Gaming Digital Combat Simulator Thread

[Fabri91]

Meanwhile, on Leatherneck Sims' website:

 

[Urwumpe]

Meanwhile, on Leatherneck Sims' website:

Looks like a .... F-14?

 

[Fabri91]

Yes. I'm throwing money at the screen but it doesn't appear to be working.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

F-14 would be a pretty sweet addition to fly.

 

[Hielor]

Does DCS actually have carrier ops yet? Seems like without that, an F-14 would be somewhat lacking...

 

[Urwumpe]

Does DCS actually have carrier ops yet? Seems like without that, an F-14 would be somewhat lacking...

It has carriers, including a Nimitz class.

But the carrier ops are not for longer multiplayer games.

 

[Fabri91]

It's a feature planned to be introduced with the F/A-18C Hornet being developed by ED. Right now it is sort of present for the Su-33 and the Kuznetsov, but it is very very basic. The 33 being one of the last aircraft left with a SFM - "simple flight model" might be part of the issue.

---------- Post added 03-03-15 at 09:09 ---------- Previous post was 02-03-15 at 21:50 ----------

Leatherneck Sims F-14 A/A+/B Tomcat announcement

Time to set aside some more funds...if it's anything like the MiG-21 in quality it is going to be a guaranteed day-1 purchase.

 

[Hielor]

You can be my wingman any time!

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Hey guys, just wondering if DCS would be thinking of F-22 at all, or if they already did.

 

[Urwumpe]

Hey guys, just wondering if DCS would be thinking of F-22 at all, or if they already did.

F-35 was in a Kickstarter once, but no F-22.

Also, I think DCS is better suited for historic aircraft because of a very simple reason: Its easier to get documentation on them.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Yeah. Sometimes I am worried that the US may be revealing a little too much about it's new "stealth fighters", such as the locations of sensors and other com equipment. I mean, are the Su Flankers really able to beat the stealthy 22 and 35? The point was to make them stealthy for future combat of the enemy, but how do you do that when the enemy has better planes? Isn't it a waste of money?

 

[Urwumpe]

I mean, are the Su Flankers really able to beat the stealthy 22 and 35? The point was to make them stealthy for future combat of the enemy, but how do you do that when the enemy has better planes? Isn't it a waste of money?

Of course they can. Remember that during WW2, the USA won many air battles against Japan, despite initially having the worse material. Its a matter of tactic in the end, and if you know the capabilities of your enemy and your own capabilities, you will never lose a battle.

Also, the Flankers are maybe not stealthy, but highly agile. In BVR fight, the F-22 wins, but in close combat, the odds will change very likely, because the F-22 is only stealthy against radar, has made compromises in agility for stealth, lacks a IRST like the Russians have, still lacks HMD aimed missiles with off-boresight capability and still weights a lot.

Finally, remember that the F-22 is extremely expensive and still mostly designed against modern requirements: Its requirements had been defined at a time, before the iron curtain fell and the USA learned about the reality of the Russian aircraft.

And ultimatively: The F-22 is technologically so old, that any better industrialized country could build its own based on the F-22 technology, would too much of it become known. Keeping some secrets makes sense to the USA. But as you can see with the PAK, its possible to catch up.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Of course they can. Remember that during WW2, the USA won many air battles against Japan, despite initially having the worse material. Its a matter of tactic in the end, and if you know the capabilities of your enemy and your own capabilities, you will never lose a battle.

Also, the Flankers are maybe not stealthy, but highly agile. In BVR fight, the F-22 wins, but in close combat, the odds will change very likely, because the F-22 is only stealthy against radar, has made compromises in agility for stealth, lacks a IRST like the Russians have, still lacks HMD aimed missiles with off-boresight capability and still weights a lot.

Finally, remember that the F-22 is extremely expensive and still mostly designed against modern requirements: Its requirements had been defined at a time, before the iron curtain fell and the USA learned about the reality of the Russian aircraft.

And ultimatively: The F-22 is technologically so old, that any better industrialized country could build its own based on the F-22 technology, would too much of it become known. Keeping some secrets makes sense to the USA. But as you can see with the PAK, its possible to catch up.

