GGTharos

Single role aircraft aren't single role because that's the way they were built (sometimes they are, but generally they can all do a multitude of roles). It's not about cheap r cheaper aircraft, it's about training - and that ends up quite expensive. Dedicating a high number of pilots and aircraft to a single role is quite expensive. Single-role pilots will be better than multi-role pilots at the given role.

It's not just '2000lbs more empty weight'. It will fly with more drag, more fuel and more lbs overall in terms compared to a combat loaded C and it will never have the AoA performance of a C. Everyone who buys multi-role aircraft cannot afford to have single-role squadrons, and that is all there is to that. Those aircraft are expected to face 'lower threat' opponents on average comes to air to air combat. Those aircraft are there to fit a need; as for who does 'better air to air', it's still the C, but if it's just not needed at that level, why spend on it?

No, there is not. The particular aircraft that would do this (JSTARS?) is not provided in-game.

#2 is to be done on a cooperative target so you can learn. Intercept a tanker.

Get into fingertip and stay there, practice lost wingman SOPs if you lose visibility. Fun times, I'm sure.

Yes, any more that doesn't have the antenna pointed straight at you (for MSAs) is a search mode. THis includes TWS. It's Track while Scan, primary is the scan. AESA performs SWT instead, because it can. The way it should be interpreted though (the way it is NOT in the game) is that the button allows you to see surveillance radars - ie. the list of radars in your RWR database marked as 'these look for things'. In this respect, an SA-6/11/15 search radar should not be considered as a surveillance radar, since detection by it can be expected to lead to the corresponding track radar to attack in the very near future.

You'd be less bored if you had to fly formation and tanking in those conditions.

Yep, the APG-66 needed an update (thus the 68) but detection range is pretty much all about input power, antenna size and suppression of system noise (ie. increased sensitivity) so some later versions of the 66 are comparable to the 68 in that particular way. The V9's range increase is a direct result of getting a higher powered transmitter AFAIK.

Unsourced text, claims that 'pilots said' and feelings are worthless. Even so, the text above has a maximum detection range of 105km (~57nm), and that's for a very specific radar mode and hardware which IIRC the 68V5 (the one modeled in DCS - it's good to know these details before you start such discussions) does not possess. I don't even recall where this graph comes from, but it is the basic reason why they write 'V9 offers 30% range increase' (over the V5, but they don't write that). USAF Vipers in 2007 (the ones DCS modeled in-game) use the V5. The other non-factual statement you made (while claiming it as fact) is that ED did something to the F-16 radar because F-18 fans complained. This is incorrect. The F-16 radar was changed because it was over-modeled, presenting capability similar to an AN/APG-63 or AWG-9, which neither the F-16 or F-18 should some close to matching. PS: For even more fun, APG-66 with flight test results from some random internet source.

DCS already does scaling, what you're asking for is scaling that tries to make some things look like they look in the real world while being rendered in a scenario that does not fit actual reality - the result - you get a giant aircraft on some runway when looking at a distance, or huge tanks sitting on the ground etc. But you say you could scale the ground too? You're right - use that zoom button It will fail in many cases; where it has been used IRL it served a very specific purpose while within DCS you'd have to account for all kinds of things. The only possible solution is very robust VR with everyone using that same very robust VR, aka ... not going to happen. There are some solutions that could help with certain parts of the visual arena, eg. increasing HDR for fights that occur within 3-5nm but frankly if you believe you can easily spot a viper cruising below your horizon and under a shadow, your expectations are somewhat unrealistic. DCS does the best it can, and it can't really be made better - at least no one has ever managed to suggest a solution that truly works.

