Tu-55 jamming and burn through

[=Mac=]

In a tail chase, the Tu-55 was jamming its heart out. I was zooming, waiting with 4 AIM-7s for him, and, as I closed to within 20 miles, still no burn through. No burn through at 15 miles. Just at 10 miles, with the strobe still being painted on the screen, I could see the bandit's contact. By this time, I was VISUAL on it. (Had it been 4 AIM-120's, they would have not hit, even at this close!)

 

Previously, in a head on, I had a solid HOJ lock with an AIM-7. I checked F-10 to see I was 25 miles away. Fox one in HOJ. I watched the trail as it headed straight for the bomber. I killed lock to see what would happen. The Sparrow quit the HOJ. ?????? Really?

 

In other news, I was 2 miles away in another tail chase. Fox two tracked straight to a hit. Smoke trailed but the bomber continued. Okay, Fox two, again. It tracked straight to a hit. Smoke trailed twice, now. The bomber continued. I was completely winchester so I decided to follow for a while.

 

Then I gave up.

 

No wonder BVR in an F-15 is useless. Radar that doesn't pick up bandits until closer than 40 miles? Jamming or not. Two sidewinders can't take down a defenseless Tu-55? AIM-7's can't HOJ on their own? AIM-9Ms are better weapons than AIM-120Cs?

 

In real life, the AN/APG-63 radar has an operational range of 60 to 80 nautical miles for a fighter sized target. A Tu-55 will show up beyond 100 nautical miles.

 

And then there's the opposite side of the fence with the ET and a thermal tracking sight. Who needs radar when the thermal sight works better and is completely undetectable.

 

I love the DCS version of the F-15 but I will just fly it for now. Let me know when you get a realistic one.

 

Thanks.

:noexpression:

[TAW_Blaze]

In a tail chase, the Tu-55 was jamming its heart out. I was zooming, waiting with 4 AIM-7s for him, and, as I closed to within 20 miles, still no burn through. No burn through at 15 miles. Just at 10 miles, with the strobe still being painted on the screen, I could see the bandit's contact. By this time, I was VISUAL on it. (Had it been 4 AIM-120's, they would have not hit, even at this close!)

 

10 nm in a tailchase, nothing will ever hit a target.

 

Previously, in a head on, I had a solid HOJ lock with an AIM-7. I checked F-10 to see I was 25 miles away. Fox one in HOJ. I watched the trail as it headed straight for the bomber. I killed lock to see what would happen. The Sparrow quit the HOJ. ?????? Really?

 

HoJ is the lowest pK of any shots. For a Sparrow to hit from 25nm in HoJ the target would basically need to fly straight towards it at high altitude. Now as far as why the missile quit guiding, I can't really tell. Maybe a tacview would help.

 

In other news, I was 2 miles away in another tail chase. Fox two tracked straight to a hit. Smoke trailed but the bomber continued. Okay, Fox two, again. It tracked straight to a hit. Smoke trailed twice, now. The bomber continued. I was completely winchester so I decided to follow for a while.

 

AIM-9 warheads are pretty small, that combined with the weird damage model of some planes will often leave targets wounded running away. I've had situations where I shot 3 AMRAAMs into an AWACS and it was still flying.. if you're that close just use your guns and save the missiles. The rule is really simple. Shoot it until it blows up or bursts.

 

No wonder BVR in an F-15 is useless. Radar that doesn't pick up bandits until closer than 40 miles? Jamming or not.

 

It's not the radar's fault if you don't know how to operate it.

[104th_Maverick]

No wonder BVR in an F-15 is useless.

 

 

Are you ghacked up on whoop chicken mate???

 

The F-15 is the most capable aircraft in the sim for BVR, you just have to know how to use it properly.

 

Shooting at something 10 miles away that is running away from you, is not knowing how to use this aircraft!

 

You would be able to see the TU-55 from longer range if he wasn't jamming, there is nothing wrong with the Radar in the aircraft. The problem comes from the people sitting in the front seat ;)

[Ironhand]

In a tail chase, the Tu-55 was jamming its heart out. I was zooming, waiting with 4 AIM-7s for him, and, as I closed to within 20 miles, still no burn through. No burn through at 15 miles. Just at 10 miles, with the strobe still being painted on the screen, I could see the bandit's contact. By this time, I was VISUAL on it. (Had it been 4 AIM-120's, they would have not hit, even at this close!)...

Perhaps switching to medium PRFs would have helped improve burn through range?

[schroedi]

What is a Tu-55? Never heard of that bird. Or are you talking about a Tu-95?

