Will our DCS Eurofighter be able to beat our DCS Hornet in a guns only dogfight?

[SCPanda]

Really curious if the Eurofighter with those two powerful engines will be outrate the DCS Hornet with the 404 engines, since DCS Hornet is currently a rate machine. It has the highest sustained turn rate among all jets in DCS (if the F-14 does not put down its flaps). Source: https://dcs.silver.ru/RatRace

Also, since I heard the Eurofighter is pretty AOA limited (even more limtied than the F-16), how will the Eurofighter perform in a once circle fight? 

[LooseSeal]

You'd like to think the engine power plus the canards would give a sizeable advantage. Plenty of stories out there of Typhoons going against FA/18s and F-16s, as well as the infamous Typhoon vs Raptor discussion.

I'm sure someone will be along with 'the numbers' at some point. But I don't see why it wouldn't win, with the right pilot. If nothing else it should run out of fuel after the Hornet! 

[Sajarov]

Every time, every day. But as usual it depends of the skills of both pilots.

A dogfight with Both pilots with the same skills, the Typhoon should win every match if he don't commit a stoopid mistake.



Sent from my M2102J20SG using Tapatalk

[F-2]

According to the Indian mrca competition at 5000 ft the Eurofighter and super hornet have a similar STR 

 

It’s unclear what’s the load out or speed. but if we look at the GAO report it seems the hornet and eurofighter have similar STR https://books.google.com/books?id=XCcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=F/A-18E+sustained+turn&source=bl&ots=VDPtcyELXn&sig=UJf5CawaEWf0_qeoPm5grVY5xT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMI5OyCgpmLyQIVTzqICh1-KQ9S#v=onepage&q=F%2FA-18E sustained turn&f=true

 

I would be cautious fighting the hornet close up like that. You will have superior thrust to weight ratio but it’s going to be dangerous.

[bies]

It all depends what type of "dogfighting" you are asking. Honourable gun fight for fun - here EF will be better than anything we have in DCS, period. Sustained turn and energy retention is decisive and EF has hands down the best STR and T/W in DCS. Way better T/W than 404-GE-402 engines Hornet or even GE-129 Viper.

In tactical more realistic scenario there is no "neutral merge", with helmet sights and very high off bore missiles both would easily shoot each other in face and probably would die before the merge.

Helmet sights and very high off bore missiles give comparative advantage to the Hornet since it would merge at ~300kts and flip 180 degrees at some 50 deg AoA in 3sec and fire a few AIM-9X using helmet without any lag straight to Eurofighter limited to 26-28 deg AoA (just like F-16). If somehow all the missiles would miss Hornet would be done though.

But with AMRAAMs, helmet sights, very high off bore missiles and datalinks it's hard to imagine a "dogfight" with two aircrafts maneuvering to the enemy tail to fire the missile like during Vietnam or even Desert Storm. Look at PG Blue Flag server with F/A-18 vs F-16.

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb bies:

Helmet sights and very high off bore missiles give comparative advantage to the Hornet since it would merge at ~300kts and flip 180 degrees at some 50 deg AoA in 3sec and fire a few AIM-9X using helmet without any lag straight to Eurofighter limited to 26-28 deg AoA (just like F-16). If somehow all the missiles would miss Hornet would be done though.

Ultra-modern Fox 2 such as IRIS-T, Python 5 and AIM-9X (blocks II and III) have lock on after launch capability, which allows for 360° engagements, which kinda negates supermaneuvrability as a decisive factor.

I'd say the winner in current gen WVR fights - with everything including pilot skill being about equal and everyone bringing their A game  - is the one with the best countermeasures suite.  

Edited February 10, 2022 by Jayhawk1971
butterfingers

[Swayer]

Let's also not forget that the EF carries the IRIS-T missile which can play a defence role by intercepting an opponents missiles 

[Tom Kazansky]

OP is about guns only.

[Southernbear]

Well currently the EF has the advantage in BVR due to it receiving the Meteor and in the merge as not only does it have better raw performance than the Hornet but also LOAL capability for the AIM-9X hasn't been fully implemented IRL let alone in game as the DoD/USAF doesn't seem the advantages outweigh the cost. This means while the AIM-9X can only go to a 90 degree off bore sight the IRIS-T can do the full 360, meaning even if you get onto its tail it should still be able to shoot you down.

