Naquaii

IIRC it's only the first time you press A/G. Then it's read into memory. The other modes requiring tape read-in are stuff that aren't implemented so not really a factor.

This is already modelled. That's why you have to wait for A/G when switching into that mode. Basically any mode other than the standard A/A modes were on that magnetic tape but the read-in is automatic when those are selected. So no read-in required for ACM or A/A.

From what I've known that switch doesn't do anything for the AIM-120, can't say anything about the SD-10. (In DCS.) In any case it's not as simple as just the activation distance for more modern missiles, there are additional considerations for it as it basically sets the missile up for target size in more ways. As for the new missile features implemented I don't really know as we don't use those.

And what does that do with the missile exactly? You can't really compare the different missiles 1:1. In this case it's because we used to switch to decide when to tell the missile to switch from SARH to ARH, that's not possible with the AIM-54C as it's already ARH.

It's a DCS limitation. That said we don't have as much info regarding this in regards to the AIM-54C.

The target size switch only works for the AIM-54A now.

Afaik they weren't wired due to this.

Yes, physically they can be as they fit all stations that can carry LAU-7. They weren't used however on the B-stations as you couldn't access the cooling for the AIM-9 while mounted there. Unless you removed the LAU-138 between each flight. Our SMEs confirm this.

If by winning you mean arguing and whining for something and then declaring victory when given something completely different than what you asked for, sure. I'd argue that you're reading far too much into something that is really, really simple. We change our modelling when we have new data, that's basic and easy to understand. And none of what you listed above about old code precludes the possibilty of refining and improving what we have.

He was never right, what he advocated was way worse than this, he'd have the AIM-54 be a nerfed Sparrow as in his mind the AIM-54 should just be unable to kill fighters period. I'm not even gonna talk about how he behaved on these forums while ranting about this. That said none of this influenced our research or decision-making. Is it so hard to believe that we continuously research and refine our models? That's also the reason for the implementation of the "active on it's own"-AIM-54C taking time. That we wanted to research and verify the information regarding this as the publically available information wasn't enough. Believe that if you want or not but we have really no reason to not be honest about this.

The issue is that if guided by PD-STT the AIM-54C should stay SARH all the way. But it switches to ARH if that guidance stops. We can't model that so currently in DCS you can still see an indication of it going active when shot using PD-STT. So yeah, the real AIM-54C could do that. No AIM-54 are SARH missiles but they can behave as such when fired in PD-STT.

Pre-lofting and AIM-54 is just not a thing. Doing that and expecting better performance is not realistic as much as having them go straight up isn't either. Yes, we can't control the missile enough to do the MBAM seperately.

Like KlarSnow says, it should be much harder than what it used to be in DCS before we changed it but it should still be possible. We'll continue to have a look at this and tweak it.

Not really, that's entirely an ED decision. RWR and ECM is also one of those areas where you'll have a hard time proving either or and IRL it wouldn't be a simple as every RWR seeing everything either. Being what it is it's not that bad of a decision to just have all SARH give warning at launch and ARH at activation.

Well, it's all a balance. We try to balance the values to fit how it in our mind should be but we also have to acknowledge the setting it's put into.

No, the phoenix' seeker is pulse-doppler. But this is also not a distinction that is made in DCS for missiles. The chaff resistance has to be tweaked around this so will in many ways always be an abstraction unless things change in regards to how that's modelled. You can't equate those values directly to stuff like pulse/pulse-doppler etc. And we also have to take into account how other missiles in DCS behave and how resistant they are. Having an AIM-54 that is a wild missmatch in capability compared to something like an AIM-120 or AIM-7 wouldn't be that realistic either.

I can't really answer your other questions as that's not my department but I can tell you that all our sources directly counter his claim that the seeker is a pulse radar. All information we have say that it's a pulse doppler seeker in the AIM-54A and the AIM-54C for sure wouldn't be either. Having a non pulse-doppler seeker guide onto signals from a pulse doppler radar illuminator would be an engineering challenge indeed.

Saying what an RWR will get IRL would just be a massive guess. As for DCS the target will get a launch warning from the radar in the F-14 for both the -A and -C as that's how SARH missiles work in DCS.

No, the AIM-54 launch sequence is always the same. You could potentially keep track of in what order they will launch and mount them accordingly but the motors were kinda intended to be interchangeable so there's no way of letting the WCS know which is which.

The newly added periodic update of the -A will hamper it's long range performance as it only correct it's course every two seconds and the guidance in the -A isn't smart enough to smooth that out. It's nowhere near a bang-bang guidance of early LGBs, you have to look quite closely at the missile to see it but you can see it. This ofc makes the -A slightly worse in most long range shots but it's hard to say exactly how much. As for the different motors the biggest difference is really down low as the mk47 burns longer it'll start loosing speed later than a mk60. If in really close the mk60 will have a slight edge as it will accelerate faster.

I can understand the willingness to experiment and try unrealistic things but the simple answer is that putting time and effort into making the F-14 work with the Kuznetsov is just not high on the list as it's completely unrealistic.

Yes, even when/if the manuals get declassified enough and someone decided to model it it's still a very different beast. There would ofc be similarities in the flight model but you'd basically have to regard it as a completely new aircraft. It wouldn't be a DLC for the current Viggen for sure.

Problem is that it isn't just as easy as creating it without the datalink. The whole manual is still classified, regardless of the reason for it afaik.

The F-14 M61 in DCS matches the stated specifications for the gun as mounted on the F-14. A newly well-calibrated gun would likely be even more accurate. It also matches SME feedback.

Like you guys have mentioned the flood is used if an STT track is dropped and the antenna doesn't know where to point the illuminator. In ACM it's also used when you don't have an STT the same as when you manually select boresight. Having the radar slaved to the TCS also allows the TCS to guide the illuminator. And yeah, the flood pattern is similar but not exactly the same as VSL. The flood antenna does not generate a perfect circle.