GGTharos
-
Posts
33370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by GGTharos
-
-
It does not matter, neither can dominate the other. Both give you the ability to get in the other's OODA loop.
-
On 12/19/2023 at 3:49 PM, Ramius007 said:
Do you guys think it's more important to have notch mechanic weakened over lets say random missile failures that happen even in most advanced weapons but are not modelled in DCS? TBF, I expect AMRAAM's to not be fooled by simple tricks mentioned here and palying a bit of devil advocate, but thare are many other variables that we are not awere of, but are decreasing missiles efficiency, those can be things like humidity, harsh field enviroment , poor production methods, decrypted by enemy guidance system and ECM jammers adjusted to make X missile near useless and so on, new avionics software upgrade making missiel to not work, and so on, most of those things never get modelled, and having missiles being not some sort of wunderwaffe is part of DCS selling point, and it's REALISM...
If you don't know the failure modes and statistics of said failures, where's the realism? It's nothing but another annoying 'feature'.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, intruder11 said:
> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 of the same era in dogfight.
Yeah, I think if there was a skilled pilot in the MiG-29, this is a plausible statement.
It isn't. Make the should a could and remove no problem, and you're good. Why did the USAF not implement something like this? 'Because they didn't have the technology' is out of the question ... in fact they did a whole series of testing to determine if they should do this. So why?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Cab said:
Unless the Swiss (and maybe the Finns?) made them for themselves, I doubt there are any.
But I agree they would be very interesting to look at if they did exist.
The most likely answer is 'yes and you can't have it'.
-
1
-
-
On 12/1/2023 at 6:45 PM, Pavlin_33 said:
If you look at the seeker's point of view, you can see that on two occasions it goes for the plume of the afterburner, just aft of the engines.
I am not sure if there was any image recognition in those cases. It looked like the seeker was going for the hotest thing it could find.
Image recognition yes, it just might not mean exactly what you think it means. It can classify a thing as a target (not this is an airplane, or whatever, just target) and 'these are parts of the target' in some respect and then classify other things as 'not my target' or 'false target'. Generally without very modern countermeasures a 9X should not be getting decoyed if the decoy isn't making the target IMHO.
-
1
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, Fighterinterceptor said:
It's better if I let this question go, because the discussion goes to a level it shouldn't go to!
It is good to ask questions, but not good to accuse of errors in many cases - the R-27 range, engine, and other issues have been discussed for over a decade and the data for this are good. If you want to discuss strange rocketry, the SD-10 in DCS is a good candidate with a rocket set up with a 6s boost and 4s sustain resulting in a missile that is far faster than it ought to be.
ED stated that they will be working on what remains to be worked on for the R-27 family which is guidance. I hope they will significantly enhance ECM behavior and the 'RF environment' in addition to other things (for example sparrow and AIM-120 have brought new guidance mechanics in terms of the physical motion of the missile)
-
On 2/26/2024 at 6:13 AM, darkman222 said:
Thanks. And thats the point. So you have the 10 overpowered unicorn F18 world wide vs a mass produced F16 Block 50. Quite sure that these two aircraft types did not see a lot of dogfights against each other in real life.
F-18Cs were getting delivered with the EPE since lot 15 IIRC, so I don't see the unicorn thing.
-
MPRF does 3/8 and going of very distant memory it is required due to multiple doppler bands being eclipsed as well as resolving other ambiguity, but again ... don't quote me on that.
-
I would personally prefer QOL improvements to the radar and navigation.
-
20 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:
I think Flanker's capable of tracking targets down to 150km/h in look-down, but I am not 100% sure. I will need to investigate further.
Yep, so that's the closure component which allows you to easily be in the notch compared to going faster, basically the angle off 90 degrees to the radar opens up significantly.
-
At that speed falling into the notch is very easy.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, mazex said:
Mmm, finally got the hang of it by making sure to get it trimmed at the right AOA (~22), speed around 170-180 when heavy and the velocity vector at the touch down point (just at the edge of blinking), controlling the glide path with the throttle... And then cut all power, flare rather boldly and full air brake while keeping the nose wheel in the air as long as possible. And then full wheel brakes...
