Chrinik

COOOOOOBRAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! *shakes fist angrily*

Interesting anecdote about the Aim-9P I have heard a bunch now. The last paragraph talks about it´s apparent problems with flare recognition. http://aviationweek.com/blog/we-didn-t-know-what-90-percent-switches-did I´m guessing it can´t be modeled since all aircraft essentially use the "same" flares, but it should be interesting when modeling the capabilities of the P.

There is no symbology for Aim-9s on the gunsight, you either get a locktone or you don´t with some ranging information if you have the target locked in radar...that´s about it.

It´s not shortened...the F-15 has a lower internal fuel capacity then the SU-27 and thus the amounts were chosen so that both would take roughly the same time to get to full 100% internal. But the F-15 has bags to make up for the difference.

Aren´t Mavericks considered PGMs? I thought they were... Also, the RB-15 and BK-90 Mjölnir are very capable weapons if modeled (Anti ship and Standoff-cluster munition). So it´s got something going for it, which is nice. People also forget this is primarily a STRIKE aircraft, not a CAS aircraft... Strike aircraft go in, deploy weapons, go out. CAS planes stick around to support troops on the ground. It´s not meant for that. So you brief a target, say an enemy troop concentration (FARP, FOB, Staging area)...then you arm accourdingly to deliver the most destruction in the least amount of time possible. Then you go back to base and rearm. The typical "A-10 approach" of loitering around, finding targets with TGP, rolling in for an attack, deploying weapons and then resetting to do it again is not really the mission, design nor use for a Viggen. I´m looking forward to some nice Anti shipping and strike missions.

Yes, let´s ignore the most extensive Air to Air operation of the Pheonix because it´s not done by Murica and hence unreliable information... If I pluck in the wrong numbers, any math equasion is gonna come out with a stupid result. Pulling constant high Gs at 0.5M and the missile still going 4M...esentially the plane is Godsplane and the Missile was fired out of parameters, whoopdie doo it missed? That´s a revelation how? The only real way DCS MP is going to defeat the missile is going to be terrainmasking and running straight away. Anticipating that the missile is tracking and beaming early to run it out of steam. The same way the Amraam is currently dealt with.

Wind? Unlucky? I mean, they are inherently affected by a random "dispersion" anyway...so what you might be seeing might just literally be random.

Ah, the joy of modern multirole...everyone can do anything they want with it XD

You know, Cobra, I had a really hard time recently making someone believe the Viggen is an actual thing that isn´t "years off" because of the lack of any hard evidence to support my claim. I really made me feel like a conspiracy nut going "No, really, it´s supposed to come out reaaaallly soon!" "But there´s not even pictures." "I know, but they talk about it like it´s almost done.", "There isn´t even an official announcement, you sure they are working on it?" "Yes...I am very sure they are working on it." ... "But why haven´t they said anything then?" "...to torture us because someone spoiled their suprise..."

But you know all of these FBW pampered gamers who yell when the plane doesn´t fly on rails automatically for them XD I personally know a couple of those.

That´s because the Mig-21 wasn´t unsophisticated at all...it was a mainline Fighter/Interceptor, whereas the F-5 was never anything else then a cheap export aircraft XD. Although, I also find it odd it has absolutely none...guess you´ll just have to live with trimming. Good thing I´m a Redfor pilot, trimming is normal for me.

If it doesn´t have INS and only uses the seeker then it´s unrealistic behaviour in it´s current form.

But why do you need to turn on the seeker when you can use command guidance until terminal? That would just waste power and thus decrease range. I´m proposing that you don´t really need the seeker all that much for mid-course, when the missile carries INS guidance and Datalink. Considering the reflections off of the target are stronger the closer it gets to it, I don´t even think the seeker is all that accurate over 50km for example. We are not talking about R-27s here. The russians may have done things differently judging by the fact that the TWS mode autolocks a target when in range. THEIR missiles might require STT locks and may work the way you described. We are also not talking about reaquiring a lost lock. If a Radar Lock is lost at any point during the missiles flight, it gets NO updates anymore and goes stupid. In essence, we are talking about wether or not you can lauch a modern SARH missile with TWS data and then later give it more accurate STT targeting... Which I don´t think is wrong. You basically eyeball the thing towards a target with rough TWS data, giving it mid-course correction data based on your launch platform Radar information (your plane knows where the target is and tells the missile where to go), and then you give it an STT lock reflection to home in on. It´s in principle the same way multiple Amraams are launched, with the difference being that you can´t engage multiple targets obviously, because your Radar can only STT lock a single target. But with the Amraam nobody questions that the Missile seemingly finds it´s intercept point by magic because it´s such an advanced missile...yeah right. INS missile guidance for mid-course correction has been around for a long time prior, I don´t see why it isn´t being used on these SARH missiles, and every article I´ve read about SARH missiles present in DCS states they use INS/Datalink for Mid-course and SARH for terminal guidance. The Super 530D is from the late eighties, it isn´t a very old missile by DCS standards and it´s later then the Phoenix, which used the same INS/Datalink guidance until terminal we are talking about here. An active seeker is only advantageous because you can launch multiple missiles at multiple targets. I don´t understand why the same guidance methods somehow CAN´T be used on SARH missiles, apart from being limited to only one target per plane.

