Jump to content

DCS MiG-29A


Krippz

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SharkWizard said:

It was un-cancelled when they got a go ahead from the appropriate government ministries to model some newer avionics.

 

Yeah its been up/down. Hopefully it means ED is getting the requisite experience dealing with the powers that be about what they can or can't do in terms of modeling russian stuff. Which is hopefully good news for the 29. 

 

  • Like 5

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I like that they want to do Full Fidellity Fulcrum (FFF ?  F3 ? Fast Furious Flying?), but I do hope they get permission at some point to make a Full Fidellity Flanker too!

 

I mean, I get that the Russian ministry of defense would want to keep some tactical secrets and all, but... surely 1980's fighter tech ought to be ok to share with the public by now?  

 

Or maybe I'm missreading the situation: are 1980's era Flankers, basically unmodified since factory (or near to it with only minor upgrades), still forming the backbone of frontline fighters in Russia in 2021 ?  I mean, I would have expected many Flankers still in service, but also just kinda assumed some significant upgrades in radio encryption, EW suite, countermeasures, maybe some datalink retrofit upgrades... but I now wonder if maybe the service and nation maybe just didn't have the money for upgrades like that? And maybe a similar situation for Fulcrums too?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

Or maybe I'm missreading the situation: are 1980's era Flankers, basically unmodified since factory (or near to it with only minor upgrades), still forming the backbone of frontline fighters in Russia in 2021 ?  I mean, I would have expected many Flankers still in service, but also just kinda assumed some significant upgrades in radio encryption, EW suite, countermeasures, maybe some datalink retrofit upgrades... but I now wonder if maybe the service and nation maybe just didn't have the money for upgrades like that? And maybe a similar situation for Fulcrums too?

 

From what I know, backbone of RuAF is currently made of Su-35s, Su-30SMs and modernized Su-27SM variants. Hoewer It seems like some unmodernized 80s variants are still in service. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ac23QOy3Y_xlUpYQ1xjQwVEYHi2qyoo3/view

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

I like that they want to do Full Fidellity Fulcrum (FFF ?  F3 ? Fast Furious Flying?), but I do hope they get permission at some point to make a Full Fidellity Flanker too!

 

I mean, I get that the Russian ministry of defense would want to keep some tactical secrets and all, but... surely 1980's fighter tech ought to be ok to share with the public by now?  

 

Or maybe I'm missreading the situation: are 1980's era Flankers, basically unmodified since factory (or near to it with only minor upgrades), still forming the backbone of frontline fighters in Russia in 2021 ?  I mean, I would have expected many Flankers still in service, but also just kinda assumed some significant upgrades in radio encryption, EW suite, countermeasures, maybe some datalink retrofit upgrades... but I now wonder if maybe the service and nation maybe just didn't have the money for upgrades like that? And maybe a similar situation for Fulcrums too?

 

 

Yeah, the thing is it doesn't have to be logical at all. There is difficulty getting anything british due to their kinda insane laws as well, I heard you can't really even get stuff on the Litening, which has been out of service for decades. The law mainly deals with where the info is coming from, as I understand it if the info is outside of russia coming in, its ok. I.e. Razbam is doing the mig23 based on cuban docs they have, presumably the mig29 could be similarly based on old DDR or CZ docs. Problem with the flanker and "modern" airframes is that there are very few export users that are likely to want to give up those docs.

  • Like 3

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2021 at 3:41 AM, Harlikwin said:

...Yeah, ED really needs to step up their game on the whole "enviroment" aspect of DCS, but of course improving the core game costs money so they need to recoup that with each module. 

Or release it as open-source and let the community do the work they don't want to. Just my 2 cents.

  • Like 2

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gahab141 said:

And with the advantage of having IRST... And datalink. And better SARH missiles. And of having medium range IR missiles, better maneuverability and HMS. I'd say 80s F-15C is smt like a really badly worsened Su-27. In all aspects. But, with a good radar of course

 

The IRST is a backup against ECM environment, not sure why you want to call it an advantage.  The APG-63 had powerful ECCM instead.

 

F-15 pilots were heavily drilled in building a picture and backed up by competent AWACS as well as the ability to declare hostile by themselves instead of AWACS and this is a very important fact.   Yes, the datalink is better, definitely, but good SA building erodes that very quickly.   See, datalink and IRST being backup for a poorly performing radar by comparison isn't a pure advantage, it's trying to plug problems.