[=Mac=]

10 nm in a tailchase, nothing will ever hit a target.

 

 

 

HoJ is the lowest pK of any shots. For a Sparrow to hit from 25nm in HoJ the target would basically need to fly straight towards it at high altitude. Now as far as why the missile quit guiding, I can't really tell. Maybe a tacview would help.

 

 

 

AIM-9 warheads are pretty small, that combined with the weird damage model of some planes will often leave targets wounded running away. I've had situations where I shot 3 AMRAAMs into an AWACS and it was still flying.. if you're that close just use your guns and save the missiles. The rule is really simple. Shoot it until it blows up or bursts.

 

 

 

It's not the radar's fault if you don't know how to operate it.

 

I wasn't complaining about firing at 10 nmi, but the burn through was at 10 nmi.

 

Lowest pk in HOJ makes sense. But the shot I made, I was at Angels 40 and the Tu-95 (yup, the 95 this time! :) was at Angels 24, head on aspect, no maneuvering.

 

Sidewinder warheads being small. Okay. That makes sense.

 

But when I flew against 5 bombers (Tu-95's) that were coming straight at me, I watched the radar screen. Just at 40 nmi the radar was clean until, blip, all five lit up with strobes. I don't think the F-15's radar is that weak. And (IronHand), in the tail chase, I was in medium PRF.

 

Keep in mind that, because I made the mission, I knew exactly the range, speed, aspect, and angels of the bombers. My elevation was correct, my PRF was correct, I was in BVR mode (2) with them at Angels 24 and me at Angels 40.

 

I guess the number one reason I was "miffed" was because, in MP, I took off fully loaded against bandits that knew I was coming. We both had AWACS. I got no call of a bandit so I bored ahead into the mountains for points north in the flatlands, eyes glued to the radar, interleaved, scanning low to high, close to far away, hoping I could make a contact where AWACs could not. No contacts at all.

 

Boom. I'm dead.

 

The Red opponent told me he was already in the weeds, IN the mountains and watched me on his DataLink, then watched me marking towards and high above him. He fired an ET. That was the boom.

 

Still made me angry, though, even though I've seen ET tactics before.

[TAW_Blaze]

And what exactly do you have to prove that you should have burnthrough further than 10 nm against such a large target that likely has a very powerful dedicated jammer?

 

(disregarding the fact that ECM modeling in DCS makes no sense whatsoever)

 

Not seeing anything further than 40 nm is the classic symptom of using interleaved PRF.

 

Perhaps instead of bashing the game without any proof you should focus on improving yourself. If everyone else is going the wrong way, maybe you're going the wrong way.

[SDsc0rch]

;2367378'] .... there is nothing wrong with the Radar in the aircraft ....

 

 

 

ohhhhhhhhh

 

i just.. i really don't know what to say here

 

 

 

 

i remember this skit on SNL

 

it went something like..... "REALLY?!?"

[=Mac=]

Please don't get me wrong. I am certainly not "bashing" the "game". I am bashing your understanding of it.

 

I want a combat flight simulator not a game. I would love a 20 gazillion dollar military flight sim (available to the U.S. military) in my living room. It may take me a couple more paychecks, but until I can buy one, I will treasure DCS and everything that goes with it (including your posts expressing your views:) ). The F-15 flies like a dream to me but I cannot complain about any flight characteristics because I know only the sim version, not real life. Please compare what we have now with DCS to this:

 

http://fshistory.simflight.com/fsh/

 

So, for all intents and purposes, I am totally in love with DCS. But, from the things I've read, the things I have seen, from the things that are written in recent history, the DCS F-15C (as a realistically simulated air superiority fighter) is still a game, not a simulator. It's a darn GOOD game, and the best combat flight simulator available to the public. But I will point out shortcomings as I get to them in order to suggest corrections that I think are needed.

 

An example: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle) we know the dry thrust of each engine is 14590 lbs. We know, too, with afterburner, the thrust goes up to 23770 lbs for each engine. Load up an F-15C with 50% fuel (6729 lbs) at Sochi, take off without AB, immediately go vertical and then go full AB. TacView told me my true airspeed was inching up to 154 knots. What about NO afterburner? According to Wikipedia, full afterburner with 6729 lbs of fuel still should deliver 11,891 lbs of thrust OVER the weight of the aircraft, fuel, and pilot. That does not happen in DCS.

 

And that's JUST the engine performance. It needs corrections.

 

The F-15C radar needs corrections. The A2A missiles need corrections. Communications need corrections.

