TLTeo

I actually made this post in another thread, but people that discredit the Iran/Iraq war claims just do not know how to math (or do not bother with it as it would disagree with their preconceptions of the Phoenix): 274 AIM-54s were delivered before the 1979 revolution. Assuming all were shot (which is wrong seeing as they still have them today) for a total of ~80 kills, one can estimate a lower limit to the Pk of ~30%. Supposedly there were 50 AIM-54s "operational" in 1987, but from what I can find that does not includes missiles that were not fired, but were not in combat conditions due to lack of supplies etc. If we assume they fired 174 rounds, had 50 operational left, and 50 non-operational left, the Pk goes up to ~45%. Obviously one can play this game and get even higher Pks, but let's take 45% as the highest sensible number. From what I can find on Google, the AIM-7 Pk in 1982 in BVR (for a very small sample size of 5 shots and 1 kill) was ~20%. I can't find good numbers for Desert Storm but I have seen claims that it was similar to Bekaa Valley - let's assume that instead, it went up to 30%. Also from what I can tell from Wikipedia, the AMRAAM all in all has a Pk of 63%. The fighters the Sparrow, Phoenix and AMRAAM were fired against also do not differ significantly in their capability (ie, they were all cheapy export models with mediocre ECM gear, save perhaps the Iraqi Mirage F1-EQs). Let's be pessimistic and assume all these estimates are off by a factor of about 15% each. That is still enough to conclude that at worst, the -A model Phoenix was as effective as late model Sparrows -or the Skyflash carried by the F3- in terms of Pk (plus bringing a bunch of tactical advantages, obviously). Likely it was considerably better, but still not as good as the AMRAAM. Financial reasons aside, I think that qualifies it as an effective anti-fighter weapon for its time.

I don't think that's possible given that DCS EFMs are written in C++ and encrypted. Just an idea - could it be that both thrust and drag are too small, so that when flying at high speeds the errors on both kinda balance each other out and the aircraft matches the performance charts, but during VTOL you notice the lack of thrust but not the lack of drag?

HOTAS keybind to kick the computer drum or riot!

Good decision. Hopefully the next time a decision of some type needs to be made/is made, you won't need the forums pitchforking it up before you choose the best option.

If we go by the same metric RB is using to remove the IR Mav, they should also: 1) have the Mig-19P a2g ordnance removed since it was only flown by interceptor units, 2) cluster bombs, the (newly added!!!!!!) BAP-100, unguided rockets and the Super-530 should all be removed from the Mirage. Only Magics, Mk 82s and LGBs allowed, because they are doing a current jet and that's what EC 2/5 deploys with. Seriously, the reasoning behind this change is beyond silly. It shouldn't even be up for the debate.

Can't take much away from a single exercise, because a) it's too small a sample and b) the outcome depends very strongly on whatever RoE were agreed upon. Was it WVR only? BVR too? How were shots counted? Were the Rafales simulating the Meteor or not? What were the odds in the engagement? etc etc. If you look hard enough for the outcome of individual exercises, you can demonstrate that e.g. the F-104 can destroy the F-15, e.g. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-old-school-f-104-could-beat-f-15-battle-74786 . As much as I love the Starfighter, that doesn't prove that it was a better plane than the Eagle, just that the outcome of air combat has a very (very very very very) high variance.

Somewhere on their Discord. It was just a very simple 3d model. They are not happening any time soon if ever, not from RB.

Razbam have "announced" at least a dozen modules (off the top of my head - A-29, Mig-23, F-15E, EE Lightning, IAI 58 Pucara, OV-10 Bronco, AMX, Mirage 3, Super Etendard, AV/8B+, Mirage 2000-5, Mig-19S, Canberra, Bo-105, and they even teased an F-100 and F-102). If you optimistically assume 4 years of work per module, that works out to 48 years worth of work, and even those supposedly are taking a backseat to finishing their existing ones despite said existing modules being out of EA. When you look at it that way, yeah, "their" Mirage 3 won't be anywhere near release for at least a decade. It's much, much more likely that some other 3rd party dev will release it instead. As suntw said, Aerges and Deka are possibly candidates (or even some new 3rd party - there's a group of modders that's trying to get a Kfir project going, but who knows how that's going).

Pretty much, except it's better at it

The 1964 G-91 R3 equivalent to the NATOPS doesn't mention anything about TACAN, only about an ADF together with the Doppler system. The PHI (position and homing indicator) does have a TACAN mode, but on those jets it's inoperative. Same goes for the 1970 manual of the -Y, which received a bunch of other improvements to its nav/attack system, so all in all I think it's unlikely TACAN was ever fitted. Having said that, the nav system can store up to 5 waypoints (12 in the Y) and guide you to them without relying on any external station or signal, just like in the Viggen can (except taking fixes is a lot more work than using a ground mapping radar, for obvious reasons - you have to manually adjust the bearing and range to a known waypoint, e.g. your starting airbase, when overflying known landmarks), so navigating without the F-10 map will be pretty straight forward during your average strike mission. In fact it will be much easier than e.g. in the F-5 or Mig-21, which makes sense given that the Gina and Yankee were dedicated daytime strike aircraft.

Technically, the F-86 brings you even closer. The G-91 entered service in the early 60s, and to some extent it actually replaced the F-86. But yeah, some early straight wing jet like the Vampire (or even a naval one?) would be awesome.

