"Space" and "Orbit" are different things. At 8km/s you're traveling at orbital velocity regardless of altitude. It's just that if you're within the atmosphere you'll lose that speed quickly due to air friction. The arbitrary boundary of space, also known as "Kármán line", is the altitude where the atmosphere becomes so thin that in order to maintain aerodynamic lift one would have to travel faster than orbital velocity. It's set at 100km or 328,084ft. It looks like this is the ceiling of DCS world as well.
Seriously. That missile would have to be travelling about 8000m/s to reach orbit, or 15,500 knots. Even the phoenix didn't even come close to the 9600m/s required to "Fly off into space". Also the gravity at only 400,000m isn't that much lower than on the surface. Doing some math it's still slowing down at 8.6m/s^2 compared to 9.8m/s^2 on the surface.
Yeah, if you could put a Phoneix into orbit they'd do just that and use them for launching microsatellites. And I think you mean 400,000 meters, not km. (The moon is 384,400 km in altitude.) Earth gravity that far out is a mere 0.027% of sea level. (But that's still enough to keep the Moon, travelling horizontally at 1.022 km/sec, from flying off into space.)
7:14 ambitious phoenix... Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the phoenix missile. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no phoenix has gone before.
I think i should be more like this. ambitious phoenix... Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the phoenix missile. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out and destroy new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no phoenix has gone before.
@7:20 "There's gravity but it's nothing like being down there." Yes it is. Gravity at 300,000 ft is only about 4% less than on the surface of Earth. Microgravity is caused by being in free-fall, i.e. in orbit, which requires 17,500 MPH of *horizontal* velocity to achieve. Altitude and/or being in the vacuum of space doesn't make gravity go away. (What do you think is holding the Moon in Earth orbit a quarter of a million miles away?) Even at the ISS's typical altitude of around 260 miles up gravity is still only 12% less than on the surface. If you could stand on a fixed platform at that altitude you'd only weigh 12% less. planetcalc.com/1758/
Thanks for all your videos Cap. You're awesome in-depth videos about DCS and your awesome tutorials have gotten me back into this game with passion, especially once I was able to learn thanks to you how to pilot the Hornet front to back after trying over and over to master the frustrating A-10c. You Grim Reapers rock, thanks to all of you.
That phoenix missile wouldn't have anywhere near enough energy to "float off into space" and it definitely couldn't launch into orbit. It did not achieve "low earth orbit". It did not achieve orbit at all. The missile would run out of kinetic energy and fall back to earth. If you were to zoom way out, and watch the missile's track with the Earth in the background. The track would look like a very narrow arch. Or, an "inverted" parabola. Spacecraft do not simply go up into space the way most people assume they do. They launch straight up to gain altitude quickly (flying into thin atmosphere), but then pitch to fly almost parallel (just over the horizon). Placing an object into orbit is far more about velocity than altitude. Essentially, you do need to be flying "high enough", but more importantly fast enough. Space travel isn't about "floating". It is about flying/falling with very high (consistent) velocity. If you wanted to put a phoenix missile into orbit, you could give it unlimited fuel and launch it 30 degrees over the horizon. Although you would have to stop the "burn" or it would wind up orbiting the Sun. If you launched it straight up (90 degrees), it would also wind up orbiting the Sun. That might not make sense at first glance, but trust me (I know my orbital mechanics). =.)
"Missile front heavy" Nope. Front heavy only matters when you have an object balancing on a point.Gravity pulls down on all mass equally. So if you have 3x the weight on the front of a missile, the front also gets pulled 3x as hard. Thus, gravity will never cause an object to rotate. Look up the pendulum rocket fallacy. He just failed to fire the missile straight. The fins are what causes it to turn, although DCS's physics seem to keep the missile turned in the right direction even without air to do so.
@@bjwonsite Even though it is climbing, it is physically in freefall. Unpowered climb is a zero-G regime, the only physical forces causing the missile to experience G are aerodynamic.
Good attempt at the name, Arabic is read right to left, Hamad Al Jaaidi. How did you get Sijal Ayas? Good vid though and hope the misses is no longer in a dark place after your loss.
That Phoenix wouldn’t reach orbit because it would need another burn to circularise the orbit at apoapsis. It would do what the Blue Origin rockets do.... straight up, and loop back down.... but if it reaches escape velocity it would just fly off into space without orbiting.
