TLTeo

I agree, my point is simply that your average simmer is really uninformed and this air supremacy notion thing is dumb. I'm not arguing that at all, I'm arguing that the PVO's doctrine wasn't some weird outlier

FWIW this is from a British Phantom driver who flew against Czech MLs: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/270980-mig-23-98-who-has-more-info/?do=findComment&comment=4657345

You mean like the USAF stubbornly focusing on carrying the Falcon on their Phantoms instead of the Sidewinder, or taking ~5 years after Rolling Thunder to implement proper BFM training, despite witnessing the USN's successes during Linebacker 1 and 2? I'm being a bit disingenuous here, and Soviet doctrine was certainly rigid, but the same was true to an extend in the West as well, that's just a product of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO training almost exclusively for a nuclear conflict in the 50s and 60s. Yep! To some extent, but you can't take a single engagement as proof of much. Otherwise, you'd come to the conclusion that Tomcat pilots had a habit of ignoring the rules of engagement :) ADC jets basically displayed a dot on their radar scope that guided them to a point where they would then turn on their target and execute whatever attack was chosen by GCI - depending on aircraft and/or armament, that could be rear/front/side aspect, or a pull-up to zoom towards the target. In the same way, when they reached that point, the datalink would also guide the pilot towards the target, and it was up to the pilot to find the actual bandit on radar and carry out the attack. I don't know how the PVO did it, but I imagine it would be roughly the same. There's only so much one can do with a bunch of vacuum tubes after all edit: I imagine this would just be some one-bar, narrow azimuth mode. Kinda cool that it can be done automatically though! In DCS I always use that manually if I know what I'm supposed to be intercepting, it's good to know what I'm doing is sensible.

It's not that hard You do need to know the emitter wavelength, and other than that all you need is assume an antenna aperture for the pod. My rough estimate of that from my Viggen scale model would be ~20cm

I guess to first approximation you can assume the antenna is diffraction limited, take some sensible guess (15 cm?) for the antenna size, and work from there?

This is highly misleading and it frustrates me to no end. For most of the Cold War, Western Air forces had exactly two jobs: deliver nukes (TAC and SAC for the USAF), or shoot down things trying to deliver nukes (ADC in the USAF). It's no coincidence that, during Vietnam, there were exactly two communities that did very well in air to air combat: the USN F-8s for the whole thing, and the F-4 exclusively after Top Gun was established. Both of these were the first and, at the time, almost only, to put a strong emphasis on air to air training and ACM. This whole idea of air superiority (which is not the same as air supremacy btw) only became a thing post-Vietnam, especially when the F-15 and to a lesser extend F-16 entered service. Even then, it took a long time to trickle down to many NATO air forces. For example, in the Italian Air Force, DACT did not become standardized until the 80s, and F-104 interceptor squadrons did not have any ECM gear (including decent RWRs) because it was thought that interceptors would not need it. All of these interceptors, whether they be British Lightnings, Italian/Turkish/Greek/Norwegian/Danish/German/Dutch/Belgian F-104s (which again, contrary to popular belief, did not fly as makeshift A-10s), French Mirages, etc, were also tightly controlled by GCIs (this includes during ACM). The main difference between the ADC/PVO and NATO/Warsaw Pact countries was how far the data sharing went. The ADC and PVO jets shared data with their GCI through a datalink, client states for the most part did not (although I may be wrong about the EE lightning). The best way to think of Soviet doctrine is that the PVO was basically an equivalent of the Air Defense Command, and the VVS was the equivalent of TAC and SAC, not as some entirely separate "the GCI does all the things and this is the only place in the world in which this happens" concept. What was unique about the PVO was its organisation as a completely separate branch of the Russian armed forces, not its doctrine.

The brochure doesn't specify the radar mode though, it could easily refer to VS (which has longer range than RWS). Having said that, Deka have said they are not looking at adjusting the Jeff's radar range because it matches whatever numbers they have: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/270451-radar-readjustment/

During Mission 4 I had to divert to Al Dhafra because after Weed refueled, the S-3 did a DCS AI and literally decided to fly straight vertical up to 1000 KIAS up to angels 250, and in the meantime I was down to ~1.5k lbs of gas. It was a thing of beauty. Anyway, Red 2 is tuned to 250.9, which should be Al Dhafra ATC, but it's the wrong frequency. The correct one is 251.1. Once I tuned to it I could contact them and land just fine.

