Rare Loadouts

[Hummingbird]

That's not very hard to ball-park ... 4sec/nm in tail-chase. You're looking at about 30/4nm which is 7.5nm max.

 

The aircraft is clearly maneuvering though, so chances are good that it started out head on, and it that case it could be 20 nm away.

[GGTharos]

No, it wouldn't. The ballpark is for a straight run, and head on it's 2sec/nm, so you'd be hitting head-on at 15nm at most. It's 3sec/nm on the 3-9 line.

 

If the aircraft turns around, chances are quite good that the rocket motor will have burned out before impact.

 

As for 54's hitting maneuvering fighter-sized targets, I just don't see the problem :)

[Hummingbird]

I was basing my statement on an 8 sec time to accelerate to a top speed of M 4.5 from a launch speed of Mach 1.7, and then assuming a burn time of ~30 sec that yields a range of roughly 40 km or 21.6 nm before the motor shuts off.

 

If the target however is coming in head on the range between the launch platform and the target at the time of launch is ofcourse lengthened. Hence why I say that range upon launch easily could've been 20 nm incase the target started out coming in head on at say Mach 1.5, in which case the target will have traveled 8 nm itself in those 30 sec.

[GGTharos]

I wouldn't assume an M1.7 launch in an actual fighter to fighter launch, is rather extreme in the typical combat case, but OK.

The motor is all boost, you get m4.5 at the end of it.

 

I have no idea why you made that scenario up, it's not proper.

[turkeydriver]

The close range tests were to find the minimum successful engagement range and to see if it was effective in the WVR envelope. These tests are good to use in tail shots, since every radar missile's best engagement is a head on shot, and the worst is tail on(edit***worst is 90 degree deflection, but tail on is less than ideal)- this being a successful, maneuvering, tail-on shot speaks volumes to its effectiveness. Before we were smart about radar missiles in the fleet we gave them a bad rap- ala Vietnam- can't use your AIM-7 BVR head-on forced most shots to be tail-on, which outside of maneuvering and long launch sequence is a tough shot for a radar missile.

Edited February 4, 2016 by turkeydriver

[Hummingbird]

I wouldn't assume an M1.7 launch in an actual fighter to fighter launch, is rather extreme in the typical combat case, but OK.

The motor is all boost, you get m4.5 at the end of it.

 

I have no idea why you made that scenario up, it's not proper.

 

Why is it extreme? If for example you are on an AWACS guided intercept you should accelerate to as high a launch speed as possible, and Mach 1.7 was very much possible for the F-14 with phoenix missiles loaded.

 

As for the constant burn, again I am by no means an expert on the subject but eventhough the motor burns constant for 30 sec the missile shouldn't accelerate for 30 sec straight, at some point thrust and drag will surely become equal? (I don't have any drag figures to go on, so I'm just thinking aloud here ofcourse)

 

Also I seem to remember reading that the missile reached top speed after approx. 8-10 sec? Also at low alt the top speed of the missile was apparently just Mach 3.8.

[GGTharos]

Why is it extreme? If for example you are on an AWACS guided intercept you should accelerate to as high a launch speed as possible, and Mach 1.7 was very much possible for the F-14 with phoenix missiles loaded.

 

You're looking at a tail-on shot vs an F4, and that's not going to happen at M1.7 in the average case, which is what most people should care about, and what the rules of thumb apply to.

Getting to M1.7 is not trivial and is a realistic scenario only under some circumstances, not in your average CAP situation.

 

As for the constant burn, again I am by no means an expert on the subject but eventhough the motor burns constant for 30 sec the missile shouldn't accelerate for 30 sec straight, at some point thrust and drag will surely become equal? (I don't have any drag figures to go on, so I'm just thinking aloud here ofcourse)

Depends on the altitude; at low altitude you might hit that limit (or just accelerate slower, you'll hit the 'dimishing returns' point), at high altitude you're practically shooting in a vacuum, so acceleration remains more or less constant.

 

Also I seem to remember reading that the missile reached top speed after approx. 8-10 sec? Also at low alt the top speed of the missile was apparently just Mach 3.8.

Rread the bloody graph I provided the link to and quit arguing already. We're going in circles because you're refusing to correct your knowledge here. Stop it :P

[Hummingbird]

You're looking at a tail-on shot vs an F4, and that's not going to happen at M1.7 in the average case, which is what most people should care about, and what the rules of thumb apply to.

Getting to M1.7 is not trivial and is a realistic scenario only under some circumstances, not in your average CAP situation.