 

The SARH missiles on the flanker are not better.  They are superior in one thing, speed (And yes it is important) and inferior in everything else.  Analog seeker, lack of slotted antenna, lack of programmability, worse ECCM.

 

The flanker's radar and missiles are at least a decade behind the 1984 F-15C when the flanker entered service (it was more equivalent to the 1970s F-15A with the non-upgraded radar), and by the 90s the eagle had such massive improvements that it left the flanker's systems even more in the dust.

 

This idea that the flanker was in any was better is a gigantic misconception that was fed to everyone during the end of the cold war, and later those of us who keep up with technology discovered that it is the opposite.

 

But also, let's be clear about this:  It doesn't mean the flanker is garbage or that you should keep it in the hangar.   What it does mean is that you're going to lose a bunch of flankers for every F-15 you shoot down (NATO pegged this exchange ratio between 1:4 and 1:6 ... we'll never know if they were right).

 

Obviously the RuAF was underfunded, but not asleep - they started upgrading as soon as they could.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 6

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

What I tried to say @GGTharos,
is that F-15A in FC would be inferior to Su-27S or MiG-29S 'cause of DL, ER/ETs and R-77s. Hence it made perfect sense to mix in the "C" version of the Eagle.

 

The F-15C radar performance right now in DCS is kinda less than A-ish 🙂   In all other (it outperforms) ways the same applies to the opposition.

But yes I get your meaning.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

And with the advantage of having IRST... And datalink. And better SARH missiles. And of having medium range IR missiles, better maneuverability and HMS. I'd say 80s F-15C is smt like a really badly worsened Su-27. In all aspects. But, with a good radar of course

The Flanker didnt get better SARH until the late 80s with the ER, when the F-15C first came out it was R-27R vs AIM-7

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

The IRST is a backup against ECM environment, not sure why you want to call it an advantage.  The APG-63 had powerful ECCM instead.

 

I get sideways when people present that and GCI as an advantage. As If, number 1 F-15C couldn't receive vector information over voice from an IADS just like the red team (granted not on a full blown data link during the cold war) and Number 2 those systems are not HIGHLY susceptible to EW. Meaning fundamentally that the red side is at a disadvantage when those systems don't work or can't work, because F-15C has a big ole radar it can use to search and track independently, where as 29/27 Depend on them working and rely heavily on off board donors for the majority of their SA.

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gahab141 said:

I was referring to R-27R

which isnt better than the Sparrow IRL?

1 hour ago, Gahab141 said:

What's more you don't need to wait until R-27 locks the enemy with its seeker.

Considering the sparrow seeker range against a large RCS target like the Flanker will be upwards of 30nm I doubt thats going to be the big factor here

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gahab141 said:

How much, measure the susceptibility please

It's so good that F-15s radar is immune to jamming... Oh wait, no it isn't

A hell of a lot more susceptible then F-15s Radar, (its a two way data link?! 🤨), what they call an advantage, I call a weakness.

 

If all of your fighters require a data link to know whats going on, what do think is target number 1 for the enemy? Wouldn't it be better to have each fighter able to work independently in case you know there's a war on and things aren't hunky dory for GCI, or you know you don't have one because your not over your own territory?

 

Depending on a data link for SA is a HUGE weakness.


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

That doesn't mean it's unjammable, you know.

 

I know a lot more than you probably think I know, and a lot less than I'd like to know.   But yes I agree, it isn't unjammable but it is not a fun radar to try and jam.   When DRFM jammers came out there were some aircraft the APG-63 wouldn't lock onto, but obviously that got corrected.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

IRST gives you flexibility and that's well understood by europeans (for example, rafale or eurofighter have irst) and even americans who added that... the softest word i can use is "idiotic" fuel tankIRST to their 18E/Fs. 

 

No, I'm sorry.  You got this all completely wrong.  The IRST used on the Mig and Flanker that we have right now in DCS is a completely different technology from those IRSTs.   Not only that, the IRST is always still the secondary sensor.   Yes it gives you flexibility but the greatest value for it is dealing with ECM and IF the instrument makes it possible, identification at BVR ranges.

 

You may consider the tank-mounted IRST dumb but it isn't.  Most flight simulation players have no idea how and when and why those things are used.   Do you believe its main function is against fighters?  Personally I don't think so.  It's still very secondary though.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

Not that much important. You either have DL or not, training should not be considered when planes are being compared. 

