sylkhan
-
Posts
662 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sylkhan
-
-
Everyone: "Do this other one I want!"
I don't want anything, be sure.
-
Deka: lists aircraft under consideration.
Partial list...
It's a forum, we can share our opinion i think.
-
Quoting national interest blog is about as credible as quoting National Enquirer (US tabloid). Not a particularly reliable source at all.
It's not that important, because we all know that phoenix is a big heavy missile, designed for bombers.
it's common sense :)
-
Nope. You need to read the original post, here is what they said:
"
Unfortunately, most members of our team now suffer from Big-MFCD PTSD, internally, we decide not to make a class cockpit module next;
externally, we want to choose an aircraft with unique design; regarding type, fighter would become lowest priority.
"
And ?
Mig-21 bison has no glass cockpit, no big MFCD, has a unique design, and for "fighter to be lowest priority", that doesn't means no fighter at all.
Documention would not be too hard to obtain.
This bird is more attracting, has more possibilties than those in the list, and would sell better
But that's just my opinion, and i give it :)
-
Wrong again, read what I posted before. The speed is exactly why it doesnt have to account for fighter maneuvers and thus is even better for fighters than other missiles. Period. .
:), really... for you speed is the main factor to be a good (the best)missile against agile fighters with modern countermesure systems ?
You can repeat this nonsense, as much as you want, this will not make it a truth.
"Despite the successes of the AIM-54, it was still a big heavy missile designed for use against relatively non-maneuvering targets"
Charlie Gao "military specialist"
And sylkhan, what would you like to add with your comments? That our radar is unrealistic?It's your own words, not mine.
I asked a simple question, but nobody seems to be able to answer it, perhaps you ?
- at what range the F-14 radar is able to burn-through a modern jamming fighter ?
-
^^THIS
-
The best choice : MIG-21 BISON
Just a small effort :) for the MFD-55.
-
It was also vastly cheaper to operate and maintain compared to the F14, the F14 nearly bankrupted the USN.
Why is it so difficult to just say the true reason : "the f-14 was outdated"
-
-You'd be suprised how many people fly with ECM off.
Perhaps because in DCS, ECM doesn't work as intended
Plus, you have to remember, our modern aircraft are not gen 5, but late gen 4 at best. They don't have a lot of stealth features,It has nothing to do with stealth, but with ECM, not the same thing.
How react the F-14 radar in ECM envirronnement in DCS ?
if any, which means the F-14's AWG-9 won't have too much trouble picking them up,I think otherwise, we are talking about a 50 years old plane and radar technology
-
1) ECM/ECCM capability and techniques are amongst the most classified information out there. ..
That means a modern combat flight simulator can't be realistic due to classified informations.
You are right on this one, all is guestimate.
2) far enoughIt means nothing
3) Essentially with the fall of the Soviet Union and the lessening of the threat facing the carrier fleet, the need for a high performance long range fighter was reduced...mmmh, isn't just because F-18 is a more modern and better multirole fighter with better missiles...
Likewise US pretend that AIM-120D range would be has good as Meteor...no way !Sure :)
-
After reading this thread, some questions come to my mind :
- how an old aircraft like F-14, with an old radar technology can track a modern fighter with a modern ECM pod
- what is the burn-throug range of the old radar of F-14, to have a lock, to launch his old missile, with poor manouevrability, and old technology
- why the us navy replace the F-14 with F-18, if f-14 is better ? because in DCS, f-14 seems to be better than F-18 for BVR
Is it due to DCS limitation, because all that seems to be pure fiction
-
RTFM was more a joke in the falcon days, bad habit :), will not use it anymore and sorry if it feel condescending.
-
Relax man, as far as I know the "official" manual is the Deka quick guide that precisely says nothing in the TWS section.
I am relax.
There is no official manual, only a quick guide.
Except that you look at the HOTAS diagram attached in that case you can see clearly p.73.I'm going to get the chuck guide, thanks.
Best regards
What i see on the diagram is the exact same thing as Chuck guide.
"Chang azimuth scan range
(Except TWS mode)"
and it's the official DEKA diagram
Don't understand what you mean ?
Best regards
-
RTFM
CHUCK Guide p. 134
In TWS mode, the S2 Sensor Control Switch has the following functions:
• FWD: Increases Display Distance
• AFT: Decreases Display Distance
• LEFT: Cycles between RWS, TWS and VS modes
• RIGHT: No function.