 

But I still love it.... as I complain. :book:

[TAW_Blaze]

The point is, your attitude is a bad joke. You're claiming nonsense stuff in your original post while not having the proper knowledge about your so called "game". The point is, you just came here on your high horse spewing shit pretending you know something about air combat. Problem is, you don't. End of story.

 

I love the DCS version of the F-15 but I will just fly it for now. Let me know when you get a realistic one.

 

After this line I'm surprised you haven't been atleast warned tbh.

[GGTharos]

Please don't get me wrong. I am certainly not "bashing" the "game". I am bashing your understanding of it.

 

Fair turn-about, I'll bash yours.

 

First off, ECM modeling in this game is the dev's choice. Bombers carry far more powerful jammers, so you get burn-through much closer. By some (real) accounts, you might consider yourself lucky to even get a hit with most RF missiles ... almost at any range.

 

An example: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle) we know the dry thrust of each engine is 14590 lbs. We know, too, with afterburner, the thrust goes up to 23770 lbs for each engine. Load up an F-15C with 50% fuel (6729 lbs) at Sochi, take off without AB, immediately go vertical and then go full AB. TacView told me my true airspeed was inching up to 154 knots. What about NO afterburner? According to Wikipedia, full afterburner with 6729 lbs of fuel still should deliver 11,891 lbs of thrust OVER the weight of the aircraft, fuel, and pilot. That does not happen in DCS.

 

And this works exactly as it ought to. So, we now know you read a wikipedia page, but you don't actually know how a jet engine works - you've assumed it delivers full thrust pretty much no matter what.

 

1. Installed thrust is less than static bench test thrust by about 20%

2. Thrust increases with speed (up to a point), thus the faster you go, the faster you go faster.

3. Thrust decreases with altitude, and that's why you need a higher speed at high altitude to hold the same sustained g ... up to a point, because you'll only ever be able to sustain 9g around SL with a specific payload. Jet engines simply cannot generate enough thrust for this already at 10000'.

 

 

Saying that corrections are needed is fine, but knowing what you're actually talking about helps more than just spitting out such statements while not knowing what those corrections should be.

[=Mac=]

From Wikipedia, not from me. Yes, I did read Wikipedia. In case you have not:

 

The F-15's maneuverability is derived from low wing loading (weight to wing area ratio) with a high thrust-to-weight ratio enabling the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed. The F-15 can climb to 30,000 ft (10,000 m) in around 60 seconds. The thrust output of the dual engines is greater than the aircraft's weight, thus giving it the ability to accelerate in a vertical climb.

 

Maybe I should repeat part of that quote: "giving it the ability to accelerate in a vertical climb."

 

Can you do that in a DCS F-15C? I mean, better than 1 nautical mile per hour per second or two? WithOUT afterburner. Okay, WITH afterburner?

 

Here is another reference that you all might find interesting.

 

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-design.htm

 

...wing loadings as low as 55 pounds per square foot and static thrust-to-weight-ratios of as much as 1.35 might be expected.

 

I stand on both websites' points versus what DCS F-15 can't do.

 

As for air combat flying, no. I know very little. I'm not really interested in investing my time learning tactics based on a denatured game module. I would invest lots of time in an accurate portrayal of the F-15. I know when something is wrong with a simulation. My previous post pointed out a couple for you and my two references, above, justifies my complaint.

[GGTharos]

From Wikipedia, not from me. Yes, I did read Wikipedia. In case you have not:

 

I read the real F-15 manual, the one that real pilots use. The one the flight model is actually tuned to and verified. Repeatedly, and by real pilots. It doesn't have such nice quotes, but it certainly has graphs showing sustained g, acceleration, and other fun things.

 

So don't give me wikipedia :)

 

You can probably google for and acquire the F-15 -1. The -1 is usually the basic primary manual for a given aircraft in the USAF (USN has different designations).

 

My previous post pointed out a couple for you and my two references, above, justifies my complaint.

I'm telling you that your references are useless. We're in possession of much better information.

 

As for accelerating vertically in the F-15C ... yep. If you do things exactly right, so if you want to try it out, try flying the Streak Eagle profile. You can google that. :)

Edited April 6, 2015 by GGTharos

[=Mac=]

So, you're telling me that the -1 refutes BOTH references I gave? Could you scan and post the image that says that the F-15C, when loaded with 50% fuel and nothing else, cannot accelerate vertically? So far as I know, from what F-15 pilots have told me face to face, the aircraft CAN accelerate vertically. (I grew up a U.S. Air Force brat.) I've tried, from standing still on the runway, to accelerate without afterburner and with afterburner. The best I could do in DCS was maintain the climbing speed (as per Tacview).