The widely agreed upon boundry of space is the Karmen line. It is the line at which an airfoil would need to be traveling at orbital velocity through the air at that altitude to generate sufficient aerodynamic lift to remain airborne. Above this line, orbital dynamics matters more than aerodynamics. The Karmen line is set at 100km, or 328,084ft. The AIM-120C made it to about 120,000ft, so it got a little over 1/3 of the way to space. The AIM-54 made it to 328,111ft, so it was, by definition, in space. Unfortunately, it seems like there is only 27ft of space "above" the atmosphere in DCS. However, it disappeared doing 980KTAS at 328,111ft. Since the atmosphere, for all intents and purposes, is gone at 100km (as far as aircraft are concerned; its still quick "soupy" for spacecraft,) we can assume the only acceleration acting upon it was gravity. But how high would it have gone? Well, it turns out that physics actually applies here. The equation v=gt+v_i can be transposed to give time to apogee, the highest point in the trajectory: t=v-vi/g where t is time in seconds, v is velocity at apogee, in meters per second, v_i is velocity at despawn in meters per second, and g is acceleration due to gravity, -9.8m/s^2 (fairly sure that is not a run on sentence.) We can assume that velocity at apogee is 0m/s second. The velocity at despawn was 980KTAS, or 504.156 m/s. As such, we get: t=(0-504.156)/-9.8 t=51.444 seconds to apogee. Using the equation A=(v_i)t+((gt^2)/2) + h, where A is the altitude at apogee in meters, v_i is velocity at despawn in meters per second, t is time to apogee in seconds, g is acceleration due to gravity, -9.8m/s^2, and h is altitude at despawn in meters. Plugging everything in, we can find the operational ceiling of the Phoenix given your launch parameters: A=((504.156)*51.444)+(((9.8*51.444)^2)/2)+100,008 A=253,028.072m Or, to use proper aviation units, 830,144.593ft MSL. This means the Phoenix, provided my math is right, could be used as a crude anti-satellite weapon if it was launched from the right location at the right time. However, it would need to be modified to allow for guidance without functional aerodynamic control surfaces. But, given the fact it wouldn't need at explosive payload to kill a satellite (merely getting in front of an object moving at 7.5km/s would be enough to kill it,) the payload could be swapped for a reaction control system. Sounds like a mission for GR. Prevent (insert terrorist organization here) from using captured F-14s and modified Mk. 60 AIM-54Cs to destroy a reconnaissance satellite.
Growling Sidewinder already tried shooting an AIM-54 to space several months ago. If you measure the speed of the Phx in Mach you can see it increasing the higher the missile gets, but it's not because the missile is speeding up, rather it's because the speed of sound is dropping because of thinner air
Just wanted to say, there is absolutely a reason to take the Mirage to 50-60k feet. It's performance up there is stellar and you can just fly around people, to intercept AWACS or whatever. I have a Tacview clip on my channel showing 6+ enemy fighters trying and failing to catch me up there.
Space Questions: Being a an Army Space Officer for 7 years I can clear up some comments: 1) Space begins where? There are 2 definitions: A) Commercially and Scientifically space begins about 200 miles AGL. Satellites in orbit below 200 miles can only orbit for less than 1 year as there is too much atmospheric drag to sustain orbit. The International Space Station (ISS) orbits at 254 miles up. Low earth orbit (LEO) satellites are typically 450 miles and orbit for a decade. B) Politically: The Air Force can only operate air breathing aircraft so high. Presently one of the highest altitude aircraft is the U-2 at roughly 70,000 ft. Anything above that altitude is the purview of the Army, as the Army is in charge of shooting down ballistic missiles. But once something is in orbit; purview goes back to the Air Force because they don't want the Army on top of them. So the area between high altitude aircraft and orbiting satellites is called in the US military: Army Space. What flies in Army space?: Ballistic missiles, rockets passing through to orbit and high altitude balloons. Presently the US Air Force wants nothing to do with balloons so they gave it to the Army. 2) Orbit is typically archived close to 17,000 mph but the latitude and direction of launch must be accounted for: The French launch satellites near the equator from French Guiana as launching with the spin of the Earth adds an extra 1000 mph to the launch speed. Launching to the west requires significantly more fuel to launch against the spin of the Earth. Launching at the North pole gives no addition speed to the launch but would be ideal for retrograde orbits. 3) So to be grossly overly-simplified: This air missile test got into Army space, not so much into Air Force, Commercial nor Scientific space. But to be sure, your presentation was far more entertaining than my comment. Cheers Kenny AKA "George"
The Interceptor version of the Viggen was known for regularly achieving firing solutions on the Sr-71 at 60000ish feet. Though this could only be achieved with ground based radar and command and control using the data-link system the swedes had during the cold war
This could be wrong, but I think instead of immediately firing the sidewinder, you should guide the AMRAAM with your own radar like the Sparrow because as soon as you let it go on it’s own, it’ll have to figure where it’s going and it will lose energy in the process
Gravity is 90% similar even at the altitude of the International Space Station. It's the fact that the ISS is travelling toward the Horizon at 7.66 km/s or 22.3 times the speed of sound, that stops the ISS being brought back to the ground. This means that the ISS is still technically falling but is also travelling laterally at mach 22.3 causing it to essentially miss the earth. There is orbital decay caused by small deviations on in the earths gravity but orbital decay is more so caused by a small amount of matter, (you could call this space dust which) which consists of tiny meteors and loose gas like Ozone and Hydrogen.
