DCS FIGHTER PILOT

After reading up a bit on ECM jamming, its clear that ED's modeling of it in game is still extremely simplified. For instance, fighters with noise jammers, such as the F-16, the FC3 aircraft, the Jf-17, the M-2000c and the F-14, can jam the entire operational radar spectrum with seemingly unlimited power as there appears to be no limit on how many radars can be jammed at once. This would seem to suggest that ED has implemented an unrealistic form of "barrage jamming" for the jammers of these airplanes. On the flip side, up to this point, jamming of surveillance radars (such as the ones found on AWACS), appears to be impossible making fighters with DL nearly immune to any loss of SA. The only airplanes that seem to model ECM jamming in more depth are the Hornet and Viper which appear to use deceptive jamming tactics (i.e. RGPO, VGPO, etc.) to break radar locks. However even this seems to greatly simplified as regardless of the victims radar power, the burn through range seems to be set at a static value of about 20 nautical miles. Additionally once the deceptive jammer is activated, it appears to act as a noise jammer for any other radar pointed at it. Are there any plans to change/improve the modeling of ECM in DCS or this the best we can hope for? `

Not only that but even if you do manage to bail out/eject over the water, the pilot will immediately drown the second they touch the water.

They actually just updated the pilot damage model to where now he can be killed in flight. Before, the only way to die from anything was to explode, from like a phoenix hitting you in the face, or crashing. Also before, Jester would always be incapacitated the second something came in contact with the jet.

As I mentioned, it seems to be more of a multiplayer issue. I tried recreating it in the mission editor but no go. I suppose the best thing to do is to try an capture it when it happens. I will say the behavior is very similar to your first post where the missile can't decide on whether to track the plane or the missile it fired.

As of right now in game, pretty much any missile (large or small) that ends up touching your plane (large or small) kills your pilot. The only exception to this seems to be the FC3 aircraft that can take an excessive amount of damage before the pilot is killed. There are many in game examples that I can present here where the fatal impact of a missile is questionable but I have decided to use two just to get my point across. Apparently an AIM-9X, with a 9.4 kg warhead, that ends up hitting an F-14 or F-15E (some of the largest fighters in game) in the stern at relatively low speed proves almost always fatal for the entire crew. Tracks Below. To further support the argument that pilots in DCS are killed too easily, I would like to point out a real world example. Captain Scott O'Grady was an F-16 pilot who was shot down by an SA-6 over Bosnia and Herzegovina in June 1995. Granted, its impossible to know exactly what happened (i.e. where the missile hit his plane, whether or not it was a proxy fuse etc.) but he did survive and apparently with no major injuries. Other examples can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War F-14 Kill with 9x.trk F-15E Kill with 9x.trk

I would also like to point out that the Aim-120B will often times chase a missile fired from the target aircraft instead of the aircraft towards the end of flight. At least this is the case in MP.

Would you be able to share with the community how you arrived at this conclusion?

It should go without saying that in the heat of combat, it is often necessary to rapidly change the scan zone of a radar. When using Jester to do so in the F-14, it can take upwards of 10 seconds to change the scan zone of the radar antenna, scan mode, and display range to where it needs to be to track a target. Such a delay during close range engagements often results in the Tomcat, with Jester as the RIO, finding itself in a very undesirable situation. An experienced human RIO on the other hand, can reposition the radar antenna, change modes, range, etc., within seconds (see attached). If Jester is the only RIO available however, I recommend the following to make things more realistic. As soon as a command is issued in the Jester menu to change a radar parameter, the result should be close to immediate. After several commands, the time it takes for Jester to change everything, will be much closer to what a human RIO could do. Again, it should go without saying but in reality, (given good SA), the RIO should know which target to focus on without much direction from the Pilot (and even if he did not, its a simple "Track the low Bandit to the left!" kind of speach through the ICS). Hopefully such a change would bring about more realism and make the Tomcat more competitive as this is its largest hindrance as of know in my opinion. Switching Targets.trk

Hello all, Currently doing a CFD analysis for the Aim-120B and was wondering what the properties of exhaust are so that I can model that within the CFD software. i.e. mass flow rate, exhaust pressure, flow velocity, burn time etc.

I could very well be wrong (seeing as how the two missiles and their methods of guidance are different), but given that an Aim-7 can guide back onto a target after losing lock (at least in game as of now), is it incorrect to assume that a more advanced AMRAAM could perform similar feats? Aim-7P Recovery.trk

So is there any way to recover an AMRAAM that is already launched on a target that is no longer being tracked or is it done? I would think that all you would need to do is to find and track the target again but apparently this is incorrect.

After launching an AMRAAM on a target, there are many reason why you might have to break away and lose radar contact with it for a brief time. In the Viper, after radar contact is lost, the FCR only stores the tracks last known state for a few seconds regardless of what value target history is set to on the FCR control page. Once it is gone, your only hope of hitting the target is if the ARMAAM finds it itself (which lately, seems very unlikely). The Hornet on the other hand, can store the track in its memory for up to 32 seconds which gives it the ability to re-acquire it even after radar contact is lost. In this case, an AMRAAM launched after radar contact loss will still successfully guide on the target. Is the Viper's short target history a bug or is this truly how its radar works? Regardless, because of this, I have wasted many AMRAAMs that would have otherwise intercepted their targets. F-16 Target Memory.trk F-18 Target Memory.trk

It is my understanding that if a track file is lost/dropped while an AMRAAM, SD-10, R-77, or Aim-54 is in flight, the missile will guide to the last known estimated location of the target at the time of pitbull. In game as of now, this is also true even if the track is reacquired. I suppose the older radars and missiles that are modeled in DCS currently do not have the ability to reengage lost contacts. Fine, I guess. The problem is, if a track is lost while a fox 3 is in flight, even if the target makes a very slight deviation from its original course, the missile will fail to track. In the track below, I fire on a target with both an Aim-120B and Aim-120C-5, the track is lost due to the excessively harsh lookdown penalty (another issue all together) and the missiles fail to track the target even though it made a slight deviation. AMRAAM No Track.trk

Very cool stuff, I have been waiting on this for a very long time. In regards to the F-14’s ECM jammer, would it really act as a noise jammer (as it does now in game) or more like the Hornets jammer (it only turns on when a radar is locking it)? Also, like most other planes in DCS, would using the jammer bleed off radar performance?

