dundun92

FWIW the baseline ER has a max range of, what, 110km launched high and fast so im not sure that this range particularly means much. But good find nonetheless. F-18 is a multirole carrier based fighter that made a lot of compromises to be able to accomplish A2A, A2G, and good low-speed handling for carrier ops. So not relevant. How about comparing the F-15C? Or F-14? Or F-16?

No you cant as of quite a few patches ago, do you have a track/tacview/video of this happening?

BTW @Max1musI did run the DeltaV numbers for the DCS missiles, all based on lua numbers. Obviously. these numbers do ignore drag, and the affects that the burn profile has on the drag. But it gives a good comparison of the motors themselves. AA-10A/B: 707 m/s AA-10C/D: 736 m/s from boost, 441 m/s from sustain, total 1177 m/s AA-12: 947 m/s AIM-7M: 441 m/s from boost, 247 m/s from sustain, total 688 m/s AIM-54 Mk47: 1227 m/s AIM-54 Mk60: 1492 m/s AIM-120B: 284 m/s from boost, 505 m/s from sustain, total 789 m/s AIM-120C: 876 m/s

IMO thats actually the biggest problem with the current ccm implementation. Yes, its annoying that the AMRAAM goes for chaff too much. But whats the most annoying is when a target makes a 9+ G turn through the notch at like M1, and because they happened to drop 1 chaff the 0.1 seconds they were in the notch the missile is spoofed and will never reacquire. Or the guy that notched for a half-second, spams chaff and immediately recommits. Yes, im not doubting the chaff may fool it for a second or two, and do other unfavorable things. But this is way beyond that. Chaff dropped from the notch basically permanently trashes the missile like some EMP/DIRCM. That IMO is the biggest problem. I should also probably add, this isnt really an AMRAAM only thing. This is how all radar MRMs behave in game. If you drop chaff 0.1 m/s outside the notch the missile can/will reacquire if you recommit, or keep turning to cold aspect. But the instant you get in the notch filter, the chaff just behaves much differently, and its honestly quite gamey and unrealistic. Its quite ironic that because of this ECM increases the PK of DCS radar missiles vs beaming and chaffing, as ECM removes the notch filter as a factor.

Or maybe you just dont know employ them properly?

Intel estimations arent exactly official documents in the sense needed here. This wouldnt be the first incorrect soviet intel estimation either (or intel estimations period tbh)

When your speed is under 200 m/s. Remember, this a flyout chart measuring the maximum distance between you and the missile. SO you flying slower actually means the missile flys further out from you, but not further out absolutely. Practically, this is listing the maximum F-Pole for a missile shot for a certain launcher speed, assuming you are flying in the same direction as the missile.

Yes, I did get the HB F-14 values. And no, the AIM-54 really has that little thrust IRL.

because max speed has to do with do with the delta V or max change in velocity. The delta V equation is Ve*ln(mf/me), Ve is effective exhaust velocity in m/s, which is either specific impulse (ISP) times sea level gravity (9.80665 m/s^2), or thrust/mass flow rate. Mf is mass at start of of burn, me is empty mass. I did calculate it for the AIM-54s; i dont remember the exact value but it was >1000 m/s/

Mk47 is 16kN, Mk60 is 18kN FYI, im pulling these straight from the .lua (missiles_data for ER, missiles_table for the 120 (note that math had to be done as the 120s thrust isnt directly stated, just the mass flow and ISP), and AIM-54 was from C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\aircraft\F14\Entry\Weapons.lua)

It does. Its in the files and you can verify this in game, this isnt gonna be some huge difference here because the missile is also loosing mass fast. But its noticeable. 18kN Because the ER is heavier. What you need to do is calculate Delta V to see the max change of velocity possible. I have not done this for the ER (i will dot it and update the post), but for the 120C its 876 m/s.

Because the AIM-120B sustain is set up differently than the ER sustain. The AIM-120B sustain is a much higher thrust/weight than the ER sustain. Thats just how the motors are designed, you can take up your complaint with Vympel and Raytheon if you want . To give the numbers, the ER has a 73kN boost for 3 sec, and 14.5kN sustain for 7 sec. The 120B has 20kN boost for 2.1 sec, and 12kN sustain for 5 sec. You can immediately see the difference here. The 120B, a lighter missile has a sustain with almost the same thrust as the much heavier ER. In addition, the 120B sustain has about 60% of the thrust of the boost; the ER sustain thrust is 20% of the boost thrust, which is why the ER has a much more distinct sustain transition. So yes, the AIM-120B sustain is more like a boost-smaller boost, where the ER is more of a true boost-sustain.

This is simply just boost sustain motors doing their thing. The whole point is to hit a top/optimal speed quickly, and then hold it/slowly accelerate, or in the say AIM-7s case slowly loose speed when at lower altitudes. Test it at higher altitudes and in the sustain phase it will gain speed. AIM-120C uses all boost, AIM-120B is boost sustain, but with a bigger boost rather than bigger sustain edit, not bigger boost, but the sustain is much more powerful in terms of thrust to drag/weight compared to the sustain on say the ER. AIM-7, a boost sustain with more sustain, but a higher percentage of boost than sustain compared to the ER (4.5/11s for AIM-7 as a reference). Heres a TAS vs time for a 40kft M1.5 shot profile to illustrate:

not rly, red FC3 is just as underperforming. ED simply doesnt care about FC3 it seems. Red or blue.

The GAF MiG-29 manuals have turn performance numbers for both full and limited power anyway so it really doesnt matter.

In DCS, lol nope.

...are you that desperate to make the AIM-54 look bad?

Target elevation angle =/= target altitude, unless you have range information, the very thing ECM denies.

We know the R-27 DLZ charts are not Raero, so id assume the R-73 charts are similar. For the R-27 DLZs its pulling 3gs for an unspecified amount of time, likely a few seconds. As far as the latter, no im not aware or any for the R-73, but Its not like I can really search that well in russian anyway

did you compare to the DLZ chart at any point, slightly curious.

For starters, to make it clear, TWS has been used IRL, on the F-15 for a double kill, and the F-16 for that MiG-25 kill thats on YT, and I have no doubt at other times. (Note that for weapons employment the pilot did switch to STT as you would expect, but TWS was used initially) The problem is more that TWS has downsides IRL, mainly against ECM, countermeasures, clutter, and notching targets (and to a lesser extent maneuvering targets if combined with the prior mentioned limitations). And the problem is that none of these downsides exist in DCS; DCS TWS is literally multi target STT without a spike (this is simplified, there is basic trackfile simulation, but thats not enough). IRL there are plenty of reasons you wouldnt want to use TWS; there are also some situations where you may have to, or be desirable to, but you would have to accept the downsides, something you dont have to do in DCS. So TLDR i woudnt say its useless or never used IRL, but it has distinct diasdvantages that need to be weighed against the advantages; DCS meanwhile simulates TWSs advantages, but with no limitations, so it ends up being the mode of choice for everything (detection, sort, track, weapons employment), when IRL its more like a specialty mode for specific situations, whereas STT/RWS is the general mode of choice.

Yea, the APG-68(V)5 IRL sees hot 5m^2 targets out to ~38nm, and uses only MPRF in RWS/TWS, unlike the HPRF used in game. So IRL its better against notching/cold targets, but worse against hot targets than in game

I probably used the wrong choice of words, but this is what I was referring to. Is there at ETA on when they will get this limitation?

you have the radio assist on