-
I don't have much detail to provide yet, but there seems to be a tendency that RWS/TWS/VS won't pick up contacts(including friendly) further than 40nm(in PVP). Some players on discord are also experiencing the same issue.
I pretty much haven't seen contacts at 80nm range scale, and there're times where they won't show up until ~20nm, or just won't show up at all(rare).
And I'm pretty sure the contacts were within my radar perimeter with a high closure rate.
I can confirm.
and same problem with ACM modes, sometimes it get a lot of time to have a lock
-
Probably because RWS has no 25 degree, only 30
30 degree ??
There is no 30 degree, it's 10 degree (20/2) 25 degree (50/2) or 60 degree (120/2)
Default TWS is 25 degree (50/2)
Default RWS is 60 degree (120/2)
-
If i cycle with S2 Left, TWS --->VS--->RWS---->TWS, the new TWS azimuth is 60° not 25° like default Azimuth TWS mode.
Seems to be a bug
-
Это обычная фанатская подозрительность.
Болельщикам каждого футбольного клуба кажется, что судья подыгрывает соперникам.
And sometimes they are right...
-
-
..but does not mean it is equal to the Rafale,
No fighter is equal to the Rafale :)
That's the reason why PAF need Block III or even more.Correct PAF need Block III at least.
-
Off board guidance or CEC is NOT supported by Jeff. It's just a cost-effective A/C, not a super advanced heavy fighter .:lol:
??
Cost effective does not necessarily mean less effective.
JF-17 is design to be the backbone of PAF and to compete with the best fighters of the world (rafale, su30 mki)
Block III with sd-10B will have the ability to awacs missile guidance and PAF want to make block II compatible too.
Then the JF-17 will be a cost effective aircraft, but a super advanced heavy fighter too :)
-
fps hit is mormal, but big fps hit + stutters is not.
My post is for peolple who have big fps hit + stutters.
It's more frequent in air start.
With my solution, no big fps hit and stutters, smooth as silk using ag radar and pod
-
It seems to be a conflict between vsync and ED ground radar API.
Try this :
- deactivate Vsync in game
- modify maxfps in graphic.lua to match your refresh rate monitor (mine is 60)
- in Nvivia panel activate Vertcal sync and choose option "FAST" (important)
Thats all.
Let me know if that works for you
-
Also what is sound? do all humans hear it the same? for example is my color red the same as your color red? what if you see my 'green' and call it red? until these questions are answered deka shouldn't touch the sound XD
Are you ok ?
AIM 120C getting upgrade
in DCS: F-14A & B
Posted · Edited by sylkhan
Yes, i can confirm
Question :
Would the AIM-54 Phoenix have been capable of engaging enemy fighters successfully if given the chance in combat?
Answer :
As usual, it depends.
Against first- or second-generation fighters with limited or no countermeasures, it would likely have been effective - the targets would have no idea they were being detected and tracked by the AWG-9 and no idea there were AIM-54s inbound until they started exploding, so the weapon would have been pretty lethal.
Against more capable targets… there’s a lot of detail about how you counter long-range missiles, and even things like “turn forty-five degree now… and turn ninety degrees the other way now…” can greatly reduce the effectiveness of a long-range shot if timed about right (for which you need a decent radar warning receiver), while chaff, jamming and evasion on “Phoenix seeker head!” would also be pretty effective: the missile was designed to intercept large bombers, not agile fighters, and didn’t have a lot of endgame manoeuvre capability.
The couple of US firings while policing the “no fly zones” over Iraq were not lethal (though they were very persuasive in asking the Iraqi aircraft to cease and desist at the highest possible speed). Iran claimed a lot of kills with its F-14/AIM-54 combo, but it’s very hard to confirm their version with any Iraqi records and it’s a subject ripe for exaggeration and propaganda.
Phoenix was designed for a specific role (fleet air defence against standoff missile carriers) and would probably have been very good at it; it was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon and I’d be wary of assuming it would be effective in that job against reasonably capable opponents.
Paul Adam, Independent defence consultant
https://www.quora.com/Would-the-AIM-54-Phoenix-have-been-capable-of-engaging-enemy-fighters-successfully-if-given-the-chance-in-combat
You are right, stupidity is growing nowadays
Oh, and nobody is able to answer to my previous question:) strange...