 

Depends on the altitude; at low altitude you might hit that limit (or just accelerate slower, you'll hit the 'dimishing returns' point), at high altitude you're practically shooting in a vacuum, so acceleration remains more or less constant.

 

Rread the bloody graph I provided the link to and quit arguing already. We're going in circles because you're refusing to correct your knowledge here. Stop it :P

 

I didn't see any graph??? If I had I wouldn't be asking all these questions. All I got was a few pages of written text, no graphs, I even attempted the links on that page but some of them downright didn't work for me.

[GGTharos]

Are you unable to access NASA's website?

[Hummingbird]

Are you unable to access NASA's website?

 

Switched to my desktop and now I got completely new page?? But thanks it works fine now, great document! :thumbup:

[Jogui3000]

If I remember it correctly, there were some late 90s early 2000s F14Bs and Ds that were indeed equiped with the AIM-120A (not sure if the B too) AMRAAM

[Grundar]

If I remember it correctly, there were some late 90s early 2000s F14Bs and Ds that were indeed equiped with the AIM-120A (not sure if the B too) AMRAAM

 

For trials/tets there were F-14's that would carry AIM-120's but systems integration was never carried out and they weren't used as a weapon for the F-14 IIRC.

[Vincent90]

And why would you want the AIM-120 when you got the AIM-54? ;)

[GGTharos]

Because AIM-120's do it better.

[Tirak]

And why would you want the AIM-120 when you got the AIM-54? ;)

 

Because an AIM-120 weighs 335lbs and an Phoenix is 1040lbs not counting the heavy pylons that it needs in order to be mounted. Literally that's the only reason a lot of us were pushing for AMRAAM support. In absolute range the AMRAAM loses, and as long as its under power the Phoenix actually is pretty nimble, the problem is dragging them to the fight.

 

In any event, LN has opted not to model any of the test loadouts, really this thread serves no purpose anymore...

[sirscorpion]

I always feel that aircraft in DCS should be configured for an all out war scenario. Many of those programs and possible missiles are cut in peace time.

 

So if adding harpoons,slamers or HARMS on a F-14 is possible in tests, then it should be possible in game. priority should be set for the real standard load outs, but extra armament only enhances the game and not detract from it.

[probad]

enhances the game

you mean "enhances my chances to win" lmao

 

lets be a little more honest to ourselves here.

we all love the covenience of faf missiles but that fun wears off fast because the missile does all the work for you. noninteractive events do everything but enhance the game.

Edited March 4, 2016 by probad

[BlackLion213]

I always feel that aircraft in DCS should be configured for an all out war scenario. Many of those programs and possible missiles are cut in peace time.

 

So if adding harpoons,slamers or HARMS on a F-14 is possible in tests, then it should be possible in game.

 

Hmm....interesting theory...

 

Why not just fly the Hornet?

 

Well, while we're at it: the F119 engine was checked for fit in the F-14B/D airframe, we should get those as well! Also, the amraam launchers should be twin launchers (as shown on the picture at the beginning on this thread). So then we get a 70,000 lbs of thrust Tomcat that carries 12 amraams...I see the appeal.;)

 

-Nick

[probad]

oh anything is reasonable when you bundle it with some words suggesting it would be better for the health of the game. :lol:

[Sideswipe]

Hmm....interesting theory...

Well, while we're at it: the F119 engine was checked for fit in the F-14B/D airframe, we should get those as well! Also, the amraam launchers should be twin launchers (as shown on the picture at the beginning on this thread). So then we get a 70,000 lbs of thrust Tomcat that carries 12 amraams...I see the appeal.;)

 

-Nick

 

 

 

AMERICAAAAAAA!

[sirscorpion]

Hmm....interesting theory...

 

Why not just fly the Hornet?

 

 

I don't see this as a valid argument, i hear it all the time and its simply a restriction that can be made by the mission maker and not the people who are making the plane, if the option is cheep from a Dev time prospective then there is zero reasons the aircraft is not made capable of a full world war 3 scenario.

 

But to expand on the "realism argument", Nearly every weapon system already in production usually gets qualified fast and standardized on all platforms. Comparing it to a peace time configuration where tons of politics, economics and budgeting comes into way.

 

For example the AIM120 on the F14 was stopped due to the fact that the future of the F14 is uncertain during the testing, along with the F18 comming into play. now If the F14 saw full war combat and it was tested for Aim120, you bet it will have them. As waiting to full capability gap with platforms is much slower than armament.

