A Flanker Driver's First Eagle Experience

[GGTharos]

It sort of does. :)

[Nerd1000]

It sort of does. :)

It requires the missile to be within radar gimbal limits and LOS, I presume?

[GGTharos]

Yes. It's also how you get two missiles to the correct targets.

[DarkFire]

Yes. It's also how you get two missiles to the correct targets.

 

Right. That makes sense.

 

For me as a Flanker driver the (literally) killer combination of TWS radar mode and the AIM-120 are what makes the Eagle my most dangerous adversary. By a long margin.

[Vincent90]

So, after more than 20 hours the F-15 surprised me in a number of ways. :)

 

"Tunnel vision" in the F-15 isn't as bad as it seems. The autolock on target in visual mode is fantastic and the aim-120's pitbull mode balances out the off-bore capabilities of the Flanker. Jamming in this game is useless though, since the F-15 seems to burn thorugh the jamming well before ideal range of the Aim-120. The F-15 pilot also has to suffer less from missiles coming after you from thin air.

 

In the turning game the F-15 starts to vibrate as a signal of its limits. Although the engines are powerful, simply adding thrust to the situation wont solve the problem. The is very different then the Su-27, where additional thrust is paramount throughout the dogfight. Unfortunately, this comes at a large cost in fuel and keeping aware of fuel levels during the dogfight is hard to do in the Su-27.

 

For the F-15, the ability to jettison fuel when WVR fighting commences is a big plus. I love the usage of external fuel tanks exclusively, so you can enter a dog fight with the pre-flight determined amount of fuel in the aircraft. This is a huge advantage to the Su-27's 'internal only' strategy. The fuel consumption and fuel warning is clear and apparent. Dogfighting in the F-15 also requires less fuel in general, since beating the Su-27 in a turn-fight is not the way to go.

 

Carrying additional fuel doesnt hamper hard point usage which is a very smart design feature as well. There has clearly been thought very hard on the F-15 layout.

 

It is clear the F-15 and Su-27 aren't each others direct competitor. The F-15 feels much more as an interceptor, where the Su-27 is more of a multi-role fighter. With its fast acceleration, climb rate and multiple-lock capability I got most from it by staying as far away as possible from the enemy. This tactic reduces the vulnerability time of the F-15 to a bare minimum. The AIM-120 is also more capable at close range than the R-27, weirdly.

 

As a defensive platform, I would advise F-15 pilots to run away as quickly as possible to get the gap between F-15 and Su-27 as large as possible, and only manouvre when you see a plume of smoke approaching.

 

The F-15 is an excellent interceptor, worthy of praise. As an F-15 driver, you can fly high and keep the initiative of battle. I only regret discovering this F-15 only now. The aircraft has it's problems, but the combination of Aim-120 and the excellent RWR makes it a superior aircraft to the Su-27.

 

What would I want in the Su-27 from the F-15?

1) Aim-120

2) the ability to autolock on a target in visual range

3) Digital read-outs

4) excellent RWR

5) Automatic trimming

 

My main aircraft remains the Su-27 though. It is just jaw-droppingly beautiful. Its ergonomics are better than anything else i've experienced and the cockpit is lovely to get into. It's Helmet mode coupled with its IRST is just sheer joy and it also has basic air-to-ground capabilities.

 

However, as a pure Air-to-Air platform, the Su-27 can't beat the advantages the F-15 has.

 

I'm really curious if post-1990 Flankers sorted the disadvantages out. They're not that hard to improve, except the Aim-120 and RWR capabilities.

 

It would be interesting if a MiG-25/31 interceptor would come out as a full module. That one would fight the high skies against the F-15, while the F-18 and Su-27 multiroles duke it out at lower altitudes. :)

[Sweep]

^For the Flanker auto-lock: Go to vert scan, EO only, and hold the lock key.

 

Its glorious.

[DarkFire]

I'm really curious if post-1990 Flankers sorted the disadvantages out. They're not that hard to improve, except the Aim-120 and RWR capabilities.

 

This is supposed to be the training cockpit for the Su-35xx, pulled from Reddit:

 

 

Note the absence of the venerable old SPO-15. Also note what software is running on that huge screen in front of the training cockpit :)

 

There's another photo floating round the net which is supposed to show a mock-up T-50 cockpit. Nearly identical to the above but it appears to have a wide-angle HUD similar to the EF-2000 or F-15E.

 

Speaking of the SPO-15, though it only shows precise direction to the primary and secondary threats, it does offer a feature that Western RWR gear doesn't: if you know or can take an educated guess at what source is illuminating your aircraft, because the SPO-15 actually has a signal strength meter built in it's possible to estimate the actual range to the emitter to a surprisingly accurate level.

