Heatblur F-4 Phantom

[WobblyFlops]

On 10/7/2021 at 8:37 PM, Heatloss said:

But, this is a game, so sacrifices must be made for playability and balance

No, there really shouldn't. The day that happens to weapons and avionics is the day when DCS loses any reason to exist at all. Not simulating things due to lack of available information, some type of technical reason that makes it impossible to accurately simulate is perfectly fine but the last time this type of things came up at all, people got really worked up and Nick Grey  had to clearly state that they don't intend to balance weapons for gameplay reasons. There really isn't any reason why a simulator needs to sacrifice realism when it comes to missile performance or ranges other than lack of available data. 

[captain_dalan]

Are some of you guys for real, or are some of you just trolling? 

On a more serious note, of course i'd like to see exotic stuff in DCS, but would a helmet mounted sight even be any useful given the era most likely any modeled Phantoms are going to be based on? 

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Airhunter said:

 

Honestly, the AIM-7M is fine right now (at least I had decent success with it even in PvP). Maybe the guidence is a bit wonky at times but you can get fairly reliable kills with it given correct parameters. Just don't expect to out BVR Alamo C's or any AMRAAM. 

 

I have it on good authority that in some parts of the envelope 7M>early aamram. 

On 10/8/2021 at 12:30 AM, WarbossPetross said:

Unless they are some of the oldest DCS modules around, namely the Shark and Su-25T. The BS3 that we're getting is even less than that, it's a project of further development of original prototypes. They were going to make this but added a two-seat glass cockpit and a radar and called it a Ka-52 Alligator while the prototype that we're going to have has never left the drawing board. I get it, it's a tight situation of having to choose between making something or not making anything at all because of Russian legislation, but that's not to say I would say no to interesting designs that could have been and that do, in fact, have some basis in reality.

 

And what I wouldn't give to fly Su-47 and MiG-1.44, at least in a game...

 

Yeah yeah. I know, but imo those are the exception since ED cant do modern russian stuff. 

[Airhunter]

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I have it on good authority that in some parts of the envelope 7M>early aamram. 

 

Yeah yeah. I know, but imo those are the exception since ED cant do modern russian stuff. 

 

Against the A, sure. Bigger missile, more lift etc.

[Exorcet]

26 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

Against the A, sure. Bigger missile, more lift etc.

As far as I know the A and B share the same motor. If the missiles in DCS are accurate there is no place where a Sparrow will outperform an AMRAAM of any kind.

 

The Sparrow also isn't really a bigger missile, just a wider one. This is mostly going to serve as a disadvantage as it will increase drag, unless counteracted by being able to fit a better motor or more fuel (which is then counteracted by higher weight).

Edited October 9, 2021 by Exorcet

[Heatloss]

5 hours ago, Airhunter said:

 

Honestly, the AIM-7M is fine right now (at least I had decent success with it even in PvP). Maybe the guidence is a bit wonky at times but you can get fairly reliable kills with it given correct parameters. Just don't expect to out BVR Alamo C's or any AMRAAM. 

All the missiles in DCS (save for the phoenix I guess) right now are underranged. Anywhere from 2/3rds range to 1/4rd of their real range, normally around the half marker. The problem with the 7M only having a head-on range of about 10 miles instead of closer to 40-45 is that it means it is hardly useful in combat scenarios that occur in DCS. That's all.

 

2 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

On a more serious note, of course i'd like to see exotic stuff in DCS, but would a helmet mounted sight even be any useful given the era most likely any modeled Phantoms are going to be based on? 

Yes. If we got phantoms after 1972, we would have the best rear aspect sidewinder, the AIM-9H. Sure, that's only 22 degrees off bore, but that's pretty damned good. The more important use of VTAS is for off bore radar locks. The later sparrows, 7F and M, the first of which we could see by 1976 F-4J mods, would be extremely effective with this system, enabling the AIM-7 to be launched in more complex situations.