In every picture I have seen of the F-15E, the targeting pod seems to always be there which makes me wonder, is it actually part of the jet (like the TCS on the F-14) or can it be removed (to increase performance)?

Heck I was able to do this most of the time against real players. Now if you drop the track for just a second (at any point in the missiles flight), you run a very high risk of the missile missing.

Should the missile seeker still see the target (as it does not deviate much) and still go after it? Before this update that is what was happening.

I just ran a couple of tests. It seems to be if the radar track is lost, even for a moment, the missile fails to go active on the target and as it passes it, it goes nuts (i.e. the 40g turn and wobbling). Interestingly enough though, the Hornet still seems to be able to make the missile go active even if the track is lost briefly. In the Viper and Eagle though, as I mentioned, if the track is lost for just a second, it does not go active even though it appears to be homing in on the target (See the tracks). AMRAAM No Pitbull.trk AMRAAM No Pitbull2.trk AMRAAM No Pitbull3.trk

I know someone who is a former Tomcat pilot who also test fired the Phoenix on at least one occasion. Would this individual be revealing classified military secrets if he simply confirmed or denied that the phoenix was Mach 5 capable? I mean, the last thing I would want to do is to get this person in trouble.

Hey guys. Forgive me for not wanting to scroll through all 300 replies on this topic but what are your thoughts on the new top speed of the missile? To me it seems very slow now. The other day I launched a Mk47 and Mk60 at 50,000 ft and Mach 1.8 and the missile only got up to Mach 4.2. I did not do the math on the rocket motor and Nobel geometry so I have no right to claim this is wrong but it does seem as if it’s slower than what it should be.

I have noticed how easy it is to shoot down enemy AI planes (even at the ace level) and I think its because of fact that they get too darn slow when defending against missiles. As you can see in the AI tracks, instead of going into full afterburner to get away from the incoming missile as fast as possible, they throttle down which makes them sitting ducks. In the second track, it almost appears as if the AI wanted the missile to smack into it. I get that the AI is a very complex topic and that there is no single or easy solution to this problem. Perhaps in the meantime the team might consider just having the defending AI plane burn away as fast as possible like in the track where I go on the defense in the Mig-29. Better_AMRAAM_Defence.trk AI_AMRAAM_Defence.trk AI_AMRAAM_Defence2.trk

Similar to, the radar look down penalty for the Viper seems too severe in some cases and appears to take on a static value, (if you will) past a certain differential altitude. As one can see in the tracks, given look up, co-alt, or very mild look down conditions , a Viper can detect and track another Viper at around 40nm. From here, if the differential altitude between the two planes is increased very slightly from the very mild look down condition, detection and tracking range plummet from around 40nm to 27nm. This number more or less holds as the differential altitude continues to increase. I'm not 100% sure how look down penalty is modeled in DCS, but I would imagine the real world mathematical relationship between detection range and differential altitude (and likely closer speed) is transcendental in nature (i.e. no sharp drop off's/discontinuities). In game right now, it appears as if (whether it is intended or not), there is a simple "step function" like relationship between all the parameters. If this is the most complex thing the team can model now I understand but if it is not, it would be nice to have this addressed in the near future as it very much impacts gameplay. Thanks. Co-Alt.trk Look_Up.trk Mild_Look_Down1.trk Mild_Look_Down2.trk Mild_Look_Down3.trk Extreme_Look_Down.trk

I know its been awhile now since it came out but thanks for adding the KS-19 and Fire can radar to the air defense arsenal guys. I put this request in the wish list awhile back and it seems as if it was received by the team! This will certainly make attacking ground assets defended by these things much more interesting now.

4 Tracks From The Most Recent Open Beta Update 1st Track: Co-Altitude with Viper head on, 35,000ft Mach 1: Detection Range~45nm, Tracking Range~41nm 2nd Track: Look Up With Viper head on, Viper Altitude and Speed 35,000ft and Mach 1, Hornet Altitude and speed 20,000ft and Mach 1: Detection Range~40nm, Tracking Range~37nm. 3rd Track: Mild Look Down With Viper, Both Planes ~ Mach 1, Viper altitude 25,000ft, Hornet Altitude 35,000ft: Detection Range~30nm, Tracking Range~27nm. 4th Track: Extreme Look Down With Viper, Both Planes ~Mach 1, Viper Altitude 2500 AGL, Hornet Altitude 35,000ft: Detection Range~30nm, Tracking Range~27nm. As one can see, there exists a striking similarity in terms of detection and tracking ranges between tracks 3 and 4 even though the differential altitude between the two aircraft is far more extreme in the later. It seems as if the radar look down penalty is simply modeled here and reverts to prescribed values regardless of altitude difference past a certain differential altitude. Additionally, though I have not tested it thoroughly yet I believe this issue still affects the Viper. Co-Alt.trk Look_Up.trk Mild_Look_Down.trk Mild_Look_Down.trk Extreme_Look_Down.trk

Anyone willing to share a good tactic they have come up with to splash notchers flying solo? I would imagine the solution for this flying in a group would be somewhat trivial as all you would have to do is flank the target (it’s difficult to notch two or more radars at once right?)