falcon_120

Thanks IronMike, i was not aware of the stop gap measure. Sounds right to me.

Thanks for the answers. Common sense tells me that there has not to be a relation between that missiles still being made in ukraine with the fact that they have not been updated. Production lines change constantly in any manufacturing industry even if the location remains the same. But if you guys have that info, it is the way it is, and i'm ok with that :).

Sounds great! In any case Chizh, maybe the 1980s R27s was a stupid analog missile. But we could at least get a newer 2000s R27 missile, which i'm sure is not analog anymore. Maybe they also loft. I'm sure you guys have more info to update a bit russian weapons to the standards of year 2000s.

You make it sound like that is a aim120 thing, but it happens to ALL MISSILES. Where is the conspiracy there?

Then so be it. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Mmmm i don't think that is true at all. One thing, is that a modern missile could in theory and under ideal conditions discern between a chaff and a plane. And a different story is to think that chaff does not degrade missile effectivenes. In addition chaff stays in the air for a long time creating lots of noise and degrading the SNR of radars and SARH receivers. That is not simulated in DCS but should be a factor in real life. That is a strange point. Let me flip it to see where we arrive? XD "Don't you think there are lots of engineers, just in a different building, trying to create more advanced chaffs, to sell it to whoever wants to buy that very same unspoofable missile? The marketing could be like this: Our missile is unspoofable... unless you use our new chaff...XD Now, getting back to the real world, yeah, i'd imagine there are lots of engineers trying to solve the problem of a missile that cannot be defeated by chaffs... but that does not mean they have solved the problem right?

The so called "poor intercept curve trajectory to increase range" its actually a feature we have all asked for many times, and it should be added in almost all missiles as far as i know. Before the upgrade, the missile would make crazy stupid 9g turns event when the target was 50 KM away, which it did not make a lot of sense. This should make (once implemented) the R27 and R77 conserve better energy inside its Maximum range.

Unless i stand corrected, the pilot can do everything IRL as well, it can deliver both A/A and A2G ordenance. It just happens that as an operational decission, the WSO is focused on navigation, and fancy A2G procedures (Setting JDAMs,JSOW,LGB, working the FLIR and A2G radar modes, IFF codes...)

Please, dont do the you are not with me so you are against me thing. Still ridiculous. Not only I want r27 and r77 to be improved, I said in this same forum (you can search my posts) that i think its time for ED to introduce other more modern variants like the R77-1. And one of my favourite all time planes, i would buy on day one is the Su30 in any of its variants (A su30MKI would be amazing and could be done by a third party) Fair enough. You are free to speak up about whatever you like, it is not my intention to tell you otherwise. If anything, my reply was concerning "how" you present your disconfort and how you talk about conspiracies. Which i still believe is not the reasons for what is happening. On the other hand many of your points are valid and need attention by ED. We need better ECM implementation, reworked r27/r77 and in general, more modern russian fighters.

Pepil, you need to stop this whining and conspiracy thing... it looks ridicoulous. You will be able to find 1000 examples of things that favour blue force over red force, that is true, but you will be able to find other cases where red force is actually overmodelled (For example, the R27ET detecting planes further away than a 9X is ridicoulous, as far as i know it does not have a data link so you should not be able to shoot further than maybe 8 nm ish away). So I don't think the reason is a conspiracy from ED to downgrade russian equipment. Most of the time, its just lack of resources to improve all legacy planes and content, and the fact that right now there are lots of american fighters under development is not actually helping either, cause money prioritisation obviously favors content for those fighters. But i'm sure ED would love to develop a SU35 if they got the chance, heck, most of programmers and management are russian and participate actively in the russian forum. I really want that ED start working on the R27 and R77 improvements, but you need to stop acting like a child talking about conspiracies.

Definetely i'd love to see some kind of simplistic EW simulated in game. Even if its just a probabilistic percentage of loosing lock, inability to use TWS, or the possibility to jam a fox 3 missile (with a certain random percentage). Anything a bit more complex than a basic noise jammer where you have a burnthrough distance. I understand that this is very difficult to implement, and could be very chaotic if done wrong, but I hope ED could make iterative small steps towards enhancing the EW environment.

MMm based on what? I mean, did you have motive to think the phoeninx should have the same chaff resistance of a much newer 120C missile? I don't say it as questioning you, just wondering the thought principle followed. I guess the radar in the phoenix is bigger and more powerful in terms of antenna size and peak power, on the other hand I'd think that CM rejection techniques through Digital signal processing would be miles ahead in the aim120C vs the phoenix given it is a much newer design. But it is an interesting topic to me.

My understanding is that it will be able to see link 16 translated data through a gateway, the most common one being a lovely E3 AWACS in a mission.

I totally agree with all of your points and the nuances you are expressing.

Well depends on which is the flyable state. It could be very much a PoC based on the f15 fm with a eurofughter 3d model on top of it to learn the ropes of the DCS world. . Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

XD. He supercruise at Mach 1.6 full of weapons in that simulator Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I dont see the point of your thread? Do you think the A10 will get a new maverick before the f16 have one? Based on what? ED already expressed on multiple occasions that currently a big push on the f 16 is being made, including the maverick. Hell you can even read what functions are already coded on the f16 mav Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

As far as i know that was a really old document, and you said it, it is an estimation they made, based on what they had at the moment. Can't see the point of it nowadays that we have more data, other than you tend to overestimate your enemy just in case... (e.g. MIG25 vs F15)

I would like to point out, cause maybe i've given a wrong impression, i'm not advocating about making up weapons features, performance and ranges if we have no clue about it, my point is that, if we have precise enough public information then it could be added into the game. And this is the tricky part, what is precise enough public information, wikipedia?, well no... or not alone... I would rather suggest a bunch a different sources including the weapon manufacturer that converges is some parameters oe values so that they are believable. I would love to see a common ground of standards of what is realistic and what is not, but i see that we are getting different weapons like the SD10, the future IRIS-T or who knows if a PL12 in the future, and i'm quite certain DCS would love to see an R77-1 or even if its just roughly comparable in performance to the current Aim 120B which i guess would be quite believable. Right now the R77 is really a short range missile with little tactical advantage.

Happen to have a source with motor data for the sd10? Yet we have whats called an approximate representation of the weapon... That is my point. This game is about realism, but sometimes i get the impression we require a 300 page test data documentation and the weapon engineer testimony to accept something while in other case a weapon manufacturer brochure is enough... Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Its time they introduce a newer version. Too many things has happened to DCS in the latest years (New modules, new weapons some of them really modern...). I think there is enough PUBLIC INFORMATION around as to make a good representation of a newer R77 (which still will be worse than the aim120 C we have, but at least more threatening a fun to fight against).

Cant talk about FM, but regarding drag, i'm quite possitive that there is a change in drag somewhere in the last open beta patches either in the bru 55 pylon or in the amraams. 1 or 2 patches ago, 6 amraams (double in pilons 2&8), 2 sidewinders and 2 bags could not go past M 1.02-1.1 ish. Lately you can get M1.2 in that configuration. I have no tracks to support this though. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Good point, never tried that since i thought it was an empty template with no further info. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I see, thanks for the info :). BTW what does TUC stands for?

Once we get additional JHMCS features for A2G, am i safe expecting that? : -I will see the designated target through the JHMCS not only in the hud? - I will see the tgp diamond on the JHMCS? - We will be able to look to the ground and designate a point to slave other sensors e.g. The tgp. So, are those cappabilitties actually coming at some point or they simply do not exist in our lot20 F18C? Regards, Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk