Koty

Well, F-5's radar is quite a bit different from the RP-22. F-5 has a simple pulse radar. RP-22 has actual monopulse illuminator. So using the radar down low is not as clear cut as it could seem. Part of the issue is how the clutter is displayed, on 21's screen it's massive splooches which are easily rejected visually, unlike the false returns on F-5's screen. Second issue is finding actual data on clutter rejection. Different manuals can give you (in varying detail) description of the method used, but it might not give you the numbers. While the detection range is a bit too high, it's not unrealistic to be able to send R-3R's in someone's face. You should still be able to detect something like an F-5 at 20-25km. Note that it would be less with the low altitude filters on - but still enough to send R-3R's in their face. As far as I know, the radar's implementation had a lot of workarounds made at the time to work in the first place, hopefully it will get a redux in near future.

you could actually just turn off the outermost pylons and have a decent stand in for true cold war AJ-37, there might be other details to tune tho

If anyone is confusing definitions, it is not Ross. In air to air sense: MiG-21's primary role was air superiority. It was meant to tackle enemy fighters and fighter bombers, including enemy interceptors. MiG-21's secondary role (and I am talking strictly about original design specification) was day-fair weather air defense. It was built around its primary role, and used in its secondary role only whenever dedicated PVO units weren't available. In Warsaw pact countries, 21F's were often introduced into regiments that acted as part of PVO (alongside interceptor variants of the 21 - PF, PFM). But again, this was a secondary role, it was not designed for intercepts, it was built for air manoeuvre combat - hence focus on light weight, high speed and fast climbs - practical ceiling of the MiG-21 isn't even that great compared to aforementioned Su-9, which was a dedicated interceptor, or the Su-15 used since 1960s. Think of the large clear canopy - the F variant had excelent visibility exactly for that reason. Now, after it was in service the bureau decided to introduce a dedicated interceptor variant. Changes included adding a radar and removing guns. Reason for creating this was simple - there was not enough purpose built interceptors. In short, this is the same stupid argument as people claiming F-104 was designed as an interceptor, because it does not turn as tight as an F-16. F-104 was, just like MiG-21, designed to fight other fighters (not bombers). It was then, just like the F-15, procured by interceptor squadrons for service evaluation. By the way, FIS reports state that as an interceptor, the F-104 was terrible, unsuited even, thanks to its atrocious radar, limited fuel reserve and missile armament relying solely on the GAR-8. Pilots however liked it as they had a "real fighter" (unlike the F-102, or later the 106).

Hello, something has been on my mind for a bit. The Sparrows all use the same 3D model and texture, meaning no matter the version, they all look like F (easy way to tell difference - F has 2 windows on the nose section, M has 4). What I didn't notice until just now however is that the Phoenixes have the same issue. Apparently the texture can be changed via livery, however then it again can only represent one Phoenix visually. Could it be looked at?

High vis 7F and 9L very nice

So, how about them high-vis missiles? As in, choice of bright white 9G/H/L, 7E-4/F and 54A?

Not sure what you're on about, Hornet has fowlers as well...

Love the radar talk :) To put it into reality: ML/MLA's radar emits 40 kW peak (70kW is for M/MF) return cut-off is roughly 10^-9 W (-8 for M) - the cut-off also varies with altitude If F-16's radar emits 16kW with only slightly less range, this means it's more sensitive. But this more/less sensitive in the end does not matter. What matters is the end result, that being range. Where they are more or less equal, with slight advantage when it comes to the ML. But here's the catch - electronic warfare exists. And more powerful radar is always an advantage. Until you get down low, where the radar power becomes a hindrance - because you need to filter out all the noise you get reflecting from the ground. Even then you can find the enemy on N003 with enough time before your missiles get in range. As for GCI, it's a situational awareness thing. No, GCI will not be able to tell your enemy's energy state from the radar screen. Nor would the poor guy there be able to communicate to you quickly enough. This is the reason why even the "merge" exists. Did you know radars do not have infinite resolution? At some point, speaking about older radars, the "blips" of you and the target will merge on the screen, to the point where you cannot tell them apart. That is the "merge". More modern radars will still be able to recognize and display two separate targets, but the refresh rate and the spacing (or lack there of) will prevent the GCI from giving you any meaningful inputs. As for doctrine, air force pilots (not air defence) would be directed into an area of operations, updated on the threats, and given optimum directions to initiate the combat. This being facilitated either by an integrated command centre, dispersed command centre, or airborne command centre (A-50, Tu-126). Past that it's in the hands of the pilot, who is trained in both BVR and manoeuvre combat. Here just keep in mind that BVR was very simplistic back then, there was no cranking or weaving. At best you would launch your heat seekers and climb away.

F-15A all the way ~ your cold war gang

As for the fixed net, that is just one of three variants used on the sight unit throughout its production. This one being the mid production. Late production is what we see currently.

