TLTeo

We discussed this in the thread months ago, but basically the Cyrano IV is not a true Doppler radar a-la APG68/73 et al., so I it shouldn't have has any sort of fancy TWS mode, even the updated ones. The reason it has (limited) look down/shoot down capabilities because it has some sort of MTI mode though, a bit like e.g. the Mig-23ML and F-104S/ASA - in plenty of sources I've read, some in this thread, those 3 are all described as having comparable-ish radar performance. Also, people here mentioned that the -M received ground mapping and obstacle avoidance modes, like the ones in e.g. the Viggen and A-4.

It's more that the -9 is a fully upgraded jet, with upgrades built specifically for the UAE who wanteed all sorts of goodies other export customers didn't want to spend money on. Very much like the Block 52+ Vipers vs the UAE's block 60. For the AdA specifically, yes, it doesn't have any of those capabilities because the French -5s are strictly air defense jets.

The Iraqi jets used the ATLIS pod, but it wasn't employed in any of the variants Aerges have announced.

Max range flight profiles are a specific altitude, with a specific climb profile though (otherwise e.g. the FPAS page on the Hornet wouldn't exist - one would just park it at some high-ish altitude, set a predetermined Mach number with ATC, and call it a day). There's no reason why the flight profile you followed should yield exactly the maximum possible range of the aircraft.

Me too. EA can be annoying at times, but they have been doing such a good job with the C-101 that getting the F1 will be a no brainer.

And there's the update From Facebook: "Dear users, We present you our first video of the Mirage F1-CE as well as some screenshots. In this video, you can see the most up to date look of the Mirage F1-CE cockpit and external model, a short flight model exhibition and the interaction with some of the cockpit systems. With this latest PBR textures and many improvements both on textures and on 3D model, we can now consider them ready for the first public display, and therefore, expend some time on specifics, next will be to work on a highly detailed pilot and helmet model. Regarding flight model, we can say it is now close to its final state. You can see in the video some effects like wing bending due to high G forces. Wing torsion is also implemented; this causes a change in AoA throughout the wingspan, which affects roll moment. Once our experienced F1 test pilot provides us detailed feedback on the FM (still in progress), and we contrast it with our engineering data, we will consider it ready for an early access release. Cockpit interaction with most of general aircraft systems, like engine, fuel, electrics, hydraulics, stability augmentation and autopilot, is nearly finished and we are working on avionics (navigation and radio equipment, weapons control, radar, displays, etc.). Just to give you an idea of the deepness of the simulation we have currently a list of more than 80 possible system failures. In summary, the project is advancing at a good pace, nearing its early access phase, we are happy with the results of our efforts to provide you with the most in-depth simulation of the Mirage F1."

Yeah I'm pretty sure full FBW only became a thing with the last generation Strike Eagles like the SA, QA, and X

If you mean with a back up sight with no lead computing or radar ranging, yes, although I'm not sure why you would want to do that (other than your CK or radar being damaged or something). You can bring it up by inputting 211 in Takt/IN.

You mean like the Sabre models the exact avionics (LABS) used to deliver nukes for most of the Cold War? I would argue that's much closer to restricted information (or lack thereof) than the glorified, overpowered conventional bomb the Mig carries...

Are there other export -5s that can use a TGP (e.g. the Greek or Indian ones), or is the UAE -9 the only one?

What others have said. Jets requiring rudder input are the exception (the Tomcat and F-100 are the only two I can think of off the top of my head), not the norm, and even then it's only really necessary at high AoA.

Do you have a source for that?

Didn't Nick Grey say in some interview, regarding the Phantom, that it's such an iconic plane they are highly unlikely to leave it to third parties? I realize HB is more likely to do a naval Phantom while ED was working on an -E, but still, even in the unlikely event that -both- do a Phantom, I think it's highly improbably that ED will let HB do it first.

So if I understand those plots correctly - the dashed blue and continuous blue lines are both the coefficient of lift at sea level, while the green/violet/red are for increasing altitude? Shouldn't the two blue lines match then, implying that with these adjustments the coefficient of lift is going to be a bit too high (granted, only ~10%, so it's within DCS-ism limits)?

