Is the F-14's gun too accurate?

[303_Kermit]

23 hours ago, Noctrach said:

The tech to make things interesting have all been in the sim forever. The mission bias is just geared towards optimizing the blufor full fidelity experience that folks have paid 80 bucks for.

AIM-120B vs R-27ER is a pretty fair fight (not in a sterile 1v1 obviously, but then nothing in air combat works that way). They also roughly coexist in the same time frame. R-77 vs AIM-120B is a great fight even in 1v1. R-77 vs AIM-120C-5 not so much. If online mission makers weren't so insistent on putting AIM-120C-5s on everything, the online space would look very very different. (Heck, people might even have to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the different weapons platforms)

Problem with wanting new stuff like R-77-1 (2015) or R-77M (prototype tech) is that it would have to contend with AIM-120Ds and Meteors (which we might have to contend with regardless). Neither of which are fights that could in any way be described as "interactive", "engaging" or "fair". You're just getting clapped from ranges that make a high altitude Phoenix blush.

As much as I want to agree... WTF are you talking about? How Fox -1 can be ever equal to Fox-3? It's not the same and it won't be unless ED introuces full potential of R-27 and Su27. Originally R-27ER can be guided by a radar of other plane. I other words: You may fly low to be safe. You may prepare yourself for "notch" or "crank", do STT a target, and your wingman can lunch R-27ER for it in stratosphere, being accelerated to Ma=1,6. Theres no such thing in DCS as far as I can tell. Otherwise SATAL would be finaly very interesting... For once. 

In DCS only equal plane for F-16 is F-16... I have it uninstalled. Waiting for better times ... On Enigma

With my best regards

Green Ugly Fellow

Edited August 15, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[303_Kermit]

40 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

No it cant. The missile is tuned to a specific channel and frequency of the carrier radar before launch, if two radars were tuned to the same one really funny interference things would happen within a formation.

Proper alignment is realized per data link between a pair of Su-27 before lunch... And to be honest I'm sure I saw it multiple times on various sources, including Wikipedia, and Bill Gunston articles, but I'm unable to give you a reliable source of these information right now. I may search if someone's interested... I realize that for DCS one need more details to change anything. I just want to point here that it is possible... From quite a long time already.

Other thing is that PESA/AESA arrays use more sophisticated methods to avoid interferency. Someone tried to explain it to me once, but I fell asleep in the middle... With my eyes opened

Edited August 15, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[lunaticfringe]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

Proper alignment is realized per data link between a pair of Su-27 before lunch...

So what do they do from midnight to noon? 

[RustBelt]

On 8/13/2022 at 12:52 PM, Spurts said:

But it's offset to one side so the firing barrel can be closer to centerline, and also angled so the recoil passes through CG instead of under it.

Yes. That configuration minimizes the effects. Torque = arm x force. 

[IronMike]

Guys, can someone remind me please what this thread was initially about?

[lunaticfringe]

12 hours ago, IronMike said:

Guys, can someone remind me please what this thread was initially about?

Sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads are OP.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, lunaticfringe said:

Sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads are OP.

Haha, nice, fish go boom.

[RaisedByWolves]

14 hours ago, IronMike said:

Guys, can someone remind me please what this thread was initially about?

Not glove vanes.

[IronMike]

14 hours ago, RaisedByWolves said:

Not glove vanes.

[Indianajon]

 

On 8/16/2022 at 1:54 PM, IronMike said:

Guys, can someone remind me please what this thread was initially about?

A6 dedicated channel?

[IronMike]

Just now, Indianajon said:

 

A6 dedicated channel?

[Spurts]

brrrrrrt!

[Indianajon]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

always worth a shot!

[LanceCriminal86]

6 hours ago, Indianajon said:

always worth a shot!

[Indianajon]

On 8/18/2022 at 3:42 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

OK.....how about Cobra hinting at the Southeast Asia map in the far flung future? What with the F100 being announced,  F4 and A6 on the way A4 mod getting more and more complex....

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Indianajon:

OK.....how about Cobra hinting at the Southeast Asia map in the far flung future? What with the F100 being announced,  F4 and A6 on the way A4 mod getting more and more complex....