Well - DCS is made for fully computerized radar systems ala F-15C, MiG-29 etc. The semi-computerized stuff from MiG-21 or 19, or the plain uncomputerized CRT output on the Tiger... most of it would have to be done from scratch to be actually realistic.

yea, you could put 6x500 under the fuselage, but apparently the airframe would suffer greatly => not used in practice

Yes. The radar dish of the RP-5 is rather small and rotates in one direction; RP-21/22 dish has to stop after each sweep (also move up/down into its line). As for entering service, original P should be in second half of 1950s; the PT upgrade (added pair of pylons to launch R-3S) was carried out in second half of 1960s to my knowledge.

Yes and no. MiG-21S still did not have a gun just like P, PF and PFM - but it had, just like the PFM, a gunpod. MiG-21 bis in DCS does have a gyroscopic gunsight with automated range input. The reason why P PF and PFM did not have a gun was not because of some stupid "who would ever need a gun", but rather because there was nowhere to put it because of the radar. Hence why the GSh-23 was first installed in a gunpod (on the PFM and S) and later in a small dorsal housing. MiG-25 of course had a PKI sight, just like the aforementioned "gun-less" fighters; no clue where you heard otherwise - but it's wrong.

That in fact is not a theory. It's just misrepresented. GCI is the prefered method, as it allows the MiG's to sneak in on the enemy and perform a sudden ambush; not because the migs would be blind otherwise. It's also not PVO-thing only; the front-line aviation would also use GCI preferably until merge. One thing to keep in mind with that is that real GCI doesn't only work in the Target-BRA mode, as in DCS, but also, let's call it, Intercept-BRA, where the GCI guides you to a position best suited for attack, while keeping you hidden from the enemy radars - because notching exists. And then once in range you turn on the radar, lock, launch, evac. Or even better, you use the IRST. :thumbup: It does however bust the myth that Soviets would be blind without it. On a different note... ...would be neat to also get the original M for some early 1970s shenanigans; would go along nicely with the MiG-21bis

I am a simple man. (But it looks better on the Phantom)

maybe... he wants the other Hokum Yes please ^^

I mean, isn't she beautiful with the CFT's? At least give me that for the FC3 one; bombs are secondary.

Personally I really dislike calling something "multi-role", it's way too confusing. F-15 built as a knife-fighter first, and then bomb-lugging capability squeezed in utilizing just what was already on the plane (hence "no pound for air to ground"); and the Typhy is for all intents and purposes a bomber with self-escort capability. In any case. Yes, give me my F-15C, with a pair of CFT's - and three MK84s underneath, just to make all the fanboys mad.

*machine velded (seen the welding process) **no actual exposed rivets the way they are described, the plane is very smooth overall from aerodynamic viewpoint ***Empty mass 20 000 kg, 15 000 kg of fuel ****G limit 3.8 for the recon variant, 4.4 for the fighter variant Further, both MiG-25 and 31 are surprisingly manouverable; we are speaking of quite a large wing with Cy_max of 1.1, possibly more for MiG-31 thanks to the wing glove, but actual value would be classified ;)

N008 would make it MLD, wouldn't it?

That is the inherent issue with early-access products. When releasing footage yourself, you can simply say "don't mind this, this is just place-holder"; when you actually let people try it out, they don't have this commentary and cannot tell what is finalized and what is not - and will inevitably assume that things that look at least half pretty or plausible are supposed to be finalized or at least representative of what the final product will work like...

Exactly as you say. The one antena would be blinded on the ground. In DCS practice, it would be the same as having the option in the load-out menu.

Well technically they could do full-fledged IFF for MiG-19 v MiG-19 situations. However it would be limited to Razbam only - for anything else it would of course follow the default logic, unless speifically told to follow such hypothetical new code.

I'll drop my 5 cents. 1) How air target return looks: It looks exactly the same as RP-21 return, except it's scanned from one side only (the scan radar does not oscilate, it rotates). Not only that, but it technically consists of two radars, one for upper hemisphere, one for lower (so in practice, MiG-19 has 3 radars, one for tracking and two for scanning). You have 3 types of returns, above, below and centre. As the radar duo rotates (let's have one rotation = one period), in first semi-period it shows targets above, in second semi-period it shows targets below. Centre-target is a target that can be viewed by both radar scanners (it is where the FOV's of the two dishes overlap) and will be per one period shown twice. Similar principle is used in RP-21, except here you have one dish doing both sweeps. Do also note that a single target gives multiple returns dependent on its size. Go to 2:10 to see the RP-21 iconography visualized: UbqHsXLqwJY 2) Ground return: RP-1/2/5 is not stabilized and the scanning plane is perpendicular to plane's vertical axis at all times. Therfore, in a perfect 90° bank, only one half of the screen will be cluttered. And while the radar cannot be used below 3600 meters of altitude, pilots were trained to perform intercepts of targets flying as low as 500 m, while themselves being at 100 m of altitude above ground. What was their trick? Simply blinding the dish for scanning below. This method is described in a book I've read recently, ISBN:978-80-7573-012-1