Karon

Regardless of this particular issue, if you want to compare empirical data, make sure you have repeated the data gathering at least 10-15 times. Then remove the outliers and check what happens. A single data collection is never sufficient: any tiny unload will accelerate you and, vice versa, and a slight climb will slow you down. Only then can you proceed (and will still be incorrect, but hopefully a bit less so).

LOL I really wanted to mention the F-22, but I skipped it because I was concerned people would miss the point. Although, reflecting on it, for the F-22 it's more that its raison d'être dates to the CW (reaction to new Soviet tech, MiG / Su, A-50, etc), but the tech and the design were futuristic for the era. The Typhoon still fits in the CW thought process, but, unless we are playing an European Cold War version of The Final Countdown, I don't see it fitting an 80s scenario Anyway, we are totally OT now...

Keyword here: "CW design". Not "CW-operational aeroplane" or "aeroplane that flew in the CW". FFS, sometimes I wonder if people read or are just in a hurry to reply

Apologies, I am probably misunderstanding here. Are you wondering why there is a ZDF in Pulse mode? I think the easiest way to look at it is the name itself: Zero | Doppler | Filter. Simplifying a lot, if there is no Doppler ( = Zero), then a Filter kicks in. PD stands for Pulse Doppler, and it uses the Doppler principles to work, so you need a difference in relative speed. If two objects move at the same speed, there is no speed difference, so no Doppler. No Doppler → apply the filter. I suppose there may be some returns, but they might be hard to process, or perhaps appear aleatory to the radar processing them (clutter from sidelobes?), and so they are removed - you need someone more expert on the matter for a good technical explanation. I never had the time to look into the technical side of radar processing, although I wish I could at some point. This is how ZDF looks in-game: Back to the AWG-9, if you switch from PD to Pulse, the logic changes and, de facto, there are no filters. That's why you see everything (even too much if you used the bugged Gain knob). In fact, the raison d'être of Pulse is, among other things, to allow crews to operate in an environment where the target aspect can quickly change. MPRF would have been the better choice (but it comes with its own set of issues, range especially) but, from my understanding, MPRF processing with analogue hardware was not feasible in the Tomcat. I hope this helps and not complicates things instead

OK, look, we are going nowhere here. I just leave those here. 3 results out of the top 5: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/27/malta-summit-ends-the-cold-war-archive-1989 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_4119000/4119950.stm https://coldwar.unc.edu/theme/end-of-the-cold-war/ Also, I would argue that the last batch of CW designs is possibly the Eurofighter, which arrived late precisely because the CW ended. > What started in 1989 could have ended very differently if it wasn't Gorby leading the USSR And, as we say where I'm from, "if my nonna had wheels, she'd be a wheelbarrow". Ergo, if you change something (history in this case), you get different results (AIM-120 and AIM-152 for the Tomcat, so go for it). You should have warned me that we were theorycrafting here; I wouldn't have entertained this conversation.

The 9.12A was delivered to Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany in 1989/1990, at least according to sources on wikipedia. Other sources say that, for example, the first East German MiG-29s were delivered in mid-1988 and became fully operational in 1990. The Cold War ended in 1989, with the last step in the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. We can argue that it started its final phase when someone took the relation between the two blocks out of the freezer a couple of years earlier, in 1987/88. Ergo, not really "very much a Cold War aircraft", but an aircraft that, in the version we are getting, arrived post-CW and, even in its original Soviet form, was relevant for what, 1-2% of the duration of the entire war? Ref the ER, I find "game balance" as the justification for having weapons that "in theory" could be used quite laughable tbh. Everyone can do what they want with the game, of course, but just be conscious that looking for balance means throwing out the window any semblance of plausibility. War is a race; there is no balance, otherwise both Iraqi and Serbians would have complained with the admins right away in DS and Kosovo ( /s, in case someone has not realised it). Good info, thanks mate. Do you have solid numbers about the ratio between R-27 and ER/ET versions? Because what I have (chats / interviews) indicates an almost complete usage of "plain" R-27. However, we know how anecdotal sources are...

I'm a closed beta tester, but only for Heatblur - which does not mean that I don't raise issues for other products if I run into them. I am not following the Fulcrum much at the moment, since it's de facto a post-CW aircraft, but I'm curious since the -29 is the first FF redfor released in years. Updates will come as soon as there is more to share. For example, recently, there was news about the Corsair.

As a sidenote, remember that an upgrade at a certain date does not immediately upgrade your weapon / aircraft stock to the newer version (anyone else misses Leonardo Da Vinci's workshop from Civ II? lol). For instance, if you want to play a semi-realistic mission in Germany 1980s as a redfor, you will be facing fundamentally only F-4s, with only one TFW in all Europe sporting F-15s, even though the F-15 was technically introduced in 1976. Similarly, AIM-7F from the 70s were still around in the 90s. Personally, if I ever feature one of these MiGs in a mission I design, it won't have an R-27ER/ET unless it's Russian/Soviet. Still, DCS is a sandbox, and airquake/casual servers or players who do not want to stick to reality may benefit from the ability to choose. So... AIM-152 and AIM-120 to the Tomcat when?