But having grown up in Sweden where I have seen many Viggen and Gripen aircraft stop after 400-500 meters on small highways it feels a bit silly
The Viggen is fun to land in DCS, but the easiest in my opinion is the F/A-18 on a regular airfield... No problem jerking around with high alpha in some steep turn to bleed off speed, and just slam it down in the end
~21, as in 20 to 22 ...this is important because above 22 you get into heavy AoA-induced drag used for aerobraking (And this is a type of approach you can use for minimum ground run but there is more to it than just AoA). Throttle probably shouldn't be cut because you're made of inertia and makes a touch-and-go harder in case you need it. Reduce yes, but cut only when you touch down.
If you have to apply full brakes before 60kts, ideally 40-50 if heavy, the runway you have chosen is too short and you'll have a hot brakes problem (N/A DCS).
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:
Here's some more footage (reply sped up):
3 x 73 miss from very short range
I don't see why they would guide with so many flares in the air.
-
IRL you don't go off mission like every DCS player out there. 'Cheap kills' aren't a thing - I mean if it's right in front of you and you can chuck a rock at it sure, but there won't be deviating for this.
All detections that I know of that were 'missed' were due to terrain masking. Of course, I don't know everything.
Also, composite blades are great and lower RCS, but it's still on the order of m^2, not fractions thereof.
Everyone wants to ignore reality which is ... IRL the environment is full of things that will show up on your sensors and are not targets. Even if they technically are targets, you may be prevented from going after them for a number of reasons, be it staying on task or issues with identification or just because the wreckage may land where it's not wanted.
And barring an abundance of targets confusing the picture, none of those things have anything to do with a radar determining that something is a helicopter or not. The radar is either modern enough to deal with it or it isn't.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:
This is simply not true. It was utilized in '99 where a pair of Fulcrums flew on the deck (<50m) against a pair of Eagles, and neither the Eagles nor the AWACS picked them up on their radars until the MiGs finally climbed.
That doesn't reconcile one bit with eagles practicing treetop level cruise missile intercepts, or their attack on (unfortunately friendly) helicopters or the fact that that Mi-24 (or 8, whichever) was tracked in A/A from 50nm until the moment it was bombed (they were ready to attack with an AIM-9, but switched to bombs after they slaved the pod to the radar and realized the heli was on the ground)
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, okopanja said:
For NCTR you would need to STT it first,
There's probably no need for STT, but this not sure that this is worth discussing.
4 hours ago, okopanja said:However, I think identifying the helicopter probably does not need full NCTR, and basically amounts to detecting reflection with distinct frequency peaks (main body + 2 returns from blades) by applying filters for 2 frequency shifts caused by blades spinning in opposite directions.
You're basically looking for a slow moving Vc jammer
You can get this off a hit, and display the classification; I have seen radar plots (not kinds we're used to) showing the main body return and the rotor return, and you could similarly classify prop planes as well.
4 hours ago, okopanja said:However, at this moment I am not aware of any of events where the F-15/F-16 demonstrated capability of shooting down low flying helicopter in clutter as of 1999 (both gazelle and Mi-8 did fly medivac/resupply missions during 1999 unpunished by combining the low level flying with terrain masking + there is at least one known SAR in gazelle for downed 29 pilot, while said aircrafts were still in air within relative vicinity).
Hence the real question is when this capability was introduced and what were the associated limitations? Also the choice of material for blades can likely affect this capability. The capability is allegedly also present in some upgraded Mig-29s (not talking about the most modern radar variants), so I gather this is not really a rocket science in 2024.
For the record DCS Viper/Hornet are capable of detecting helicopter flying below Doppler or even hovering at ranges 10-20km. Tomcat can do this by switching of the filter, but again it should detect the driving vehicles as well (I believe this is not possible at this moment).
This is all about processing. The moment you get a digital processor the likelihood that you can distinguish certain things goes up tremendously - detecting moving vehicles is just a matter of them going fast enough to be out of the notch gate.
-
2
-
-
IRL you would have distractions from the environment regardless of how good the radar is. This gazelle video is a perfect example: It's possible the gazelle would be ignore as 'car on highway' unless someone ran NCTR or otherwise the radar itself picked up the fact that this is likely a heli.
So yes, flying low is no haven from missiles save for reducing Pk (not driving it to zero, but reducing it) due to fuze issues etc, and there that too depends on intercept geometry and whether the target is maneuvering and using CMs. Clutter shouldn't have NO effect but past a certain technology level it should also not be a safe space, in particular when out of the notch.
No matter what you do here there will always be unrealistic things popping up.