The problem is that it's way harder to have decent SA when there are many planes in the air in one location at the same time. DL + AWACS is miles better than AWACS alone 

 

Training is one of the biggest factors in how an aircraft is successfully used so yes it should.   Another failing of us armchair pilots is wanting to compare the aircraft alone without the system or tactics.  Want to know why you don't have radars in the tails of aircraft?   Because you have a wingman, so that rear looking radar is pretty useless dead weight the vast majority of the time.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

The radar was performing just fine and enough to detect F-15 way before it could make a launch. It was good enough for its purposes, though of course it would be better if it was better and that was understood by the soviets.

 

No, it was abysmally worse, it was slow, it was just bad by comparison.   As a radar it was fine.   By comparison, it wasn't.  BTW my coworker used to fly MiG-29's, it's his opinion on the subject. 

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

The new radar was installed on Su-27M, but it didn't make into serial production before the collapse of  the USSR... And i got off-topic a bit, so whatever 

 

Don't care about non-production stuff.   The fact that the Flanker's radar antenna alone was 10 years backwards in technology was known when the flanker went into service - the Soviets knew it and it was one of the development failures of the flanker, expected to be corrected later, but ... well, then the wall fell 🙂

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

Oh, yes they are better since R-27 hits the target first (it's much faster, eh). What's more you don't need to wait until R-27 locks the enemy with its seeker.

 

The fun fact here is that the AIM-7 can lock a 2sqm target 30+nm away.   This entire datalink thing the R-27 has says more about the radar's and missile's own poor performance.  The R-27 hits first, sure, assuming it gets an opportunity to and you're at the right range to take advantage of it.  By the time ER was rolling out in great quantities, AMRAAM was also arriving on the scene, so it's sort of a moot comparison.

DCS isn't really a good way to compare these weapons.

 

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

 Being analog doesnt automatically make the missile worse,

 

Yes, it does.  I mean you can come up with some extremely convoluted scenario where it does not, sure.  But if you're being reasonable, yes it does.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

yAnd how do we compare ECCM? In kilograms, feet, stripes per eagles? Is it worse because it should be worse? And if it's worse is it game changingly worse, or the difference is neglectable?

 

In 'here's a reprogrammable chip backed by solid state TWT and slotted array antenna' vs 'you might not even have any real eccm circuits backed by a far less stable analog TWT and an old antenna design'.

And then you have the radar that's providing the illumination.   So no, we can't compare on a graph, but we can see who has the better potential.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

By the 90s there was Su-27M which could make the eagle obsolete, but US prayed well, USSR collapsed and that liberated Su-27M from life. Let's compare apples to apples which is F-15C version that existed in mass around mid 80s, if you're saying that Su-27 was worse than F-15C the day it entered service. 

 

I am comparing apples to apples.  The day the Su-27 entered service it was a decade behind in radar and missile technology compared to F-15C and MSIP F-15A.  The Su-27M never had a chance to make the eagle obsolete.  Understand, demonstrators don't make anything obsolete.

It would be like me saying 'YF-23 would have made Su-57 obsolete' ... makes no sense.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

Yeah, those very people said and say that MiG-29 had a poor, blind radar while it had better detection range than an F-16... 

 

My coworker is an ex-MiG-29 pilot.  He had very bad things to say about the radar ... but that's an anecdote, so whatever.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

As far as i'm concerned, that statistics is true for amraam carrying F-15s and Su-27s without R-27ER/ETs. 

 

That was late sparrow era.   AMRAAM made the numbers worse for the flankers.  These things aren't computed in a vaccum, the fighter is part of the system, not the one-on-one shenanigans that we get up to in DCS.  There is no one on one air combat, and in the grand view of things the support systems and training mean everything.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

Like i said, USSR started, not RF

I was referring to R-27R, not ER. With ERs F-15 isn't really a threat, just like Su-27 with 27R isn't a threat to an F-15 with Aim-120C

 

You're right, USSR back then.   F-15 is a huge threat against an ER equipped aircraft.  If you think otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you 🙂  R-27 is old technology and the only reason it's still used is because it is what is available.   You would do better pinning your hopes on R-77-1 than any R-27 variant.   R-27 is a thing of the 80s where it was technologically inferior already.  It wasn't a bad missile, it was just using older technologies and was left in the dust.  

