Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Content Count

    31676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

1 Follower

About GGTharos

  • Rank
    Veteran
  • Birthday 11/14/1978

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS
  • Location
    Earth
  • Interests
    Flight Simulation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In every case that I have read about, the fault was with very old equipment that wasn't terribly capable and thus had poor reaction times; part two was 'horizon watch' being somewhat lax, part three more modern but either not well maintained equipment or just lax discipline - none of those were anti-air volcanos. That's the maximum simultaneous terminal guidance channels. You could have close to 20 birds in the air, switching targets as required. SM-2s featured a data-link which received information from the SPY radar and was eventually turned over to the STIR f
  2. It depends on the target as well. If we're talking Aegis cruisers/destroyers, you need to chuck over 20 at each ship just to get one or two through. This is just the hard-kill capability, then there's soft-kill ... ie. countermeasures like chaff, flares, ECM. On the other hand, there are plenty of combat ships in various fleets that could't defend themselves well against a raid of 3-4 (depending on how well the soft-kill systems work out) simply because they cannot put out the volume of fire required, be it due to more limited detection, designation of armament count capability.
  3. Try a test with wind. Easy to eliminate/include right away.
  4. This has already happened - although at least some documentation exists. This has to do with F-16 excessive radar range, same with the hornet. And where do you find documentation on the JF-17? The best evidence is to see what's being done with radars of similar technology level and why. The JF-17 isn't magical, it's going going to have half the narrow notch gate of other radars IRL. Consider not making unfounded accusations.
  5. A 40 kts notch gate would run the risk of a lot of false contacts, 25 would be guaranteeing it. A 40kts notch gate is a 'narrow' gate already. 12 and 25 are far too low - you might end up seeing every leaf blowing in the wind (source: I've actually seen it do that, a screen full of contacts because the gain was turned too high and the motion filter too low). Now, we were looking at the ground and not air contacts but the point remains. The ground will give you back returns with a significant doppler distribution and it's hard to do much about it - this is why 40-50kt is a narrow notc
  6. I have not, but I set up some pretty effective stuff as well. My main problems are: MANPADS won't even try if you're above a certain speed, RF missiles usually have a 'floor' that people can fly under that shouldn't be there. Likewise, Shilka etc are far too inaccurate IMHO. All things that would make you not want to fly so low (turbulence, birds) are turned off.
  7. Well that I agree with. My beef is mostly with how SAMs are incapable of attacking very low flying targets in this game.
  8. Or perhaps change your idea of what a 'good fight' is, because if you're thinking of some sort of 1v1 in the middle of an MP server with multiple aircraft per side you've got some funny expectations. You definitely do have options though: You can set up your own server where everyone uses the same aircraft and fights are curated so that you can have 'good fights'. Alternatively you can go play ace combat or war thunder if balance is your thing. DCS doesn't and won't have it, and neither F-14's nor their pilots are bad because of it. Air warfare is about tactics, in
  9. IN parallel with the air-to-air rocket discussion, I would like to request an improvement for SAMs: A lot of them will not guide when the target aircraft drops below a certain altitude. This makes all sorts of SAM defenses, both ground and ship, impotent against players who will drop to below 20m altitude so that they are simply not bothered by these systems. It would be good to see these systems use an arching or keep-target-slightly-below-the-horizon guidance against such targets. You can increase the aiming error, but make these weapons a real threat. I'm talking abou
  10. Basically yes. Back in the LOMAC days, the missile would switch to pure for HoJ. I'm not suggesting going that far. I don't know the required techniques but I don't believe that you need an AESA for this. DRFM jammers 'do it better' mainly because there's no signal degradation of the signal in the repeat loop - that's as much as I know about that. But, it's still a repeater so in theory there is a time lag you could take advantage of.
  11. No. The AIM-120 and AIM-7 (and maybe AIM-9?) got a completely new FM - ie the underlying code and flight model are completely different. As well, those missiles received a CFD treatment to determine their coefficients of drag and lift. It also comes with a new autopilot and other fun stuff (tm). The R-27 and 77 will get that treatment later. For now, they have had their drag and lift tweaked in the current FM to make them fly much better than they used to, so aside from academic differences, they are on a similar performance level as the missiles with the new FM.
  12. It's because SAMs are quite a bit nerfed. Such tactics have been proven to be bad for the pilot's health IRL since the early 90's.
  13. You're probably missing contact flying, like most flight simmers. It's not that you've become reliant on how the flanker does things exactly - that's part of it - you've become very reliant on the HuD.
  14. But I never said any of this, you made this up. You are a liar.
×
×
  • Create New...