TLTeo

That strongly depends on what configuration that jet flew in. If that configuration is not represented in DCS (much like e.g. the Streak Eagle, which was nothing like your average front line F-15A), then no, it should be impossible. That is completely different from an arbitrary g limit imposed to extend the service life of the F-14 fleet.

So in which situation would you be willing to take a BVR shot against someone (with all the ROE/ID complications it carries)), but decide to take that BVR shot with an inferior missile that puts the firing aircraft in a more dangerous position? The only way that actually happens is if the -C AMRAAM hasn't been fully replaced by the Meteor yet - similarly to the Sparrow/AMRAAM loadouts during Allied Force. Beyond that, tactically it makes about as much sense as expecting to make good use of a 18 air to air missiles in a single sortie.

This isn't unusual either. The F-104S/F-21 radar combination was the same, depending on altitude the max range of the Aspide was limited by the radar's ability to lock targets, rather than the missile's ability to go far enough. Granted, that's an extreme example with a fairly decent missile for the time and a god-awful radar. I'm pretty sure it's less that the AIM-7 is much better IRL than DCS (although a fair comparison is near impossible given that DCS has no EW) and more that USAF Eagle drivers are likely a wee bit better at employing it than us armchair nerds.

Tomcat and Phoenix haters all over the world have just felt a disturbance in the Force...on a serious note, I don't think those exchange rates are necessarily unbelievable. The Eagle at that time was just incredible, as evidenced for example by its performance with the Israeli Air Force in 1982.

I'm not sure whether that's the reason. The CBU-105 is also guided exclusively by an INS, rather than GPS, and it can do high altitude perfectly fine. In fact, correcting for the wind is the whole point of the WCMD kit, it's in the name. Both are area weapons anyway, so a bit of drift is probably perfectly fine. They don't need the accuracy of a JDAM to do their thing. On the ethics side, the BK-90 supposedly has all sorts of in-built ways to avoid leaving submunitions behind, so I think that's factored in already.

According to Wikipedia, the Phantom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Air_Force#Air-to-ground Could be that it's either retired because cluster munitions (even though Greece did not sign on the Cluster Munitions Convention), or standard Wikipedia bullcrap though. I think my point stands though. I don't think you introduce a supposedly standoff weapon in the 90s, post Desert Storm, that can only be launched at treetop level. That's just weird, the RB-15 which was introduced at the same time on the same aircraft does not have that limitation to name one.

Speaking of which, beyond the armament and number of hardpoints, what are the differences between the R1B and R3 (and R4 I suppose)?

Yeah I shouldn't have used the plural, I convinced myself that Gulf Air Forces used it but I must have confused it with some other cluster weapon. From what I can find, the Hellenic Air Force are the only users.

So I'm trying to figure out exactly what the BK-90 is capable of, because there's quite the discrepancy between the manual and HUD symbology, and what one can actually do in game. The manual states that allowed release altitudes are between 50 and 500 meters, in which case the range is ~10 km or so depending on our airspeed at release. This also seems to match the HUD symbology. The issue however comes when one tries to release the weapon from higher altitudes, say, a few thousand meters. In this case, the weapon still guides to the target perfectly well and actually has far more range, but the symbology does not reflect this capability. I have attached a Tacview of me hitting some dummy targets from ~16nm away, releasing from ~16000 feet (unfortunately tracks are completely broken for me, so I can't include that). By the time they reach the target, the dispensers are flying at ~300 knots and fairly high (~10 degrees) AoA, so they are at the limit of their range. This is not quite what a JSOW does, but better than a e.g. JDAM or CBU-105 dropped from a similar speed/altitude, which is still impressive. In this case however the HUD range bar is flashing, indicating that a course correction is required. Diving to below 500 meters causes the flashing to disappear and the normal symbology to appear, so the jet does not expect that drop to be succesful. So what I'm getting at is - should the BK-90 be capable of high altitude releases and achieve such a large standoff range? If yes, how come the HUD symbology does not reflect this? If not, how come we can artificially get so much more performance out of the weapon? Personally, my gut feeling says yes, high altitude standoff delivery should be possible - given that it's a modern weapon that is still in service with several air forces, which certainly don't limit themselves to Cold War era low level strikes. Tacview-20210825-235618-DCS.zip.acmi

Unless you really, really need the standoff range, I don't see why I would use one over a WCMD. Hopefully that gets reworked when they release the CBU-103.