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

 

 

But also, let's be clear about this:  It doesn't mean the flanker is garbage or that you should keep it in the hangar.   What it does mean is that you're going to lose a bunch of flankers for every F-15 you shoot down (NATO pegged this exchange ratio between 1:4 and 1:6 ... we'll never know if they were right).

 

 

 

 

That exchange ratio is just ridiculous. With Sparrows? Really? 

 

Even if we consider Su-27/MiG-29 radar and R-27 trash, they would have to get close to get the kills, and then anything can happen with all those deadly all-aspect IR missiles flying around. I'm not talking about 1v1 obviously.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HWasp said:

 

That exchange ratio is just ridiculous. With Sparrows? Really? 

 

Even if we consider Su-27/MiG-29 radar and R-27 trash, they would have to get close to get the kills, and then anything can happen with all those deadly all-aspect IR missiles flying around. I'm not talking about 1v1 obviously.

 

That's why you aim to clean up BVR and make your merge ratio more acceptable.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

Being analog doesnt automatically make the missile worse, you know

Tomcat and Phoenix haters all over the world have just felt a disturbance in the Force...on a serious note, I don't think those exchange rates are necessarily unbelievable. The Eagle at that time was just incredible, as evidenced for example by its performance with the Israeli Air Force in 1982.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GGTharos said:

My coworker is an ex-MiG-29 pilot.  He had very bad things to say about the radar ... but that's an anecdote, so whatever.


Could you give us some more info on this? From what I read in the 29B's manual the radar doesn't seem very dependable in some situations. Mainly in LPRF (ЗПС) and close to the ground where the ranging would have an error as well as false targets would appear.

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Could you give us some more info on this? From what I read in the 29B's manual the radar doesn't seem very dependable in some situations. Mainly in LPRF (ЗПС) and close to the ground where the ranging would have an error as well as false targets would appear.

 

We discussed things in generalities.  He could discuss some details and not others mainly due to the time that had passed between his service and now.  He operated MiG-29.12A, we talked about the F-117 IR signature (As known by them at the time, he described it as similar to a little cessna) and he expressed that the radar didn't perform very well, the R-27 was in better shape than the radar apparently.  Not that you should take anything away about the R-27 here, we didn't compare it to anything 🙂

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

That's why you aim to clean up BVR and make your merge ratio more acceptable.

 

How do you clean up BVR with Aim-7s (or R-27R) ? At medium altitudes any shot beyond 10 nm with either of those has around 0% hit chance (unless the target flies like a target drone just straight into the missile...). If you have data, that the DCS Aim-7 is completely wrong, please share.

 

I get it, the F-15 has a very good radar, and that gives good SA, but if the weapon is the Aim-7, they'll have to get quite close to actually kill something, and that good SA will degrade quickly as they need to stay in STT to guide the missiles. 

 

At those 20-10 nm ranges where the real fight starts both 29/27 or even a MiG-23 should be able to get a lock on the F-15 and shoot missiles with comparable range, that are even faster. Are the F-15s going to just stay on target all the way, while their Aim-7s finally hit, hoping that the R-27 is just a shitty missile, and won't hit them anyway? Because if both break lock fearing the enemy missile at some point, then the F-15s just found themself somewhere less than 5 nm to those IR missiles, and their superior radar does not do much at those ranges.

 

And btw, what about the numbers in the 1980s? It would be quite realistic to have something like a 4v1 against GCI guided MiG-23s. How were they going to manage that if the range of their primary weapons are that close?

 

So I think, that 1 to 6 ratio sounds like whishful thinking.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

the radar didn't perform very well, the R-27 was in better shape than the radar apparently

This isn't unusual either. The F-104S/F-21 radar combination was the same, depending on altitude the max range of the Aspide was limited by the radar's ability to lock targets, rather than the missile's ability to go far enough. Granted, that's an extreme example with a fairly decent missile for the time and a god-awful radar.

  

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

How do you clean up BVR with Aim-7s (or R-27R) ? At medium altitudes any shot beyond 10 nm with either of those has around 0% hit chance (unless the target flies like a target drone just straight into the missile...). If you have data, that the DCS Aim-7 is completely wrong, please share.

I'm pretty sure it's less that the AIM-7 is much better IRL than DCS (although a fair comparison is near impossible given that DCS has no EW) and more that USAF Eagle drivers are likely a wee bit better at employing it than us armchair nerds.


Edited by TLTeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

How do you clean up BVR with Aim-7s (or R-27R)

 

It's a huge subject that you will have to discuss with an SME.