I don't know either, but it's easy to imagine. Plenty of autopilots can steer to a commanded heading or altitude (rather than just hold altitude and/or attitude), it's just that in this case, the input would come from the datalink (and be the same e.g. that is displayed on the radar scope) rather than the pilot

Yeah, the comparison with the Viper says more about what a massive step forward that aircraft was, than anything about the F1.

@IronMike this may be worth looking at, there's no way fuel consumption should work that way

Yep, the F-106 had a system like that too. It's probably just coupling the autopilot to whatever direction indications are being transmitted to the aircraft, nothing fancy. I would imagine it might be useful if the pilot needs to focus on using their radar?

To some extent. Personally, I still have scars from all the discussion about which TGP is appropriate for each, or whether they should carry SDBs/specific JSOWs/<insert fancy new standoff weapon here>

I highly doubt it's specific to the Tomcat too...come to think of it, I think it would be very educational for people who demand year-specific specs in DCS modules to come up with a list of what those exact specs should be

Yes, and it has a rudimentary HUD as well

Even in a strictly WVR fight, the F-5E is inferior to fancy 4th gen jets under all measurable aspects of performance: acceleration, instantaneous turn rate, sustained turn rate, climb rate, BFM radar modes, you name it. But it's close enough to those jets that it can still be dangerous. And that's OK, it's not meant to be the ultimate air to air fighter anyway. People need to either accept DCS modules for what they are, and either fly in scenarios built accordingly or accept that airquake is just a fun videogame with good flight models, no more and no less.

My crappy order of magnitude estimate was here: for reference, the ~2 degree error I worked out would produce an uncertainty of ~1 nm on the location of the SAM, if looking at it from 25nm away (taking just delta_L = D*sin(theta), where theta is the PSF of our detector, D the distance of the emitter, and delta_L the uncertainty on its position). So basically in the Hornet in TOO, you would get your target box in the HUD, point your TGP at it, and have the same could be anywhere 1nm to the left or right of where you have pointed the FLIR. And that obviously neglects the fact you can't estimate distance either, so you would have an even bigger area to search. Instead in DCS, we can point the TGP at the box in the HUD and always instantly spot the SAM site. edit: to avoid derailing the thread and asnwer the OP, at what time of the day were you flying? I noticed the lock range of the Walleye is a strong function of time of day rather than light conditions, even though the scenario may look the same between, say, 7 and 8 am. The -H also has a TV sensor, so maybe that's what's going on.

You are correct. The B is essentially a two-seater C, the E is a multi-role variant (which in practice means it has an INS and air to air refueling capabilities), and the E at the end of each simply stands for the country, which is why the Spanish strike jets were called "EE" , the Iraqi ones "EQ", and the Greek interceptors "CG".

It's one of two things really. Either you recognize that the Mirage is a late 80s/early 90s aircraft, build your missions (whether they be SP or MP) accordingly, and enjoy the Mirage (and Fulcrum, and Flanker, and Viggen, and F-5, and Fishbed, and Mirage F1, and Mig-23, when they come out...) for what it is, or you fly airquake in which case you're playing glorified War Thunder with better flight models anyway, so complaining about "balance" and "muh capabilities" is pointless.

That is not modelled in DCS, as far as we know whether something is jamming or not is set exclusively by a boolean switch. The only exception may be the jammer in the Hornet, which appears to be a bit more realistic.

Honestly at this point, EA doesn't mean anything. The Viggen is much, much more complete than the Harrier or even Mirage (the Harrier keeps changing so much that Chuck has literally given up on maintaining his guide for now), and both of those have been out of EA for a while now. I agree that it's annoying that HB keep missing their own deadlines, and that so much of their attention went to the Tomcat for a while, but realistically the Viggen is in very good shape, it's been so for a long time, and all it needs to be as complete as anything can be in DCS are very minor finishing touches.

Also there are no new systems to be added. As far as I know, the only major system that needs refining are the recce modes.

Wait so how does the -M variant compare to the -1 and -2 listed in that document? I'm confused...at least the RDM/RDI/RDY makes sense

The document linked in this thread (https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253872-mirage-f1-project-update/?do=findComment&comment=4492204) I'm looking at seems to be from the 80s, before the -M upgrades, and mentions the IV-2 version of the radar as having that mode, which I imagine is what was carried by the -E, while the IV-1 is mentioned as having MTI modes (carried on the -C?).

Interesting, I wonder how it could build a proper track if it's not a Doppler radar. Maybe it's more akin to e.g. SAM in the APG-68? edit: ok it gets weirder, apparently the Cyrano IV also had Doppler beam sharpening modes...so why would it have no Doppler A/A modes?