Which is incorrect, as it depends on where the mainlobe is. So, if you have a general idea of where the target is azm-wise (e.g. from the RWR), you can acquire a lock whilst looking down. You need a human, though, as it requires a bit of work on the radar. Once the lock is achieved, it is very hard to break. null

After a few months sitting on these numbers, I finally gathered enough mental strength to deal with modern DCS Jokes aside, here is the probable final part of the Thrust-to-weight ratio, performance and fuel consumption study. This time the focus is on the 16-17-18 triad: FFalcon, Jeff and Hornet.

This question resembles a lot the initial critiques of the F-14's Jester, which were caused mostly by a lack of understanding of the avionics and Tomcat systems. So, since you said Jester did not see the target, could you spot it on the radar instead? Btw, the 50nm scale is sometimes barely enough. A lot depends on the conditions you are facing.

Thanks @TOViper!

Great work, thanks!

I just asked the devs and linked your post. They'll check here or let me know if there's a better solution than unpacking the miz. Thanks! In the meantime, may I suggest a magnifying glass? > I already asked that question in the Heat Blur section but did not see any response yet. This section seems to be much faster. That's the Italian section of ED's forum though

Quick old tip of mine: CPTR PILOT → CCIP CPTR TARGET → CCRP CCIP is a very unsafe delivery method. As Tau mentioned, tossing prevents you from flying too close to the target (and it is also a lot of fun - self lasing especially). CPTR IP is something different, and it can help you find the correct target if the area is cluttered.

Last part of the INS discussion: Visual/Radar fix updates. Bonus: the NS430 is back, with an unexpected supporter

Hey folks, continuing the INS Navigation discussion in the F-4E, I started to look into the fix updates methods. I hope this can be useful to you.

Something different for once, a broad discussion about SARH employment: ranges, timeline, tactics and more.

Back to Back to Basics! This chapter of the Back to Basics series focuses on the INS, the acronym for Inertial Navigation System. Often misunderstood or taken for granted, understanding the limitations, features, and potential issues of the INS is fundamental, along with knowing the alternative means the crew can use for navigation. Article: https://flyandwire.com/2025/02/13/back-to-basics-ins-drift-and-navigation/

Glad it helped I think both F-14 and F-4 pilots need to spend some time in the backseat, whether they fly solo with Jester or a human. Having a decent understanding of "all-thing-in-the-back" definitely helps to better understand properties, capabilities and limitations of the aeroplane.

As I mentioned in the first video, at ~2:10, I think it is easier to see "reset" as "re + set" or "set again". If you think about it, the prefix "re-" stands for "redo" or "repeat", in a sense. About TGT1/2, I think you can see #1 as the first, immediate value. Ergo, straight from the target counters. #2 is secondary, or indirect. Therefore, the memory. Or, you can follow @Zabuzard's tip and simply memorise the functions. Whatever works for you

Hey folks! This is a sort of follow-up to Leapfrogging and discusses the usage of Bullseye with the AN/ASN-63 INS and -46A Nav Computer. If Leap Frog ops used TGT2 and Memory, Bullseye and similar nav references use TGT1. Let me know if this is interesting for you, I don't want to spam not-useful content

Hey folks, I made a quick video about a topic that I considered well explained in the manual, but given the feedback, it is apparently less intuitive than I thought initially. So, here is a neat navigation technique: "leapfrogging". Since the AN/ASN-46A can store only one point, the WSO (Wonderfully Sexy Operator) can apply this method to ensure no delays when switching waypoints. Also, it enables bullseye / other references whilst maintaining the ability to immediately revert to the current steer point and vice versa. The idea is well described in the manual: TGT2 is used for navigation, thus leaving the Target Counters free to be manipulated. As the SP gets close, the WSO can input the new point latlongs, then turn the Nav Comp Mode knob to RESET. This causes the memory to be overwritten. Now, the GIB (Gorgeous In the Back) can switch back to TGT2, and the BDHI will show the new nav info. If you are confused, check the video or the article below. Article: https://flyandwire.com/2025/01/30/f-4e-leap-frog-operations/ HB F-4E Manual: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/jester/navigation.html?highlight=leapfrogging#operation More F-4E Articles: https://flyandwire.com/f-4e-phantom-ii-articles/ I hope this is useful to you. The next videos will be about bullseyes in the F-4E (something I already mentioned here) and INS alignment (yeah, no AHRS shenanigans for land-based aircraft!!). Feel free to suggest more simple-but-not-really topics. Post scriptum: shoutout to HB and their SMEs. I have been accumulating content about the F-4 since long before its release, but every time I jump into it, I notice new, subtle but great details.

TWR, Fuel & Performance: F-4 vs MiG21 vs Mirage F1 - Aircraft Details https://flyandwire.com/2025/01/16/twr-fuel-performance-f-4e-mig-21-mirage-f1-details/ This video introduces and discusses the thrust-to-weight ratio characteristics, fuel consumption, and performance of the F-4E-45MC, the MiG-21bis, and the Mirage F1CE. Due to its length, the next part of this series will compare the three directly.