The only place the Hornet could be considered at least contemporary would be the 10-30nmi range where you mostly within the NEZ of the AMRAAM as well as the Meteor at which point its whoever locks and fires on each other first will win. But this tactic is true for many aircraft such as the F-14 for example ect. 

so over all the Hornet is quite outmatched by the EF2000

[QuiGon]

12 hours ago, Southernbear said:

meaning even if you get onto its tail it should still be able to shoot you down.

How does the target acquisition work in that case? I mean how do you tell the missile to attack someone behind you?

IIRC there was some talk about the ability to target RWR (PIRATE) contacts, so you would be able to tell the missile to fly towards a RWR contact, but not sure if this is actually true?

Edited February 18, 2022 by QuiGon

[Tom Kazansky]

6 hours ago, QuiGon said:

How does the target acquisition work in that case? I mean how do you tell the missile to attack someone behind you?

Wiki says for IRIS-T it can acquire targets via MIDS and can turn with a very small radius and assumed 100 g's.

With its search area of +/- 90° it might be possible to hit a target behind you just by something like HARM's self protection mode but that's just a guess.

[Destarn]

What about the MAW? It's essentially three radars around the aircraft, I'd imagine it can track planes as well if it can track missiles. This information alone should be enough to point the missile towards the target. I'd find it only logical to make the MAW radars a contributor to trackfile creation.

[QuiGon]

6 hours ago, Tom Kazansky said:

Wiki says for IRIS-T it can acquire targets via MIDS

6 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

It works via MIDS.

I see, so it's via DL and not via the RWR.

[Southernbear]

23 hours ago, QuiGon said:

How does the target acquisition work in that case? I mean how do you tell the missile to attack someone behind you?

IIRC there was some talk about the ability to target RWR (PIRATE) contacts, so you would be able to tell the missile to fly towards a RWR contact, but not sure if this is actually true?

 

The missile contains a short range datalink component. The pilot uses the helmet mounted sight as you would with say, to aim an AIM-9X's IR seeker but when a lock is achieved that information is preprogramed into the guidance computer in the missile and then it is fired. Once the missile completes enough of the 360 degree turn in flight using it's vectoring thrusters the regular IR seeker acquires the target and makes the kill shot. 

[QuiGon]

3 hours ago, Southernbear said:

The missile contains a short range datalink component. The pilot uses the helmet mounted sight as you would with say, to aim an AIM-9X's IR seeker but when a lock is achieved that information is preprogramed into the guidance computer in the missile and then it is fired. Once the missile completes enough of the 360 degree turn in flight using it's vectoring thrusters the regular IR seeker acquires the target and makes the kill shot. 

I see, thanks!

[M1Combat]

The above turn rate numbers in the graphic are for F/A-18 E/F it looks like.  Very different aircraft.

 

[Dragon1-1]

On 2/10/2022 at 6:07 PM, bies said:

In tactical more realistic scenario there is no "neutral merge", with helmet sights and very high off bore missiles both would easily shoot each other in face and probably would die before the merge.

Actually, if the merge happens after an inconclusive BVR fight, it'll be neutral more often than not. As will one in which neither side has a SA advantage - say, both have a working AWACS and there's not enough jamming on either side for a sneak attack. Of course, in a real scenario you typically don't go around getting into dogfights, but a neutral merge is pretty much the worst case scenario that's worth planning for. Indeed, against current AI a neutral merge is usually the best you can do unless you win in BVR.

Also note, a high aspect, short range missile shot is prone to being defeated kinematically. It's not enough to just get a solid lock. It's easy to make shots with an AIM-9X or the R-73 that will have a good tone, but will be very unlikely to hit due to kinematics. In particular, I have my doubts about the utility of "datalink shots", since a 180 degree turn bleeds the missile's energy quite a bit, and if the bandit is on your tail, he'll more likely than not see the launch (although he might not expect it and not know what to do). Of course, getting him to defend against a datalink shot might let you off the hook and possibly give you enough room to neutralize the fight, but with those kinematics the PK will be poor. High aspect shots might also be more prone to chasing flares (indeed, I wonder how effective a LOAL IRIS-T would be at ignoring them, seeing as they won't look much less like a valid target than the bandit).