Cluster munitions in DCS are all over the place tbh. The JSOW and Rockeye are pretty awful because of how the bomblets' damage is calculated, meanwhile the CBU-97 and 105 are unstoppable weapons of doom.

Uh, TIL. I always wondered why the Viggen didn't have a way to disable NWS. Turns out it's much smarter than that, in typical Viggen fashion

Regarding the toss symbology, if I understand the video correctly, your pull-up cue is when the arrow stops flashing? I like these videos but it would be nice if you could channel your inner Wags and explain what's going on too

Yes let's ignore the fact that aircraft have been able to jettison their fuel tanks for 80 years. Or that jets do fly without external tanks all the time. Or that developers themselves have stated that you can't compare the two.

Pretty much, yeah. Since the Hawk debacle especially, ED has been much more strict with what they allow 3rd parties to release. Leatherneck in general is a small team so they work pretty slowly, but the Mig-21 is a really good module.

I'm going for a wild take here - I think your English and reading comprehension are perfectly fine, and the issue lies somewhere else. But yeah the...posters with a creative perspective on the laws of physics, shall we say...have been putting in the effort lately.

Because they literally have the full Eurofighter consortium collaborating with them. Also because the F-14D for obvious reasons is going to be subject to stricter rules because geopolitics. Also because different aircraft and governments from different countries operate differently. It really, really shouldn't be this hard to understand, and yet every week we have a thread like this. It's mind boggling.

Pretty sure they are considering that for pretty much everything that's being made for that map

Considering the CFTs won't be coming off in DCS, this conversation is pointless anyway

RWS displays just the radar returns, rather than trying to process those returns into tracks like TWS, so it's much simpler in terms of data processing. This means that in general RWS allows you to scan a wider area of the sky, which is why it's useful if you want simply to build SA. TWS on the other hand is more limited in the combination of azimuth/bars you can scan, so it's a bit less flexible. That said if you already know exactly where you want to look at, and you don't need to scan a particularly large area, then sure, TWS works just fine.

As a rule of thumb (with every jet really, not just the JF-17): VS for long range search, RWS for general scanning and building SA, TWS to maintain SA while tracking/intercepting/attacking something.

Makes sense, thanks. I still think it's unlikely this would be something a missile can do when it detects no heat sources though. Unless the text meant that it was detecting both vehicles despite them having their engines off, which I guess may be possible depending on how long they had been sitting in the Sun?

I have no idea what "it goes for center mass" means in this context (it's not even correct - in physics it would be the center *of* mass, which you can't measure with an imaging detector), so yes, it sounds like BS, mostly. If there is no signal detected above the background in the single pixel of an old AIM-9 the missile should just not guide, I don't see how it could magically see an image of its target(s) with a non-imaging seeker, even more magically measure the mass distribution of said target(s) despite not being able to detect them (and imaging data giving exactly zero information about the distribution of mass in whatever is detected), and guide itself to a part of a target it is neither detecting, nor capable of imaging should it be detected. I suppose it's true that if one of the engines had been on, it may have been detected by the missile though.

This might be a slightly controversial take, but it is in fact possible for DCS modules to be really, really good without turning every single one of them into precision guided weapons trucks. Just sayin...

Yeah this makes sense. At the time (2000, when the first squadron formed) the Super Etendard was likely perfectly adequate, but the Crusader had been retired the year before and that aircraft was obviously waaaay outdated by the 90s.