AWG-9/ AIM-54...straight from the Rio's mouth

[Jayhawk1971]

Not that this topic - especially in these here forums - is relevant or debated or anything.....  

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Jayhawk1971
Typo in title (duh)

[captain_dalan]

These keep getting better and better! I was about to share it too
And this time they touch on topics directly related to use chair-pilots, like radar latency, jamming targets, doppler filters, missile shots....... loved this episode! 

[Uxi]

Definitely good stuff for RIOs in this one on PD search, etc. The geometry of the Talos intercept was good,  too. Wahoo definitely went in at a good time, budget wise. Imagine brand new block 100 F-14A....

I was expecting the story about the jamming to be the missile going mad dog, not homing on jam. Is that in the current implementation?

Edited October 13, 2021 by Uxi

[AH_Solid_Snake]

I found his comment around TWS settling after a turn and correlating the extrapolated tracks back the most interesting.  In all my time in the F-14 module up to now I’ve found the X track to be death for that launch, even if I get a new 2nd track right next to it.

What I don’t know is if that’s by design and there is simply no correlation modelled or if there are just very specific criteria for correlation to occur.

Edited October 13, 2021 by AH_Solid_Snake

[SgtPappy]

21 minutes ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

I found his comment around TWS settling after a turn and correlating the extrapolated tracks back the most interesting.  In all my time in the F-14 module up to now I’ve found the X track to be death for that launch, even if I get a new 2nd track right next to it.

What I don’t know is if that’s by design and there is simply no correlation modelled or if there are just very specific criteria for correlation to occur.

 

This had me wondering the same thing! I can't really recall if I've had an AIM-54 home in on a target after the track became an "X" unless it was already active when the track became an "X". 

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

"The F14 was designed for the soviet bomber threat " 
"If you had aggressive fighters out there you had a problem" 

Meanwhile in DCS ..... 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[DD_Fenrir]

Seriously?

One comment taken wholly out of context?

Dave Barenek and Ward Carroll have both (repeatedly I might add) provided proof that later in it’s career the AWG-9/AIM-54/F-14 combination was to be used against fighters.

Must try harder.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

[Uxi]

Bio is the first one to vehemently say that the Tomcat was NOT an interceptor but was always designed to be multi-role.

See the "biggest myth" in https://hushkit.net/2020/08/08/we-ask-a-real-topgun-instructor-to-rate-the-movies-realism-and-talk-f-14-tomcats/

 

[TLTeo]

edit: redacted, not worth it.

Edited October 13, 2021 by TLTeo

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

"The F14 was designed for the soviet bomber threat " 
"If you had aggressive fighters out there you had a problem" 

Meanwhile in DCS ..... 

If you'd actually listened to the vlog you'd know that comment was about TWS. What they said actually reinforced our modelling in that STT is better against a smaller fighter and TWS mostly against bombers.

2 hours ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

I found his comment around TWS settling after a turn and correlating the extrapolated tracks back the most interesting.  In all my time in the F-14 module up to now I’ve found the X track to be death for that launch, even if I get a new 2nd track right next to it.

What I don’t know is if that’s by design and there is simply no correlation modelled or if there are just very specific criteria for correlation to occur.

 

Correlation actually exists in our F-14 but the limits for it are quite tight, as we believe it should be with the information we have.

What you need to keep in mind is that the real AWG-9 was likely even a bit more sensitive to movement of own aircraft than the DCS dito and there are also more radar phenomena that might have the tracks become lost even if moving straight. Situations and phenomena that aren't modelled in any DCS module as of yet and not really possible.

So it is likely that the correlations being described as happening in that vlog are in situations that really can't be modelled in DCS. Correlation of tracks moving about is not something the AWG-9 TWS could really do. At least as far as we know.

[captain_dalan]

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

edit: redacted, not worth it.

 

Words of wisdom, i think we've had enough mud wrestling for one year!

8 hours ago, Uxi said:

 

I was expecting the story about the jamming to be the missile going mad dog, not homing on jam. Is that in the current implementation?

 

I have no ide? Do we? Has anyone tried this in action? 

[DSplayer]

6 hours ago, Naquaii said:

If you'd actually listened to the vlog you'd know that comment was about TWS. What they said actually reinforced our modelling in that STT is better against a smaller fighter and TWS mostly against bombers.

Correlation actually exists in our F-14 but the limits for it are quite tight, as we believe it should be with the information we have.

