GGTharos

What's stopping you from doing so with the CFTs attached? You lose a little performance but with proper briefing and setup the F-15E works perfectly fine as a training jet.

Or maybe you want to take higher Pk shots against low capability opponents. Missiles also take quite a while to hit their targets. A 15nm launch range will give you 30 sec TOF during which those aircraft will close to 5-8nm (depending on closure) by the time the package is received. But this isn't about 'ending in WVR' ... this part doesn't matter as much, what matters is the fact that the shooting begins beyond the ability to visually identify the target.

Thanks Very quick test: I launched from M0.95 at 40000', the missile was in a slight descent. Peak speed was 0.4M lower than your graph, and distance flown at 75sec (maximum time of flight for this missile) was 20nm at which point speed was again M0.95. So your missile gains +0.4M and +10km distance. I'll get you more information on 7F when I am able, 7M is ... more mysterious although technically it uses the same motor.

It looks reasonably close but I would have to run a test to be certain. The thrust is 1 second too long (what is the serious source? The ISP doesn't match if we give the boost motor 4.5 sec) and the sustainer thrust is a too low - should be more than 1000lbf. I know that the DCS missile is a little too slow (no, I have no source to provide, so feel free to not believe me obviously) but it's close. I'll get you results ASAP.

Unfortunately I do not have this sort of documentation.

The 4.5 second is incorrect. It's 3.5. Check the ISP, you'll see it can't be that way. And there is absolutely no loft function for the 7F . The maximum range conditions are Mach 2 shooter/target, 50000' altitude.

I don't know, I believe that it would not be possible for the target to exhaust the reservoir of any sparrow after AIM-7E2 except for very marginal circumstances. For max distance, the AIM-7 can perform an intercept as far as 53nm away without loft (AIM-7F) which it must achieve within 75 seconds (maximum powered flight time). The missile is programmed to restrict any maneuvering until it is close to its target, so I expect it would have enough hydraulic fluid for all of its needs. S-turns would not be effective for this reason. At max distance, S-Turns would simply run the missile out of speed as well.

Interesting question. The answer is yes ... unless it is no

This is correct. The hydraulics in the AIM-7 are open-loop to this day (maybe ESSM is different), so whatever fluid is used for flight control is thrown outside Heavy maneuvering will deplete the hydraulic reservoir, so the missile has well programmed ways of preventing this. But for E-2, you made a choice, long range or short range dogfight (still more range than sidewinder, but not by a lot - this AIM-7 used a 2.8 second high thrust motor).

The dogfight mode does not 'enable 25g'. The missile overall was modified to be capable of 25g by adding power to the hydraulics and modifying the wings (they were so large that they created too much resistance for the hydraulics to achieve 25g at speed). What the dogfight mode does is shorten the trigger-to-eject time, it enables full maneuver capability immediately at launch and activates the fuze after a minimum time of flight. Without this mode the missile is launched in 'long range' mode, which will delay enabling of the fuze and try to preserve hydraulics for a long flight, but it will still enable full maneuvering when close to target (about 4.5nm). After E-2 this would be done electronically onboard the missile, and didn't have to be set on the ground. As a technical detail, the 2 second engine is quite powerful, about twice the thrust of the engine on today's sidewinders in thrust per second. Probably a little less total impulse, but not weak. I'm not sure what the AIM-9B used ... I'm only familiar with the more modern variants of these engines.

Ok, how about: https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-patriot.html

2xF-117 for S-125, 1xF-16CJ for SA-6, IIRC, while performing CAP. The SA-6 attack was definitely very interesting. The pilot of that F-16 was reprimanded on debrief for procedural failure regarding ECM, but I really don't know any of those details and ... either way, maybe that did happen, maybe not. The F-117s flew too close to the S-125s because the SAM locations were not known and well, if you're close enough and you don't even have an RWR to tell you about it or chaff to defend yourself with, well ... whatever.

You're still not getting it. The real EW environment is dense. There's your guys emitting, their guys emitting, civilians emitting ... and what do you mean 'excessive interrogations'? Your opponent only needs to do it one time with Combat Tree and he knows who you are. What's the additional one interrogation going to tell you when you don't even know where it's coming from? And again, if it's just that MiG and another aircraft and nothing else, what does he care about the IFF interrogation? I mean what's the unknown going to do if not interrogate? The fact that he's there is the problem, not the interrogation. 'But it tells me that he's interested in me!' No, it tells you squat. If he's a friendly or foe, you don't know. And what if you don't pick up an interrogation? Maybe he knows what everything in that direction is a bandit, maybe someone else told him.

Today you need to deal with encryption, so Combat Tree probably doesn't apply as much. Today we have 'cyberwarfare'.

