DCS FIGHTER PILOT

It would be most helpful to have a Jester option that allows him to narrow or widen the scan azimuth and adjust the bar scan settings on the radar. Now I know for TWS there are only a couple of azimuth range and bar scan settings the radar must use to track targets but for RWS there are many more options. It would also be great if we could add into the scan elevation settings the degree that the radar be tilted up or down. Do you guys agree?

Jester “MISSILE 9 O’CLOCK, HOT, BREAK LEFT, shit my bad, BREAK RIGHT!!” Lmao and of course, Jester “HERE WE GO AGAIN!”

A bit old but it seems pretty legitimate http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

The Aim-54 is advertised to obtain a top speed of hypersonic values. Is the current HB Phoenix currently doing this? Top speed appears to be around 2500 knots when shot at 30000ft in game which is slightly faster than the AMRAAMS top speed. This still seems to be a bit slow. Am I wrong?

Will DCS eventually see these more “realistic” countermeasures? I would think that the older AIM-54 variants are easier to decoy but the later c I would imagine, would be much harder.

Clearly the Aim-120 is performing better but why has their not been any mention of it in the changelogs for 2.5.6 yet? What has changed and what will change?

He was. It just always seems to work though. I’m not sure if it would be that effective in reality. The best defense against a missile is to kinetically defeat it, not to decoy it.

Lately, a lot of my aim-54s have missed their target because they were spoofed by chaff. I do realize that at the moment in DCS countermeasures work on a basic level, either they work or they don’t, their is a probability assigned to each missile getting spoofed. In the future will we see better aim-54 performance against chaff or is this what it was actually like in real life?

I have noticed that the RWR will not filter out ground radar contacts when it is set to display only Airborne Interceptor Contacts. This makes finding a hostile aircraft that is nailing you in a high EW environment very difficult. Please address this as it is detrimental to situational awareness.

Below are two Videos from Falcon BMS 4.34. I know it is usually frowned upon to bring other simulations in to the discussion but I really wanted to share this with you guys. I'm not saying this is right, I HAVE ZERO MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT THIS IS, and I have no idea where benchmark got their sources but it just seems like it is more what it should be. As I have said, I think ED is getting close to getting this thing right and I hope the new virtual wind tunnel simulations will be the icing on the cake. As you will see in the videos, the Aim-120C behaves similarly to what ED has modeled but the BMS missile has a bit more energy in the end and is able to get me. The Aim-120B also gets me, barley, but is nowhere near what the ED 120B is. Also note that the top speeds of each missile seem to be the same across simulators. In each video, I am a clean F-16 and am fighting as hard as I can to defeat these missiles, unlike in the tracks. Each was fired at around 11-12nm under similar conditions from the tracks. Plus One if you like and agree with this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViSOhIud9Y&feature=youtu.be Aim-120C https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdPNUlQAjQw Aim-120B

Hasn't Deka come out and said that ED are wrong? I seem to recall hearing this from somewhere.

Here is the thing, I have little doubt that Deka modeled the SD-10 close to being correct. It is ED that I doubt. I was hoping that Deka could share with ED their data so that they would see how off they are. That does not look like it will happen.

I would imagine at this range that I would be within “range no escape.” Perhaps this is the confusion you speak of. Regardless, is any of this even going to matter after the update? What can we expect to see in the future? What are your predictions? What will this virtual wind tunnel do that has not already been done?

That would be track number 2 in the ones I posted showing the Aim-120B loosing it energy and missing under ideal conditions. Not only that but in the defense I deliberately stay under Mach one and even hit the speed brakes at the end. First one shows 120c missing under same conditions at 12 miles.

As I’m sure all of you are aware, there is a major discrepancy between ED modeled missiles and your own. I for one a very happy with what you guys have done with the SD-10 and was hoping that it would inspire much needed changes in ED’s missiles. Though it has inspired change I’m not sure if it will be enough. I know I am just the middle man here but if you could provide some much needed data to back up your modeling it would go a long way. If you have already then my apologies for this message but if you have not, why? It would clear up so much controversy and would set the benchmark for ED to shoot for.

If a radar missile can’t even intercept a target from 10 miles away under ideal conditions then why bother making them? They are not passive at close range and are very expensive. Economically speaking, if this scenario was true in reality, their existence would make little sense. At these ranges, IR missiles like the R-27T, would be just as if not more effective against the target.

Im sure you have all seen this but I will conveniently put it here for you all to see again. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131806 I mean seriously, even without the rigors of aerodynamics involved, do you honestly believe that a 21st century air to air missile would run out of energy and miss a target when fired from 10 miles away at 30000ft at over mach 1?!?!!?? As I mentioned before, from 15 miles I could see this but 10?! Come on.