What TWS launches? Who or what is launching anything in TWS or any mode resembling that? There are significant constraints imposed on the use of anything that resembles TWS performed using mechanical radars (necessarily with mechanically scanned antennae) where electronically steered antennae don't need to use anything resembling TWS at all in this case. So again, which threats are doing this? Guidance traditionally requires the injection of some form of guidance signal: This can be interrupted CW illumination (CWI), coded signal for good old STT or missile datalink. Non-guiding track won't have that embedded as it isn't necessary. Which capabilities for which SAM? Do you know how those are implemented in the weapon system? Yes, but knowing this lets you put your modeled transmission in the proper class. Then you get into other interesting discussions like, can this RWR cover that frequency range which leads to figuring out which historical equipment do you really have on both ends. Then I would suggest that there are much, much more interesting things improve would have a much larger effect than trying to figure out which tiny number of SAMs beyond AEGIS and NASAMs have anything like a 'silent launch and guide' capability. Constant target re-prioritization Track memory and engagement logic based on this memeory (ie. is this guy just flying circles to run you out of missiles? quit shooting or shorten engagement range in that sector) Have at least a manually settable AOR for the SAM (And other entities) beyond which targets are deprioritized Allow SAMs to flash their search radars, don't be 'always on' Shoot and scoot tactics Decoys ECM countermeasures including use of EO to guide

The things you are describing were already happening in Vietnam/Korea with SA2s, this isn't news but rather systems gaining more interesting capabilities. Depends on the system. And also, does it matter? That's an important question because you as the pilot do not care, all you care about is what the RWR is telling you -and the RWR is trying to figure out every single signal out there and tell you which one it believes to be a threat, and how much of a threat. And that part we don't know that much about - some stuff about specific systems, but hardly all. Is anyone doing any CW illumination whatsoever? And while I realize you mean 'something like CW', it's actually those details that are very important in order to answer your questions. Do you know if the system is capable of guiding missiles in some sort of TWS mode? Would it? What's the update rate? Does it even have a TWS mode (the implication being that it is a weapons capable track). So if you do see anything implemented into DCS it will be because ED has decided to put time into it (See how this one is 1 on the list) There's reasonably solid data on how a system or class of systems works

It's really too big a subject, but you're always looking to determine his speed (relative to yours), closure, and distance. There are USAF/USN BFM manuals (I think the USN one is P-826? I forget) which explain some of the basics, though I don't have the links handy. For a start just decide if you want to do a 1c or 2c and make it happen - your choice depends on your bandit's speed and if you believe he can correctly counter your choice (likewise, you should also be prepared to counter correctly) as well as the weapon you wish to employ, or you wish him not to employ (if I'm in an eagle flying against you in a flanker, I'll be tempted to choose 1c to jam you R-73 since it would give you a huge advantage in 2c, or I would try to get a massive turn advantage at the merge). The thing is, you need to learn some basic techniques and once you have some of those basics down, BFM comes down to prior planning. The best people don't make it up on the go. Ever move, change in speed etc is considered. Techniques for bleeding speed, controlling AoA etc are determined, studied and adhered to. So it's up to you to decide the level of BFM you wish to get yourself up to. It's not an easy skill. You know what you want to do, so choose accordingly. Don't overthink it, build your skills up step by step. If both have AIM-9X, 2c is potentially a mutual kill for everyone - bad tactics unless you have no choice, right? (I just realized you specified guns only) Even if someone initiates a 1/2c, the other fighter can observe and change this. If you miss your chance you can potentially still fix things but your window starts closing (may already be closed). Regardless of 1/2c, you always want to merge with advantage if possible ... that means you've already eaten a chunk of angles when you pass your opponent (that's what a lead turn is typically for). So here you have to decide 1c/2c what do I do if my opponent picks something else/is not at the parameters I thought he'd be at etc. To answer your question more directly (And with exaggerated numbers), if you're in an F-16 and the opponent in an F-18, and that F-18 is doing 450kts, why would you not choose 1c? 1c is a min-radius fight and at slower speed you'll beat him. You don't need to burn all your speed doing this either, just enough to determine you've won 1c, then start aligning. He has options too, he could stay fast and try to come back around, and then you have to deal with that (which is why it's best to not burn all your speed if possible. But the more he commits to beating you in that turn, the more you commit). That's how it is. But don't be discouraged, just keep in mind that this stuff builds up piece by piece. You don't have the benefit of a BFM instructor like a real USAF/USN pilot would have so the learning curve tends to be longer and fraught with building bad habits, but that's game life Take care to learn how to recognize target distance, aspect, speed and closure with your eyes in the BFM arena and you'll find life will become easier reasonably soon after that. Yep, I mean recognize them without looking at the HuD. And don't get too hung up on precice corner speeds etc - these things are useful, they're benchmarks, but they're not a BFM tactic, just a piece of useful data.

