GGTharos

The F-15E may be in that same category, but it wasn't designed for BFM. The F-15A/C was. There are several factors that make it more of a pig: More drag due to CFT AoA performance due to CFT drag/weight/aero AoA performance due to weight distribution (even if you remove the CFTs) Plain weight, of course

A higher beamwidth gets you a lot less power ... not that this is physically reasonable anyway, the beamwidth is driven by the antenna. As for the R-77 seeker, I believe that it depends on the exact SD-10 variant.

Poor BFM on the Mirage pilot's part.

The way this works here is that you can perform a stand-off attack against 20 different targets simultaneously in a single pass from stand-off distances, reducing your exposure to pretty much all things enemy. For the SDBs preferred targets will be buildings of various sizes, bridges, etc. Consider that you're striking an airfield: You can take out munitions and fuel depos, bunkers, the command post and possibly whatever's on the ramp in a single pass lasting (for you) some 30 seconds. There is of course the caveat of having to pre-program all targets ahead of time. So, while SEAD is doing its thing and your SOJ is doing its thing to supress the target's AD, your 3-ship unleashes 80 of those things and everyone hits the road within a couple of minutes. No overflying the target, no need for the SEAD to stick around there forever, no need for more aircraft to assign all those targets to. Sure, some targets could require larger weapons, but you can obviously mix all that's needed into that attack.

I had the same experience in similar circumstances, different map etc. I don't recall if I had done an emergency jettison or not.

Guidance laws helping missiles not fly themselves into the ground or sea have existed since the 50's, in particular there are research papers for USN warships using missiles vs sea skimming targets ( ... like other missiles ). Here it's purely ED's choice to implement or not, but I would hope they'd add such capability ... this is unfortunately subjective regarding which missile gets what without actual data but it's very, very far from being improbable.

Literally yes, but 1.03 isn't of real value. It demonstrates that the engines have oomph, sure, but all you're doing is flying inefficiently. M1.2+ without burners is more of an accomplishment, and 1.5+ replaces flat-dash intercept regimes that were AB-only territory. The short of it that you can go further faster on the same tank of gas. If you want to go far though, you'll still be travelling subsonic in most cases (ie. the cases where you're not flying a Raptor, and even then I don't know what the efficiency looks like)

The F-15E replaces the F-111. It's job is to get behind enemy lines, get into their bases and kill their dudes, potentially with nukes. It doesn't do CAS or SEAD because other aircraft and squadrons have dedicated capabilities and training for this. Basically these types of weapons are not needed for the F-15E mission so it doesn't carry them - the payloads are dedicated to carrying professional explosive landscaping tools.

The F-22 sustains 1.7-1.8, that's 'supercruise'. Sustaining 1.03 while draining your fuel like crazy compared to say 0.85-0.95 isn't exactly some sort of accomplishment IMHO, just technically supercruise.

This is a DCS thing, not a DCS Viper thing.

Fair enough, here's the context: This is a discussion about F-16's performing poorly in unrealistic dogfight scenarios - no pylons, some kind of set fuel load, pretty much always merging on the deck and of course, guns only. Complaining about someone spiking their aircraft to 12g because they can and the aircraft can isn't exactly a solid argument here - I would argue that the 12g spike isn't a winning condition/game plan/whatever.

The you probably don't want to compare aircraft performance for all-clean, no-pylon dogfights on the deck, either. Or really, any kind of modern aircraft gunzo fight.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FLCS needs more tuning. I think a bit of tweaking for its responsiveness and correctness would go a long way.

No, one long (5sec) 12.5g pull in the most g-vulnerable speed band for the eagle resulted in what you said. The rest did not, at least it's not documented. I'm not saying the crew chief didn't have to do extra work, just that the alleged severity of your comment does not appear to apply. Pull 12g for a while in the eagle in DCS and it breaks. Yes, it is cumulative in DCS. Add weight or make the g asymmetric and it breaks sooner. Pull 10g and it will take you a lot longer to break it because it's not 12g.

The 'bigger offender' has done this in IRL combat. There is one known catastrophic over-g instance of an F-15A or C known, and very very little is known about it. Even finding mentions of it is difficult. No, I don't mean the one that fell apart at 3g's due to faulty longerons. There have been multiple documented 12g excursions, and them more 11g, more 10g, etc. going down the line out of which only one is known to have resulted in the aircraft being sent to a museum (ie. written off). As for your video - I'll check later if it's even possible to hit that much AoA at 460KCAS, but I have doubts. If it is possible, then that is likely a problem but it is separate from over-g. Regarding your complaints about 12g excursions, for the reason above, I don't care, nor should anyone else. If you play that game too often in the flight the wings will come off. Likewise, score enough damage on the target and the wings will come off under not all that much g. And as for a high AoA break, I have bad news for you ... that sort of AoA is encountered during specific evasive maneuvers for eagles. Just not at that speed AFAIK, too fast.

It doesn't know, it just turns on its radar when you launch it and either finds something or it doesn't. Who knows why (or if) it shuts down IRL if it doesn't find anything? But in-game it does, and this is exactly in line with how emergency modes are to be used: visual range only, ie. you shoot at something you can see.

They never are, this isn't news Exactly like I said it would. At least I don't have a problem with the wings coming off anyway.

In a centrifuge under controlled conditions. The G-LOC thing is pretty old now, and ED said they are reviewing it. Not sure why people are complaining about it still instead of waiting to see what ED comes back with. It means you chose the wrong tyres ... but pilots aren't tyres, pilots can't really upgrade their g-tolerance. Aircraft have pretty much reached and exceeded it under specific circumstances. That doesn't mean the excess isn't useful, but you need to take it in the right doses.

So you are forced to wonder if the other jets overperform because you didn't run the numbers on them? Make F-18 players stop using the paddle (detonate their aircraft if they do? I don't know) and you'll be a huge step closer to realism. Not this made up 'g-tier' fantasy. What would also be really realistic is people obtaining BFM skills. But that's hard. Can't find an aircraft's real E-M or acceleration charts? Ban it from competition since you cannot verify its realism in any way. Suddenly you're all these steps closer to realism before you even touch g-modeling - which ED is doing anyway.

Why? It's not realistic. Why? It's not realistic. Ah, I see. What will you do to punish hornet pilots using the paddle then?

Most people think of energy fighting as BnZ. That's not what he's talking about.

Ok, that superficially makes sense to me. This hornet has higher TWR because of the -EPEs and a lot of fighters in this class can sustain 7-7.5 at those speeds, all of this stuff is flown clean. That's not to say there might not be an error in the FM.

Depends on what's in the tanks.

This is good work, but don't talk yourself out of flying F-16's yet. I don't particularly care about the dogfight server fuel loads, they're completely meaningless (ie. your dogfight situation is contrived). Is this max g or sustained? If max, there's definitely a problem unless it's enough fuel to worry the FLCS.