A few things. First of all, being an American, I have been proud of the F-22, and now I think that would stink if that sleek jet lost against Su . Either way, that is understandable, seeing that it truly is in the circumstances, knowledge of enemy craft, and techniques.

Secondly, the F-22 is supposed to have increased turning and maneuvering abilities (it can boast that in a nearly-vertical takeoff), so would the Flankers have that much more agility?

Thirdly, I found this sort of funny, no offence, but the line you say "the F-22 is technologically so old that any better industrialized country could build its own based on the F-22 technology, would too much of it become known". What if we don't know enough? There could be some tech they are hiding from us :lol:. In that case, the F-22 would still be some sort of a secret.

 

[Urwumpe]

A few things. First of all, being an American, I have been proud of the F-22, and now I think that would stink if that sleek jet lost against Su . Either way, that is understandable, seeing that it truly is in the circumstances, knowledge of enemy craft, and techniques.

Well, I also think the Eurofighter Typhoon is really the best and.... Damn, I can't lie. Its the A-10. Regretably an american plane and regretably awesome.

Secondly, the F-22 is supposed to have increased turning and maneuvering abilities (it can boast that in a nearly-vertical takeoff), so would the Flankers have that much more agility?

The trick is what the glossy brochures are not saying: How energy-efficient is the F-22? Not like a car, but rather, when you pull a 6g turn, how much velocity would you lose to drag and how much thrust and fuel would you need to compensate? The F-22 gets a lot of its agility from its two dimensional TVC, which is no replacement for aerodynamics, it only allows you to reach AOAs that would be out of reach by normal means and still remain controllable at AOAs, at which its wings have already stalled. The Su-27 and the Su-35 are the much cleaner aircraft in that category, despite the relatively primitive engines.

Thirdly, I found this sort of funny, no offence, but the line you say "the F-22 is technologically so old that any better industrialized country could build its own based on the F-22 technology, would too much of it become known". What if we don't know enough? There could be some tech they are hiding from us :lol:. In that case, the F-22 would still be some sort of a secret.

The answer is the long development period of it. When I was in London in 1998, I bought an English language book, that was already really old at that time: Tom Clancys Fighter Wing.

It wrote a lot about the F-22 and its future capabilities while it was still in development in 1998. When the book was written some years earlier, the F-22 was already in development.

17 years have passed since. Thats generations in technology. You can be sure, the design freeze for the F-22 happened shortly after 1991, when the ATF competition ended. So, the technology inside the F-22 is today 24 years old. At that time Atari did still build computers and the Motorola 68040 processor was the best you can find.

Now tell me: Do you really think that the Russians are more than 24 years behind today? Or the Chinese, who built your iPhone (if you have one) ?

Of course any country could build their own F-22 now. They could even build their own Anti-F-22, if they would know about the weaknesses of the F-22.

 

[Fabri91]

Meanwhile, on the Hoggit subreddit:

TIFU by attempting to start up a Mig-21 at an air show.

So, this happened last year October when Bulgaria held an air show of its air force and Surface-to-air capabilities. There were 2 mig-29s, 2 frogfoots and 2 Mig-21s doing the jet-based part. They flew around n stuff, landed and that was that. Now here comes the problem. They allowed people to sit in the cockpit of aircraft which were up in the air less than 30 minutes ago. They literally landed and parked them for people to enter. So, the aircraft we had had a little bit of a different cockpit from the one in DCS, I guess they were just different versions. Never the less, I waited in line and finally got to the point of going inside the cockpit.

