GGTharos

Your ceiling is 52000 on a good day with 38000lbs GW for the -220, on a good day. You need to be supersonic to reach higher and your speed envelope for reaching and holding the highest altitude is very thin.

In a way yes. It's part of the engine's thermodynamic curve. Now, we don't have an OAT gauge to judge if the temp changes according to the low altitude temp, but given the fact that you can get different performance by varying the mission temp it's obviously simulated in some way.

Yes and yes.

I suspect the temp effect on the engines may still be reversed.

Network latency can be simulated with relative ease, but it takes some equipment and knowledge.

Ducted rockets still require an air intake. It could just mean that it's GPS enabled.

It is reportedly a dual thrust solid rocket missile, which would make it boost-sustain (some sources say dual pulse, which is different but still solid rocket). There are no intakes for a ramjet anywhere. We don't even know the mass of this missile, never mind other attributes.

SD-10 is the export 'version' of the PL-12, and there are certain differences in electronics. The PL-15 is far too small for a 300km range - it's probably being confused with PL-21 or something else.

That was a pair of BlackHawks and VID was performed. That aside, the fact is that the F-15 was the only aircraft cleared to declare hostile independent from AWACS.

Combine the 350km with terrain and you'll see the problem (just switch google maps to terrain mode). As for break-out, 'visual' doesn't mean tight since it can easily be 5nm apart. The eagle's RAID and RGH modes are good at breaking contacts apart as far as 40nm according to unclassified information so I wouldn't read anything into this. This could really be miscommunication or they just didn't make use of the breakout modes as needed, or, even more simply didn't run MELD OR the counting of bandits was the result of MELD. I think the AWACS confusion contributed a lot here. Anyway, in those encounters the MiG-29s were always outnumbered and outgunned so there's really not a lot to talk about here.

Specifically they called those aircraft hostile on their own due to point of origin. That should say a little something about the tracking.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/RAND_MR1365.pdf Page 189 of that PDF. That's about the best info we can expect to get on that account.

It tracks 8, it's plainly written in the -34. ED matched the radar performance of the Eagle to the Flanker back in LOMAC, the 1970 testbed actually shows more range in tests than we have right now. That information was not available back then.

There's some unclassified info regarding these ranges wrt HPRF (husky) but not MPRF - aka pitbull. The 120 can lock onto a target from quite far head-on, possibly surprisingly far. We don't know anything about the MPRF functionality and the 120 has an interesting battery stack which could indicate MPRF capability that doesn't quite align with an aircraft radar comparison for example. As usual, MPRF doesn't care about aspect. Point being very little is known or understood about the PRF effect on anything here since the information is lacking. The search process, other than what's known for sparrow, is also not known for the 120 although it 'seems' obvious that under certain circumstances it would have to raster instead of stare.

None of these things are a factor. Exercises usually have a scripted and agreed upon format - it is very atypical for those to be any form of competition whatsoever. There's very little to be taken away by public declarations regarding such exercises.

You have hellfires. Use them. (The answer is no, we're not getting ATAS).

Would you also introduce capture gates instead of 'target game object #1234'? Ie. closure/angle/range gate, eventually provided in different formats (for example AWG-9 does this differently than an AMRAAM platform). A lock-on delay is great but these other things are better IMHO. Also, how much can this delay be? The AIM-7 is used as close as 1500' in dogfighting IRL so this is probably fractions of a second, unless a there is a search phase. There is also the question of how many targets can a missile discern in its FoV instantaneously (what about con-can vs monopulse?) for the purposes of search and target selection. Also, where things become more guesswork: should missiles do a raster search if they cannot find a target where they are expected to look? Finally, I have information on how sparrow handles some of the above problems and it seems like it would be a common method to most missiles.

The overall Pk for Sparrow in 91 was ~.34 without accounting for anything. There exists non-public analysis that breaks it down further by effects of storage on missile quality, details on how multiple hits against the same aircraft are not counted etc. The AMRAAM so far has had ~.59 or maybe a bit more, again it'll be higher if certain things are accounted for, such as multiple shots at the same aircraft and poor parameter shots. Interestingly, the Brits found out that the 120 has the same Pk as Sparrow if you don't buy the M-link

Why are you doing anything but avoiding adversary helos? "Let's do stuff that isn't done with these things IRL" "OMG this other thing is so much better at it, NERF!" That's the general appearance of it.

It's already estimated from a curve so you may as well use the rule of thumb of 2sec/nm head on, 3 on the beam and 4 tail-on. I don't know if more accurate DLZ computation data and algorithms are being used anywhere at all in DCS - maybe for the AGM-88.

It is feature complete. Feature complete does not mean 'whatever musolo believes is feature complete' it means 'whatever features the developer decided to implement are done'. I wouldn't look silly at all. They use their discression - they've improved the radar ranges for the MiG-29 and I think the Su-27. They've been looking at a few other things as well. But you're not asking for a fix to an existing feature, you are asking for a new one. You can swear up and down that you're not asking for something new, but I have bad news for you: Any functionality that has not been implemented is 'new'.

Sorry but that's silly. They have been very clear about the state of FC3 vs. DCS FF level modules.

No, it should be there but was never added. The HuD element itself is available when you are using missiles, so it's an existing HuD element, not a new function. But anyway, this has nothing to do with the flanker - my point is simply, this: As for stuff but don't get all upset when things don't happen.

Yes it does indeed. In fact it has the closure on the HuD which was omitted from the gun mode, we asked for it recently and well, nothing So literally not even adding something new in any way shape or form.

The reason is that computers hate us. Same place it leaves those who like to fly 'F' fighters. Although the only thing you can turn to is the JF-17. And yes, it doesn't have that 'RU' feeling or he same weapons, I know. And of course they're saying they'll work on an FF MiG-29. You don't need to be irrational to believe in a conspiracy, I didn't call you irrational - I stated that implying harm (and I guess some sort of sketchyness?) is the basis of the conspiracy. But ED has been pretty clear about it all, and the rest is forum blah-blah, even from the devs. All that said, it's not impossible to get something, so it's not like asking for it is pointless, but IMHO it's pretty low probability. Overall there is a bunch of pressure from the Russian forum as well, so who knows? But they clearly know that this opens the door to people asking for improvements on the other FC3 jets. I mean we don't even have pressure setting ability in the eagle.