jojo

And Greek Mirage 2000 EG got the Super 530D even later than the French Air Force. They did effectively operate in QRA with 4 x Magic 2. But Mirage 2000 EG are on Blue side :music_whistling:

About flying the F-15E solo... It's a McDonnell Douglas strike fighter, like the F/A-18D. USMC just decided to kill the WSO role, they announced that pilots will fly the F/A-18D in solo. F-15E avionics seem to have a lot in common with F/A-18, at least for the cockpit ergonomic. And having to deal with Jester, I'm glad we will be able to handle the weapon system from the front seat :joystick:

Yes, DCS doesn’t seem to handle very well decoys pod. The correct numbers with ECLAIR pod loaded is 130 chaffs and 32 flares.

I seriously doubt it. Don't confuse standard practice and possibility. Both radar and Magic have specific search patterns. You have specific button to change search pattern or break lock for each one. Only the slave button is common.

This is pretty standard practice for scaled model makers. They put in the same box the options to make various variants of the same aircraft. So the box is labeled "Mirage 2000C" and the painting on the box is an early Mirage 2000-5F in test with CEAM of Mont de Marsan, squadron 05/ 330 at the time (today 01/ 30). And that painting is bad since it isn't the same number on the tail and on the nose gear door...

I wouldn't go that far :lol: :pilotfly:

Atlantique 2 maritime patrol aircraft.

- it's black - not it isn't - it's black - no it isn't - ok, whatever...

So contrary to your previous declaration, it's indeed a gamma issue. Don't fly at noon in the summer, pretty harsh light too IRL. Gamma 2.2 is the norm for any computer graphical application, 3D, photography, movies...

Screeshot please. What is your gamma setting ?

Yes, the easiest way would be that the lazing unit gives you target coordinates. Enter coordinates in PCN and you will be able to perform a CCRP designation to release GBU on target.

This is easier, but it isn't mandatory. You can do without it, and it was done by several types of fighters in combat.

Hi, You should contact Patlog :smilewink: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3520167#post3520167

Radar Doppler Multimode. There are more differences than just the radar. And description of weapon system use with Exocet is very difficult to find (I tried).

To my knowledge it isn’t available yet.

Hi, yes there is a bug after using AA gun or MAG. The HUD partially stay in combat mode (see G and AoA still displayed). You can get rid of it by cycling AG gun (select, go into attack mode, exit and unselect in PCA).

I don't know where you took your data ? All this is false, Argentina doesn't have Mirage 2000 to begin with. Brazilian F-2000 were former Mirage 2000C S3 with M53-5 engine and S4 weapon systems (=RDI radar, no "sea mode" for Exocet) made available by French Mirage 2000-5F upgrade. These planes never carried the weapons you describe.

There are different things which can limit the full use of kinetic performances. For instance, on AIM-7F above, Vs 2m² RCS target, they can't lock the missile before 22Nm. And we have to make the difference between firing range and interception range. The Super 530D has a self destruction timer at 45s. The best data I have is that: https://www.3af.fr/sites/default/files/comaero_03.r.carpentier_missiles_tactiques.pdf The Super 530 D is the version adapted to the Mirage 2000 equipped with an on-board pulse Doppler radar (called RDI, pulse Doppler radar). The main differences in characteristics compared to the F are as follows: - semi-active Doppler EMD homing device (see Chapter 8, EMD), with 1980 digital technology (microprocessor for management); significantly increased range of the AD: 50 km; very high resistance to modern countermeasures ; - partially digitalized computer driver; - more powerful vehicle: increased mass and length (+ 30 kg and + 265 mm), 16 % higher total impulse thruster, with a SEP composite envelope ; - performance: maximum speed of Mach 5; increased possible height difference, allowing the attack of targets at 24 000 m; minimum target altitude of 60 m; maximum firing distance of 50 km, with an interception distance of 35 km. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) In this case the maximum lock range of the target is 27Nm, but the target's RCS isn't specified. The lanch parameters aren't specified either, but for sure this is high performance firing (high altitude & supersonic). Obviously, this data point isn't enough to cover the whole firing envelope. In my previous test at M1.6/ FL350, the missile reached 20.5Nm/ 38km. So we are pretty close...

Ok, throw your numbers then, what range do you expect with what launching parameters for Super 530D ? But your Nasa slide is for a very different missile with much shorter range. There is no meaningful range gain excepted in almost vertical dive. And keep in mind these are launching ranges, not missile travel range.

Look at the Vertical Launch on this one: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf You don't gain much if any in shoot down. But in shoot up from sea level, your missile going up will have increased range because of lower air density.

The problem with slide you are referring to is that it’s a short range missile test. In horizontal flight that’s just 4 000m range at 6 000m altitude. If you are shooting from 6000m to at a target at sea level and just 2000m ahead of you, that’s a hell of a steep dive (72°). So off course here the gravity is helping the missile. When I’m shooting from 20 000ft to a target at 1 000ft, and the missile travels for 9Nm, that’s just 19° dive angle. I will add that “drag defence” (turning cold and diving) is a valid defensive tactic against any missile in game, and in any flight simulator I have been playing with missiles. So it would mean that absolutely everyone is wrong on this aspect.

I wasn’t comparing to AIM-7, I meant that in game the missile doesn’t reach advertised top speed. Shot at M1.6 it barely reaches M4.2, it’s +2.6. I think it should be more. But if you increase top speed alone, you will increase range. And the maximum ranges are not that bad compared to open source data. And I disagree with you on that point. I don’t think that kinetic energy and gravity will overcome drag in shoot down. In you graph, the Cd is never negative, minimum for Cl = 0 is 0.4 at M6.0

Look at your missiles range table. From 30 000ft to 50 000ft you get more than double the range. From 30 000ft to 10 000ft you get less than half the range So if you travel up, you will gain range.(loft profile) If you travel down you will loose range. In high performance launch we can’t get the maximum out of Super 530D because of self destruction at 45 seconds. Above FL200 the missile will self destruct at supersonic speed. Below it will slow down <M1.0 before 45s. I don’t know for sure if the speed profile is accurate enough ? The top speed seems lower than advertised (barely M4.2 when shot at M1.6). So I tend to think that the missile should have higher acceleration to reach higher speed. But on the other hand, the range seems good compared to available open source data. So maybe it should also have ate the same time: - higher thrust & top speed - higher drag.