7:20 there's like 1% less gravity at 100km compared to the surface. It's the orbiting that makes things float. Acceleration due to gravity simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AErdgvarp.png
It isn't surprising that the AIM-7 Sparrow would be able to shoot down high altitude aircraft. The US Navy adapted it to used as a surface to air missile designated as the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and further improved it with the RIM-162 ESSM. The AIM-120 should hit the target as long as it continually receives updates via data link while it is in the inertial guidance phase. The missile goes active when it is in its terminal phase. If the target is not it its field of view, "the basket", it will probably miss.
Since all these missiles rely on aerodynamic surfaces to maneuver, and since the air density at high altitude is very low, it is interesting how would these missiles fare if the target is trying to evade. I mean, fox-1 and 3 operation will trigger the radar warning, so pilot is expected to react somehow. Also, I noticed you launched the Sidewinders against the sun. Isn't that a problem?
Depending on where the missile is fired from...you most likely wouldn't have to maneuver. You just keep your speed high(you have to anyway to keep your altitude) and basically outrun the missile. It will use most of it's energy gaining altitude and trying to aim in front of your aircraft.
The missiles never quite reached space. The most agreed upon border of space is the Karman line, which sits at 100 km (~330,000 feet). Though the atmosphere doesnt end there, past that point its thin enough to allow for orbit without losing much speed to drag. -Edit: I didnt watch far in enough to realise some of the missiles did get to space, my bad As pointed out by others, space and orbit are different. Space is anything beyond the Karman line in (somewhat of a) vacuum, while orbit requires a large amount of horizontal velocity, which makes you "dodge" the ground faster than gravity can pull you in. (this is a very, very simplified explanation but thats the gist of it). Gravity around the average satellite orbit (300-400Km or ~230 miles) is still fairly close to what we feel down here. Only difference is an orbit is a constant free-fall, which means you and your spacecraft are all falling at the same rate, thus the apparent 0g.
First of all, in reality in Iran we have exactly these problems, during Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988, the Iraqis have mig-25 & tu-22 and use them in very high & very fast formation, the only partial solution found with a lot blood, AIM-7F only work on approaching Target in range below 20 km ( obviously AIM-7M & AIM-120 have same effect with more range) AIM-54A only successful on running Target , when Targets reduced their altitudes, AIM-54 is great on long range but it is mediocre on high altitudes.
Most points covered below but in addition firing from low to high like this would be extremely inefficient with the missiles having to work hard against thicker atmosphere and gravity to get to the target. This was the limit of those systems. If the target had manoeuvred then the missiles would be dead in the water but conversly, the enemy would be able to fire from further out with their missile travelling through thinner atmosphere initially and having gravity help it on the way down. Likely result, you would be dead before you get chance to fire. Not sure why you would think a Sidewinder would have the legs when you are firing it at the same range as the AMRAAM?
Hi cap, i notice in your videos your games (DCS) doesn't stutter or anything but mine does and its pretty annoying when your in a dog fight i was wondering if you had some solutions or anything for the issue THANKS.
