Відео

Yeah, and even worse, very often, the context of the value is not specified either. That's why I shared the "live" spreadsheet, so I can update if I find more appropriate values.

The spreadsheet in the comment lists the sources as well, in this case wiki. It lists both the -220 and the -229, I suppose it depends on the upgrade? Do you have more info? Thanks!

@@FlyAndWire I think the DCS one models the 229. That is what ED says on their website

229 is supposed to produce much more power than 220 isn't it? I can also see in pvp how ludicrously fast F15E is, chilling at mach 1.8 at 50k

Ah, I missed that. Thanks, I'm updating the spreadsheet. The thrust value reported by P&W is the same as I found for the dry thrust. I won't touch those and just change the nomenclature for the moment. www.prattwhitney.com/en/products/military-engines/f100

Dont you mean low altitude. Think the 110 had digital fuel control and didn't perform as well down low. TF30s were designed for the F111 so i assume it had great low level performance.

Yep, I heard the same. The numbers seem to confirm what most pilots say. For example, there are accounts of DACT of Tomcat vs F-15 or others almost mocking the F-14 lack of performance when low on energy, but then they were surprised when the F110 was deployed, as it allowed to recover from low-energy states much better. I think Aircrew Interview has a couple of interviews along this line, and the F-14 Tomcast as well.

I am not sure I understand. Grammar schools are not a thing in my country. I attended a technical institute. My English is mostly self-taught, so not particularly good. Obv the narrator is Scottish (Ghostdog), but he is not the one who wrote the script. - Karon

@ overuse of Latin: a dead language

ROFL sure. Tell me you don't do anything related to law or science, and you don't know where 30% or more of your language comes from (assuming it is English), or you don't use abbreviations or words such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "c.v.", "consensus", "major", "super", et cetera. Heck, you don't know the etymology of the months. On top of that, it is still the official language of the Vatican and is still commonly studied. Most lyceums (or gymnasiums? Not sure which is the most appropriate translation) where I am from have Latin as a mandatory topic. Also, breaking news, the world is round, and not everyone has the same background or speaks the same language. If you are a native of a romance language (indirectly, English as well), chances are you use plenty of Latin without even realising it. Lastly, here is a fitting example since this is an aviation channel. Check interviews or books with British crews. New pilots are routinely called "ab initio". A quick Ctrl+F shows: - "Gledhill, David; Keeble, Philip. Per Ardua: Training an RAF Phantom Crew" shows that "ab initio" is used 7 times. - "Wilson, Tug. Confessions of a Flying Instructor: Teaching the RAF's Fighter Pilots" used it as well. - "Jefford, C.G.. Observers and Navigators: And Other Non-Pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF" used it 44 (!) times. Should I continue?

@ I am simply making the point that while the content is extremely good, the language is unnecessarily inaccessible.

Thank you. I understand that, but this is how I speak and write. I don't have the time or will to relearn. Also, I would argue that English, especially Simplified English (US') is full of jargon, words and colloquialisms that are made up and/or hard to grasp for non-natives such as myself. E.g. the first time I heard "y'all", I thought the person was saying some sort of "yo" - except it made no sense in the context of the sentence. At least Latin is used, albeit often unknowingly, and it is part of the core of the English language.

This is an AI TTS. If you check my old videos, you can hear my voice. I had a friend (GhostDog) doing some VA for a bit, but nowadays, I can't provide him with a decent enough script, and I can't ask him to re-record or correct bits and pieces multiple times.

Yes, more or less. The question is how much we care about chaff resistance anyway. Remember the old AIM-54A Mk60.

I forgot where did I see it, but it says the SD-10 is 10% easier to notch than the AIM-120C-5

The day RWRs become more realistic and seekers start to reacquire, this should be a non-factor.

