Jump to content

Harlikwin

Members
  • Posts

    9249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Harlikwin

  1. So, honestly I'm no AeroE, nor do I particularly care to debate you on this. Maybe you're right maybe not. What I do know, and what makes sense is that the 23 is a pointy low drag dart thats been described by everyone that flew it or flew against it as having amazing acceleration. Meanwhile the F4, while having lots of thrust, also had a ton of drag and was described as a flying brick. On the maneuverability question I've seen charts (no, not gonna post em sadly because they way the are made I think violates rule 16) that put the mig23MLA STR at ~14.5dps, and ITR at like 19dps at like 5k alt (28k lbs, 2R23R, 50% fuel). Looking at phantom charts for the same alt at around 12-13 dps STR and ~19dps ITR(4x Aim7, 41k lbs) So not a huge difference, but slightly in the migs favor with a 45 deg wing sweep. I assume it gets somewhat better with the 33 deg sweep, but I've not seen any aero data for that. Yup, I agree with you here, you need accurate evaluations. All I know is that the Israelis got their hands on Syrian MLD (which in reality is aerodynamically an MLA, with MLD radar/fcs). And they concluded it outflew their slatted F4E's across the envelope. Sadly that report doesn't have any actual flight data, just the conclusion.
  2. Yeah, DCS IR modeling is very very simplistic. But the major determinants of lock ranges from an IR standpoint are basically gonna be related to how much IR signal you are getting and what part of the IR spectrum is in (this is where what kind of seeker material you are using becomes important). But at a very basic level what you are seeing in that chart is obviously, signature from the engine (idle/mil/AB) which of course is a bigger deal from rear aspects. Then you have the airframe which when you get supersonic will get warm, but the key point everyone missies is that there is a supersonic shock wave, well what happens when you rapidly compress a gas? It heats up. I used to have a great IR image of a hornet along with the shockwave but can't find it anymore. The other thing that matters alot as well is "background" or "contrast". Its pretty simple to think about if your plane has a temp value of 100 and the background has a temp value of 0, then this is the perfect case, the signature is 100 (lets say this is the case looking up at a clear sky, which is very cold). Now in "look down" you are looking at the ground, so your plane is still 100, but now the ground is say 50. So your effective signature is just 50, so shorter range to pick you out of that. (not represented on the chart as far as I can tell) since I don't think it says what the ownship alt is (or maybe it is and I missed it). Other fun things that show up in the chart like atmospheric attenuation, so the high alt ranges are longer than the low alt ranges, because there is less atmosphere to absorb the signal. And as you can see, this is actually a major effect. Also one major thing that I don't think is really reflected in this chart are other factors such as "skyshine" or "ground shine" i.e. reflections of either the very cold sky, or the relatively warm ground that also impact IR signatures. Also, the final complicating factor being paint...
  3. It was only used by ground crews. In DCS its an exploit to use it.
  4. Yeah sadly DCS navy stuff is just really badly done, its just hitpoints and a few bandaid fixes like the radar turns off, or fewer weapons fire after so many hitpoints are depleted. But at the same time, I think the amount of work to even do it halfway decently would be large. Just from the basic "SAM" perspective you'd have to model differences for search/track/guidance radars for one (and alot of that is poorly known). And then from the attacking them standpoint, things like ECM, countermeasures like chaff or flares for IR guided ASM's etc. (which is basically unknown) And THEN an actual damage model (also large gaps in knowledge there). And now multiply that by all of the ships in DCS (which of course have gaping holes in the ship-set). Even for a small subset like the USN stuff in there, its a perry (Dear ED these used SM-1 not SM-2 btw), the burke, and a tico. So thats 3 major surface combatants right there, and then you have to actually try to model AEGIS and datalinks in how all that works from an air defense standpoint... The simplest stuff, frankly would be the Falklands ships. Far simpler systems and radars for the most part, and even they are badly done in various regards, i.e. (sea-cat reload times) though the wibbly wobbly guidance with them is kinda fun. But then again systems like Sea-dart did actually have drawbacks, and weren't always quite the murder-death-kill machines that they are in DCS.