Breeze Yea that 1050 with 4GB VRAM is likely what’s holding you back. 16GB of RAM is mostly okay for DCS in my experience, though 32gb is the recommended standard. I’d reduce texture quality and possibly resolution to make the most out of that VRAM. If you opt for a GPU upgrade I’d get an NVidia card with 8GB + of VRAM. 6GB might cut it but it will be very close.
@@breeze9076 have the same ammount of RAM and had the same issued as Well as crashing Out in Mp when running it with 8 Gigs of pagefile......No Problem with any other Game. When I went to 24 Gigs of pagefile IT did Work, even better with 32 Gigs of pagefile in several SSD. Next Update is going to be 32 Gigs of RAM and hopefully a ryzen after that.
@@schweizerluchs7146 The major upgrade of MiG-31 capabilities over MiG-25 is in the low level intercept (i.e. multiple Tomahawks). Nominally it has a little lower max speed at altitude, due to kinetic heating issues (although, there are some info on the net that in practice it can reach faster speeds than that of MiG-25, approaching SR-71 max velocity).
How far can a missle get shot? Like if you were flying at max altitude and went strictly for range...idk why, but im currious and you could deffinetly get 2 ad slots on the video testing different altitudes speeds and angles of release.
The AIM-54's were tested as anti satelite weapons (launched from an F-15 of all planes), so we have that as an indicator that something like that could be used to intercept high altitude targets..... EDIT: maybe the AMRAAM missed because once it goes active it bleeds too much energy on the lead pursuit? Could be that the DCS version has a bit wonky intercept/guidance algorithm?
I wonder if the Navy has ever attempted a satellite shoot-down with the AIM-54. If this video is accurate, there wouldnt be any reason why it wasnt feasible; after all the F-15A did this with a modified SLAM ASAT missile with about the same range...
A Space Shuttle travels at roughly 22,000 mph depending on orbit height. Would have to be a head on shot and extremely lucky at that lol. By the time the Phoenix gets to it's calculated impact point, the Shuttle is 3 states away. the Shuttle would literally have to fly into the path of the Phoenix in order to get hit lol.
"Space" and "Orbit" are different things. At 8km/s you're traveling at orbital velocity regardless of altitude. It's just that if you're within the atmosphere you'll lose that speed quickly due to air friction.
The arbitrary boundary of space, also known as "Kármán line", is the altitude where the atmosphere becomes so thin that in order to maintain aerodynamic lift one would have to travel faster than orbital velocity. It's set at 100km or 328,084ft. It looks like this is the ceiling of DCS world as well.
Seriously. That missile would have to be travelling about 8000m/s to reach orbit, or 15,500 knots. Even the phoenix didn't even come close to the 9600m/s required to "Fly off into space". Also the gravity at only 400,000m isn't that much lower than on the surface. Doing some math it's still slowing down at 8.6m/s^2 compared to 9.8m/s^2 on the surface.
Yeah, if you could put a Phoneix into orbit they'd do just that and use them for launching microsatellites.
And I think you mean 400,000 meters, not km. (The moon is 384,400 km in altitude.) Earth gravity that far out is a mere 0.027% of sea level. (But that's still enough to keep the Moon, travelling horizontally at 1.022 km/sec, from flying off into space.)
@@AdmiralQuality I did mean meters. Fixed
@@Dubanx yeah its about 90% of surface gravity or really close to.
Experimenting on a physics model is big fun everytime. Especcially a refined one.
Thanks for the white board!
7:14 ambitious phoenix... Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the phoenix missile. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no phoenix has gone before.
I think i should be more like this. ambitious phoenix... Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the phoenix missile. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out and destroy new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no phoenix has gone before.
@@robinflack231 nah... after reaching space the madness is left below. The goal is not to conquer but to discover. I am still optimistic.
MiG-31’s would be really cool very high altitude fighter for bombers
@7:20 "There's gravity but it's nothing like being down there."
Yes it is. Gravity at 300,000 ft is only about 4% less than on the surface of Earth. Microgravity is caused by being in free-fall, i.e. in orbit, which requires 17,500 MPH of *horizontal* velocity to achieve. Altitude and/or being in the vacuum of space doesn't make gravity go away. (What do you think is holding the Moon in Earth orbit a quarter of a million miles away?)
