jojo

I don't think it is as simple as "misaligned by 7-8 pixels". If you close in to a waypoint in low altitude, at 10Nm where you can see the +, the symbol will look like it's into the ground. Then, the closer you get, the + is moving up and finally looks like it's on the surface when you are very close. So the problem is more likely compensation of RADAR/ HUD distance for parallax.

Seen on multiple modules, M-2000C, F-16... There's a video where a F-16 goes as high as 28G passing through wake turbulence.

Ok, I see, both pilot and RIO are credited for kills :D

F-16A was designed with emphasis on close air to air combat. It did evolve as increasingly more and more capable multirole fighter, gaining weight and trying to compensate with more powerful engine. The bigger F/A-18A was multirole from the beginning. Ultimately, AIM-9X + JHMCS are meant to “simplify” the dogfight and to avoid having to turn too much.

TLC ? The problem is that from the beginning this was a big and complex airframe, not cheap to operate. And with airframes nearly 30 years old, it was even worse.

I’m afraid these are general ED’s AI issues. For instance, with another module, I realised that if you want to order the wingman to go refuel, you must not be too far from it, or maybe him. I didn’t took the time to fully investigate the issue. Maybe if there is a waypoint close to the tanker, you can order to go to that waypoint, and when he’s there go refuel. In the end, you have to babysit your AI wingmen, but not limited to Tomcat :doh:

And there is the timeline. The Hornet and F-16 we have in DCS are year 2005 or later. The Tomcat we have...I don't know exactly but probably from the 90's. And a cooperation Tomcat for long range shot and Hornet for closer threat is surely deadly :smilewink: Because even if you manage to escape Phoenix, being engaged by Hornet while you recommit isn't a dream situation.

Thanks, this will make a challenging target :D

Can we play this mini campaign in MP, at least with human RIO ?

Very interesting. Thanks a lot :thumbup:

At least the F-4J AWG-10 weapon system already had "look down" capacity with Pulse Doppler mode. F-4S is an upgrade of F-4J. I don't know it they really reached "shoot down" capacity.

Good summary :thumbup: Just the “waypoint not in the right place” which wasn’t a problem last time I checked with INS drift off. Will retry... The missing release consent in CCPL + PI is a bug. But DCS mission editor ruler (or F10 map) doesn’t provide accurate enough data. Given INS drift rate, this is the only mode where you would attack on coordinates, the Initial Point designation acting as INS update shortly before release. In direct CCPL or CCIP you would have eyes on target, you don’t attack waypoint in blind mode :smilewink:

The thing is that in the good conditions, the AIM-54 is so fast that it doesn't need a lot of lead angle. So even when target reverses turn, it doesn't need to turn as much and to take as much angle as a slower missile, so not that much Gs. And this is TacView replay...

Good reminder :thumbup:

Look at the video, the control column is full pitch down on the ground. But I’ll check the travel range in the sim, maybe it’s correct as it is...

I would say that: - the stick is resting in full pitch down when not in the hand (like the control surfaces). - the camera may not be exactly at head level. Maybe there is a little bit of room for improvement.

You're a clown. Yes, to carry 4 Phoenix with useful range and loiter time with useful maneuvering capability you need a Tomcat. A Flanker isn't a small fighter in my book, and with 18t empty weight the Su-33 isn't that far from Tomcat. MiG-29S range is nowhere near that of the Tomcat, even with one bag. And the MiG-29 radar doesn't have the useful range to take full advantage of Phoenix. Take the time to watch that about Tomcat design. The Desert Storm failures have been discussed already. You have just discovered that missile engines are aging. And 3 missiles aren't enough to make useful statistics. Read Tom Cooper about Iranian Tomcat. Iranians claims are the be taken with a grain of salt, yet Irak did loose a certain amount of fighters to the Tomcat. They had to use ambush tactics with Mirage F1 EQ and Super 530F to make a few kill. Head on fight wasn't a viable option. For a mission similar to the Tomcat with a similar missile (R-33) the MiG-31 is even bigger ! Finally, make the test. Put a Tomcat in front of you and get shot by Phoenix. Then try to turn hard. Use TacView. You will see that the missile doesn't need to lead much because of speed. So when you change direction, it doesn't need to pull crazy amount of G as you think. You can loose the missile with beaming and chaffs (so it isn't unbeatable). But it's more complicated to recommit.

Because you need fighters as big as F-14 or MiG-31 (R-33) to carry this class of missiles !!! :doh:

I would be interested by your source about SD10, it's hard to find. Thanks

Small piece of advice: Aero breaking isn't meant to decrease lading run length. It's meant to lower braking system wear. If you land on short runway, you're supposed to ground the nose wheel as ASAP and use breaks. - On touch down: extend air brake - put nose wheel down - break and apply full aft stick :smilewink:

The thing is that public specifications are generally firing range. It doesn't tell you interception range So if it's firing range against missile coming in straight at you at M0.9, it isn't the same thing than a fighter making evasive maneuvers.

Not that much. From what I found it does improve initial roll rate and roll-yaw coordination (improved departure resistance).

Indeed, our version is prior upgrade.

F-14B has also been upgraded with Digital Flight Control System.

It isn’t a F-4C. Mirage 2000 has “relaxed stability”. The more you load it with bombs and tanks the more it is unstable in pitch. To the point where the pilote has to restrict AoA lower than 20° to avoid unrecoverable pitch up. You still have 6G and 150°/s roll rate in CHARGES mode Vs 9G and 270°/s in AA. Su-27SK Max roll rate is 180°/s. For the drag, Mirage 2000 is very slick. Even loaded with wing tanks, targeting bombs and GBU, it can still push to 600kt/ M0.95 on MIL power. IRL you can do partial filling of the tanks. This kind of display is performed with empty wing tanks, but you can see it’s still performing very well. Look what is planned for F-35 external tanks...