Karon

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.

I know, but this post was opened over a month ago. If, after such a long time, he still struggles and TacView can solve everything in 30 seconds, perhaps it's better to get it, isn't it? I mean, it's free.

Ah, sorry, I understand now. I often see the problem in my missile test mission, and it is very easy to reproduce. The cause is the low Vc of the first shot that leads the follow-ups (at decreased separation) to arrive even earlier than the first one. Quite often they smash into each other. However, I've never seen this happening in the wild, only once with SD-10s. Post a Tacview track, it would make everything easier.

***Thrust-to-Weight ratio, Fuel & Performance Study: F-14 Tomcat*** After a few months collecting data, I have finally finished a new thrust-to-weight fuel & performance model. However, the amount of data is so huge that I had to break it down into multiple discussions. This is the first one, and we start with a bang with one of the most beautiful aeroplanes ever designed: the F-14 Tomcat. Article: https://flyandwire.com/2024/12/20/twr-fuel-performance-study-f-14-tomcat/

Pulse does not guide the Phoenix. It is a glorified maddog with some angles provided until the missile magically acquires the target you locked initially. It's a launch-and-leave TWS, if you will. Add some manual loft to it, and it will go quite far. It's a neat trick to show your friends. Example here. Also: > i dont have tacview, i never really used it > i have a feeling that that multiple aim-54s are colliding, to me thats a big sign of something going on You have just proved why you need TacView. Jokes aside, TV is single-handedly the most important software you can add to DCS. It teaches you how things work or don't, and exponentially accelerates your growth as a virtual pilot. Grab it, it's free Btw, I had two SD-10 collide whilst testing for my recent video about Active Radar Homing missiles, and I remember even managed to have one Phoenix chasing a previously fired one. However, the setup was outside DCS' laws of physics.

Whatever works for you, mate. I am not telling you how to play PS: HB, by popular demand, we now want this:

No, not all of them. Most of them? Definitely yes. The DDD tells you how to use the MLC switch, when to turn preemptively, and when to accelerate or slow down, for example. Also, min-maxing? You are playing an aeroplane that requires two crew members but on your own (the cockpits are not symmetrical) with an AI that is not even close to what an actual RIO should do (because very few would accept an AI telling them what to do), and worry about that? De gustibus, sure, but this is not min-maxing but rather filling the game's gaps.

I "play" (→ try to) in SP as well, and I do it from the backseat. Or, at least, I jump back before employing and right after that. You know ~6 seconds in advance if your track is about to get extrapolated. You also immediately see changes in geometry, id est when the target manoeuvres and approaches the MLC or ZDF bands. All it takes is a glance. Actually, two, depending on in which bar the target is. The point is: this is a two-crew fighter jet. Jester works if you know the aircraft, but it cannot do all this basic stuff a human can. However, these are minute things that it would. Yes, this is pattern-recognition-based, but it entails recognising and contextualising a situation that might be a problem in the future and commanding the pilot to act. We can't expect Jester to do that. It's also a lot of work on HB's side for no real reason when the solution is pressing a button, checking the DDD for a few seconds, and returning to the stick monkey's seat. What do you think?

A simple way to tell is how the DDD looked. I am unfamiliar with such a campaign and particular situation, but 99% of the time, you can tell on the DDD when the TWS is about to go stupid. Not enough players keep an eye on it post-launch, though — and I don't mean you in particular. Also: why STT at 10nm? can you provide footage / tacview?

Thank you! I really appreciate your words

Part II ready. Article: https://flyandwire.com/2024/12/08/active-radar-homing-missiles-ii-performance-comparison/

"tws" - there found your primary source of issues. How does the DDD look like when you launch in TWS?

The Phoenix was considered obsolete by the mid-late 80s. That's where the 1980s AIM-152 project comes in. Then, no more Cold War, long-range not needed anymore plus budget cuts equal project cancelled. The F-14 was tested with the AIM-120, but due to money constraints and cuts, they had to choose and go for the LANTIRN. Without such a capability, and with a "better Hornet" from day one, the F-14 would have probably been retired by the mid-90s. Instead, it became the Bombcat, de facto a different platform for an era when war was much different than the theorised Third World War. At the end of the day, it's always a matter of money and geopolitics. Problem is, games badly replicate these factors, and it's usually players' fault. @tavarish palkovnik I really enjoy reading your findings, but until the new missile API is applied across the board, and devs have greater and more granular control over every phase of the envelope, I would not expect any major change.