Even at the ISS's typical altitude of around 260 miles up gravity is still only 12% less than on the surface. If you could stand on a fixed platform at that altitude you'd only weigh 12% less.
planetcalc.com/1758/
Roger thanks Sir
Thanks for all your videos Cap. You're awesome in-depth videos about DCS and your awesome tutorials have gotten me back into this game with passion, especially once I was able to learn thanks to you how to pilot the Hornet front to back after trying over and over to master the frustrating A-10c. You Grim Reapers rock, thanks to all of you.
That phoenix missile wouldn't have anywhere near enough energy to "float off into space" and it definitely couldn't launch into orbit. It did not achieve "low earth orbit". It did not achieve orbit at all. The missile would run out of kinetic energy and fall back to earth. If you were to zoom way out, and watch the missile's track with the Earth in the background. The track would look like a very narrow arch. Or, an "inverted" parabola. Spacecraft do not simply go up into space the way most people assume they do. They launch straight up to gain altitude quickly (flying into thin atmosphere), but then pitch to fly almost parallel (just over the horizon). Placing an object into orbit is far more about velocity than altitude. Essentially, you do need to be flying "high enough", but more importantly fast enough. Space travel isn't about "floating". It is about flying/falling with very high (consistent) velocity. If you wanted to put a phoenix missile into orbit, you could give it unlimited fuel and launch it 30 degrees over the horizon. Although you would have to stop the "burn" or it would wind up orbiting the Sun. If you launched it straight up (90 degrees), it would also wind up orbiting the Sun. That might not make sense at first glance, but trust me (I know my orbital mechanics). =.)
"Missile front heavy"
Nope. Front heavy only matters when you have an object balancing on a point.Gravity pulls down on all mass equally. So if you have 3x the weight on the front of a missile, the front also gets pulled 3x as hard. Thus, gravity will never cause an object to rotate. Look up the pendulum rocket fallacy.
He just failed to fire the missile straight. The fins are what causes it to turn, although DCS's physics seem to keep the missile turned in the right direction even without air to do so.
Right, the missile is balancing on it air resistance.
Unless I am misreading that, you appear to contradict yourself. I am Not trying to be an arse, just don’t get what you are saying.
@@bjwonsite Even though it is climbing, it is physically in freefall. Unpowered climb is a zero-G regime, the only physical forces causing the missile to experience G are aerodynamic.
Micah Eiber thanks 🙏 makes sense now 👍
Good attempt at the name, Arabic is read right to left, Hamad Al Jaaidi. How did you get Sijal Ayas?
Good vid though and hope the misses is no longer in a dark place after your loss.
That Phoenix wouldn’t reach orbit because it would need another burn to circularise the orbit at apoapsis. It would do what the Blue Origin rockets do.... straight up, and loop back down.... but if it reaches escape velocity it would just fly off into space without orbiting.
Awesome video guys. Now we know we can defend ourselves against aliens if we need to.
The widely agreed upon boundry of space is the Karmen line. It is the line at which an airfoil would need to be traveling at orbital velocity through the air at that altitude to generate sufficient aerodynamic lift to remain airborne. Above this line, orbital dynamics matters more than aerodynamics.
The Karmen line is set at 100km, or 328,084ft. The AIM-120C made it to about 120,000ft, so it got a little over 1/3 of the way to space.
The AIM-54 made it to 328,111ft, so it was, by definition, in space.
Unfortunately, it seems like there is only 27ft of space "above" the atmosphere in DCS. However, it disappeared doing 980KTAS at 328,111ft. Since the atmosphere, for all intents and purposes, is gone at 100km (as far as aircraft are concerned; its still quick "soupy" for spacecraft,) we can assume the only acceleration acting upon it was gravity.
But how high would it have gone? Well, it turns out that physics actually applies here.
The equation v=gt+v_i can be transposed to give time to apogee, the highest point in the trajectory: t=v-vi/g where t is time in seconds, v is velocity at apogee, in meters per second, v_i is velocity at despawn in meters per second, and g is acceleration due to gravity, -9.8m/s^2 (fairly sure that is not a run on sentence.) We can assume that velocity at apogee is 0m/s second. The velocity at despawn was 980KTAS, or 504.156 m/s.
As such, we get:
t=(0-504.156)/-9.8
t=51.444 seconds to apogee.