This is where I ed up

Upon entering, I felt the stick, twiddled the glass on the radar screen a little bit and started looking around. By accident, I spotted the battery switches, which looked like this inside the cockpit http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/MiG-21MF_Cockpit.jpgMy country has like 2 or 3 variations of the Mig-21 left in its already small inventory, the other 220 mig-21s were taken away due to limitations set to our air force. So, after seeing the battery switch, I decided *what can happen, they must've shut it down or something, so, it. Bad choice. So, upon pressing that, the whole cockpit lit up and made a very low buzz. Oh god. It worked. The guy who was at the ladder didn't notice, so I decided to flip up something else. I do not remember what it was, but the aircraft screamed at me. It was a sharp, loud tone which lasted around 2 seconds. I froze in the seat and looked to my left, where the ladder was. The guy was looking at me dead straight in the face and immediately yelled at me to get out. Because I am 17, they asked me why I did it and if I had any relation to islam or terrorists. I said I just wanted to touch and twiddle with the switches, and they kicked me out of the air show.

tl:dr I went to the air show of my country's air force and got kicked out for trying to steal one of the only jet fighters they had. Would try again.

It was only a matter of time.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

The trick is what the glossy brochures are not saying: How energy-efficient is the F-22? Not like a car, but rather, when you pull a 6g turn, how much velocity would you lose to drag and how much thrust and fuel would you need to compensate? The F-22 gets a lot of its agility from its two dimensional TVC, which is no replacement for aerodynamics, it only allows you to reach AOAs that would be out of reach by normal means and still remain controllable at AOAs, at which its wings have already stalled. The Su-27 and the Su-35 are the much cleaner aircraft in that category, despite the relatively primitive engines.

So, lets say Su-27 and F-22 in a locked turn. The F-22 would be able to turn in and get the Su. Why? The answer is in thrust vectoring. While Su may be more efficient in drag during an aerodynamic turn, the F-22 can maneuver on stalled wings and turn faster, inside of an Su turn. Obviously, in a dogfight, this is what gives one the advantage, because once your are in a locked tail follow, neither wants to give up their position. Its a fight for being behind the opponent, and because of thrust vectoring, even if it is stalling, it is turning it's nose faster, putting the enemy in front of the pilot.

 

[n122vu]

You can be my wingman any time!

Bull ! You can be mine!

 

[Urwumpe]

So, lets say Su-27 and F-22 in a locked turn. The F-22 would be able to turn in and get the Su. Why? The answer is in thrust vectoring. While Su may be more efficient in drag during an aerodynamic turn, the F-22 can maneuver on stalled wings and turn faster, inside of an Su turn. Obviously, in a dogfight, this is what gives one the advantage, because once your are in a locked tail follow, neither wants to give up their position. Its a fight for being behind the opponent, and because of thrust vectoring, even if it is stalling, it is turning it's nose faster, putting the enemy in front of the pilot.

Actually not.

When you are turning with stalled or nearly stalled wings, you maybe get a lot of lift force for turning at high g, but also you have a huge amount of drag more: Your energy budget shrinks rapidly.

So, if you fail to win the dog fight on the first such turn, you are left in a very bad state: You are low on energy and would need to quickly trade altitude for speed for having at least a small chance to win the next manoeuvre. If your opponent knows about your abilities, he can try to steal the energy from you to leave you as slow easy target - such dogfight tactics had also been used by the USA against MiGs in the past. And that very often, because most US aircraft had been powerful, but not very agile in comparison to their opponents - by forcing the opponent into manoeuvres, that require engine power to restore energy, they neutralized their agility a lot: Instead of an agile fighter, there was suddenly a slow lame turkey waiting to be shot.

What we can only guestimate is, how this is really for the F-22. The TVC allows it to reach similar performance specs as a Su-27 with light weapon load and no TVC - the Su-35 has slightly worse aerodynamics from what I have heard but adds a much better TVC than the F-22 has.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

What we can only guestimate is, how this is really for the F-22. The TVC allows it to reach similar performance specs as a Su-27 with light weapon load and no TVC - the Su-35 has slightly worse aerodynamics from what I have heard but adds a much better TVC than the F-22 has.

Sorry, may you restate what TVC is?

 

[Urwumpe]

Sorry, may you restate what TVC is?

Thrust-vector control.

It is the ability to deflect the exhaust nozzles of jet (and rocket) engines to control the direction of the thrust.

The F-22 can move each of its two nozzles up and down, resulting in two dimensions: Pitch and roll.

The Su-35 can also deflect its two nozzles to the side, allowing all three dimensions of TVC.