, reason for that.

I'm done...

Depends, usually you wanna rotate around 150 knots to avoid popping your wheels. In the bottom right of the front dash there is a large gauge that displays your total internal fuel. Yes, after the post-launch counter has reached "M" the missile is pitbull (i.e. guiding with its own radar). In-game there will not be a difference if you keep the target locked. Sometimes that timer isn't very accurate though, especially if the target maneuvered after you foxed, and you may need to add some seconds on top.