-
2
-
-
Same year as they started carrying them. Actually, before that, in the test trials.
Edit: I cannot post the part of the document, but basically it's in the F-15C -34 page 1-140 states that PDT plus up to 7 other track files can be designated for attack.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, okopanja said:
Interesting, I thought radar clutter has a rather bad effect on practically any radar?
And yet doppler discrimination makes hiding at low altitudes pretty much a thing of the past. F-15s tracking cars on the highway is not a joke.
Also, the F-15 can simultaneously attack with as many AMRAAMs as you have onboard. Not sure where ED got the 4 targets.
-
1
-
-
No, there are no such servers - it's people that you have to look for
I don't know how you go about that but I guess making a post about it somewhere or on some discord could be a start
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Qcumber said:
Fair point. How would you advise a more focused approach to learning the f-16?
Find someone who has flown it to teach how to fly the airframe, or at least someone who knows how to say, test fly aircraft - someone who can explain flying technique. Again, not systems (radar etc) but flying. While some techniques will be aircraft specific, the vast majority will be usable on all aircraft and you'll have to 'calibrate' yourself to the specifics of the aircraft like where does light/moderate/heavy buffet start etc.
And if you can't find someone, @Schlingel mit Kringel pretty much hit the nail on the head (although here I'll disagree with the trainer approach also simply because you can ignore things that aren't needed for flight).
Which portions of dealing with your aircraft you choose to focus on more is obviously up to you - I'm just saying most people focus on the explosive landscaping and tactical x-raying parts which, while important for combat, are not the flying part of operations if you catch my drift.
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:It’s worth recognizing that DCS is a game. It’s not real. Yes it’s realistic but it’s not necessary for players to attain real world levels of competency in order to just play a game on a PC. I’d consider a “10” with a module as having the ability to conduct all phases of flight and employ all the weapons and systems as required in normal gameplay ie DLC campaigns, multiplayer missions etc. Limiting yourself to what’s in the game and the skill needed there and not comparing this to reality in that regard. It would be quite delusional to think you could attain that level of skill or knowledge in a game or that it’s even necessary. You can make these sims as real as you like I suppose but that’s a personal choice.
It's a simulator and it will serve as whatever you make of it. You can treat it as a game or some parts of it as a game, or you can treat it more seriously.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Sure, but this is not the point I was trying to make. Regardless of the pace, you're not going to know the things you could/should study if you're not told about them. And while it isn't secret sauce, it's just not 'out there and easy to find and understand and implement' sauce.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Qcumber said:
How long does it take to learn how to fly any plane properly? In real life and in sim.
I am only 2 years into flights sims and I feel I am at a basic level of proficiency overall. I am better with warbirds but that has always been my thing. DCS has got me revisiting a childhood interest in late cold war planes, but am finding these a lot harder to master.
I own 9 modules (Spitfire, p-51, p-47, K4, A8, F-86, Mig-21, F-14, F-16) and by switching between them I am getting a broader understanding of flight mechanics and BFM. I think there are benefits to learning one aircraft very well, but you can also learn a lot by diversifying. It's also a lot of fun.
I think the problem you're encountering is that there is no one to tell you what to learn and how. And I do mean with respect to flying an aircraft and its aerodynamics, how you translate that into piloting etc. Operating the system is ok, but that's mastering the aircraft's systems.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, SparrowLT said:
This actually has some use... the bad thing is in FC3 all 3 tanks drain at same rate
There's nothing bad about it, that's how the aircraft does things.
5 hours ago, SparrowLT said:but in the F-15C can be usefull as the Eagle will break the wings if trying G forces with the wing tanks attached while the center has no effect..
Yes it does. You can break the wings with no tanks as well.
5 hours ago, SparrowLT said:so if you hare carrying 3 bags and encounter a bandit that requieres maneovering or must evade a missile droping the wing tanks only allows to at least save the fuel left in the center tank while being free to maneover
That's just silly. Drop them all, the centerline tank has a much drag as the two wing tanks and it reduces stability.
-
1
-
AIM-120 Still Too Easy to Notch?
in Weapon Bugs
Posted
This is a bad assumption, and is counter-indicated by what's written in the weapons manual (it reads, keeping lock of the target after MPRF has no effect on Pk) . Also, the 120A is in no way some miniaturized form on the 54C. Sure the development may have come from there but the degree of commonality is both completely unknown and what is known is that these two missiles operated on different principles.