You obviously don´t know that SARH missiles ALSO have seekers...to see the reflection of Radar waves to guide in on. It would be kinda hard for the missile to SEEK a target WITHOUT a SEEKER... Those seekers are (depending on missile) NOT active until terminal flight to save power and thus weight for heavy batteries, because the missile is guided by INS/Datalink from the parent aircraft until terminal. To prefice, you still need to maintain Radar lock...because YOU need to tell the missile where to go still...if the lock breaks, missile goes dumb because you don´t tell it where to go anymore. Slightly off topic because AiM-7: Which apparently means you can launch the AiM-7M dumb and give it a Radar lock later. I think. But could refer to lofting trajectories, where the missile pops up to gain more range...with the seeker unable to see the target at all. Still, both would mean it is capable of "locking on" to a painted target AFTER launch. Wiki sais about 530D: Don´t know exactly what "reprogramming for new threats" means, but I took it meant it can update targets mid-flight...IE, reacquire. Wiki on SARH guidance: And here is a TLDR article for interested folks on missile guidance: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part15.htm Interesting parts would be to understand the difference between missile flight stages, control and homing guidance. Almost no modern medium range missile has a single guidance method. Most have a combination of control guidance and homing guidance (for terminal accuracy)...

Turning 90 or 180° away from the missile is turning 90 or 180° away from the missile, no matter how far it is away. You were talking relative angular change, not aspect change. Aspect can change quite dramatically quite quickly.

Essentially all SARH missiles of a certain age are capable of doing that (theoretically even the FC ones, but....FC...) as they fly their initial approach with DL updates from the aircraft sensor, only turning on their seekers in terminal flight. So technically, TWS data would be all you need for a very rough launch and track, obviously not accurately.

What an entirely unexpected outcome. Looking forward to the next round.

Seconded. The 1-2 Setting might attempt to fire the wrong missile, aquires targeting data from the heater (thus, no lock, no launch authority)...switch to the specific pylon, and you should be fine.

Fixed. Still bought the F-5. Clickable FC-3 aircraft will be years from now.

If I can relate with what I have learned in Jets (and other simulators with props) about the high-alt modelling, I share some pointers. - Accelerate while still low-medium altitude. If you climb the fastest way up and then try to level out and accelerate you can forget it, thrust is so low up there that you will struggle to get to the speeds needed to maintain a decent performance. - Service ceiling doesn´t mean that the aircraft will be confortable in anything below that. - Keep your speed high, you need the lift. - Relax on the stick inputs, stall speeds are amplified my a large margin. - Fighting against AI up there is harsh because as you´ve noticed, they just use SFM and won´t care about your struggle. Players will have a different experience. And why are the bombers flying at 30000 feet? I thought B-17s typically operate somewhere under 20k with bombs and fuel? That´s a much more reasonable altitude for you to fight in aswell. Maybe the mission designer was just being a capital D.

IF I read this chart correctly, I see just over 6 G at Sealevel at 0.9 M at 55.000 lbs... That is IF I even interpret the chart correctly. The Eagle boys will be quick to remind me this is just for a "warning system" and of course you can break the safe limits all the time no Problem.

All missiles flight profiles are borked, making this not an Amraam-only issue. Active and IR missiles atleast track their targets more reliably during lag issues, when SARH will go stupid immediately. My favorite loadouts are also the 80ies loadouts. Relies less on Server or weapon capability but more on Pilot and Aircraft capability. Needs more of that.

Haben wir uns bereits auf nen Termin einigen können?

Because the Maverick is a stupid, stupid missile that, in real life, liked to give you a solid lock and then go "This road/rock/dead tank looks like a target aswell" and just hit the dirt. It´s sensor is also not the bestest, which is why it´s not instantly locking some target. Also, imagine your Mav locking on to everything in your path, buildings, bridges, civilian cars... You´d hate that feature.

The CDU can also be used to sent hilarious text messages to other Hawgs.