There's nothing 'simple' about the Su-27 flight model, it has some of the best modeled characteristics in game.

Depends on what the bandit is doing. There's no such things as 'better in a 1c or 2c', it always depends on what the bandit is doing and what your goal is: Want to SHLEM some R-73's around? You want range for this, so 2c. Want most efficient BFM? 1c - but it all still depends on what the bandit is doing. Guess what ... Anything under M0.85 gives you full g's according to the gross weight schedule. If you have to override it your BFM is most likely poor. And you've hinted something about 1-circles here as well. BFM doesn't care who you're flying for. Aircraft differ in characteristics so 'all other things being equal', one can be better than another at some things. But 'all other things' are rarely equal, so it still all depends on what your bandit is doing.

You wouldn't use it because you believe you're better at optimizing your flight characteristics than the automated schedule for the flaps is. This may or may not be true.

Fair enough. It's just a -1 though, they can change small details and we don't really know why The one I have is from '84, the change (change 5) is from '86.

Keep in mind that these are just two basic profiles which serve a specific purpose. There are others (eg. get to 500kts straight and level off the runway, then pitch for 450). I don't recall any more if these were supposed to strike balance between fuel and time-to-altitude or distance-to-altitude or something else, but it's usually that sort of compromise.

My -1 is my source. Section 2-9. 300 to 0.9 at MIL, 350 to 0.95 at MAX.

He gave you the right answer. Why would you ask a question you know the answer to? Hint: The F-15C module follows the -1/IRL parameters for performance quite closely. It's also not an F-15E, therefore Hint: No it isn't a good comparing guideline, but Hint: There's an F-15E -1 out there, and a -34 as well but you'd have to take those with a grain of salt as well, since they don't represent actual F-15E testing (ie. they actually, IRL, did what you suggested, and that resulted in aircraft losses)

The missile isn't calculating anything; it's using PN. That means holding the target steady in the FoV and outmatching any apparent target acceleration away from the steady position. You can have the missile aim to hold the target on the horizon if it tried to dive hard, until it's close enough to go full PN.

Hi @BIGNEWYthere's no such information for almost any missile whatsoever - ie. can you find any unclassified evidence that AMRAAM uses PN or APN etc for guidance? But we know that this is basically what AAMs do and that's why ED has programmed it this way. Likewise, issues with intercepting low-flying targets and dealing with a diving target have been known about and dealt with to some degree since the 50's. There are specific methods for specific SAMs that we know of and are documented (eg. SA-2) and then there's the basic idea that this makes sense so use it, like most homing AAMs using PN unless otherwise specified. This is one of those things: Use a different guidance algorithm in the altitude axis in order to avoid getting driven into the ground - don't need to know anything about the ground for this, it's strictly about what the target is doing and thus I'm not implying any kind of terrain following or terrain knowledge or detection - the missile will still smack a ridge the target puts it between itself and the missile, but if you dive it will not attempt to beat its target to the ground when it makes its own dive, rather it will limit itself to diving to the target altitude (or keeping the target slightly below the horizon) until it's really close (say 1nm or closer).

Technically the AIM-9L/M can be launched from 10nm away in head-on situations at high altitude and speed. Of course, the target has to cooperate as well - it needs to be nice and hot.

What do you mean by kinetics?

They don't need to be aware of the ground at all, that's the idea. They just need to be conservative about taking a dive and this is all done in relation to the target. This is accomplished by running a different guidance method on the altitude axis. What 'short' distance is, is very subjective depending on what your purpose is.