Yes. It's basically like CAGE/SEAM with the AIM-9 actually, where the radar is just telling the missile where to look, and then the missile does its own thing. The difference of course is with Phoenixes you don't get a tone to know whether the missile is going to lock on the target or not before launching. With a P-STT or TCS track you don't need to lead your target because the missile is already looking at it. With an ADL launch - probably?

P-STT or TCS track = missile looks in the direction of the radar/TCS track, active off the rail ACM cover up/BST selected and no track = missile looks along the ADL (ie, the cross on the HUD), active off the rail SARH/DL guidance until the radar seeker goes active and locks on the target = TWS launches (meaning the missile homes in on radar reflections off the target, but it's antenna doesn't turn on until the WCS commands it) SARH all the way to the target, missile does not go active = PD-STT launches (meaning the missile homes in on radar reflections off the target until impact, the WCS never tells the antenna to turn on). Missile active off the rail = any other time you fire a Phoenix. I honestly don't know how else to explain it without stating exactly what the manual already states. On a related note, @Naquaii, going through this thread I realized that the manual contains 2-3 parts where the AIM-54 modes are summarised: the table with the AWG-9 modes, and the section about the AIM-54 itself, which doesn't mention P-STT or TCS tracks until the "AIM-54 in DCS" section. It would be nice if you could consolidate all that information a bit, detailing how it works in DCS (ie, no SARH fallback until it's in for example) and maybe adding a few recommendations (like don't expect TWS launches to reliably hit maneuvering targets). I feel like that alone would cut down on the complaints about the AIM-54 being broken significantly.

I just got back in the Hornet and I noticed that whenever I'm close to the ship, at around 150ish feet ASL or so, AoA tends to decrease with no inputs on my end (I would hope...), as if the aircraft had more lift all of a sudden...so my question is, is the ground effect bug fixed and do I get an easy excuse for why I keep messing up landings in close?

This is incorrect, in P-STT the missile should be active off the rail (and the seeker head of the missile is slewed to wherever the radar is pointing), in PD-STT it's a Fox 1 and doesn't go active. http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#an-awg-9-radar

Yep

The Jeff in game can track 10 targets in TWS rather than 12 iirc, so my guess is it's supposed to be a block 1 radar. Iirc the "block 2 features" mostly means the aar capability. Assuming those numbers are correct, then yeah, the range performance is more in the block 2 range.

Yeah we can't just get those numbers (even without factoring in all the propaganda that went in that particular incident) and pretend we can just compare them to DCS numbers. My gut feeling is it probably should be toned down a bit to ~APG 73 levels-ish but obviously when if the only data available are a fancy brochure and politically-charged statements, it's hard to have a well motivated opinion.

Yeah I haven't been mentioning the FC3 jets because those are really, really old and really, really simple (and really, really wrong). Yeah, especially the 73 since it's part of a flagship module and it recently was updated. That comparison shows that both the Viper and Jeff need some double checking at the very least

Fair enough. This still only side steps the question though - if we go by DCS, why exactly should the Jeff have so much more power/cooling available to it than a Viper, Hornet or Mirage? That suggests the 68v9 is a massive improvement over the 68v5, which is interesting (and begs the question of why the USAF would give it up when the F-35 was delayed for that long, but that's a whole other can of worms). But yeah, a brochure like that should by no means be considered "good enough" as reference material for DCS.

I'm not saying the KLJ-7 should be 100% worse than, or similar to, the APG-68. I'm saying at the very least it should be in the ballpark of the RDI and/or APG-73, both of which use high PRF, and clearly right now it's much better than either.

Again, as Harlikwin said, the main parameter that determines that is the antenna size. Fancy signal processing can only give you so much - for example, going from the oldschool APG 68v9 to its AESA equivalent (the APG 83, which is far, far more advanced than any mechanically scanned radar except perhaps CAPTOR on Typhoon) only increases detection range by ~15% - ish to about 50nm (source: https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2019/53/matecconf_easn2019_04001.pdf ). Obviously with better signal processing and/or AESA/PESA you get other benefits beyond sheer range, but that's not captured in DCS anyway. It is just not possible for the KLJ-7 to be some ~70% better than Western radars which have similar (or larger, in the case of the Hornet) antennae. It's not how the laws of physics work.