GGTharos

Running around supersonic at sea level gives you an endurance for 5-6 minutes. Any payload will easily delete the ability to go supersonic at low altitude (just because Viggens in game are able to doesn't make it correct), and most payload cannot be released (again N/A DCS) at supersonic speeds anyway.

The airframes matter. Training matters a lot but this entire argument about being better in a technically inferior (in some aspects) airframe is contrived. Sure, it'll happen now and then (maybe even a lot, if people who do primarily air to air decide to fly the 15E a lot and continuously encounter basically newbs skillwise) but the point is not the exceptions - the rule is the rule, it's not the exceptions that are the rule.

They're not going to be that different when carrying a payload.

The wing loading is increased enough by the extra weight that a low altitude ride shouldn't be too uncomfortable compared to an F-111. Flying low isn't about the wing, it's about avoiding detection, MERAD/HIRAD and having enough fuel to pull it off.

Thicker air increases the drag force massively. It'll cause the phoenix to hit the brakes. A lot of threats were capable of high altitude supersonic flight, including a number of anti-ship missiles and certain bombers.

We don't know what's displayed on it. Even if we did, not going to happen.

It is THE F-111 replacement, more capable than an F-111. The F-111 has an advantage in combat radius which is important but that isn't everything.

The moment you run into someone who understands the difference, you'll feel it.

The F-15C used something different, but yes. These were used by the Icelandic Eagles for example. F-15E also sports a much more beefed up structure.

I don't have more. The most reliable information we have says 4000lbs thrust for 27 seconds.

SM-6's and their support and command and control network have nothing to do with AIM-120s. Whatever capability the 120 has today, it's limited to specific variants and specific carriers that are not available to us in-game.

Sorry. It means the real F-14 weapons manual. As far as I know, it is not publicly available. I do not know the history - heatblur probably has more history on this missile than I can find, but I'm not sure that there's a rocket motor development history for this. Now, I don't know if it's single grain or not, but it is constant thrust.

IRL F-14 weapons manual.

All AIM-54 motors are single thrust.

No, it does not need to be buffed or tweaked to be brought 'in line' with other missiles. No missile needs that, and no aircraft needs that. It needs to be in line with its own capabilities, which at this point are an educated guess. What we do know is that it is 50kg or more lighter as well as smaller diameter than all those other missiles - that means less rocket propellant, and overall less impulse. That means less speed (either less fuel to reach peak speed, or reaches peak speed much sooner), and drag has a bigger effect on lighter objects than it does on heavier objects as a rule of thumb - so it is expected to slow down faster.

The 31ms is basically the interval into which you must shove all desired signal emissions etc. The memory mode (STT recovery mode, whatever) will last much longer; I don't know how it's done on the flanker, on the eagle the radar goes through several attempts to recover the track that can potentially last 10+ seconds. This time is reduced the closer the target is, where I believe inside some 10nm it's as low as 3 seconds. In DCS you get 4 seconds overall.

You would probably have trouble reaching 7gs, never mind complaints about 9.

Yes, you have to do a g-warmup. If your dogfight tournament begins below 20000' it really matters (you're not going to hold on to a whole lot of g at 20000' altitude)

4g (go ahead, have fun IRL without straining at 4 g) , and it is also where you should start the warm-up in DCS. Do 2 180s at 4.1 to 5 g, you're warmed up. This is why air forces are starting to build unmanned aircraft. Already aircraft capabilities have exceeded pilot capabilities. The Raptor and Typhoon have brough this to higher altitude as well now, and thus this is the sunset for the manned fighter.

The missile datalink still has to be emitted from the shooter's radar. If any of that has changed, it's not obvious anywhere.

Yep I agree, there is missing simulation for lock recovery here, so if the missile fails to guide even though the radar is still trying to recover the same track, that's a bug (assuming, of course, that the missile is still in a physical position to recover the lock as well) I would suggest someone make a track, so that @BIGNEWY and @NineLine can report this. ^^^^ Guys, please chime in if the logic for what's happening isn't clearly described. This is a valid issue and should be pursued.

All you know is received power. And that can vary with a lot of factors, distance of course, and possibly other things like PRF etc, potential amplification or cancellation in the appropriate environment etc. Power output does not measure distance accurately. If you want accurate, weapons quality passive tracks you need something like an HTS pod or the raptor's ISR suite.

There's no question as to the DL operation, documents and testimony from technicians regarding this were quite clear - no M-Link for any form of R-27T, and this is why it was removed in LOMAC This is a very old subject. It would have lock from the start. The purpose of such a technique is to counter ECM since it was expected that western ECM would be effective, especially sets carried onboard bombers. Bombers are also large enough so that you could lock IRH onto them from a larger distance. When engaging fighters I would expect more conservative use of missiles depending on the situation, or if the 'unencumbered Pk' of the R-27 is really 0.7, then it would simply behoove one to shoot pairs. The guaranteed power would last 60 sec - IRL it wasn't quite that cut-and-dry, I've seen 80 sec flight profiles ... but the idea is you cannot guarantee that. And yes I believe the power source is a gas generator in the rocket motor section. I don't know if ED would ever bother simulating this, and I'm not sure that it would really matter or make a difference.

Fun theorycrafting. AIM-7's are limited by the DSR cue, which gets shorter and shorter as the radar gets smaller, as in the case of an F/A-18 ... sitting in trail and illuminating is highly unlikely from that perspective, as well as the fact that missiles are channel de-conflicted and there's zero indication of some form of cooperative network capability to enable all this to happen. You could in theory do it manually, but the radar has no (known) reason to use up that channel for a missile it did not launch. If such capabilities and tactics exist, they are hidden away in sources we have no access to, and there are no hints indicating such things are in use. Likewise for R-27ETs, there's a reason why it's 'lock on on the rail' - random reflections of the sun from lakes, clouds and other sources can easily seduce the seeker away from its intended target. 'But it's a stealth shot!' you say. But then, that's what counter-tactics are for. You don't need to see the missile launch, you just have to respect the capability. The R-27T/ET is missing the M-Link hardware, and the radar does not generate an M-link for those missiles when they are launched. So more like there is evidence to the contrary, as opposed to 'no evidence'. PS: So apparently I am now a successful necroposter. I shall go burn myself.

Missiles from earlier than the R-27 were already deconflicted in channels, and it was necessary to do in order to guide more than one missile to the same target either from the same aircraft or multiple aircraft. There are very clear sources for how that is done for the R-27 (you're welcome to search for them in the Russian forums, I'm sure there are also some posts in the English section about it as well), and it has nothing to do with TWS. The very mechanism of this guidance signal injection is also how the RWR can know the difference between STT and 'guiding'. The same applies to sparrows, and pretty much any early 70's and later SARH. If the STT track is completely lost (excausted mem mode etc), the radar will move on to using the next missile guidance channel and the missile in flight is lost. If the STT track is not lost (mem mode operational, lock recovered) and the missile fails to continue guiding in a situation where it should be able to reacquire then that is a bug.