Tiger-II

People need to remember that the base line for RCS in DCS is totally broken. It would require a total re-work from RADAR emission powers, frequencies, and pulse models, to calculating RCS for everything, accurately, to knowing the sensitivity of receivers used to see reflected emissions in order to detect things in the first place. RCS isn't "a value"; it is a whole bunch of factors that DCS simply does not consider. Let's say an F-15E can see an F-16 head-on, co-altitude, at 35 NM, well... it tells us nothing about how an SA-3 sees it from the ground.

If you refuel on the ground with tanks still loaded, they are not refilled.

Wow... people can't stop attacking the Jeff, can they? Anything to make it worse. Ever notice that? Did you consider the drag is TOO HIGH on the F-18 or F-16? You can't even compare them like that. I have a document for the Harrier that shows a TER has massively more drag empty that when loaded, because the gaps INDUCE DRAG, and the gaps are closed when loaded making them more streamlined! I wish people would get a clue before mouthing off about "toO MuCh pErFormAncE! NERF IT!". From just flying it, the double pylons induce a lot of drag. Thrust settings are higher, fuel burn is astronomical, and cruise climb is notably degraded. Unless the drag was greatly reduced since the last time I flew, I actually question if the pylons induce too much drag. Did you look at the pylons for the F-5? They are like flying with the speedbrake permanently extended. It has demonstrably too much drag, but they still haven't corrected it.

In a museum near me are RCS models of the Canberra and the F-35 (yes, you read that correctly). How we have an RCS model of the F-35 I don't know, but it's there. You might find this interesting: It's not only about "sharp edges" or "frontal area", but how RADAR energy is returned to the transmitter. A small mirror the size of your little finger can reflect bright sunlight that can be seen for miles, but a sheet of A3 paper will not. The OP's attempt at calculating RCS is laughable to say the least. The fact the F-35 has a large frame inside the canopy shows that it is not nearly as critical to RCS as previously assumed. Just because a few Vipers had golden canopies doesn't mean it was effective. We also don't know why some of them were fitted with it, and others not. Maybe there was a specific threat or theatre of operations that required it. We will never know. The canopy design of the F-35 is also plain weird. Why it has that solid frame when they are capable of making bubble canopies defies logic (and I don't care about "sensor fusion" and ability to see through the cockpit - it is still a visual obstruction). As for the Jeff being "cheap [junk]", it isn't. If you look at how it is built, it is actually very well designed. The F-16 had an export model for about 3 weeks. They scrapped the program and started selling the "full fat" model instead. The original plan was to include engines that deliberately overheated so they couldn't match the performance of the US versions, but I guess someone realized that was just a dumb idea.

It has done this for a long time. The only way to avoid it is to launch when level (pitch < +9 degrees).

Not sure what a track will tell you? 5000 ft altitude delta. Launch aircraft is below (RADAR is look-up), yet the SD-10 is at 65000 ft clearly going for the Moon at merely 565 kts. There is no flight profile where that is reasonable. The missile is out of energy flying straight up.

Hi, Some time ago I profiled the F-16 in another sim to find the optimum AoA to fly for a given gross weight/drag factor. The results were quite interesting. Empty, the optimum AoA was 6 degrees; at medium weight 4.2 degrees, and at max weight, 4.5 degrees. Higher drag factor added 0.5 degrees to the required AoA (so max weight with high drag stores worked out at 4.7 degrees). I think AeriaGloria was working on making determinations about drag index for the Jeff. Would anyone be interested in optimum profile for the Jeff? It takes about a day to compile the figures, and I hope the flight model is pretty much done, so it won't be a waste of time to fly lots of profiles with different stores to collect data.

SA depends on the pilot to a large extent. Jeff with SPJ (combined with the rear-aspect MLWS) is a pretty potent package though.

I remember them saying some time ago they were burned-out by MFD development (it's not easy to do in DCS), and so their next aircraft would have more conventional instrumentation. Speculate away...

It's possible that while NK are making the airbase compatible with the aircraft, that it could be all Chinese aircrew and ground staff/maintenance. NK gain by having Chinese protection. China gains by denying USA to NK airspace, and no secrets are lost. NK could claim they are operating them; I doubt China would care.

As ^^^ said... rolling g limits is a thing, and the Jeff can break them easily. Actually, it is easily done in any aircraft, but Jeff seems to respect it the most.

