GGTharos

It does automatically blow your tires. While it might not blow them on the spot, the aircraft will be taken to a hot-brakes ramp and no one will be approaching from the side of the wheels until a certain amount has passed for them to cool, or more likely just explode. The situation you describe isn't on the margins in a sort of 'maybe they will maybe they won't' deal, the wheels will explode and such things have killed people IRL. You're right though, DCS does not model this or any kind of tyre wear so whatever It's supposed to settle where you want it to be Your glideslope is bad, resulting in a more dangerous and potentially later flare, and a longer ground-run. It is a good part of the reason you overran the runway

No, the advantage of the EX is a new fuselage and new equipment. The number of missiles doesn't matter that much since those aircraft won't be able to perform BVR on the level of the F-22 or F-15C, or probably not even on the level of the F-35. The F-15EX is very broadly speaking a replacement for the aging F-15E airframes.

This is bunk. While it will be great to bring the FC3 sensors up to part with FF modules, FF modules have been doing perfectly well against FC3 aircraft in pretty much every way. And that is because nothing in those FC3 modules is magical in any way. In a number of ways those FC3 modules perform worse than they would if they had an FF counterpart, and an easiest way to show that is the bricks on the eagle radar that won't move when you make a turn. It's a really basic thing which makes life harder despite the whole 'FC3 players have it so easy' propaganda. How about TWS? Yep, it tracks like SWT which is wrong, but the moment you even think 'notch' it goes 'I give up'. So yep, FC3 sensors are modeled on a simpler level, but the basics of their operation and capability remain on a reasonably similar level. The weapons? They're the same so that capability is identical, so you can fly respectable BVR tactics against them, and with high quality flight models you can prosecute a dogfight just as well as you should expect. So I would like to understand why you have that opinion despite the facts, or are these facts just being interpreted in a different way?

That's a great question. And the answer is, there's not as much live OPFOR without FC3 and that would suck. While I'm not necessarily that interested in your server (I guess you might say I like my MFDs? But mostly I like my F-15C) I can appreciate the work you've done it, and good job. It looks like it's popular, successful and people have fun times on it and that's what's really important. I'd call to question the 10km EWR thing but whatever - I think that's about the only thing I'd pick on and I understand that you have your reasons for doing it.

F-15Es have them too, but you have to have a recent enough upgrade.

The SIT page will come later.

I didn't. It won't behave correctly if the rocket motors are vastly different. Some particular trajectories may end up being more or less a match, but most won't.

Because the performance won't be the same. Dual thrust has very different behavior in specific cases, and also top speed tends to be lower. Look at sparrow for example.

You just had bad opponents. Not either. The F-15E's air to air capabilities can deal with low threat opposition, but I imagine all that is happening when air superiority has already been gained. Basically if you're thinking of the F-15E as some form of swing role figher, stop thinking of it that way. The DCS world, especially typical MP which is highly disorganized and there's really no air superiority is a bit different and doesn't represent IRL warfare.

And temperature dependent.

ISP can vary by altitude, that's why any thrust/ISP figure by itself is not enough. ISP can increase (and does) with an increase in altitude (drop in pressure) and this is modeled in DCS in a simple way IIRC. A missile can have +7% thrust at high altitudes compared to SL.

Are you seeing the mipple with the vertical box there?

Yep, it's that mundane

Yep, both of those are great advice. Most pilots begin their journey learning on an FPM-free aircraft. And yes, CPU are the 'Cockpit Units' of AoA.

What the specs say is that M2.4 is only attainable at an altitude of 40000' and that's for a 40000lbs GW which requires that the CFTs not be present. With CFTs on you're limited to M1.8 by the CFT structural limits, and wouldn't reach that in level acceleration anyway if you're carrying any payload, unless it's a cold day. So maybe when you say 'check it yourself' you should actually ... check it.

You don't need the air brake most of the time either. Trim for a 21CPU approach, flare and then aerobrake at 23CPU upon touch-down. Apply brakes when less than 60kts. If you're on a short runway (or really heavy and you won't be able to aerobrake to a slow enough speed), things change - consider a shallow 23CPU approach (2 deg glideslope, maybe even 1), stick the landing exactly where you need to, then nosewheel on the ground and hit the brakes and airbrake.

Agreed. And yes, approaching at 20-22 CPUs (so just ride 21 all the way in) is the standard 'as per the manual' approach AoA

Yes, there may be more maneuvering depending on the situation. The 50's sparrow already had guidance modes corresponding to certain altitude bands and other factors, I don't see the problem with an AMRAAM introducing a particular altitude guidance bias based on an easily selectable altitude profile. And yes I'm aware about the varying coefficients, I happened to be one of the people who provided ED with evidence of their existence

The radar beam is an engineering definition of the power density based on whatever criteria. Did you know that 'the beam' in the APG-70 is considered to be 1.5 deg at long range, but once you drop into a 20nm VSD it opens up to 3.4 degrees? Magic, right? That would be because 'the beam' exists everywhere. And yes the radar has side-lobes, and the M-Link exists where they exist ... including the main-lobe, which is what would trigger the RWR - in other words, it's nothing special when it comes to the radar emission. When you launch a sparrow, a guidance signal is injected into STT (ie. it's not 'just STT' any more) - if you launch an AMRAAM, it is likely that the MDL signal is injected in that space instead. And while we we don't have the waveform specifications for the 120, we do have them for some other missiles and we can make an educated guess regarding what the AMRAAM does - to keep it simple, STT + some other injected signal in that waveform = missile launch.

You're saying an RWR couldn't pick up a signal injected into the STT waveform? Why? All the stuff you said is just hand-waving, and that's what makes no sense. The radar emits the DL the same as any other signal, it 'lives' inside whatever waveform the radar is emitting. Where you have an STT signal with nothing extra between pulses in the cycle, now you have an extra thing being added once every so often - could be between every pulse, could be every quarter of a second. It's there, the missile detects it, what makes you believe the RWR with its larger antennae wouldn't?

There's no magic here. You can constrain PN until certain conditions are met, and then allow it full deflection. You can also use different guidance algorithms for different phases of guidance, which again is not magic and has been done since the 50's.

CW antennae have been a thing of the past since the 70's with very little exception. The clue is in the signal waveform, literally. Be it an injected guidance signal or M-Link, it is injected into the waveform and it is detectable. It is far, far more likely that the earlier SPO-15 would be unable to detect the AMRAAM's seeker, and far more likely to detect the above situation.

It shouldn't be correct. The M-Link should be detectable by the targeted RWR. Lock + M-Link should trigger a launch warning for the RWR.

Yep, it's that easy. What about NASAMs? You might have trouble finding proof that any specific missile uses PN/APN as well. This stuff isn't hard to implement. It's a lot easier than some guidance capabilities that SAMs have for example, and easier than implementing loft as well.

Many reasons...one easy one is to avoid negative numbers. There exist some more complex reasons that I won't bring up because I don't even really know how to explain them. Your approach should be at 21 units, BTW, not 23 (unless you're flying a specific approach profile with specific purpose) and definitely not 25 since that is tail-strike territory.