Dealing with mental health sucks. Stay strong, I hope you will find the help you need.

I'm no expert and could be wrong, but as far as I know, there weren't truly major changes. I wouldn't be surprised if the ejection seat was improved though, seeing as e.g. that of the F-104 was. I haven't heard anything about the canopy, and all look like they are bulging a bit to me. Could be something in the first pre-production run. Other than the obvious guns and number of hardpoints, I would expect the fleets to be fairly similar. The main ones I'm aware of: 1) Early and pre production jets did not carry the cameras in the nose, nor the two bulges under the nose (which were to collect spent gun cartridges iirc). A fair amount of these jets ended up in the PAN (although they also flew jets with cameras fitted). 2) The navigation system was changed quite quickly, from some dodgy radar-beacon system a-la WW2 to a Doppler navigation suite a-la Viggen (minus TERNAV of course), except much simpler, and the fleet also received general airframe strengthening. These were called R1A and R1B respectively. The same navigation suite was also in the German and Portuguese jets. 3) The AS-20 missile was tested by the German and Italian air forces but not procured. The Portuguese were the only ones who attempted to fully integrate the AIM-9B, which I heard was not successful. I have no idea what that means considering it was very easy to complete that same integration in e.g. the Sabre, so who knows. For DCS, IFE have said they are going to PAN, R1B, and R3. I read that as meaning the PAN will be unarmed (and possibly lacking the cameras as well), the R1B will have 50cals and two hardpoints, and the R3 will have DEFAs and four hardpoints.

So TLDR is the least bad way of trying to shoot down a Mach 3/4 high altitude cruise missile with a Phoenix would be to lock it in PSTT and therefore fire at relatively close-ish range?

And in case you don't get the fancy helmet, just chalk it up to the Italian Air Force in the late 80s/early 90s not having enough money to afford nice things

LOL what comparison. The EF has not been part of any war that involved a/a combat. The F-15 has. By that same logic, the Sopwith Camel is a better fighter than the F-15 because it has shot down more planes than the F-15.

Here's a fun exercise: look for pictures of Vipers IRL carrying CFTs, and using all the underwing stations for weapons. You won't find many of them. Contrary to popular belief CFTs are there to increase range and/or loiter time (e.g. to allow the IAF to strike in Iran, or to allow the HAF to loiter over Cyprus with jets based in mainland Greece), or at best to reduce drag by just not using the wing tanks, not to free up the inboard stations for additional weapons.

I was referring to this post

That is not what this thread is about though.

Eh, out of all games that are played as esports only a fraction are designed from the ground up to be one. Most of them are just born from the community building the competitive scene and handling the balance themselves. DCS is no different - it's obviously up to the competitive players to build a scene if they choose so, and developers have no obligation of trying to meet that scene's perceived needs.

I thought that's what the dampen mode of the autopilot (which is missing in the -19) acts as?

Eh, I think that's jumping to conclusions. Just seeing the radar work being started on the F8U (whose model and cockpit are clearly not complete either) clearly shows that M3's workflow is different from e.g. Razbam, who always claim that for them, the art needs to be fully completed before moving on to coding.

Yep, that's a known issue of the DCS engine. You can't do that with other modules either as far as I know.

Eh yes but no. Yes because indeed the F-15C and E indeed do not have a true FBW system, no because they have additional flight control stability stuff in there that the Farmer does not. I also don't know whether the pitch gearing systems in the Farmer and Fishbed do the "G for stick amount of movement" exactly, if that makes sense.

Honestly it's easy to come up with reasonable estimates. 274 AIM-54s were delivered before the 1979 revolution. Assuming all were shot (which is wrong seeing as they still have them today) for a total of ~80 kills, one can estimate a lower limit to the Pk of ~30%. Supposedly there were 50 AIM-54s "operational" in 1987, but from what I can find that does not includes missiles that were not fired, but were not in combat conditions due to lack of supplies etc. If we assume they fired 174 rounds, had 50 operational left, and 50 non-operational left, the Pk goes up to ~45%. Obviously one can play this game and get even higher Pks, but let's take 45% as the highest sensible number. From what I can find on Google, the AIM-7 Pk in 1982 in BVR (for a very small sample size of 5 shots and 1 kill) was ~20%. I can't find good numbers for Desert Storm but I have seen claims that it was similar to Bekaa Valley - let's assume that instead, it went up to 30%. Also from what I can tell from Wikipedia, the AMRAAM all in all has a Pk of 63%. The fighters the Sparrow, Phoenix and AMRAAM were fired against also do not differ significantly in their capability (ie, they were all cheapy export models with mediocre ECM gear, save perhaps the Iraqi Mirage F1-EQs). Let's assume all these estimates are off by a factor of about 15% each. That is still enough to conclude that at worst, the -A model Phoenix was as effective as late model Sparrows -or the Skyflash carried by the F3- in terms of Pk (plus bringing a bunch of tactical advantages, obviously). At best, it was considerably better, but still not as good as the AMRAAM. Financial reasons aside, I think that qualifies it as an effective anti-fighter weapon for its time. edit: I'll add that the statement of "the Tornado pilot thought the Phoenix was a non factor" is misunderstood imo. You can interpret his statements as simply not simulating Phoenix shots because those were the RoEs. I mean, the had the guy go up with ferry tanks that limited his jet to 2-3g after all, that's infinitely more restrictive than limiting Phoenix shots anyway.