  5. Harlikwin

    MiG-17PF

    Cubans also strapped R-73's to their Mig21bis. Seems like they were an enterprising lot when it came to these sorts of things.
  6. Yeah the 1948 air war was something else. Lots of cool stories about how the IAF begged, borrowed, or stole and airforce.
  7. Honestly the best historical map for this would be circa ~1970. I'm sure there is a ton of declassified Corona imagery of the area due to the fact you had 2 wars there 67/73 in very short order so while not quite "google" maps ease of access, the actual imagery does exist to pretty good levels of resolution (6 foot resolution). https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-declassified-data-declassified-satellite-imagery-1 And aside from doing the airbases, you'd basically just be deleting most of the cities on the map and maybe adding farms, as the were like 1/5 the size or something like that in terms of population. Yuup... Here are some "large" area photos, there a ton more in more detailed resolution too. Like 37 pages worth with IDK how many images per page 50? null
  8. The Israelis evaluated a captured MLA vs slatted phantoms and came to that conclusion, they also concluded the 23 could keep up with vipers in certain parts of the envelope (high alt mostly). Doctrinally the Soviets fully expected the 23MLA and MLD to go against vipers and win. The Aero stuff I've seen suggest that the 23 and the slatted phantom have very similar STR, maybe 1-2 dps in the floggers favor for most of the flight regime. Absolute ITR might be a tossup. But the 23MLA typically outflew mig21's as well and those are certainly within the F4's ballpark. As for acceleration, LOL, you have guys that flew against the red eagles overwhelmingly state that even the MS "walked away from them". And one of the Red eagles that Flew F-22's state that the 23MS would out accelerate it. Mind you the MS is over a ton heavier, and has a ton less thrust vs the MLA. And lol, no one is gonna dogfight in the 16 degree position, 45 was standard and what most of the charts are based on for the MLA, then they discovered 33 was the superior sweep which was utilized. Does the 23MLA have weaknesses with its aerodynamics, without a doubt. But its basically a totally different jet than the MS, which is where the bulk of western "aero" mig-lore comes from, and that was literally the worst model of 23 that ever flew. Which is <drum roll> why they sold them to the arabs (and where the US got them). Systems wise same thing. The MS was basically trash in terms of radar, lacked and IRST, no Lazur system and so forth. The MLA radar is more advanced than the F4 radar, no doubt there. It may be a misunderstood whacky engineered piece of sovietium, but from what I have read on it, it should perform quite well in lookup, and while it has its issues with lookdown, it will actually work unlike the APQ-120. Moreover its integration with the IRST will give the sensor advantage to the MLA even if its modeled right with its deficiencies (Though I have near zero confidence a good IRST model can be made in DCS at this juncture without a heavy lift from ED, which may or may not happen). Add to that an actual Lazur model (no idea if it will have this on release, but Razbam said they will try) then the advantage is firmly in the floggers court SA wise versus the phantom. BVR wise again, the MLA should have an advantage over the phantom due to the radar and the same assuming period correct missiles (i.e. R-23 vs 7E's), or later (R-24 vs 7F). But really given the fact that seeker performance differences for either IR or Radar guided missiles aren't modeled in DCS this will take away alot of that flavor. As for DCS, its just down to how well this stuff gets modeled by either party. DCS devs, both HB and Raz have had their historical issues getting things modeled right (the F14 flaps fiasco for example, among many others) but both parties have eventually gotten there IMO. The F14 of today is vastly better than where they started off. Same for most of the Razbam jets. My general hope for the Phantom is that the radar model is at least on par in terms of "limitations" of the APQ-120 as it is "performance" and this goes 5000% more true for how jester actually handles it, if he can just easily dig out targets from the clutter the rest of the radar model is pointless IMO. Same goes for him running the TGP and other systems. HB's areo modeling, I generally like, but the F14 went through IDK what 2 or 3 major revisions, and the flap exploit till they clamped down on it was the bane of fighting in MP. And then there were the famous Phoenix revisions. For the F4 I really hope "early sparrow" problems are actually modeled, but I have my doubts. The one potential upside we've seen is the new physics based RWR, so that gives me hope for a decent EW simulation, though given how the rest of DCS works I have questions on how they managed to do it. As for the 23, I hope the radar model is good, and if Galinette is doing it, I'll give Razbam the benefit of the doubt since he did a great job with the eagle radar. As I mentioned earlier I think the IRST will likely be a major problem to get right/realistic given the existing IR modeling in DCS or rather lack therof, but I hope they figure out something better than what they did for the Harrier. Lazur again a toss-up as to how its done, if its like the TAF for the M2k it won't be very realistic, but at least it will be easy to implement. If they go whole hog and actually try to model "tactics" for the GCI it could end up being decent. The FM is the other big question IMO, I've never really cared for Razbams FM's in the past, but the Eagle is actually pretty decent in book, and more importantly in the book of guys that flew em, so that gives me hope.