[Airhunter]

1 hour ago, Heatloss said:

All the missiles in DCS (save for the phoenix I guess) right now are underranged. Anywhere from 2/3rds range to 1/4rd of their real range, normally around the half marker. The problem with the 7M only having a head-on range of about 10 miles instead of closer to 40-45 is that it means it is hardly useful in combat scenarios that occur in DCS. That's all.

 

And you know this how? Especially regarding the AMRAAM. I have gotten kills at30ish nm up high and screaming with the AIM-7 in DCS, gotten killed by one at 50nm while not manuevering (thinking it was out of range) as well. It's just that in DCS people fly low, in thick air and do a hard break turn once engaged. The AMRAAM in DCS can also score hits at 60nm, given proper parameters. 

[Heatloss]

7 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

And you know this how? Especially regarding the AMRAAM. I have gotten kills at30ish nm up high and screaming with the AIM-7 in DCS, gotten killed by one at 50nm while not manuevering (thinking it was out of range) as well. It's just that in DCS people fly low, in thick air and do a hard break turn once engaged. The AMRAAM in DCS can also score hits at 60nm, given proper parameters. 

The AIM-7E-2, which nobody will say is a long range missile, lacks any form of loft, and according to every third party source, has less than half the range of the 7F and M, has about a 15 mile range at 15k feet, with both targets going subsonic. I've overhauled aim-7ms in that same head-on envelope at 15k against target drones in hoggit training. I know they were head on because I was the RIO in the tomcat and I was monitoring the doppler aspect gates.

This is your "high alt and fast" envelope. For the AIM-7E-2. Not the AIM-7M.

[Airhunter]

15 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

The AIM-7E-2, which nobody will say is a long range missile, lacks any form of loft, and according to every third party source, has less than half the range of the 7F and M, has about a 15 mile range at 15k feet, with both targets going subsonic. I've overhauled aim-7ms in that same head-on envelope at 15k against target drones in hoggit training. I know they were head on because I was the RIO in the tomcat and I was monitoring the doppler aspect gates.

This is your "high alt and fast" envelope. For the AIM-7E-2. Not the AIM-7M.

 

Yup. How does this apply to the 7M/F and AMRAAM? We do know a bit about the 7F due to Russian espionage and eval. Same with the 120A, potentially B. But again, parameters rather unknown and all on non-maneuvering targets. So saying something has 1/4th of the range withóut considering speed, altitude and parameters just doesn't have any real meaning. As long as a missile hs gone through the CFD treatment, albeit most only do so at 0 AOA, and is on the new API, it's about as accurate and close and it will ever get for a consumer product, which has only unclass and public data. 

[Harlikwin]

6 hours ago, Exorcet said:

As far as I know the A and B share the same motor. If the missiles in DCS are accurate there is no place where a Sparrow will outperform an AMRAAM of any kind.

 

The Sparrow also isn't really a bigger missile, just a wider one. This is mostly going to serve as a disadvantage as it will increase drag, unless counteracted by being able to fit a better motor or more fuel (which is then counteracted by higher weight).

 

 

You can go argue with him, he flew an Eagle for looong time. And he won't tell me which part of the envelope.  My best guess its either better in close for some reason, or maybe against high and fast targets. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

You can go argue with him, he flew an Eagle for looong time. And he won't tell me which part of the envelope.  My best guess its either better in close for some reason, or maybe against high and fast targets. 

 

I'm also a bit skeptical of the AIM-7 having any advantage over the 120 in real life, but not the point where I think it's impossible, especially with a lack of hard data. My original comment was on the missiles in game though, since it was also said that they are "fine" right now. I don't see how the DCS AIM-7 has any advantage over the 120B, which shouldn't be far off from the A.

[Airhunter]

14 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I'm also a bit skeptical of the AIM-7 having any advantage over the 120 in real life, but not the point where I think it's impossible, especially with a lack of hard data. My original comment was on the missiles in game though, since it was also said that they are "fine" right now. I don't see how the DCS AIM-7 has any advantage over the 120B, which shouldn't be far off from the A.

It simply doesnt  Fox 1 vs Fox 3 is a huge difference.

