GGTharos

No it isn't. Missiles need time to get to their targets, those targets move in that time so ending the fight WVR is absolutely no surprise and expected. No it doesn't. History is literally showing that things are moving more towards BVR. Maybe slower than desired/wished for, but steadily.

Not only training, they can contain quite a bit of instrumentation, and you can test seekers etc.

Captive carry just means attached to the aircraft. If you're not going to shoot it, you can't do all those things like measure missile aerodynamics etc.

Why are you comparing them to SA-13? A bunch of MANPADS have a more advanced seeker and autopilot than SA-13 missiles. It's an incorrect comparison. Get data on the specific MANPADS, then ED will do something.

Actually they are ... well counted. The BVR survey is showing that more and more launches occur BVR.

No, absolutely not. You would have to nail the exact time when the AIM-54 is accelerating through M1. Not sure, but really neither scenario should happen. There is a very very narrow possible exception but it would be when the missile and aircraft are relatively co-speed still, and the aircraft has turned away so as to make the missile match the gates better, right as the incoming missile starts scanning. It's a very unlikely scenario and you only need an RCS/return strength filter to avoid that one as well.

65 data would be good enough, just need to find that source. Both have HPRF, are digital, and generically same/similar antenna technology so the increase from one to other won't be dramatic but you could get some 60nm for a look-up 5sqm target.

Got a source?

The F100 had issues. F-15Cs were built with -220s because of this, and the entire story of the -100 and how the USAF forced PW to fix it is an interesting tale of its own.

It won't. There's no source that'll say otherwise. Technically you're not supposed to even try to get that high up in a 15C, with ordnance limitations (structural, not engine) placing the top speed at some M1.8.

44 for the MiG-29 between 84 and 95, an equivalent 'in service' time to the F-15's 78-89 timeline, and that page doesn't say what types of losses it includes where the F-15 lists losses on the ground as well. They're about equal in accident rates. Fly a lot, get a lot of opportunities for accidents.

Of course you can. That's what doppler and range gates are for.

That's not what I said; I guess you don't know what goes into simulating a missile so you can't understand. I know the story, this is an old video that has been talked about and analyzed six ways to Sunday. It's an SA-2, those F-16s are loaded with ECM pods and very likely supported by SoJ which is procedure when entering a SAM protected environment. As well, those operators would often launch the missiles ballistic, meaning unguided, hoping to guide them at the last moment in the hopes of avoiding retaliation by SEAD aircraft. Ok, sure.

This doesn't anything for DCS. Real pilots say a lot of things, without details those things are mostly useless. SA-2 with ECM and countermeasures, probably supported by an SoJ. That's how it should be. They're effective up to that altitude, because this is low altitude. Wrong. MANPADS couldn't even effectively engage helicopters early in their history, and they were used against jets. But those old SA-7s and Redeyes aren't what you're fighting, much like an AIM-7M doesn't experience the failures of an AIM-7D.

Says who? Fun fact, MANPADS are low altitude weapons and are not effective at medium and high altitudes, so ... ? You can easily out-maneuver MANPADS if you have altitude and/or speed.

I know what the plans were. Think it would stay confined to Europe? I mean do you want to talk aircraft or do you want to talk WWIII?

That it was in certain ways. Fighters like the F-15 back then were the force multipliers. Yes, but I have doubts wrt their sortie generation. As far as history goes, I think this is a great resource for a start: https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/declassified_138256.htm

Why? There were plenty of F-16s and F-4s present. Not at all. 'Some fighters' may well be inside the AMR and the sight isn't everything. It's an advantage, but not once you're outnumbered.

That is a pretty flippant comment. Missiles aren't easy to get right, period. It requires manpower and specific knowledge - ED has had a gap for filling that specific position for a while. Now that they have someone focusing on it, it's still one person (maybe two) who have to focus on a whole bunch of different weapon systems.

The slow speed power curve on those engines isn't terribly impressive last I looked. But I could be wrong.

Flying higher than the MANPADS effective altitude is absolutely realism. That is done because MANPADS are dangerous. And sure, the trajectory doesn't look the same - the in-game MANPADS operator doesn't superelevate or aim with lead as he's supposed to, and I doubt the guidance algorithms are exactly the same. Where do you have turn rate/g readouts in IRL?

MANPADS are fine. Any less capability and they'll be useless. If you don't want to be hit by them, stay above their effective altitude like pilots do IRL

The missile datalink channels are deliberately offset from wingmen in order to prevent guiding the wrong missile. This test is a capability demonstration, but it is useless in terms of determining capability. This stuff is not trivial, it doesn't just have to work when you have 2 fighters out there, it has to work when you have 100. The launching aircraft's radar is the source of the missile's datalink transmission, and depending on how/what data is transmitted to the missile and how the coordinates are synched between missile and aircraft, guiding the missile with the mlink from another aircraft would lower the Pk (or even drive it to zero) unless special precautions are taken. With MIDS you can ensure relatively solid coordinates, but then you have to deal with the rest of the weapon system.

What, you think I'm wrong? But anyway, you know, it's one of those 'be careful what you wish for' things There is no such thing as a notch angle.

Yes, AIM-120s need a 'buff'