GGTharos

I'm not, but they're included. Terrain surveys are also not 'contemporary' IMHO. None of what I mentioned specifically requires this.

This is not an AIM-120 problem, this is a generic RF missile problem in-game and the solution to this exists since the 50's (not necessarily implemented everywhere since the 50's, but the issue was well understood). Altitude guidance should be pure until a certain distance or maintain the target at a certain small elevation below the horizon until the target drifts low enough, then switch to PN. These techniques cover different use cases. DCS isn't there yet with respect to guidance capabilities.

The report was written at a time when the F-35 was getting this bad 'can't climb, can't turn, can't run' rap. The rap isn't fair, but the F-35 was also not built to win dogfights. It's not that it can't, just realize that nose-pointing, turn rates and acceleration are only the basics, the very tip of the iceberg when discussing maneuverability.

No. And that's all I'm going to say.

I'll clear that up right now - you're right, it's not an F-15 statistic, it's an overall weapon statistic and it was a study on the trend of BVR changes. You write about nothing all the time, what's your point? You wrote that the eagle wasn't designed for dogfighting. You're wrong - it absolutely was, and they absolutely train for it. You make some dubious statement about attiring bandits BVR as the reason for this. Guess what F-16's do - were they built for dogfighting? You made some dubious statements about there being no maneuvering fights. The F-15 has been in a bunch of IRL turning fights (as I've mentioned before), and a bunch of those sparrows were shot well inside WVR range, under WVR conditions. Again, easy to look up, do that yourself. Even in very modern combat aircraft have found themselves in very definite WVR conditions, that again runs counter to your earlier statement that maneuvering capability is somehow not needed. Everything single aircraft designed has a minimum maneuvering capability, and any aircraft designed for air to air combat primarily has plenty of it. The F-35 is one aircraft that is designed primarily for strike, and so it's not so great at dogfighting ... but air to air is it's part-time job.

I know you don't know everything, and I know you can easily look these up. Typical, going on about stuff without educating yourself - this is old news, and again ... I don't have to do your homework for you. And I'm not going to - that was something I did ages ago when I was in your position, but see, I actually did it and I don't feel like spending time on hunting down sources for you. If it was something difficult to find I'd do it, but it isn't.

You can't look them up? I mean you obviously did not. The F-15 has dogfight kills against MiG-21s, 25s and 29s. They are all well documented, this is an exercise for you to look them up. You're overplaying your knowledge. Maybe you could consider that your knowledge here is lacking? Like, severely lacking. You are very wrong. I was designed to dominate in all phases of combat, taking major lessons from the F-4. That doesn't mean it'll be 'better' than everything out there, but it was way to deal with everything out there. The BVR attrition comes from ACEVAL, where it was shown that otherwise low-level threats with all-aspect missiles become high level threats in a dogfight. This is true for all aircraft. BTW guess what, the F-22 was designed to dominate all aspects or air combat as well, taking lessons from he F-15. Your knowledge is lacking. Yep, the gun was used one time (not a surprise, guns don't get much A2A use these days). The majority of kills for the eagle was done with sidewinders ... what's the range on that now? Again, it's an exercise for you to bone up on your knowledge, so don't ask me for links I think your knowledge limits you more than the DCS equipment. You're absolutely wrong. Maneuvering fights will always exist and for reasons most people don't want to even think of in a game. There are the most modern approaches these days with HOBS missiles etc, but even now the aircraft needs to maneuver. Have you spent hours preparing your BFM/ACM skills too? Maybe that's coloring your opinions. Preparing for BVR is great and you always should, and you should always attrit your enemy BVR as much as you can because you will eventually end up in a mission where you cannot retreat and must merge. All of this 'lulz I'll just go cold' is DCS virtual pilot garbage. Yes it's valid IRL, but not the way it's used in game (in particular in MP servers where it's all lonewolves for the most part)

That is correct. The F-15E replaced the F-111 and the hardware added to make this so causes it to perform more poorly in areas that people on this forum apparently don't even think about - although someone's already mentioned the higher departure risk and that's one big part. Even without the CFTs, there are things that it can't match the F-15C at.