 

If I don't do things exactly right, are you saying an 11,000 lbs. thrust over total weight isn't enough to cause the plane to accelerate vertically? If your book is telling us that all the other references and actual F-15 pilots are wrong and the current DCS flight model is based on that copy of the -1, perhaps that copy of the -1 is wrong and everyone else is right.

 

Besides, I am really not all that concerned with flight dynamics of DCS's version of the F-15. I would love it to be more realistic, but my primary concern... and so are many people who fly regularly on the servers with F-15's available, is the weaponry does not conform to what is blatantly realistic. From what I have read several years ago in an obscure post from some tester or developer, the weaponry was (then) denatured a bit. In fact, I believe they said that it was corrected yet I felt that they made them worse.

 

That's just my unprofessional opinion as a purchaser of DCS software. If you don't like what the customers are saying.... (and, it's not just me.)

[GGTharos]

So, you're telling me that the -1 refutes BOTH references I gave?

 

Nope, it refutes your idea of how this all works.

 

Could you scan and post the image that says that the F-15C, when loaded with 50% fuel and nothing else, cannot accelerate vertically?

Nope, I can give you an image that you can check for sustained turn and/or acceleration. It pretty much amounts to the same thing though. Like I said, you have to do it exactly right.

 

So far as I know, from what F-15 pilots have told me face to face, the aircraft CAN accelerate vertically. (I grew up a U.S. Air Force brat.) I've tried, from standing still on the runway, to accelerate without afterburner and with afterburner. The best I could do in DCS was maintain the climbing speed (as per Tacview).

You're not the only one who knows pilots and talks to them face to face. Maybe you should ask them for details.

 

If I don't do things exactly right, are you saying an 11,000 lbs. thrust over total weight isn't enough to cause the plane to accelerate vertically? If your book is telling us that all the other references and actual F-15 pilots are wrong and the current DCS flight model is based on that copy of the -1, perhaps that copy of the -1 is wrong and everyone else is right.

Not MY book, the -1 is used by the USAF pilots. It is the instruction manual for the aircraft, and the data in it is taken from actually flying the aircraft to determine its capabilities.

 

What's wrong is your idea of what you think you know, not the pilots nor the -1. You're stuck to a single number and it just doesn't work like that.

 

Besides, I am really not all that concerned with flight dynamics of DCS's version of the F-15. I would love it to be more realistic, but my primary concern... and so are many people who fly regularly on the servers with F-15's available, is the weaponry does not conform to what is blatantly realistic. From what I have read several years ago in an obscure post from some tester or developer, the weaponry was (then) denatured a bit. In fact, I believe they said that it was corrected yet I felt that they made them worse.

Flight models are one thing, weapons are another. As for what 'blatantly does not conform', again, find me a single credible source that tells you what range an F-15 radar will burn through against anything. That would be quite useful. Regarding weapons, find something useful that I haven't (or the small number of people who have spent time, effort and money on this) and again, it'll be quite useful.

 

That's just my unprofessional opinion as a purchaser of DCS software. If you don't like what the customers are saying.... (and, it's not just me.)

You said a lot of things, and a bunch of them were wrong. Edited April 6, 2015 by GGTharos

[=Mac=]

Okay. Thank you for your comments.

[TAW_Blaze]

As for air combat flying, no. I know very little. I'm not really interested in investing my time learning tactics based on a denatured game module. I would invest lots of time in an accurate portrayal of the F-15. I know when something is wrong with a simulation. My previous post pointed out a couple for you and my two references, above, justifies my complaint.

 

And that is why you'll never be a good virtual fighter pilot. Being a fighter pilot is about adapting to the environment, not complaining about it's flaws without sufficient background knowledge. That is, if you keep your attitude. I've been there, I know what I'm talking about.

 

I can assure you many things you would learn against a good human pilot currently will still apply if things are more realistic. Knowing how to adapt quickly in the fight will also be a major benefit. Some specific tactics will vary based on avionics / missile performance, but for the most part the fundamentals are the exact same as in real life.

[Solty]

Has anyone tried to tell him to change his radar cone configuration to see past 40nm ;P

[EngineerFalcon]

And then there's the opposite side of the fence with the ET and a thermal tracking sight. Who needs radar when the thermal sight works better and is completely undetectable.

the thermal sight works better

 

 

The grass is always greener on the other side, eh ?

[VIKBELL]

My understanding of ECM the B-52 could jam up the city of New York by it self.