Edited March 18, 2016 by DarkFire

[Sweep]

^Who says Western RWRs don't do that (in-game or IRL)? :P

 

Anyway, that picture is SEXY! Too bad it won't happen here for a long time. :(

[GGTharos]

Western RWR actually does it better ... just not in-game. ;)

 

Speaking of the SPO-15, though it only shows precise direction to the primary and secondary threats, it does offer a feature that Western RWR gear doesn't: if you know or can take an educated guess at what source is illuminating your aircraft, because the SPO-15 actually has a signal strength meter built in it's possible to estimate the actual range to the emitter to a surprisingly accurate level.

[mytai01]

The main thing IRL between these aircraft is training, training, and more training. That is what makes the difference! The small differences don't really matter when you've trained the hell out of them.

[DarkFire]

Western RWR actually does it better ... just not in-game. ;)

 

Fair enough. Shame it isn't modelled more accurately. I wonder if the entirety of "electronic warfare" isn't due for a re-modelling in-game...

 

The main thing IRL between these aircraft is training, training, and more training. That is what makes the difference! The small differences don't really matter when you've trained the hell out of them.

 

Agree 100%. Knowledge, skill, training and ability are always more important than hardware.

[Santi871]

I find the F-15C itself is vastly inferior to the Su27 ingame. For me, the only two advantages it has are TWS and the RWR giving a better general picture.

 

The RWR part is obviously up for discussion. I personally dislike it because it makes me over confident and I prefer the signal strength precision the SPO15 gives me as well as the relative altitude.

 

In the performance department, I don't like how unresponsive the F-15 is at low speed and how easy it is to bleed it even without external tanks. On the topic of fuel, I don't like having to get rid of most of my fuel before a fight (I find the Su27 to be acceptable even at max fuel, mostly because it's still maneuverable at low speeds). The F-15 is an energy fighter whereas the Su27 is a turn fighter, but I think the HMS + IRST + R73 combo beats the F-15's AIM9M by far.

 

Regarding weapon systems, the Su27 has the advantage with the IRST (which I am aware is not as effective IRL) as well as the ET. Then there's the R73 which is vastly superior to the AIM9M as said above. Lastly, the Su27 has two extra pylons.

 

The radars are similar although I prefer the way information is presented in the Flanker, but that's personal preference. TWS mode is useful in the F-15 but I'd take the IRST over it - TWS having the range advantage but setting off RWRs.

 

But... the F-15C can carry the AIM-120B/C and that makes it the king of BVR. However, when you strip the AMRAAM off the Eagle, it gets dominated by Flankers (keeps happening in 104th's operation bison).

 

Bottom line, I don't think the F-15C itself is a great plane. There's nothing about it that makes me go "wow, I'd take this to combat any day". I think the AIM-120C is a great missile that makes the F-15 look like a great plane but when the F-15 doesn't carry it, the plane is mediocre. Unfortunately the AMRAAM is still nerfed in DCS.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Santi871

[Stuge]

Sorry, but the Su-27 is brick when fully fueled. It doesn't do sustained turn well at all, you better kill the bad guy before finding yourself on the deck with <600 km/h airspeed cos after that it just doesn't turn.

 

I prefer to burn the fuel down to half before actively seeking merge encounters..

[Marvolo]

I wouldn't mind someone explaining how the various missiles work in game. The AIM-120, it sounds like the difference between the B and C is a longer range and no noticeable difference otherwise. Also, how does tracking and locking work regarding the AIM-120. Is there any difference between STT and TWS. Does the missile launch and follow a path similar to a semi-auto missile until it goes active or does it receive a number of updates to the target location and otherwise ignores erratic jinks. If so how many updates and approximately what location. When it goes active would I be right in understanding that it simply picks a random target visible to the missile regardless of who is locked and how. Ie two aircraft within 2nm of each other and STT on one won't make a difference.

 

How does this all differ to the Adder in game? Are the grid fins modelled regarding manoeuvrability and drag or will it act similar to conventional fins? How does the Alamo act regarding manoeuvrability, dropped locks and similar? With a short 1s drop will it still go stupid or will it re-engage? Dropping lock with the target's wingman jamming will it engage the jammed signal? How does the missile path differ between Russian and American missiles, ie. will Russian missiles take a more ballistic path than American missiles or vice versa, or will they essentially take the same route? Does this differ at all from the Alamo D or HOJ missiles, would these take a pure pursuit path or do they still loft to some extent? How is missile logic regarding the ground (including SAMs)? All, none, or dependant on missile? Also will they impact mountains using barometric logic or will they still avoid, or is this dependant on missile again? How does this affect the terminal phase with a target well below the set altitude?

 

I appreciate that nobody has all the answers and a lot of these are unknowns, but any information regarding the missiles would be useful. Also this is in game only. Real world missile behaviour is outside of the scope of my questions though, some people wish for those questions anyway.

 

And slightly more on topic, how did you find the different weapons when trying the F-15? And did this affect your playstyle at all, or did you continue to fly it like a Su-27/Mig-29? Also what is your opinion on the HUD? One of the big things I tend to find is Russian pilots adore the radar placed on the HUD whilst a lot of NATO pilots find it irrelevant and really don't care for it so how was your experience there?

