Spurts

When the statement was made the B was the prevalent model.

Range at off boresight angles. A PESA or AESA will have a percentage of it's maximum radiated energy available equal to the COS of the off center angle. The rare mechanically steered ESA radars (Irbis-E, Captor, Raven) allow to turn the array by ~50-60degrees and then losses go from there, meaning full 90 degree off boresight has an output of COS(30), or 87% of maximum power, at an angle that traditional MSA or ESA cannot reach at all.

I did do the barrel roll to continue support, I thought I used a different RWR tone to cue the timing of the roll. Maybe I used a Jester callout when he got a visual on the missile. This was done on a previous computer so I may not have the TACVIEW for it. I also fired from ~43,000ft and 1.4ish Mach and they were also ~45,000ft and 1.5M.

When in TWS the R-33 shows up on the AWG -9. I shoot -54s at the -33s while doing a support crank (~50deg) and then barrel roll into the targets if the R-33s go active. Bagged two MiG-31s in BVR with four -54Cs that way.

Someone previously found 100ms works for AIR and 200ms works for Snakeeyes

Not really. What you said is only true if the CFTs are removed. The CFTs actually change the lift curve and the pitch moment curve (the Manual states that pitch response is higher with the CFTs, implying they add a degree of instability). Also the likely version we will be getting is far more powerful than any F-15C. The PFMs I'm sure also take into account things like different mass distributions for a different moment of inertia, even at the same weight, and once the CFTs are added the different airflow hitting the H-Stabs.

Have you not seen the flight test video?

I like where your head is at. Arleigh-Burke is a long time love of mine, just that with the exception of AEGIS radars, torpedoes, and hangars, GW-era Iowas had everything the Burkes do and more. My thoughts are more than if they could do the Iowa as I described, a Burke would be almost easy. I also like the idea of commanding a Wasp, running Harrier Carrier Ops, Cobras, then dropping the Amphibious landing craft off to assault a beach.

So, the thing about Meteor is that it does not have increased speed, nor arbitrarily increased range. What it has is a throttle-able ram-rocket motor that can burn are nearly the whole time the onboard power is being supplied (call it three minutes for sake of discussion). So while an AIM-120C motor burns for ~8 seconds the Meteor has a boost phase for ~2s then ~20s of "max" thrust available but it also has a temperature restriction on the radome. It is only built for so much heat for so much time. At lower altitudes "max" thrust from the sustainer is needed and critical Q won't be reached. It has a lot more drag than a clipped fin -120. At higher altitudes the Meteor will climb at max speed, pulling back throttle as it goes, until it reaches the altitude at which max speed and min throttle meet (hint, this is going to be a lower altitude than a lofted AIM-120"D"/Phoenix when fired from 50,000ft). It will then sit here like this until it starts to dive on the target. So, given a high altitude launch, if the AIM-120 can get high enough it can hold ~4.0M in the ballistic path for a long time and will out-stick the Meteor, but under most normal launch altitudes (20,000-40,000ft) the Meteor will sustain a higher speed than the AIM-120 after a fairly short time and thus get farther on the same "battery power"

Okay, so DCS aims to be a full combat simulator. Land, Air, and Sea. Iowa-Class ships were used in combat out to 1991. Would I pay to have an AI GW-era Iowa? Not much. Would I pay to have a playable Iowa as DCS first full fidelity Naval Module? Yes! I don't mean some WoWS style either. Notional "Captain" player who can give orders to the different groups. Each group can also be controlled directly for a massive multicrew possibility. Find a radar target (or map location) and send the targeting parameters to the 16s, set to fire single shell, full spread, or salvo until dead. Set the 5s to Offense where they will also try to engage a designated target or Defense where they auto attack (they had programable airbust fuses for air-defense). Same for any remaining 40mms. You still have a pair of CWIS to defend against missile shots, and you have Harpoons and Tomahawks for strike as well. Different crew position for each weapon type. Automation based on last command when not manually crewed. A full up damage module that includes notional crew members located in different compartments, degradation of crew effectiveness, or cessation of, during damage control ops. I think enough museum ships (i.e. the entire class) are available for study. Vehicle control notionally done via map plot and commands (heading-distance-power), but direct control from the various helm positions possible.

Do you see that little arrow sliding around the outside of the circle? That is the actual range. It is in the dash for most the vid. And 4000ft is effectively out of range for a tail aspect shot or a high aspect shot. The round only has in initial velocity of 3,400ft/s and I promise you it will be going much much slower by the end of that first second meaning range traveled in 1s will be much much lower. This is why even Wiki lists the effective range as 2,000ft.

I love ground pounding. The A-10C was my first module back in the day and I saw no reason to change... until my buddy got an F/A-18 and we flew a mission together. I could barely clear the mountain range with the loadout for the mission and by the time I got there he had already killed everything. So I picked up the Hornet. Later on during the first free-to-play period I tried the Harrier. One STO and SRVL on the Tarawa and I was hooked. Then I fired up the Viper. OMG. That vis, the power, the simplicity of the HOTAS. I remembered why I have been obsessed with them since I was 6.

You are out of range in that video. That's why the pipper won't work.

Any chance @BIGNEWY can chime in, since I have seen them reply in other threads? What can be done to model the increased G Tolerance that should come from the reclined seat? Last time I hopped in the Viper the UFC was one VR Shaka away (roughly elbow distance). I looked down and I am not at the beck of the seat (the seat part, not the backrest).

Oh wow, it never dawned on me that some people are knew to Deep Stall. Some of us "geriatric" simmers have some 25 years experience with it.

Godspeed and clear skies, Snort.

That's fair. Thank you for your perspective.

That's the nice thing about HB. They made a Tomcat. Early B, then late A, soon early A and Iranian A. If they do the Phantom I could see something like B, C, E, J, (I think those are the air force and naval pre and post gun variants) and maybe a G. Even just the E deals with Kunass, Kai, Terminator, and 2000 variants.

my experience with SA-10 has been that HARM is useless. I would fire 4 from an F/A-18 and each one would be shot down. The only reliable way to drop an SA-10 for me was to get stupid low and bomb the radar with something small, like a CBU, SE, or even rockets. Then take out the launchers at my leisure.

The whole "DCS is an Arcade/Video Game vs Simulator" debate is hilarious. Someone should go let the USAF know that their A-10C flight trainer is just an arcade. There are aspects of DCS that are rougher simulations than others, but DCS is a Simulator. it Simulates the real aircraft and, more importantly, their subsystems to a degree no one would ever care to do in a "Game". Is everything in DCS 100% accurate? Of course not. Some things are still holdovers from LO-MAC, some things are classified, but development on DCS never ceases. It is always evolving into a more accurate and higher fidelity Simulator. And by the way, a SIMULATOR tries to SIMULATE reality. It is not ever a PERFECT replication of reality.

There are a few possible culprits. When are you turning on NWS? It should only be used under 60KIAS IIRC. Are you airbraking to under 100KIAS? If you are actively using wheel brakes then one side may have locked and started sliding. She isn't easy to learn how to land but once you understand what is causing a non nominal runout it is easy enough to get under control.

I can't even count the number of times I used my VR hands to try and shade a washed out display only to be reminded that my virtual hands do not create virtual shadows.

No, the F-15E actually only has the same A-A stations as the C, the ones on the body are just moved to the CFT.

commenting to follow. This looks great!

I think of the F-14A as a 4th gen airframe with advanced 3rd gen guts. The B got 4th Gen engines. The D got 4th Gen electronics. Overall HMI was still 3rd Gen across the board. I love flying this bird.