[hi41000]

It will be which ever pilot is better

in terms of against hornets gero nearly 2 years ago already talked about it

Quote

The F-16 is a very capable weapon system in all respects! Of course there are „thousands“ of variations flying around. If you are strictly focussing on WVR („Dog Fight“) engagements, some aspects on the more modern variants are not helping. The engines got bigger and bigger, the stuff they put in and on the airframe got more and more, but what remained is a pretty small wing area that has to deliver the lift. It is pretty exactly half of the Typhoon (50 square meter). So even if you jettison most of your stuff in the F-16 prior to going into a WVR fight (which you most probably should do in any case) and consider that against missiles like an IRIS-T there are not many seconds that you can use your afterburner because of your proper IRCM, the F-16 looses out on the aerodynamical aspect. I myself had never a problem of fighting an F-16 but must admit that those fights were physically the hardest for me.

 

The F-18 is equally capable in general as an F-16. But in comparison it has not enough thrust. That still is true for the E/F variants because they are also much heavier. The F-18 is an AoA fighter. It has an outstanding capability to point the nose and get shots off. Quite similar to thrust vectored Flanker variants. That is not possible in a Typhoon. HOB missiles obviously change the fight in this respect for both sides. Comming down to a gun fight the F-18 is really hurting on thrust and is not a big challenge for the Typhoon. Those fights tend to be very slow speed and low g´s.

Although training dogfights aren't the same as dcs dogfights because real life usually has a floor of 6000ft or more instead of dogfights reaching the floor and fighting at around 100-500 ft above the ground. but if its pure guns you should dominate the vertical fight compared to hornets

[Bananabrai]

On 6/17/2022 at 5:13 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Also note, a high aspect, short range missile shot is prone to being defeated kinematically. It's not enough to just get a solid lock. It's easy to make shots with an AIM-9X or the R-73 that will have a good tone, but will be very unlikely to hit due to kinematics. In particular, I have my doubts about the utility of "datalink shots", since a 180 degree turn bleeds the missile's energy quite a bit, and if the bandit is on your tail, he'll more likely than not see the launch (although he might not expect it and not know what to do). Of course, getting him to defend against a datalink shot might let you off the hook and possibly give you enough room to neutralize the fight, but with those kinematics the PK will be poor. High aspect shots might also be more prone to chasing flares (indeed, I wonder how effective a LOAL IRIS-T would be at ignoring them, seeing as they won't look much less like a valid target than the bandit).

Flares from this angle will look completely different than the aircraft.

A LOAL missile approaches you from the front, the hot source on your aircraft is out the back, so it can easily distinguish between too hot flares and the aircraft without the engine exhaust.
IRIS-T has libraries inside btw, so they are not your 80s missile looking for a hot dot in its seeker, they are looking for shapes, kinematic movement, etc., and our DCS flares are flying ballistic after release. Let's see what gets implemented anyway...

Your statement about kinematics and energy is completely true though. The effectiveness of LOAL shots is questionable.

On 2/10/2022 at 10:27 PM, Swayer said:

Let's also not forget that the EF carries the IRIS-T missile which can play a defence role by intercepting an opponents missiles 

Also I value the "missile defense" opportunity against a Fox 2 close to 0. You have to see a missile first, lock it in one of the aircraft's way, and get it of the rail and have it hit.
For a Fox 2 that is in the air only for a couple of seconds, show that to us please. 
Cruise missiles, maybe yes. AMRAAM, good luck in terminal phase if it is still fast and one of your sensors sees it (one that is used as lock on source).
Look at how much missiles a ship is spamming to defend from subsonic ASMs.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Bananabrai

[Dragon1-1]

16 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

These missiles also have libraries inside btw, so they are not your 80s missiles looking for a hot dot in its seeker, they are looking for shapes, movement, etc., and our DCS flares are flying ballistic after release.

