TLTeo

The DCS Sabre is a bit of an odd variant. From what I can find, the block 35 technically entered service somewhere in 1953 ish in Korea, but it became nuclear capable only in 1954 and would have received AIM-9s somewhat later, so in that sense we have a pretty late aircraft that's more similar to the ones deployed in Europe. On the other hand, by that later time Sabres also received the larger slatted wing of the Block 40, which was retrofitted to many export aircraft, while our aircraft still has the 6-3 wing. TLDR yes, a late production Mig-15bis is a closer match to the DCS Sabre than the ones deployed in Korea.

I imagine it's easier to compare amplitudes than perform interferometry on the fly (because computational power), but do we know whether there is any modern RWR or other EW gear that actually does that?

Thanks, I've opened a thread in the ED/AI section in case anyone else wants to comment:

The AI F-14s tend to be very ineffective with the Phoenix, firing when they are too low, too slow, and too far from the bandits and resulting in missiles missing most of the time. This is an example in Tacview (go up to +40:30 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JXasiE65tvKNw-C0A2jkMjT-AuCPIxNf/view?usp=sharing), from the Zone 5 campaign I just flew: the wingman fires from 17k ft while flying at Mach 0.6, at 25nm from the F-5s, and his missiles runs out of energy way before being a threat. I fire from ~17nm at Mach ~1, and my missile ends up having enough energy to get the kill. I think what's happening is that the AI behaviour was not changed to reflect the latest changes to the AIM-54, which have reduced its range at low altitude.

I have an observation that belongs more in the AIM-54 thread, but I figured I would write it here for extra visibility: while I find the Phoenix to perform perfectly well when I fire it, it's pretty atrocious in the hands of the AI (as in in Zone 5 I have seen them have a pk of like 10% over the whole campaign, against my ~80%), as they tend to fire when they are some combination of too low, too slow, and especially too far. It's as if they thought there were still firing the old, over-performing missile. Was their behaviour tweaked at all recently? Because if it wasn't, it definitely should be.

The two are separate issues. Was the M3 .50 cal a mediocre fighter gun because of its small caliber and limited kinetic power? Yes. As you said, it's well known and documented. Is it even worse in DCS because its muzzle speed is lower than reality? Also yes, as I documented and as ED acknowledged.

Nop, it's a bug that has been reported and acknowledged by ED. Flying speed has nothing to do with why 50s/60s aircraft often didn't have guns either (hence guns coming back from the 70s onwards - it's not like the planes became significantly slower).

I just saw the same, Tacview link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JXasiE65tvKNw-C0A2jkMjT-AuCPIxNf/view?usp=sharing Clearly the mission is super duper bugged because a few seconds later that is TOTALLY not me in my Tomcat also getting hit by an SA-2. No sir, nothing to see there. At all. /s

I don't know about emitting. I counted the receiving stuff as part of the work needed on the AWG-9.

I don't know the systems in depth enough to know how they compare with the NATOPS, but the big one that stands out to me there is that not all BITs are done yet. The other missing/WIP features I can think of is that the FM, AIM-54 guidance, and AWG-9 need some tweaks. The TARPS pod is also still missing.

I actually found that getting around the AI cheating is easy-ish if you build your tactics around the AI's idiotic behaviour. You have two options: 1) If firing from over 30k ft and over Mach 1, you can take the typical TWS long range shot. In this case I find that the AI's cheating does not seem to matter as long as the missile isn't staring directly at the target, which only happens in the last ~10-20 seconds of missile flight (basically when the seeker goes active). The result is that the AI can only really chaff the missile in those 10-20 seconds, rather than for the full missile time of flight. 2) If the above is not an option (say, you're at 10-20k ft, Mach 0.7, and your target is only 30nm away when you spot it), get a couple thousand feet below your target and fire in P-STT. In this case the AI only chaffs around ~10nm distance (I assume that's when the hamsters that power the DCS AI code decide the missile is "active" or detected by its RWR, even though technically it's active off the rail), so once again it only has like 10-15 seconds to spam chaff rather than the full missile time of flight. I've fired multiple AIM-54s at 20nm nearly on the deck in P-STT (for example in the Zone 5 missions), and against the idiocy of the AI they are consistently deadly. Obviously this doesn't apply to multiplayer though.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3320042/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3301685/

I doubt it. The pitch gearing shouldn't change at all if you're at such low speeds, you should always get the full elevator authority in that regime.

Restricting the ACLS to the SC because the SC alone has case 3 comms makes zero sense. By that logic you might as well also restrict the Hornet's ILS, for the same reasons. Frankly, ED should be better than this. You have been better than this in the past, and you should strive to keep it that way.

Yeah, the Mig-19 definitely did not have a pitch damper. Even most Mig-21s didn't have one, iirc it was introduced in the -bis. @myHelljumperthoughts?

Higher wing loading perhaps? You could test that by comparing with the Mig-21 as well. If wing loading is the reason, then the Fishbed will be even more stable.

A bit late to the party, but as far as I can tell the Mig-19S is more of a wishlist idea than something that's actually holding the module back. A few bits may need some tweaks (for example, the FM has improved but it's still fairly forgiving, which may or may not be accurate), but for the most part it's a fairly complete module.

The Swiss Mirages entered service in 1967. They would have had plenty of time to evaluate the missile. I think it's more likely that, as you say, they felt it was good enough for an interceptor - like basically all its other users.

For single player, there are mods that fix the gun issues. Once you get those I think they are actually perfectly fine, provided that you aim the right spot. The Mig-15 can soak a ton of bullets in the fuselage, but I find that aiming for the wing roots allows me to get kills in fairly short bursts. In fact it's got to the point where I actually prefer the Sabre's guns (and better gunsight admittedly) to the Mig's.

And speaking of other users, the Greek and Turkish Air Forces also used them because somehow they had F-102s, the Canadian Air Force used them on F-101s, the Swedish Air Force used modified Falcons on both their Drakens and (early) Viggens, and the Finnish Air Force also used them on Drakens.

Meh, good luck getting a 20 mile kill with a Sparrow below angles 30.

Tactical Pascale flew one of the missions from the campaign, so that's a pretty good preview:

Obviously yes, but from there to "Phantoms without the gun weren't dogfighters" is a serious stretch. I don't have a clever analogy though

Yeah I meant strictly for air to air

Meh. The supposed last of the gunfighters only got 3 gun kills out of a total of 19, and that's with worse missiles than the late USN Phantoms. In a real combat environment (ie not DCS) guns are overrated.