Using the equation A=(v_i)t+((gt^2)/2) + h, where A is the altitude at apogee in meters, v_i is velocity at despawn in meters per second, t is time to apogee in seconds, g is acceleration due to gravity, -9.8m/s^2, and h is altitude at despawn in meters.
Plugging everything in, we can find the operational ceiling of the Phoenix given your launch parameters:
A=((504.156)*51.444)+(((9.8*51.444)^2)/2)+100,008
A=253,028.072m
Or, to use proper aviation units, 830,144.593ft MSL.
This means the Phoenix, provided my math is right, could be used as a crude anti-satellite weapon if it was launched from the right location at the right time. However, it would need to be modified to allow for guidance without functional aerodynamic control surfaces. But, given the fact it wouldn't need at explosive payload to kill a satellite (merely getting in front of an object moving at 7.5km/s would be enough to kill it,) the payload could be swapped for a reaction control system.
Sounds like a mission for GR. Prevent (insert terrorist organization here) from using captured F-14s and modified Mk. 60 AIM-54Cs to destroy a reconnaissance satellite.
Yeah I was thinking that satellites would be in the AIM-54's launch envelope, if only it could hit them.
Growling Sidewinder already tried shooting an AIM-54 to space several months ago. If you measure the speed of the Phx in Mach you can see it increasing the higher the missile gets, but it's not because the missile is speeding up, rather it's because the speed of sound is dropping because of thinner air
Just wanted to say, there is absolutely a reason to take the Mirage to 50-60k feet. It's performance up there is stellar and you can just fly around people, to intercept AWACS or whatever. I have a Tacview clip on my channel showing 6+ enemy fighters trying and failing to catch me up there.
Space Questions:
Being a an Army Space Officer for 7 years I can clear up some comments:
1) Space begins where? There are 2 definitions:
A) Commercially and Scientifically space begins about 200 miles AGL. Satellites in orbit below 200 miles can only orbit for less than 1 year as there is too much atmospheric drag to sustain orbit. The International Space Station (ISS) orbits at 254 miles up. Low earth orbit (LEO) satellites are typically 450 miles and orbit for a decade.
B) Politically: The Air Force can only operate air breathing aircraft so high. Presently one of the highest altitude aircraft is the U-2 at roughly 70,000 ft. Anything above that altitude is the purview of the Army, as the Army is in charge of shooting down ballistic missiles. But once something is in orbit; purview goes back to the Air Force because they don't want the Army on top of them. So the area between high altitude aircraft and orbiting satellites is called in the US military: Army Space.
What flies in Army space?: Ballistic missiles, rockets passing through to orbit and high altitude balloons. Presently the US Air Force wants nothing to do with balloons so they gave it to the Army.
2) Orbit is typically archived close to 17,000 mph but the latitude and direction of launch must be accounted for: The French launch satellites near the equator from French Guiana as launching with the spin of the Earth adds an extra 1000 mph to the launch speed. Launching to the west requires significantly more fuel to launch against the spin of the Earth. Launching at the North pole gives no addition speed to the launch but would be ideal for retrograde orbits.
3) So to be grossly overly-simplified: This air missile test got into Army space, not so much into Air Force, Commercial nor Scientific space. But to be sure, your presentation was far more entertaining than my comment.
Cheers
Kenny AKA "George"
Kenneth Nickerson never knew about ‘army space’. Thanks!
The Interceptor version of the Viggen was known for regularly achieving firing solutions on the Sr-71 at 60000ish feet. Though this could only be achieved with ground based radar and command and control using the data-link system the swedes had during the cold war
This could be wrong, but I think instead of immediately firing the sidewinder, you should guide the AMRAAM with your own radar like the Sparrow because as soon as you let it go on it’s own, it’ll have to figure where it’s going and it will lose energy in the process
A U-2 Bomber would be way up there in altitude, which is what makes it really difficult to shoot down.
6:35 Phoenix got to about 2640kts which is mach 3.9
Gravity is 90% similar even at the altitude of the International Space Station. It's the fact that the ISS is travelling toward the Horizon at 7.66 km/s or 22.3 times the speed of sound, that stops the ISS being brought back to the ground. This means that the ISS is still technically falling but is also travelling laterally at mach 22.3 causing it to essentially miss the earth. There is orbital decay caused by small deviations on in the earths gravity but orbital decay is more so caused by a small amount of matter, (you could call this space dust which) which consists of tiny meteors and loose gas like Ozone and Hydrogen.