  9. Problem in MP is that its not coalition based and he will call all "blue" jets friendly, while he calls "red" jets enemy. Which can be rather confusing when the F14 becomes a red (IRAF) jet.
  10. I mean, literally former warpac nations are part of NATO now, literally there is nothing sekrit or exploitable on the 9.12 Mig29. The west literally knows everything and have for decades. So the whole dokumints thing is mostly bunk. You can literally goto public libraries in former warpac countries and find detailed docs for this jet, everything from maintenance to flight manuals etc. I know a guy raiding them for mig23 docs as we speak. But Russia is Russia, and logic doesn't necessarily apply. LOFL...
  11. Good. It's the more common of the two. And can approximate IRAF birds better. Be neat if we get the IRAF F14-95 at the same time. Even neater would be if ED did a IRAF F5E.
  12. I'd love to know more on the kjl if you want to pm me.
  13. The problem with that idea is that literally the JF17 uses the same radar, same tgp, same displays/avionics the early J-10. So unless you posit the JF17 is too classified or "made up" then it should be in the realm of possibility. All you really need is FM data which may or may not be out there somewhere.
  14. That would make the most sense at least.
  15. Also as to the whole Mig-23MLA vs F4E debate. More or less the Mig23 should be slightly better in most of the ways that matter, at least on paper. It turned a bit better than the phantom across most of the envelope, the radar was better. The missiles in terms of DCS probably matter less since ED doesn't model anything with seeker types. Technically the R-23 seeker should be better than the 7E series. And the R-24 in theory should be on par or better than the 7F fired from the phantom. AAM wise, the R60/60M were gonna be better than the early sidewinders in terms of tracking/dogfight performance aside from range. Once the 9L shows up, then the shoe is on the other foot. But as numerous people have pointed out, it was complicated IRL what jet would get what. In general the "on the paper" advantages are small however you slice it, so it will be down to how well things are modeled on either jet. Maybe HB models Jester 2.0 to be able to read thru clutter and lock stuff unrealistically, or maybe not. Or maybe either FM is off by enough to make the jet more OP or UP than it was IRL. Sad. your link is dead.
  16. SEAM was a Navy winder thing. So Aim-9D/G/H/ and then the L. AF versions didn't have it. I.e. E/J/N/P. IDK how SEAM might have been added to the phantom for use with the 9L though, it might have not had it for the L. (edit. yeah I see klarsnow already covered this). Yeah, you can see the "double-D" scan pattern, that navy jets do with it on the tomcat IIRC. Fun fact there being is Iran never got their "navy" missiles, so they had to jerry rig Aim-9J/P to the tomcat, and therefore no SEAM there.
  17. Pretty sure I recall reading the F4 radar couldn't actually illuminate the 7F out to its max range.
  18. A full Fi J-10 would be great. Lots of similarity systems wise to the JF-17 for the early ones. But I kinda doubt it.