[Bananabrai]

I am not sure if the 7M motor is that much worse compared to a 120B/C Motor in terms of initial thrust.
Wider body could also mean wider diamter of propellant chamber or whatever (at least potenitally) and with also high initial thrust. I am just guessing though.

And the wings are huge, so my imagination tells me, I expect it to be initially more manoeuverable than the 120B/C, like the 120B should also be more manoeuverable than the C.

 

In terms of the 2/3 to 1/4 ranges (DCS vs. real life), ranges might be nerfed, yes, but not that much.

It differs so much with changing aspect, altitude, etc.

The biggest problem in DCS is the guidance which is too floppy I think.

RL C-5 performance is not x2++ DCS

[TLTeo]

Also lots of missiles in DCS have been improved massively. The AIM-120 we have now is miles ahead of the AIM-120 from ~3ish years ago.

[captain_dalan]

Still don't see massive use advantage of helmet mounted sights though. It's not the like the Sparrows, even the "dogfighting" variants are that nimble to employ in a hard turning fight and the rear aspect Winders? I bit harder to tell without actual experimentation but i don't see them making the required turn if shot severely out of their envelope. Maybe some use for faceshots with Sparrows? But if it's a faceshot, then why haven't you locked the guy already? And if he's too close you ain't gonna keep 'im inside radar gimble for long anyways. So highly situational at best. Again, not opposing such gizmos, just skeptical of their usefulness. We are still a decade early even by Soviet standards to make high off bore shots viable. 

[Top Jockey]

40 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Still don't see massive use advantage of helmet mounted sights though. It's not the like the Sparrows, even the "dogfighting" variants are that nimble to employ in a hard turning fight and the rear aspect Winders? I bit harder to tell without actual experimentation but i don't see them making the required turn if shot severely out of their envelope. Maybe some use for faceshots with Sparrows? But if it's a faceshot, then why haven't you locked the guy already? And if he's too close you ain't gonna keep 'im inside radar gimble for long anyways. So highly situational at best. Again, not opposing such gizmos, just skeptical of their usefulness. We are still a decade early even by Soviet standards to make high off bore shots viable. 

 

Pertinent points and fully agree, but... for me that's precisely where the biggest part of my interest on these systems is - dealing with the crude limitations of them, in a time they were somewhat 'pioneer' and therefore rudimentar.

 

Would very much enjoy to use the VTAS at the F-4 Phantom II, in acquiring targets with a given AIM-9 version.

Besides for guys like me who appreciate this kind of stuf, comparing the analogic nature of this system in the Phantom (versus the highly digitalized one of the F/A-18's JHMCS) should be interesting...

Edited October 11, 2021 by Top Jockey

[TLTeo]

Eh I can see it being somewhat useful. It's kind of like VSL hi in the Tomcat - you canput a weapon on the air without having to be exactly nose on, which (especially for something that doesn't have great ITR like the Phantom) can be very nice on occasion. The crazy off-bore shots you can do with the R-73/AIM-9X are obviously in a whole other league and not a good comparison for sure.

Edited October 11, 2021 by TLTeo

[captain_dalan]

Fair enough! 

[Exorcet]

15 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

I am not sure if the 7M motor is that much worse compared to a 120B/C Motor in terms of initial thrust.
Wider body could also mean wider diamter of propellant chamber or whatever (at least potenitally) and with also high initial thrust. I am just guessing though.

The Sparrow weighs 500 lbs compared to the AMRAAM's 300 though. Equivalent thrust isn't enough to give the two missile equal performance. The AMRAAM can potentially perform better even with a worse motor if it's half the mass.

 

15 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

And the wings are huge, so my imagination tells me, I expect it to be initially more manoeuverable than the 120B/C, like the 120B should also be more manoeuverable than the C.

The same goes for lift. The Sparrow's lift budget will be eaten up by weight, and missiles accelerate so fast that I'm not sure the low speed regime ever becomes relevant, except maybe when the missile is barely airborne, long after spending propellant and losing kinetic energy.

 

 

15 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

The biggest problem in DCS is the guidance which is too floppy I think.

RL C-5 performance is not x2++ DCS

On this we're closer to being on the same page, though different missiles might be better or worse at mimicking their real life counterparts.