Thanks Sir
Orbit is falling while avoiding the Earth
7:20 there's like 1% less gravity at 100km compared to the surface. It's the orbiting that makes things float.
Acceleration due to gravity
simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AErdgvarp.png
Whoopsy, thx!
It isn't surprising that the AIM-7 Sparrow would be able to shoot down high altitude aircraft. The US Navy adapted it to used as a surface to air missile designated as the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and further improved it with the RIM-162 ESSM.
The AIM-120 should hit the target as long as it continually receives updates via data link while it is in the inertial guidance phase. The missile goes active when it is in its terminal phase. If the target is not it its field of view, "the basket", it will probably miss.
Also the first AIM-7s were designed to shoot down high altitude soviet bombers while the AIM-120s are more a gereral/anti fighter type of missiles.
Since all these missiles rely on aerodynamic surfaces to maneuver, and since the air density at high altitude is very low, it is interesting how would these missiles fare if the target is trying to evade. I mean, fox-1 and 3 operation will trigger the radar warning, so pilot is expected to react somehow.
Also, I noticed you launched the Sidewinders against the sun. Isn't that a problem?
Depending on where the missile is fired from...you most likely wouldn't have to maneuver. You just keep your speed high(you have to anyway to keep your altitude) and basically outrun the missile. It will use most of it's energy gaining altitude and trying to aim in front of your aircraft.
If you shoot a rocket straight up, it will slow to a stop and then fall straight down. To orbit you must accelerate laterally to over 18,000 mph.
The missiles never quite reached space. The most agreed upon border of space is the Karman line, which sits at 100 km (~330,000 feet). Though the atmosphere doesnt end there, past that point its thin enough to allow for orbit without losing much speed to drag. -Edit: I didnt watch far in enough to realise some of the missiles did get to space, my bad
As pointed out by others, space and orbit are different. Space is anything beyond the Karman line in (somewhat of a) vacuum, while orbit requires a large amount of horizontal velocity, which makes you "dodge" the ground faster than gravity can pull you in. (this is a very, very simplified explanation but thats the gist of it). Gravity around the average satellite orbit (300-400Km or ~230 miles) is still fairly close to what we feel down here. Only difference is an orbit is a constant free-fall, which means you and your spacecraft are all falling at the same rate, thus the apparent 0g.
Is it possible to take-off solo in the F-14 or ditch jester mid-flight willingly without taking damage?
How did you perform an override AIM-54 launch without designating a target for it??
Nothing, You dont need a target for A54
DCS is quite amazing. Even simulating space
First of all, in reality in Iran we have exactly these problems, during Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988, the Iraqis have mig-25 & tu-22 and use them in very high & very fast formation, the only partial solution found with a lot blood, AIM-7F only work on approaching Target in range below 20 km ( obviously AIM-7M & AIM-120 have same effect with more range)
AIM-54A only successful on running Target , when Targets reduced their altitudes, AIM-54 is great on long range but it is mediocre on high altitudes.
Iranian s didin t have AIM 7Fs in Iran-Iraq war
I mean from looking around Iran was cleared to have them but they chose more AIM-54As to be their medium and long range missiles
Can you read Urdu cap or Google translate?
Aim 54's just built different
Are DCS maps big enough for an SR-71? Just wondering if they'll ever get one on there. A YF-12 would be awesome too.
Prob not TBH, at those speeds you'll cover 300 miles in a few mins
Most points covered below but in addition firing from low to high like this would be extremely inefficient with the missiles having to work hard against thicker atmosphere and gravity to get to the target. This was the limit of those systems. If the target had manoeuvred then the missiles would be dead in the water but conversly, the enemy would be able to fire from further out with their missile travelling through thinner atmosphere initially and having gravity help it on the way down. Likely result, you would be dead before you get chance to fire. Not sure why you would think a Sidewinder would have the legs when you are firing it at the same range as the AMRAAM?
Would've been nice if you tested R27ER and ET
I got same result...
@@grimreapers Same as AIM-120 or AIM-7 and in which measurement? In getting down high alt target or in max alt run?