Maybe today's missiles do, but AIM-9X entered service in 2003. There aren't any "libraries" in a sense that it can actually identify the aircraft by its heat signature. What it does have is an imaging seeker that looks for things that are "aircraft-shaped" more than flare-shaped. That's all. Less an image library and more a bunch of tracking gates the missile can choose from. Also, it does not any means of depth perception, so if a flare and the aircraft combine to form an image which suddenly is not aircraft-shaped, the missile won't quite know what to do with it. Particularly in pure pursuit, when there's no motion of the bandit to look for. Remember, we're talking late 90s computing technology (since that's when they started developing the missile) that had to be cheap and compact in order to fit within the missile. It is simply not possible, within these constraints, to put a reliable computer vision system in. These missiles are pretty good at flare rejection, but this doesn't mean they can't be confused by them, even momentarily (which would deplete already limited energy of a LOAL shot).

Edited June 21, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[Bananabrai]

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Maybe today's missiles do, but AIM-9X entered service in 2003. There aren't any "libraries" in a sense that it can actually identify the aircraft by its heat signature. What it does have is an imaging seeker that looks for things that are "aircraft-shaped" more than flare-shaped. That's all. Less an image library and more a bunch of tracking gates the missile can choose from. Also, it does not any means of depth perception, so if a flare and the aircraft combine to form an image which suddenly is not aircraft-shaped, the missile won't quite know what to do with it. Remember, we're talking late 90s computing technology (since that's when they started developing the missile) that had to be cheap and compact in order to fit within the missile. It is simply not possible, within these constraints, to put a reliable computer vision system on a missile. 

My reply to you was to your last bracketed part of that other post, and the subject of that was about IRIS-T, which has a lib.
I have no clue about 9X, but I know how the IRIS-T and Typh work.

Edit: corrected my post above

Edited June 21, 2022 by Bananabrai

[Dragon1-1]

IRIS-T entered service in 2005, started development in 1995. Single seeker, so no depth perception. Might be smarter than AIM-9X, but not as much as you'd hope. True image recognition has only recently started being anywhere near reliable. Against a stationary target (which a bandit in pure pursuit is, as far as the missile is concerned), at head-on aspect and deploying countermeasures, it is quite possible for flares to distort the picture enough to result in a miss. I don't know whether the bandit away turning would help or hinder the missile, but either way, it'd have a lot of complex problems to deal with. It is supposedly better at locking onto head-on targets than the AIM-9X, but a pre-merge "face shot" is much more forgiving kinematically.

[Bananabrai]

27 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

IRIS-T entered service in 2005, started development in 1995. Single seeker, so no depth perception. Might be smarter than AIM-9X, but not as much as you'd hope. True image recognition has only recently started being anywhere near reliable. Against a stationary target (which a bandit in pure pursuit is, as far as the missile is concerned), at head-on aspect and deploying countermeasures, it is quite possible for flares to distort the picture enough to result in a miss. I don't know whether the bandit away turning would help or hinder the missile, but either way, it'd have a lot of complex problems to deal with. It is supposedly better at locking onto head-on targets than the AIM-9X, but a pre-merge "face shot" is much more forgiving kinematically.

Kinematically true, as I said, I support your statement. LOAL shot at a following bandit is not going to work well for that reasons.

That being said, I am not hoping something, I don't know the 9X, but I know IRIS-T LOAL and other operations from the EF cockpit side and how to use it.
Also at least IRIS-T is not statically from a 95 development and unchanged since '05 IOC. Single sensor source yes, no depth perception yes, but you can still calculate accelerated vs. ballistic movement in these highly dynamic situations, as a missile will not (as you said, and is not very beneficial) will fly a hook turn and while that happens, both AC will move, and they will not move like a train on a straight rail, so it will not really be a stationary target.

If that is beneficial or not comes up to every single situation, but all this movement is also used inside the missile, as the developers were probably aware of it.

I don't want to defend LOAL or IRIS-T vs. 9X here in general, I still think it is highly questionable and people should not read too much on wiki.

For me it was only about this statement:
"High aspect shots might also be more prone to chasing flares (indeed, I wonder how effective a LOAL IRIS-T would be at ignoring them, seeing as they won't look much less like a valid target than the bandit)"

As far as my knowledge goes on this system, it is not true and the IRIS-T is very capable to differentiate between flares and a valid target from any angle for various reasons.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Bananabrai