[Spurts]

WRT AIM-7 vs AIM-120, maybe it's about the nature of the target?  Sometimes the Sparrows massive warhead might be preferred?

[Bananabrai]

Well, 500lbs vs 300lbs is an increase of 2/3, the lift surfaces are easly 3 times the size, and the bigger body also has more lift.

It's also stubbier if you account for the size difference.

 

Anyway I guess we need to wait for some who wants to tell us why the AIM-7 might be better than the AMRAAM in some instances.

Or we actually don't care about and just see it as an interessting and unexpected side note.

 

I only know the RL C-5 performance, so I have to admit, I cannot speak for the other missiles. 

I just wanted to express that I can hardly believe that it also counts for the other missiles, that DCS range x2 is what the RL missiles have.

[captain_dalan]

12 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

1. Well, 500lbs vs 300lbs is an increase of 2/3, the lift surfaces are easly 3 times the size, and the bigger body also has more lift.

It's also stubbier if you account for the size difference.

 

2. Anyway I guess we need to wait for some who wants to tell us why the AIM-7 might be better than the AMRAAM in some instances.

Or we actually don't care about and just see it as an interessting and unexpected side note.

 

1. Good points, you beat me to them.
2. Potential for anti-surface employment 

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/11/2021 at 9:22 PM, captain_dalan said:

Still don't see massive use advantage of helmet mounted sights though. It's not the like the Sparrows, even the "dogfighting" variants are that nimble to employ in a hard turning fight and the rear aspect Winders?

 

Depends on what the benchmark is. By today's standards, VTAS won't make the news.

In 1972, it was space-age stuff. Especially when paired with the newer, more dogfighting-capable missiles.

Compared to what the other side had, this is certainly an important improvement in capability.

 

@Heatloss was VTAS fully rear-seat capable?

IIRC, the lock was initiated by pressing the NWS-button on the stick, but I might mis-remember there.

If VTAS offered the RIO to acquire the target (and maybe even shoot a missile, not sure if the F-4 offered that capability) while the pilot could spent all his brainpower flying into the envelope, then this is a certain advantage over what the other side had. It virtually gave the airplane a better turn performance, which it factually didn't have.

[Heatloss]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

@Heatloss was VTAS fully rear-seat capable?

IIRC, the lock was initiated by pressing the NWS-button on the stick, but I might mis-remember there.

If VTAS offered the RIO to acquire the target (and maybe even shoot a missile, not sure if the F-4 offered that capability) while the pilot could spent all his brainpower flying into the envelope, then this is a certain advantage over what the other side had. It virtually gave the airplane a better turn performance, which it factually didn't have.

To the best of my knowledge, no. It still allowed a virtual improvement in turn performance, and the ability to launch even if the aircraft is slightly off target, which happens very often in air to air combat.

If you're the only one in the sky with this in the 1970s, this is a big deal.

[Top Jockey]

12 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Depends on what the benchmark is. By today's standards, VTAS won't make the news.

In 1972, it was space-age stuff. Especially when paired with the newer, more dogfighting-capable missiles.

Compared to what the other side had, this is certainly an important improvement in capability.

 

@Heatloss was VTAS fully rear-seat capable?

IIRC, the lock was initiated by pressing the NWS-button on the stick, but I might mis-remember there.

If VTAS offered the RIO to acquire the target (and maybe even shoot a missile, not sure if the F-4 offered that capability) while the pilot could spent all his brainpower flying into the envelope, then this is a certain advantage over what the other side had. It virtually gave the airplane a better turn performance, which it factually didn't have.

 

Regarding the bold I understand the idea, but I don't know if its logic would be very pratical / effective in real combat situations.

As in the early F-4 Phantom II, the RIO's cockpit is even more overfilled with instrument panels than the pilot's cockpit... leaving the RIO with almost zero forward visibility even at head height.

So I imagine the RIO would be handicaped (versus the Pilot), when trying to acquire a target with the Helmet Sight, both in field of view and coordination / reaction time, as it would loose sight of the target more frequently.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Top Jockey