Hi cap, i notice in your videos your games (DCS) doesn't stutter or anything but mine does and its pretty annoying when your in a dog fight i was wondering if you had some solutions or anything for the issue THANKS.
Possibly a lack of system RAM and/or lack of VRAM is to blame. What's your rig like?
@@vitalstatistix8442 1050 4 gb and 16 gb ram
Breeze Yea that 1050 with 4GB VRAM is likely what’s holding you back. 16GB of RAM is mostly okay for DCS in my experience, though 32gb is the recommended standard. I’d reduce texture quality and possibly resolution to make the most out of that VRAM. If you opt for a GPU upgrade I’d get an NVidia card with 8GB + of VRAM. 6GB might cut it but it will be very close.
@@breeze9076 have the same ammount of RAM and had the same issued as Well as crashing Out in Mp when running it with 8 Gigs of pagefile......No Problem with any other Game.
When I went to 24 Gigs of pagefile IT did Work, even better with 32 Gigs of pagefile in several SSD.
Next Update is going to be 32 Gigs of RAM and hopefully a ryzen after that.
@@LupusAries 16 GB of ram is soo much ram but im upgrading my pc anyway to a 1660 ti
What if you take the Tomcat to its ceiling first then fire the Phoenix straight up?
is in here? ua-cam.com/video/aCkQatyIE6c/v-deo.html
Space starts at 80km (62 Miles), above that is space where there is no air to cause "Lift". You would lose all directional control
>Nothing designed to shot down SR-71 going mach 3.2
Mig-25: bruh
MiG-31 im a joke to u?
Don't worry the MiG-25 don't even need to do anything, the SR-71 has a self destruct sequence called "Garbage Engine Reliability"
@@schweizerluchs7146 The major upgrade of MiG-31 capabilities over MiG-25 is in the low level intercept (i.e. multiple Tomahawks). Nominally it has a little lower max speed at altitude, due to kinetic heating issues (although, there are some info on the net that in practice it can reach faster speeds than that of MiG-25, approaching SR-71 max velocity).
@@Struktualnyj 👍
Thanks 🙏
Just use R-33 or AIM-54C Pheonix.
How far can a missle get shot? Like if you were flying at max altitude and went strictly for range...idk why, but im currious and you could deffinetly get 2 ad slots on the video testing different altitudes speeds and angles of release.
ua-cam.com/video/xqtkJDCHJmw/v-deo.html
The AIM-54's were tested as anti satelite weapons (launched from an F-15 of all planes), so we have that as an indicator that something like that could be used to intercept high altitude targets.....
EDIT: maybe the AMRAAM missed because once it goes active it bleeds too much energy on the lead pursuit? Could be that the DCS version has a bit wonky intercept/guidance algorithm?
It also depends on the intercept window too. Maybe an earlier launch allows it to get into position better?
@@OverlordAntares Good point. Perhaps someone with better familiarity of the AMRAAM's lofting and intercept logic could do it.
I wonder if the Navy has ever attempted a satellite shoot-down with the AIM-54. If this video is accurate, there wouldnt be any reason why it wasnt feasible; after all the F-15A did this with a modified SLAM ASAT missile with about the same range...
Not at all how orbital dynamics work, gravity doesn't just shut off in space.
I thought the Mk60 Aim-54 was desined to shoot down Mig-31s at 110k feet doing 2.8 mach.
I want to see Cap do some training in his beloved f16
Support it for the fuse? What?
Aim-54 won't fuse if you don't support it until it goes active. Recently added in.
So it is theoretically possible to shoot a space shuttle with an AIM 54 😂
A Space Shuttle travels at roughly 22,000 mph depending on orbit height. Would have to be a head on shot and extremely lucky at that lol. By the time the Phoenix gets to it's calculated impact point, the Shuttle is 3 states away. the Shuttle would literally have to fly into the path of the Phoenix in order to get hit lol.
I assume up at that alt the missiles couldn't manouver because no air for the fins to work?
I found an article about a missle in 1984 to shot down Satellites en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
@@dannyd7714 Nope
ua-cam.com/video/Vxfk5eWlbQo/v-deo.html
Yeah we need satellites and ASM-135 in the game.
British narrator gets to the point in under 30 minutes. Film at 11:P
in some future game that phoneix Is going to come back and visit someone 🤣🤣