[GGTharos]

I wouldn't mind someone explaining how the various missiles work in game. The AIM-120, it sounds like the difference between the B and C is a longer range and no noticeable difference otherwise. Also, how does tracking and locking work regarding the AIM-120. Is there any difference between STT and TWS. Does the missile launch and follow a path similar to a semi-auto missile until it goes active or does it receive a number of updates to the target location and otherwise ignores erratic jinks. If so how many updates and approximately what location. When it goes active would I be right in understanding that it simply picks a random target visible to the missile regardless of who is locked and how. Ie two aircraft within 2nm of each other and STT on one won't make a difference.

 

I think you're a bit OT but some quick answers:

 

- The 120B might be marginally more maneuverable (or at least might have a better rmin), the 120C has higher speed, longer range, and the best CM rejection in-game.

- There's no difference between STT and TWS in game in guidance terms.

- The missile receives MCU's until active, then ignores MCUs. If you track the target until pitbull the chances of the missile choosing this target over any other are pretty high.

- It doesn't ignore any jinks, MCUs work as if you were tracking in STT

 

How does this all differ to the Adder in game? Are the grid fins modelled regarding manoeuvrability and drag or will it act similar to conventional fins? How does the Alamo act regarding manoeuvrability, dropped locks and similar?

 

I haven't checked lately but maneuverability should be marginally higher, and drag as well. To put another way, you as a target have no reason to be thinking 'this missile is more maneuverable than the other' ... the difference will be in Rmin maybe. Otherwise, it's just not a difference that can change how you evade the missile.

 

With a short 1s drop will it still go stupid or will it re-engage? Dropping lock with the target's wingman jamming will it engage the jammed signal?

 

It will try to re-acquire a target. Who knows what it'll choose?

 

How does the missile path differ between Russian and American missiles, ie. will Russian missiles take a more ballistic path than American missiles or vice versa, or will they essentially take the same route?

 

Nothing takes a ballistic path. The AIM-120 is the only player AAM (IIRC) that will loft in-game.

 

Does this differ at all from the Alamo D or HOJ missiles, would these take a pure pursuit path or do they still loft to some extent?

 

In game, the vast majority of missiles in game fly PN under normal circumstances, and pure when HoJ.

 

How is missile logic regarding the ground (including SAMs)? All, none, or dependant on missile? Also will they impact mountains using barometric logic or will they still avoid, or is this dependant on missile again? How does this affect the terminal phase with a target well below the set altitude?

 

There's no altitude knowledge for a missile in game.

[Marvolo]

I think you're a bit OT but some quick answers

 

Appreciate it, thank you. My thinking was both a short discussion earlier and the largest difference between Russian and American platforms being the missiles. It sounds like the logic is fairly similar between them all though I'm surprised the Russian missiles don't take a much higher altitude trajectory. Anyway as you say its OT so I'll leave it there.

 

For the F-15 vs Su-27 at least on paper it seems that the F-15 can be competitive but with the relatively high corner speed and definite slant towards energy tactics it requires a far higher skill level to perform in a dogfight. The Su-27 is a lot more lax with its corner speed and with its high AoA and Archer missiles it has the potential to end the fight very early. Plus the HMS helps a lot with visibility too which tends to be a weak point of games vs real world. A great pilot will do well on both, but a good pilot will find the F-15 at a real disadvantage in the dogfight. However this is all on paper, I've had a few years off DCS and came back a couple of days ago. A lot has changed since then.

 

Coming from primarily an F-15 the Su-27 really struggles BVR. The lack of active missiles makes a big difference and even on the Mig-29 the avionics and high workload affects performance. IRST is a huge benefit and its not surprising it has worked its way into modern NATO aircraft, especially with the advent of stealth though the timing seems more coincidence. The Alamo D provides something every F-15 pilot will be jealous of and helps with multiple targets, something the F-15 finds a breeze, but it certainly doesn't put it on equal terms.

 

With the excessive effectiveness of decoys and the low missile range there is a very real chance that the fight will finish up close. In addition online tends to be a lot of single aircraft flying alone (in the past anyway). For those reasons even though I favour the F-15 its advantages are minimised and so the Su-27 feels like the dominant platform. Plus you can always sit low with IRST and take shots with the Alamo D like a dick, that never gets old. But coming from an F-15 the Su-27 workload feels extremely high even with AWACS and the HSD and I suspect thats why most F-15 pilots have their preference. A lot has been said of drop tanks vs none and personally I prefer the Su-27 in that regard. I would rather not take the performance hit and dump fuel when needed than suffer for the majority of my flight. However there is something to be said for quickly removing the weight, when ambushed or in range of a high threat SAM being able to get into combat instantly makes a difference and not having to decide between pre-emptively dumping fuel or risking an attack whilst a heavy. But of course a lot has changed since I last played so this may all be out of date.