Due to the fact that I can kinetically defeat it under "Ideal Conditions," from a bit over 10 miles away Fully Loaded down with ordnance!. I would easily believe this type of outcome if it were shot at around 15-20 miles but not at the ranges in the video, we seem like we are just too close to each other for the missile to lose its energy like it did. As was mentioned in another post, at these ranges we might as well be shooting heaters at each other.

That is very good to hear, I think. As of now in my opinion, (disagree if you will,) The Aim-120C is getting closer to being modeled right. The 120B is still far too dragy along with all other ED missiles. Now, I fully agree that "brochure ranges," are mainly BS under 99% of all circumstances and more just a selling strategy for the missile manufacturer. There is no way that I would expect an AMRAAM to go 40 or even 30 miles and knock a fighter jet right out of the sky. However, there comes a point where common sense sends up a red flag. I am very glad to see that newcomers are surprised and are challenging ED modeled missiles as well, (they should be!). Now, I am no aerodynamics engineer (I am actually aerospace) but the fact that an Aim-120c, One of America's Deadliest Air to Air missiles, can't successfully intercept a high flying target at 20, 15 OR EVEN 10NM is somewhat alarming. Below, I have provided some tracks from 2.5.6 showing some different scenarios. Two tracks are created under the so called, "Ideal Conditions," scenario where two aircraft are at 30000 ft closing at mach 2. In the first track I am a Heavily loaded F-18, when an Aim-120c is shot at me and as you will see, it misses by a fair amount. In the second track, I am a fully loaded F-16, when an Aim-120B is fired at me. Not only do I not break mach one in the defense but I even put on the brakes to give it a fighting chance, it still misses! :doh: Track number three shows an Aim-120C trying to intercept me at a lower altitude but closer range, which it does not. The final track shows the mighty Sd-10 knocking me right out of the sky. Here, I am a Clean F-15C, and even though I try everything to try to avoid it, it still gets me. Now I am not here to say that Deka and their work is correct, but again, in my opinion, I think they are on the right path. It would indeed certainly help if they actually provided some sources to back up their work. Regardless, this track is mainly meant to show the enormous discontinuity between ED's modeling of missiles and Dekas. I am glad to hear that more work is planning to be done on the missiles and hopefully soon, these scenarios in the first three tracks will not be possible anymore. Aim-120c Test.trk Aim-120b Test .trk Aim-120c Test 2.trk Sd-10 Test.trk

Are we at least going to get those 300 knots back that nighthawk was talking about or is that cfd result final?

Does anyone know if the AMRAAM got updated yesterday (2.5.6)? Whether it did or did not, I still believe it is underperforming. Example, two F-16’s head on, both Mach 1, 30000ft, opponent fires Aim-120c at 11nm, Defender (me) performs split S at 10nm and burns for the deck, AMRAAM looses energy and misses, closest point, a bit under half a mile. Example 2, F-16 and Jf-17, same physical parameters as in example one, opponent fires SD-10 at 11nm, defender performs split s at 10nm and burns for the deck more aggressively than before, SD-10 successfully intercepts. In reality Aim-120c should be equal or better in performance to SD-10, not completely inferior. Will we see more improvements to the Aim-120 that will bring it up to par with the Sd-10 or is this the end of the line? I for one think the SD-10 is a perfect benchmark to shoot for.

That was for the last patch, what about yesterday for 2.5.6?

I was under the impression that early this year, the AMRAAM would continue to get overhauled to perform closer to claimed values. Like the Aim-7 last year, the AMRAAM is the new test bed. It’s hard to tell though if it did get updated in the last patch (2.5.6, February 14, 2020). The change log says nothing about an update to AMRAAM but perhaps did someone forget to mention it? From what I can tell, it performs pretty much the same as it did last patch. With that in mind, I am hoping that we will see more improvements as the year progresses because as of now it still seems to be underperforming. Example, two F-16’s head on, both Mach 1, 30000ft, opponent fires Aim-120c at 11nm, Defender (me) performs split S at 10nm and burns for the deck, AMRAAM looses energy and misses, closest point, a bit under half a mile. Example 2, F-16 and Jf-17, same physical parameters as in example one, opponent fires SD-10 at 11nm, defender performs split s at 10nm and burns for the deck more aggressively than before, SD-10 successfully intercepts. Now according to Deka Ironworks and real life sources, the Sd-10 performs better than the 120b and less than the 120c. As of now in game, the first statement is painfully true but the second is clearly not. Can we expect to see more improvements to the AMRAAM as the year progresses or is this it? Can someone (official) please confirm what will happen next?

I am indeed on the AWACS channel. I have jester set the DL to mode 4a (“tactical data link,”) and then have him tune to the correct address. Some targets will then appear but as I said, many seem to be missing.

Recently I have noticed that the AWACS will call out a target it sees but it will not pop up on the mode 4A data link. Correct code is indeed set. The target could be at 20000ft but it still wont show. This really kills situational awareness.