A-1. or don't even bother with a SEA map   ( I would reluctantly condescend to accept said map without the Skyraider, though  )

[Indianajon]

@Jayhawk1971 the A1 would be pretty spectacular in DCS! Gets my vote!

[Spurts]

A-1, the Piston Powered Predecessor of the Warthog.  Less BRRRRT, more TOS.

[henshao]

Some tidbits from Wiki talk page...

 

Quote

 

M61 in F104A and F4D/E

 

My qualifications: 730 hours and weapons officer in 104A; 2020+ hours in F4D/E as an instructor pilot and one combat tour. First, we had very few 104A gun problems in flying 10 firing missions a day 5 days a week. The most frequent problem was a double feed due to failure to extract an empty case. This did stop the gun and require removal and repair but was less than one every several months. The 104A gun was very accurate, with 3 mils dispersion. I boresighted and test-fired the airplanes on a 1000 foot test range so know whereof I speak. The F4D of course used the SUU23/A. It had about 10 mils azimuth and 8 mils vertical dispersion. Reboresighting the gun was a simple swift and accurate technique using the boresight mark on the nosegear door and a borescope. I myself never had a gun problem on either the 104A, F4D or the E. The F4E dispersion was 3 mils, like the 104A. Both aircrafts' internal guns held their boresight well. Using care, these guns could be sighted in within 1/2 mil. That's 1 foot error at 2000 feet, where the bullet pattern is 6 feet in diameter. The spool-up 'problem' is a chimera; we normally tried to fire 50 round bursts and that helped us. I have fired 300 and 600 round bursts, both from a SUU-23/A pod gun. The first was on a scorable range, achieving 100 hits on a 20 foot square target beginning firing at 4000 feet out. The second was for a firepower demonstration, laying down fire on a 50 by 100 yard patch of ground by gently using the rudders. Lastly, the M61 Vulcan gun is a Gatling Gun; there were electrically driven Gatlings converted from hand-crank drive 'way back when'. WaltBJ 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 

 

F-15 allegedly has about 8 mil dispersion by comparison, shipboard phalanx CIWS 1.4 mils, dunno what the F-14 does/is supposed to

[KlarSnow]

3 hours ago, henshao said:

Some tidbits from Wiki talk page...

 

 

F-15 allegedly has about 8 mil dispersion by comparison, shipboard phalanx CIWS 1.4 mils, dunno what the F-14 does/is supposed to

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=u4TDQLsLDtgC&pg=RA2-PA14&lpg=RA2-PA14&dq=M61A1+dispersion&source=bl&ots=55qvZUGTWY&sig=ACfU3U2nldSdATZ7rnMzCTdRKHkrnUGMTg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHyarFnf33AhXaqlYBHXUMDws4ChDoAXoECBMQAw#v=onepage&q=M61A1 dispersion&f=false

4 mils for the gun itself. There is a difference between the spec and what actually happens though as depicted in the image below from that article. Either way the actual bullet stream is definitely tighter than 8 mils, where the center of that bullet stream is located however may wander based on the mounting.

l

Edited August 27, 2022 by KlarSnow

[henshao]

So how about our dear turkey?

[FWind]

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi45-6j2uj5AhVUEEQIHQQzDmAQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net%2Fndia%2F2002%2Fgun%2Ftoombs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0q-Fd9bm4osV2syxk1nUud

Edited August 28, 2022 by FWind

[Quid]

9 hours ago, FWind said:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi45-6j2uj5AhVUEEQIHQQzDmAQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net%2Fndia%2F2002%2Fgun%2Ftoombs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0q-Fd9bm4osV2syxk1nUud

 

Going through the reference document, this is from an experiment done with the M-197 Gatling Gun, testing to see if there is an improvement in accuracy by replacing its original barrel clamps with M61A1 clamps (muzzle clamp alone, and then muzzle and mid-barrel clamps together).  It shows the difference in dispersion of the M-197 baseline, an M-197 with a modified (M61A1) muzzle clamp, and an M-197 with a modified (M61A1) muzzle and mid-barrel clamp.  It does not show the dispersion/mil data for the M61A1 Vulcan cannon.