 

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

I get it, the F-15 has a very good radar, and that gives good SA, but if the weapon is the Aim-7, they'll have to get quite close to actually kill something, and that good SA will degrade quickly as they need to stay in STT to guide the missiles. 

 

I mean think of a 4v4 for a moment, what's it matter if everyone is in STT?  This isn't some public DCS server where everyone and their grandma is going to respawn and jump into it.

 

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

At those 20-10 nm ranges where the real fight starts both 29/27 or even a MiG-23 should be able to get a lock on the F-15 and shoot missiles with comparable range, that are even faster. Are the F-15s going to just stay on target all the way, while their Aim-7s finally hit, hoping that the R-27 is just a shitty missile, and won't hit them anyway? Because if both break lock fearing the enemy missile at some point, then the F-15s just found themself somewhere less than 5 nm to those IR missiles, and their superior radar does not do much at those ranges.

 

When your aircraft operates better as a system and thus your aircraft has a higher Pk overall, you gain exchange ratio.   There are tactics to deal with all of this.   Also, there are flares.  This isn't DCS.

 

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

And btw, what about the numbers in the 1980s? It would be quite realistic to have something like a 4v1 against GCI guided MiG-23s. How were they going to manage that if the range of their primary weapons are that close?

 

So I think, that 1 to 6 ratio sounds like whishful thinking.

 

It was already accomplished in Beqaa.   Yep, older aircraft overall but also 7F and non-MSIP eagles, facing MiG-23s, MiG-21s and Su-20s.

 

You might be thinking its wishful thinking but I would say that's only because you're thinking of an eagle vs a flanker and that's not how it works.   There are entire systems in place.

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

I mean think of a 4v4 for a moment, what's it matter if everyone is in STT?  This isn't some public DCS server where everyone and their grandma is going to respawn and jump into it.

 

 

When your aircraft operates better as a system and thus your aircraft has a higher Pk overall, you gain exchange ratio.   There are tactics to deal with all of this.   Also, there are flares.  This isn't DCS.

 

 

 

You might be thinking its wishful thinking but I would say that's only because you're thinking of an eagle vs a flanker and that's not how it works.   There are entire systems in place.

 

Ok, so WW3 over Europe were to be nice, clean 4v4s, with perfect picture, it is no problem that they loose a bit of SA and can only engage one target at a time, from a rather close range, against an enemy with superior numbers... there are tactics to deal with all that, easy 6:1 kill ratio. Sure.

 

I'm talking talking about the threat of the all aspect IR missiles at close ranges, because (US) experiments have shown that when they are used by both sides, exchange ratio tends to gravitate towards 1:1 regardless of the aircraft types.

 

That sounds like a very realistic expectation to me, and it is the reason the US went really heavy on BVR. My point is that the Aim-7 is not enough (the 120 is). 

 

There are flares in DCS and IRL. Question is: do you have perfect SA to notice the launch or not?

 

So the reason I think 1:6 or 1:4 is ridiculous is that I suspect the fight to get close and chaotic, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HWasp said:

 

Ok, so WW3 over Europe were to be nice, clean 4v4s, with perfect picture, it is no problem that they loose a bit of SA and can only engage one target at a time, from a rather close range, against an enemy with superior numbers... there are tactics to deal with all that, easy 6:1 kill ratio. Sure.

 

I'm talking talking about the threat of the all aspect IR missiles at close ranges, because (US) experiments have shown that when they are used by both sides, exchange ratio tends to gravitate towards 1:1 regardless of the aircraft types.

 

That sounds like a very realistic expectation to me, and it is the reason the US went really heavy on BVR. My point is that the Aim-7 is not enough (the 120 is). 

 

There are flares in DCS and IRL. Question is: do you have perfect SA to notice the launch or not?

 

So the reason I think 1:6 or 1:4 is ridiculous is that I suspect the fight to get close and chaotic, simple as that.

 

Aimval/Aceval pretty much indicated that loss rates in Fox1 combat were not gonna really favor the US enough, and led to development of Fox3's that in "theory" would help in BVR space. And yes those same tests basically said that you would be more or less going 1:1 once it got into WVR with all aspect IR missiles. 

 

And so this idea of 1:1 air duels where things like a missiles Rmax are pretty important gets lost in the noise of a 4v8 or 4v12 or whatever which was a far more likely scenario. 


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...