Terminal velocity for a given bomb is easy to approximate if you want to look up the appropriate coefficients etc. Back-of-the envelope kind of calculation ... no I'm not doing it

Maybe you could back up the feeling with some drag force calculations

The numbers are scaled such that you can't tell, perhaps deliberately. They have the RCS peak at 0db, which normally would be like 1msq (going off of foggy memory). The RCS presented here is strictly for comparing computational methods. If you knew what 0db corresponds to, you could immediately calibrate the graph to give you RCS in an actionable/comparable fashion.

Possibly, but you'll have to find them and join the dots yourself. There are some documents and videos discussing radio in general and jamming techniques specifically, and you might find some bits on ECCM. So basically what I described? And just to be clear on the simple understanding of the physics here, the radiated power output of the ECM is going to be higher than the radar reflection from the offending radar, be it from an aircraft or active missile. In short, there's probably no burn-through and you need other ways to deal with it.

Where is the data showing real RCS? Not some random internet thing, actual data.

Turn off AB. 150nm at AB is like flying 700nm. This includes any time you spend climbing. Basically AB burns about 3-5 times more fuel, and that's 2x more still at low altitude. If you cannot maintain 350kts at 35000', drop to 25000'.

This is just so wrong. But it is what DCS does. What we could/should have: Your AAMs aren't built to deal with 'barrage jamming'. They're built to home in your (or their own) radar signal reflection, and it is what signal that the jammer attempts to mess up. The DCS hornet doesn't do anything 'advanced', it just takes advantage of a very old behavior in the game. Pretty much every modern fighter equipped with an SPJ should be capable of this behavior (eg. simultaneous range and angles jamming techniques), but DCS represents none of this. Instead, it represents all ECM as range jammers alone (which is ok-ish), that jam all radio sources simultaneously (very wrong) and regardless of emitter mode (partially wrong, depends on the jammer). Similarly, this follows with HoJ being some kind of 'passive' mode (just wrong) when what it is, is your radar and missile trying to frequency-hop or ignore certain pieces of data - similarly with AMRAAM, HoJ is allowing you to launch the missile with last known good data, and not hanging the launch when you say 'shoot' and the ECM invalidates the data. What the missile tries to do from there on is another story but there's nothing passive about it - the seeker has its own ECCM built in like frequency-hopping, PRF changes, tracking gate and edge manipulation etc. And of course the more powerful and interesting ECM isn't modeled, ie. ground-bounce of stead Vc jamming (a B-52 can lie to your radar and tell it that it's going mach 2 ... if you don't notice that yourself, that missile you shoot is going to fly where that aircraft isn't, and you won't get any ECM/HoJ indications either - and that, BTW is why the flanker's IRST exists, not for 'stealth shots').

Pretty much every Ka-50 was a prototype. And it's sort of irrelevant anyway; the deeper you get into creating what-if's, the more you deviate from reality. May as well start sticking those PAC-3s on F-15s because Raytheon said they could. I agree here with the sentiment that DEKA has no access to actual Chinese avionics etc to model. The JF-17 and J-8PP are either export variants or have little native hardware. Seems like a trend.

Are you saying that -34 has incorrect information? Doppler gate to 'AUTO' ... +/- 99 kts You can drop it but you will be paying the piper

I'm looking in the -34 (I am not guessing) right now. +/-99kts.

It's relevant to all missiles using proportional navigation; typically that's what a homing missile will use. Radar or IR doesn't matter here. In this case, radar can add information (closure, target vector) to make the homing even more capable, but in both cases the missile will go into a collision course. Even beam-riders and SACLOS missiles can go for collision - you need the right instrumentation to compute intercept and point the missile in the right direction, but there's no need to assume that anything will be doing pure pursuit until you see that it does.