Yeah ok. I've been talking to real (as in I've been on the bases, so it's not some random peeps on the internet) F-15C pilots since I have purchased LOMAC, so we're talking a decade and a half. The Su-27 was never considered equal in BVR. A dangerous opponent yes, equal, no (well, maybe to a non-PSP/MSIP eagle but by the time the flanker was fielded in numbers it probably wouldn't have been in danger of meeting a non-PSP/MSIP eagle anyway). You certainly didn't want to go WVR with it if you could help it, and then with an acceptable merge ratio to minimize your own losses. The initial CIA reports didn't even mention the Su-27, they thought it was the MiG-29 and their reports included pie in the sky fantasy which turned out to be incorrect anyway. I'm not going to go back and read through details of all these documents, they are history - just understand whatever is said in public is sanitized. 85nm (~160km) vs a 6msq target slightly below the horizon. This is the longest range at which the test was performed using the original non-PSP APG-63. If it was even more capable than this, we don't have public knowledge of it. PSP/MSIP added a lot of capability, and several LRU changes for those upgrades definitely had the potential to increase the range further.

So they'll just move around willy nilly because reasons ... I mean who need to actually defend anything, as long as the SAMs move around And guess what gets even better than this. Mobile facilities that can move along with your SAMs so you can defend them. Because hey look, lets compare little point defense SAMs to theatre defense SAMs. They're all the same and can run around, fire the move, blow up tanks with their missiles and win the entire conflict by themselves 'cause no one can ever challenge them because they are mobile.

No, that's a poor point. The NATO-Soviet engagements are a lot more straight up force on force scenarios as opposed to one side bringing overwhelming air power vs the other trying to hide out. Maybe you missed reports of SAMs possibly downing their own aircraft in these 'other' conflicts (which having a distinct lack of their own aircraft to fire at while at it), and barely hitting anything despite the plethora of targets flying overhead? Yeah, they managed a couple of kills and stayed alive. And lost the war so what sort of great example do you want to take from this? Air defense groups build static defenses in depth. You can consider anything you want clever or not, it doesn't matter. I'm aware of their operations. So what? Like I said, good for them, they stayed alive. Got a couple of kills, and lost the war. So what?

This particular SAM wasn't staying up to do its best against everything flying out there. Yes, if you put your head down, hide, and pop up for the occasional shot you can survive a lot longer, and this was the idea. The reason the military wasn't attacked on the ground is because they hid, anticipating a ground invasion. If those SAMs had been told to 'make a wall', they'd be dropping just like those SA-6s. As for 'old analog' yes, they can be deadly. You can use MiG-21s with R60s in ambush CAPs and they'll work if your high-tech opponent isn't careful. The 'knife fight' is where things get equalized a lot of times, because ambushes and close fights are just that. Same with knife vs gun ... get close enough, suddenly it's the knife that's more dangerous. Don't mistake the situation for technological differentiation.

It's a huge subject that you will have to discuss with an SME. I mean think of a 4v4 for a moment, what's it matter if everyone is in STT? This isn't some public DCS server where everyone and their grandma is going to respawn and jump into it. When your aircraft operates better as a system and thus your aircraft has a higher Pk overall, you gain exchange ratio. There are tactics to deal with all of this. Also, there are flares. This isn't DCS. It was already accomplished in Beqaa. Yep, older aircraft overall but also 7F and non-MSIP eagles, facing MiG-23s, MiG-21s and Su-20s. You might be thinking its wishful thinking but I would say that's only because you're thinking of an eagle vs a flanker and that's not how it works. There are entire systems in place.

We discussed things in generalities. He could discuss some details and not others mainly due to the time that had passed between his service and now. He operated MiG-29.12A, we talked about the F-117 IR signature (As known by them at the time, he described it as similar to a little cessna) and he expressed that the radar didn't perform very well, the R-27 was in better shape than the radar apparently. Not that you should take anything away about the R-27 here, we didn't compare it to anything

It isn't and last I heard they're working on it.

Recovery from GLOC is 20-80 seconds, yes it's you're right person to person and random. The other effects - mainly the brain fog and reduced processing power ... again the only way to model any of this will be lame. Yep, @KIllshot0597 has a neat idea with tracking multiple conditions and it's fine. I expect it'll be turned off often like say ... random damage/failures. But I could also be very wrong about that. I'll try to look some up for you, but for starters try 'USAF GLOC Study PDF' in google.

You sure about the horse? Because the AIM-7F was considered superior. The 7M brought very significant changes. After the 80's. If we want to consider 2020's things are deifinitely less clear.

That's why you aim to clean up BVR and make your merge ratio more acceptable.

Yes, that's basically all there is to it from the DCS pilot perspective. You send a signal and you either get a reply or not. The reply can contain various information obviously. Encryption and other factors are sort of irrelevant.