No problem, glad you found it useful :)

Thanks! Unfortunately my ability of thinking, commenting and playing is quite poor :|

Good point, but a non-factor in the current EW simulation. I can kill jamming targets at 60nm in the Tomcat (check old related videos). Hopefully, one day, we will have either a more believable EW simulation or see it removed altogether.

@@FlyAndWire i guess the Tomcat is a special case, cause JF-17 jammer is a real pain in the *ss for my F-18 friends ^^

Well, until recently, the Tomcat was the only FW fighter I played with (now I can add the F-4E). Can't you angle-track in the F-18? Then manually loft the 120 and call it a day? IRL it does not work like that, but this is DCS...

Hey, thanks for your comment. I'm a bit in a hurry, but: - In primis, the vast majority of players play SP. I can put together some tests to see if there's any difference in a PvP scenario; it won't take long. The only concern is about the precision of the scenario. - What you described is well shown by the AIM-54A: in TWS, it changes course every 2s rather than constantly. A sort of "boom-boom but not really" because the surfaces are not fully actuated, just more than normal to compensate more. The 54C has an INS and better guidance, and it can lead as required. However, last time I checked, the difference was really negligible in any scenario (IIRC <0.1%, thus falling into the modus operandi tolerance). Also, TWS is (unfortunately) the most commonly used radar mode in DCS. There's an argument for using that. - Lastly, being an empirical study, there is an intrinsic level of imprecision. It probably obfuscates any minor difference introduced by radar modes.

@@FlyAndWire Thank you for considering it and for the detailed response, I really do appreciate it.

Yeah, well, on the other side, there are some accounts of the Phoenix diving at Mach 5. The problem with such a conclusion is that there are no details: which missile, what motor, what range, what type of target, jamming or not, radar mode, altitude and much more. On Steve's channel, there's the interview with "Puck" Howe. His explanation of the ranges at which the Phoenix worked better is what I have found to be the most common description of the missile.

@@FlyAndWire Puck is the guy I am talking about.

Odd, I don't remember such a passage. Neither on 10% True or F-14 Tomcast. It has been a while, though. I clearly remember him explaining the ranges thing I mentioned because I put it in my book/manual.

@@FlyAndWire I was misremembering the figures slightly but it is from the "F-14 Tomcat Sunset" video on 10% true, in the "AGP-71 and the Phoenix" chapter. He describes how they would only use it within 20 (not 10) miles, it had a deadzone from 20-30 (he never explains what this deadzone was), and then they'd employ it again past 30 but even a slight 25 degree course correction would defeat the missile at those kinds of distances. And he is describing this in the context of the phoenix gaining increased capability from the AGP-71.

Yep, that's the range bit I was talking about. The APG-71 is a non-factor, the problem is Soviet tactics and manoeuvres as they get closer. If a section splits and manoeuvres, and you are not as fast or high as you can be in DCS servers, then, of course, most missiles get thrashed. Rewatching the video, Puck said that 30-40 is the long-range shot. Then hold because the target at that point will follow Soviet doctrine and manoeuvre (which is a problem for any radar and missile, and that's their purpose), and employ again when they come hot, usually within 20 nm. However, put this into context: the longest ever AMRAAM kill apparently was by a Turkish AIM-120C-7 at a range of 28nm around 2010. With this in mind, a 40nm 20 years earlier is a hell of a shot. That being said, if you are at are normal altitude and not supersonic, 40nm against a target with an offset is challenging.

You are correct, but I purposely kept most of the employment details out, leaving them for part II or III. It's an almost 19-minute long video already. The details I will add later, besides what you correctly mentioned, regard how to WCS handles the AIM-54, which is far from intuitive for ab initio players, how to take advantage from the manual loft of the R-77, and so on. Regarding the angle, the most efficient, before falling into guidance / tracking issues and diminishing returns, will probably be between 20° and 30°. This is where the AIM-54 falls as well. I made a thorough study months ago, with several thousand launches. It's somewhere on the website - I need moar coffe to remember how the video is called :S

@@FlyAndWire Interesting. I've been making a ton of 35-45 degree shots and getting very impressive results, but it's usually at the cost of dumping too much energy, given that the JF-17 usually sits at M0.7 - 0.9 with a full CAP loadout. Seems I should tone it down a bit and see if I get a bit better results at 20-30 degrees. Great video btw!