You can also stop arguing that the 100kts is too wide of a notch. Guess what the main doppler width of the eagle is.

Select the number of fuel tanks you want: Center tank and the two wing tanks have nearly equal drag. So 2W + 1C = 2x Drag. As a rule of thumb, take 3 tanks if you need to loiter for a long time - that means tooling around at the highest altitude where you can maintain 250kts in a 30 deg bank, conserving fuel. Drag increases with speed, so that's how you manage that. If you're not going to loiter, choose 1 or 2 tanks, depending on desired gross weight. As said above, either configuration has the same drag. Typical take-off procedures look like this: AB to 250kts (AB used on T/O for safety reasons) then MIL, pitch for 300kts (meaning leave the throttle in mil, accelerate to 300kts then use pitch only to maintain 300, then 0.9M at the cross over altitude (you'll find at some point 300kts = 0.9 mach, at this point you maintain 0.9 mach). Do not attempt to maintain a steady climb angle, pitch for speed as required, that means you'll be decreasing pitch as you climb. An AB climb is similar but you pitch for 350kts and cross over to maintain 0.95 mach. Yes, you have to be precise. These are just two profiles, not THE profiles, they give you economy and good climb vs. fuel/distance from airfield to altitude metrics. If you need to get to altitude faster, remain in AB all the way, accelerate to 500kts on the deck and then pitch for a 450kt climb initially. Select your cruising altitude according to how far you have to fly. Short hops don't require that much altitude. Ignoring flat dash intercepts (which are high mach sprints), at cuising altitude set a cruising SPEED. That's say 300kts. Once you're likely to enter a fight accelerate to 400kts or 0.95 mach, or faster if you need more energy. Regarding your engine settings, learn to monitor all gauges: RPM will be 96 at MIL and above. FTITs will be at 970 at MIL and above. Your engine nozzle gauges remain at minimum opening on mil and then open more with each stage of AB (that's how you tell, not sound, but that works too) Your fuel flow engines - cross-check with your fuel total to figure out how long you can stay in the air. This is your basic pilot math for flying. On your fuel gauge, make sure to set joker/bingo (there's only one indicator/control for this so once you hit joker, reset it lower for your bingo) You can check the manual to see where all these gauges are. Conserving fuel in a fight is directly affected by how fast you kill your bandits, so ... make sure they go down quickly. Finally, all of this is tip of the iceberg type stuff.

If you want to account for physics perhaps you could consider: The F-15's intake ramps will recover a lot more pressure at altitude compared to the F-16, so simple thrust to weight assumptions get thrown out of the window immediately. The F-16 can pack on plenty of drag. You could compare them empty, but it's a worthless comparison since they wouldn't be in combat when empty anyway. The eagle isn't going to suffer as much from hauling air to air weapons compared to a viper

Ok, do the math. He's 14nm ahead of you, doing about 11nm/min. You're doing 16m/min and that missile is going to do an average of 20nm/min (this is distance dependent - there's a peak, then the further you go, the smaller it gets). So what do you think, can your 120 cover the necessary 25nm over that one minute? It helps to think of missile flight time instead of range, you can compute the range quickly if you know the flight time and the average speed for that time.

Any radar guided weapons shot in STT should produce a missile launch warning. This shouldn't be an R-77 thing or well that one's different than this one. Either way it should be consistent.

One thing I'll say to that is that sim players salivate constantly over such a thing while constantly ignoring that such weapons are not being operated and I will point out no real pilot has ever even hinted at such a thing. I explained why AAMs would not be used like this, if you want a source, you can go digging through operational manuals and RF bibles or what have you so that you can decipher the reason for yourself - definitely do not take my word for it. ... but it really isn't a thing either. The preference remains an ARH, not an ARM. Proprotional navigation, just like a heat seeker. You lose any optimization/path shaping though and you lose a lot of ECCM.