  19. Yeah the whole DCS FLIR "model" is just bad. Like the ground has variable contrast depending on time of day and so forth, while in DCS its pretty static from what I can tell. Also, vehicles in general should have different contrast regardless because they are made of different material with different emissivity and so forth. IR is not some simplistic "predator" model, what something looks like is a combination of emissivity and reflectivity of the material, as well as heat. I've repeatedly shown images here of stuff at the same exact temp that show up entirely differently in FLIR. The idea that some object will magically disappear if it becomes the same "temperature" as the background shows how badly ED misunderstands FLIR at a basic highschool level. Moreover basic sensor principles don't seem to exist. Like there is no detection range difference between first gen pods like LANTIRN, and later 3rd gen pods like ATFLIR/Litening, whereas IRL there were major differences in detection ranges between those systems due to how much more sensitive the latter pods were (which amusingly became a problem because issues like veiling glare on the battlefield, but I digress). I mean if more people understood it they'd be up in arms if the mig21 radar performed like the AWG-9 as an example. With regards to modern pods like I said, alot of the actual technical information you'd need to model them well is either unknown or very well obfuscated. Or even the case of basic stuff like "digital" zoom on the Litening pods which I'd hope guys that code things like graphics should understand its not even modeled. But the fact of the matter is at best we have one "model" working in the LWIR part of the spectrum, and most of the modern pods working in MWIR part of the spectrum.
  20. I'm sure Iran or Israel will be happy to post all that stuff up here Cooper talks about STARM use in his F4E book IIRC. In general Iran had the pick of the US inventory back in the day.
  21. The LANA pod was basically a hudflir like we have in the harrier, it also had a low mag zoom mode (2x IIRC), so for example it could be used for CCIP deliveries on targets as one example. but it was used for night navigation more. Hopefully they can model it similarly to the F15E navflir. I mean sort of, what we have is a much later version of the hud/systems. It was similar to the early 16A huds, but our 16C hud is way later.
  22. Guess we have to wait till 2.9 to see if anything actually got fixed. But in general various missile parameters are wrong, and it looks like seeker behavior for a few of them is really broken. R3S should be similar to the 9B at least in terms of seeker performance. They did improve the gas generator it used a slightly better motor though etc. But the seeker was literally plug-n-play with 9B missiles. Also all missiles still track through clouds. Which of course they should not.
  23. Not really. I mean up close maybe, but in general 90% of the videos you see of FLIR stuff is at very close range and from almost any acceptable range its gonna look way worse. Especially for early generation pods like the LANTIRN. LANTIRN is also far less sensitive than the later 3rd gen pods and operates in LWIR, meaning you won't even see targets till you are close. There are a few F111 pod videos that illustrate this "phenomenon" with PAVETAC where you basically don't see the target till you are right on top of it. Also meteorological conditions near the target are a massive issue with thermal, high humidity environments will greatly degrade FLIR performance. Whereas nice dry weather in Nevada will work great for thermals. These are major pilot/weapon planning issues when planning actual strikes/attacks. Of course none of its modeled in DCS not one Iota. Yeah so all of those things you mention are things with sniper to various degrees. However, AFAIK all of that information that could be used on a technical basis is classified AFAIK. In general ED does poor job of modeling anything with the lasers on the pods either, especially say the basic not-classified in the least fact that lasers don't work through clouds. But also yes, later pod lasers will have more range. At least Razbam made the LANTIRN pod laser turn off above 25k. Even more stuff that isn't modeled by ED at all is the fact that one of the major feature of the pods is to basically be able to transmit video to JTAC's over DL and vice versa in various circumstances. Of course beyond the half baked JTAC model no one really uses much we aren't getting anything like that. Though alot of that is not really classified but just not something ED is interested in doing. Overall the other half of the issue with the TGP's is ignorance about the topic from the community in general. Most of the playerbases' knowledge of the topic IMO comes from Hollywood movies or other video games that also do really poor job with modeling anything like it. So you have people whine about the image isn't good enough or its too poor etc when they literally have no clue what they are talking about.
  24. Honestly Razbam could likely do it. Cuba had 9.12, Overstratos worked on em IIRC. And document wise, literally the 29 is an open book for all of its systems and FM in detail from German, Czech, Slovak, Polish sources. Honestly it would be good to get a Razbam high quality Radar and maybe even IRST models. ala the F15E. But I guess we will see how the mig23 goes first and I think they might have a mig25 on their plate coming soon too.
×
×
  • Create New...