Sorry for the double-post and self-plug, but here you can see the first part of a study about ARH missiles, a parenthesis from my usual CW stuff. The Phoenix is included and the videos should make how it works a bit more understandable. Part II will have a direct comparison between the missiles at the same range. We can talk for days about how the Phoenix works and how it should go faster, slower, or higher, but the vast majority of the time, it is the lack of understanding that dooms it.

Something a bit different, a look at Active Radar Homing missiles. The plan was to check how JF-17 and SD-10 fare, a brief parenthesis from the usual CW stuff. I expanded the tests a bit and included other ARH missiles.

The problem is that DCS lacks the means to provide effective differentiation. As long as CM are not physicalised, EW is still in the same status, the 2019-announced (or 2020?) missile API is still AWOL, a nanosecond in the notch defeats even laser beams, and so on, there is little justification to simply not get the one that has better kinematics. Blatant example: the old AIM-54A Mk60. I am really looking forward to seeing all the pieces in place to finally provide variety, facets, depth and peculiarities to air combat. I am just a bit disheartened by the fact that we will hardly get anything meaningful before the end or at least the last part of this decade. Anyway, back in topic, AIM-54 güd mizzle, but requires a bit of brain and effort to make it work

*coff* skill issue /s Besides random bugs that appear now and then, the Phoenix is always the Phoenix: the most challenging missile to use in DCS. It needs the right conditions and effort to make it work. I am working on a brief series about ARH missiles. Sure that many would have complained about the results, I put together this timeline. It should right away tell you a lot about how the geopolitical conditions changed after the mid-80s, how old the Phoenix is, both tech-wise and perspective-wise, and why comparing it to anything past the early '90s makes zero sense. Charts and numbers will come later because, apparently, there is still a need to reiterate the same things all the time

No worries, shout if you want to see something specific. ATM I'm working on a broad comparison between ARH missiles in DCS, with particular emphasis on the SD-10, which later will translate in a brief BVR Timeline for the JF-17.

I mean, it's not that no one has ever talked about the actual in-game missile performance ever, eh... Missile kinematics I/II: https://flyandwire.com/2023/06/09/missiles-kinematics-part-i-time-factor-and-loft/ Missile kinematics III: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/27/missiles-kinematics-part-ii-cold-war-era/ Video about the "best" Phoenix variant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9V_A1gjiKE DCS missile performance visualised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urL9PKusXho And there's a lot more, Google helps.

I mean, it's not that no one has ever talked about the actual in-game missile performance ever, eh... Missile kinematics I/II: https://flyandwire.com/2023/06/09/missiles-kinematics-part-i-time-factor-and-loft/ Missile kinematics III: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/27/missiles-kinematics-part-ii-cold-war-era/ Video about the "best" Phoenix variant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9V_A1gjiKE DCS missile performance visualised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urL9PKusXho And there's a lot more, Google helps.

Hey folks! After 5 years of non-stop diving into the minute details of F-14 and F-4, I decided to take a brief pause to refamiliarise myself with something more modern before going back to CW toys. In this post, I will link bits and pieces I put together; I hope you can find them helpful. Documents Chinese manual machine translation. Article. KLJ-7 Radar KLJ-7 Radar Overview: modes, peculiarities, and much more. Video [10:00] | Article. KLJ-7 Radar: Air-to-Air Search modes: VS, RWS, TWS. Video [08:20] | Article. Targeting & Tracking: STT, SAM. Video [06:36] | Article. Other discussions First look, first issues: some thoughts after a few minutes of checking the JF-17 and the KLJ-7. In particular, I was unsure about how RWS generated and updated track files. Kudos to the community for solving my conundrum. Video [04:45] | Article. More looks, more issues: RWS generated tracks on the HSI. It turned out to be a bug - already fixed by Deka. Video [04:51]

I am not sure whether this is a troll post or not. I suppose it is, since you are comparing FC3 magic aircraft with a full-fidelity, excellent module. On top of that, the F-14 we have still sports the '60s combination of AWG-9 and AIM-54, so of course, it should have more issues in this department. Still, a decent RIO greatly offset this, giving the advantage to the F-14. So, do you want to play this somewhat realistically? Then, you should use AIM-54C and AIM-7M versus R-27. Especially with the F-14A, you are much faster than the Su-27, so keep the speed up and blow-through if necessary.

Very late to the party, but I machine-translated the Chinese manual with a couple of tools. It's definitely nowhere near as close as a human translation, but I guess it is better than nothing. I used DeepL and another tool so, when something sounds odd, the same part can be cross-referenced with the other translation. More info here: https://flyandwire.com/2024/09/21/jf-17-full-manual-machine-translation/ Downloads here: https://flyandwire.com/download/ I hope this helps!