DCS currently has a hard limit of 20 NM for targeting pods. Whether this will be increased in future is unknown.

Interesting. Thanks!

Works pretty well in the Shark. First you dodge the Tor, then find a place to kill it. You need to prioritize targets. The one shooting at you is top of the list, unless there is another stopping you from positioning to kill the one shooting at you... No, the two are not contradictory. The second pilot isn't required from a systems perspective. Flying and weapons can be done by a single pilot, but you lose the second human's eyes and cognition. I personally find it odd to keep jumping seats.

Perhaps the most annoying part of flying it. After every update, you need to question weapons effectiveness. That just shouldn't happen, and is all because of the controversy of the SD-10 vs. AIM-120 performance. Yes, SD-10 is THAT GOOD, but those who fly against it want to fly the F-16 and kill stuff 60 NM away every time (just as unrealistic). There are tons of videos of the DCS F-16 being flown at 55000 ft. LOL! IRL, SD-10 proved so capable, it became a SAM system with >90% PK.

I always pull up to 10-15 degrees before firing. I also have A LOT of speed (>500 kts/M0.90)

Perhaps a dumb question (I seem to be asking a lot of those lately...), but is it possible to employ any weapons from the pilot seat without a gunner of any kind? I know from trying to operate the Tomcat single-crew and jumping seats just seemed wrong, and I personally didn't like it. I'm out of trial time to dig into anything, and if the AH-64 requires AI or a human to operate even slightly, then there are better options for me to get right now (e.g. M-2000C). I'm not hating on the AH-64 - it looks to be a great module and I had fun in the 5 minutes I spent flying it. I shouldn't have started the trial right before Christmas!

Gazelle FM is improperly modelled. They made a mistake of the flight control giving rates like a FBW system rather than disc angle. A damn shame because it would easily be my favorite. The Kiowa is already 2 years over-due. I'm not optimistic it will be correct, and even less optimistic the Gazelle will be fixed. I fly the 'Shark using western tactics, and it works. Just because it was designed to be flown a certain way doesn't preclude other or better ways of flying it. It was just suited to a specific way of thinking at that time. Threats change, and so must the tactics. We are trying to compare helicopters with 6th/7th/8th gen warfare that we see today. I'm not sure anything subsonic or low level can survive now. I have my own thoughts, and they will remain that way as I don't want to violate forum rules. If we keep things "of the period", then they are all potent weapons systems if employed correctly. The Ka-50, Mi-24, Gazelle, and Apache are all capable of killing armor. Where they differ is in survivability and the threat environment in which they can operate. I think I'm OK to say that helicopters and tanks have no place on today's battlefield. It's either high-altitude stand-off delivery platforms, or missiles, or tiny drones. The face of warfare has I think changed for the foreseeable future. We need to forget the modern battlefield in these comparisons.

To add: while 23000 lbs is MGW, it should still fly, correct? What would be the correct way to take off in that situation? I checked the mission: at Beslan, it reports the aircraft at 1700 ft on the ramp, SAT is +14.4 deg. C, pressure is 29.92 inHg, and there is no wind.

I can't help but think the second crew member, aside from being a second pair of eyes, is superfluous to the aircraft. I think it could easily be a single-pilot ship. I think by not having a second human, we are missing a lot more than ability to operate weapons. I, too, struggle to find a second crew member to fly with that also doesn't want to fly their own aircraft. I think the vast majority are here to *fly*, not be flown. There is a reason I keep going back to the 'Shark.

@Swift. and @bradmick Thanks for the posts. Yes, I had removed the FCR from the loadout. I realize that. Exactly. I didn't get that far with it; struggling to lift off at all got my attention.

I don't think this issue is limited to the Huey. All the helicopters have issues when it comes to pro-torque input. I think ED think that it is purely torque that rotates the helicopter in one direction, but this actually isn't the case. The tail rotor is quite active even in the pro-torque direction. It has another effect, too: the helicopter should be harder to turn in the same direction as the main rotor, but the opposite is true in the sim.

They've got rid of it. It's too much of a cheat.

Because it is largely an excuse for doing or not doing something, unfortunately. Then there is the added complication of the recent change in Russian law, so maybe there is something about the MWS that can't be modelled.

I've yet to find anyone who wants to seriously fly a position other than pilot, in anything.