What you need to keep in mind is that the real AWG-9 was likely even a bit more sensitive to movement of own aircraft than the DCS dito and there are also more radar phenomena that might have the tracks become lost even if moving straight. Situations and phenomena that aren't modelled in any DCS module as of yet and not really possible.

So it is likely that the correlations being described as happening in that vlog are in situations that really can't be modelled in DCS. Correlation of tracks moving about is not something the AWG-9 TWS could really do. At least as far as we know.

This means that extrapolated targets cannot get un-X’d out correct?

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Oh i listened to the vlog. 
The guy very specifically repeats numerous times , that THE F14 as a whole was designed for the soviet bomber thread. 

.... Meanwhile in DCS 

[Airhunter]

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Oh i listened to the vlog. 
The guy very specifically repeats numerous times , that THE F14 as a whole was designed for the soviet bomber thread. 

.... Meanwhile in DCS 

It was designed for it yes. Doesn't mean it wasn't effective against fighters and later small cruise missiles. You want to just ignore the Iran/Iraq war data? Or the numerous tests with small fighter drones doing 6G+ turns and a split S to then be hit by the Phoenix regardless? Your imagination and perceived reality sure are a mystery my dude. Let alone the fact that even in DCS the Phoenix is less than ideal against competently flown fighters at most ranges where ab AMRAAM wouldn't reach.

It think HB did a pretty good job of modeling said limitations of TWS and the AWG9.

[Spiceman]

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Oh i listened to the vlog. 
The guy very specifically repeats numerous times , that THE F14 as a whole was designed for the soviet bomber thread. 

.... Meanwhile in DCS 

Your first sentence is just a fact. It’s the “meanwhile in DCS” part that makes you come across as a douche canoe. What are you trying to suggest, or are you simply trolling? 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Spiceman
Typo

[DD_Fenrir]

Quote

delusional

/dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective

1. characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument

Think that about covers it.

[Cab]

2 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Oh i listened to the vlog. 
The guy very specifically repeats numerous times , that THE F14 as a whole was designed for the soviet bomber thread. 

.... Meanwhile in DCS 

And yet from the very beginning F-14 had:

- Maneuvering flaps (although apparently the auto function of these was added after reaching the fleet.)

- Easy switching between air-to-air weapons (pre-HOTAS, even)

- And even air-to-ground capability for crying out loud!!!

Yes, the F-14 was designed to counter the Soviet bomber threat, but it came with a whole lot more.

Also, if you go back to Episode 2, the guest pilot and RIO said all they did for the first several years was air-to-air and dogfighting. 

[Karon]

I think your time is better spent doing something else rather than feeding a troll.

Suggestion ↓

[Victory205]

No, no, he’s right! I remember taking on P3’s, C130’s and KC135’s (the R was a beast in a flat scissors) in my TOPGUN class. We went up against actual exploited Badgers and even a couple of stolen Tu95’s over the desert near Tonopah. They were leftover from the legendary Have Eclair exploitation program.

My TOPGUN graduation hop was against a simulated attack by a regimental sized formation of B1 bombers, flown by elite NFWS instructors. No wonder getting into the school as an instructor was such a competitive endeavor.

The whole time, I was wondering why in the hell Grumman put a puny 20mm gun on the F14 (I mean, “The Cat”, as you fine folks are wont to say).

This thread is a candidate for the stupidest to date, and that’s saying something.

[Cab]

I remember when people said the internet was going to make everyone more educated and smarter 

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Victory205:

This thread is a candidate for the stupidest to date, and that’s saying something.

And, of course, it had to be the one that I started.... 

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Karon:

I think your time is better spent doing something else rather than feeding a troll.

Suggestion ↓

The problem with that feature is that posters who still insist to feed the obvious troll tend to also quote said troll, so that you are still confronted with its garbage. 

[DD_Fenrir]

25 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

This thread is a candidate for the stupidest to date, and that’s saying something.

Naw, not the thread, just the... "contributions"* ... of a certain member**.

 

 

*gawd, it was hard to find a polite way of describing that! Disclaimer: I do feel that (a) by giving them that appellation it ascribes some false legitimacy to 'em and (b) I have so corrupted the term I now feel dirrrrty

** fortunately there are many things that fall under this descriptor, use whichever you find most appropriate.

Edited October 14, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[Cab]

1 hour ago, Karon said:

I think your time is better spent doing something else rather than feeding a troll.

Suggestion ↓

Trolls got to eat, too.

[lax22]

He’s just a troll who’s F16 got shot down one too many times by a Tomcat.

 

Strangely he isn’t complaining about the currently over performing Viper radar in DCS.

Wonder why that is