 

But that's only on a realistic argument, the major argument is how much dev time is needed, how much will it be used in Mplayer "it offers a wide scale for the aircraft to be used in early and late scenarios"

Edited March 5, 2016 by sirscorpion

[GGTharos]

I don't see this as a valid argument, i hear it all the time and its simply a restriction that can be made by the mission maker

 

No, it can't be, not the way things are now. You cannot restrict specific aircraft payload, only available weapons. allow AMRAAMs, everyone gets AMRAAMs.

 

there is zero reasons the aircraft is not made capable of a full world war 3 scenario.

 

And who's to say what it would look like in a WW3 scenario?

 

now If the F14 saw full war combat and it was tested for Aim120, you bet it will have them. As waiting to full capability gap with platforms is much slower than armament.

 

... and maybe we'd see F-15's with PAC-3's and AIM-54's, too. ;)

 

You're not arguing realism at all. Yours is a what-if scenario. It is a what-if scenario because said airframes never operationally carried those weapons. If you want to make a fictional airframe payload, you can do it yourself, on your own game/server.

[sirscorpion]

No, it can't be, not the way things are now. You cannot restrict specific aircraft payload, only available weapons. allow AMRAAMs, everyone gets AMRAAMs.

 

A Small update fix for a huge gain. Simply assign or create specific F-14 AMRAAMs, then you have control over them and restrictions on them. A non issue

 

 

And who's to say what it would look like in a WW3 scenario?

... and maybe we'd see F-15's with PAC-3's and AIM-54's, too. ;)

 

You're not arguing realism at all. Yours is a what-if scenario. It is a what-if scenario because said airframes never operationally carried those weapons. If you want to make a fictional airframe payload, you can do it yourself, on your own game/server.

 

Nope I am arguing the process under war time conditions, the eco system which Digital "Combat" Simulator. If you follow the weaponizeation during world war 2 "AZON,FritzX etc" or Korean war, or the Vietnam war, or the gulf war "GBU-28". Vs programs during peace Time is vastly different.

 

Armament trends in peace time Vs war time are pretty much public information and nearly every program or reduction in capability is simply due to politics, budget cuts. Now if the program was cut due to failure rates or other factors sure we can argue that in detail. But i have not seen any one arguing that aside from a "No"

[BlackLion213]

I don't see this as a valid argument, i hear it all the time and its simply a restriction that can be made by the mission maker and not the people who are making the plane, if the option is cheep from a Dev time prospective then there is zero reasons the aircraft is not made capable of a full world war 3 scenario.

 

I don't see a valid argument on your part either. But you're not making an argument, you're expressing your preference. As am I, so we'll agree to disagree since we want different things.

 

Plus, the Tomcat did go to war without the AMRAAM, several times in fact.

 

You can certainly add that capability yourself as GGTharos said, but it's a bit much to ask it of Leatherneck. They have decided to create the most accurate Tomcat module possible and creating fake HUD symbology and avionics software for the AMRAAM is counter to that goal. But again, we can agree to disagree. But Leatherneck has already spoken on this issue, no AMRAAMs are coming for the Tomcat - but you can still add it yourself if you wish.

 

-Nick

[sirscorpion]

No, it can't be, not the way things are now. You cannot restrict specific aircraft payload, only available weapons. allow AMRAAMs, everyone gets AMRAAMs.

 

 

 

And who's to say what it would look like in a WW3 scenario?

 

 

 

... and maybe we'd see F-15's with PAC-3's and AIM-54's, too. ;)

 

You're not arguing realism at all. Yours is a what-if scenario. It is a what-if scenario because said airframes never operationally carried those weapons. If you want to make a fictional airframe payload, you can do it yourself, on your own game/server.

 

I don't see a valid argument on your part either. But you're not making an argument, you're expressing your preference. As am I, so we'll agree to disagree since we want different things.

 

Plus, the Tomcat did go to war without the AMRAAM, several times in fact.

 

You can certainly add that capability yourself as GGTharos said, but it's a bit much to ask it of Leatherneck. They have decided to create the most accurate Tomcat module possible and creating fake HUD symbology and avionics software for the AMRAAM is counter to that goal. But again, we can agree to disagree. But Leatherneck has already spoken on this issue, no AMRAAMs are coming for the Tomcat - but you can still add it yourself if you wish.

 

-Nick

 

Am not sure how my argument is not clear its quite simple, but sure lets agree to disagree.