Found it: ua-cam.com/video/D0A5JQyaqN0/v-deo.html You can find charts and whatnot there. As mentioned, I tested it up to 50°, but then you introduce too many issues, or the results are just not worth it. Besides guidance, the WCS + INS sometimes can't keep up with sudden manoeuvres, especially in TWS. The JF has the problem of being a modernised F-5. It uses zero fuel, but, as you said, it's a bit of a brick once loaded up. If there's enough interest, I can make a brief study to figure out how different pitch angles affect the results.

@@FlyAndWire Thanks, will check this out!

Thanks! This video took much longer than usual, but I also had more time to work on it. I also changed a lot of parts whilst editing, another reason why I am not sending scripts to Ghost Dog, I can't ask him to re-record bits and pieces every few hours :|

For instance, the RWR simulation makes it impossible to be hit without knowing a missile is coming. For example, the Iraqi Mirage F1's RWR could not detect the incoming Phoenix (at least in the beginning). In more recent times, the first four MiG-29 splashed by NATO never detected the missiles coming. Another example is the coalition embedded in the aircraft: IRL, you want to be extremely sure before pulling the trigger and, when in doubt, you may want to VID. Here you have Focke-Wulf replying correctly to M4 interrogations oO"

@ I see, i think i was getting caught up on the wording. My bad.

I'm a non-native using an AI for voiceover. Chances are that it's my fault, not yours :) Just to reiterate, as we have seen with the F-4E, people complained its RWR could not detect certain missiles. Imagine if this was applied to most modules without programmable or updated suites. Many would call it unfair when, in reality, it's their potato-level situational awareness that's killing them. Also, I haven't checked recently, but the last time I looked into the Hornet RWR, I could complete a full intercept just with that and no radar. The real pilots and crews I showed the video to had a good laugh about how nonsensical it is.

@@FlyAndWire Copy, bear with my pontification for a moment here. Assuming everyone (ED and Third Parties) agree on an RWR/IFF methodology, and it can be modeled “accurately” (within OPSEC limitations) for all current aircraft, would the community entertain a gamified version for pvp and a “real” version for servers/individuals/squadrons that want it? Now that I’ve said all that, the mountain of effort and coordination required probably inhibits its feasibility.

Well, players already set squawk codes (in sim servers), radio frequencies, laser codes and many other parameters. Many servers demand SRS or other forms of voice comms. All it would take is a proper briefing listing what setting to punch in, imo.

This is a complicated topic. I don't have access to the numbers. All docs I have seen have a nice black box covering them (ergo, they are redacted). The Phoenix in-game is quite similar to the real thing. However, it is also the best devs can do without having access to more tools. I can imagine, for example, that a faster cruising missile may result in comically high terminal speeds. Remember the missile API that was announced 4 years ago? Eh, AFAIK we are still waiting.

Yes, I noticed post edit. I have no idea why it skipped it, since it's the script/article :|

Are you trolling or something? Have you considered checking the links in the description, the other links on this YT page or the pinned comment? The latter, ad verbatim, says: "Feeling lost? These topics are not simple to understand. If you need resources and information, check here: flyandwire.com/training-centre-video-landing-page/" 🙄

I agree. Considering that the majority of the player base is SP only, that status of the AI is ever harder to understand.

What did you not understand?

When you tried to explain how the Radar functions​@@FlyAndWire

Can you be a bit more specific? How a radar works is a very long and complex topic. For the basics, check this video. I added some animations to show how the antenna moves, and so on. ua-cam.com/video/Y11-zrkWFtg/v-deo.html