Thank you. There are some different aspects of SAM guidance: 1. Detection. The most basic detection is provided with only voice commands or datalink, for the systems that do not have their own search radar. It is true for MANPADS, Strela-1/Stela-10 and AAA, including Shilka. Although Shilka has a theoretical option to use a fire control radar to search targets on its own, but without some previous knowledge of the jet's altitude and approach angles it is virtually useless. More advanced and/or long-range SAMs have dedicated search radar(s) in addition to a datalink. These are S-75, S-125, Krug, Kub, Buk, Osa, Tunguska, Tor, S-300. 2. Fire control, i.e. the means to lock on to the target (to determine its coordinates and speed relative to the air-defence system) and to calculate a fire solution in order to launch a surface-to-air missile or to fire artillery rounds. Some systems do not have a fire control system as such, like MANPADs (which are a passive guided missiles). Other systems do have a fire control radar and almost always they also have a secondary or back-up IR/optical systems. 3. Homing, i.e. the method by which the homing or self-guided missile is directed towards the target. Some short range air defence systems (especially Russian) do not have a guidance system but rely on command guidance instead. Systems that do rely on homing are MANPADs, Strela-1/10 and long range missile systems like S-75, S-125, Krug, Kub, Buk, S-300. All MANPADs use passive guidance (like "fox-2" in AAMs), all Russian (rather Soviet) long-range SAMs in the DCSW use semi-active guidance (like "fox-1"). 4. Radio command guidance. Used to guide the missile towards the target by providing it with flight control commands or flight path, so the missile itself is flying "blind". Used by shorter range SAM systems: Tunguska (missiles), Tor, Pantsir (missiles), and also as an initial stage guidance in some longer-range systems. This method makes it possible to reduce the missile cost, since the only "brain" is located in the launcher and the missile itself only has the the receiver to receive and execute the guidance commands on the flight controls. Command guided missiles are tracked together with the target by the ground based guidance system, which also calculate the intercept trajectory and either forms the flight control commands to be transmitted to the missile via radio or uses a radar beam (in which case the missile will calculate its own flight control commands in order to stay in the center of this beam) to guide the missile towards the target. On the other hand, command guidance does not allow pinpoint accuracy on longer distances. Returning to this video, as far as I understand, true optical guided missile system is Strela-1, which uses photo-contrast guidance system. Strela-10 uses dual, optical and IR homing, and Strela-2/3 & etc. MANPADs which use IR homing only. Tor, Tunguska etc. can use a secondary IR/optical channel for fire control, but they rather should be called command guided missiles. If I remember correctly, both Tunguska and Tor use radio channel to relay commands to missiles, and they are still rely on a fire control radar or a laser range finder for the range data. Technically, older IR still can be called "optical" -- I think -- but then there is no point to differentiate the guides on how to evade "IR" and "optical" guided missiles. Regarding homing method. IR homing missiles like MANPADs and older short range SAMs will not have a range-to-the-target and target speed vector data, so they will fly directly towards the target. They will not climb in order to optimize their range, and they will not try to predict the target's flight path in order to fly to where the target should be. On the other hand, command guided surface-to-air missiles may have different guidance methods. I think that Pantsir, Osa and Tunguska use "three points" guidance meaning the missile is guided directly towards the target (like IR homing), while Tor calculates optimized flight trajectory to guide the missile towards the target (like in the more advanced SAMs and AAMs). Regarding RWR. Tunguska has both search (the big rectangular one folded on the back of the turret) and fire control (the smaller round one at the front of the turret) radars to detect and track the target. It may use optical system together with its fire control radar for better ECM and SEAD immunity. Regarding the smoke. Tunguska and Pantsir use detachable motor missiles. The first stage has the solid fuel rocket motor which works for a short while and then detaches. The warhead and command guidance system are in the second stage which does not have any means of propulsion, only its kinetic energy. That is why unlike Tor, Pantsir and Tunguska are bad at intercepting targets which have significant radial speed (i.e. targets that are not flying directly towards or away from a launcher). They both use unoptimized three points guidance and detachable short burning motor. Sorry for the long post. Also, I did not research this thoroughly but mostly relied on what I remembered from some years ago, so it is not a reliable information. P.S. Some additional info, including Russian and NATO names and official induction to service year: S-75 (SA-2) - 1957 S-125 (SA-3) - 1961 ZSU-23-4 Shilka [sheelka - Shilka river] - 1962 Krug [kroog - circle] (SA-4) - 1965 Kub [koob - square] (SA-6) - 1967 Strela-2 [strela - arrow] (SA-7) - 1968 Strela-1 (SA-9) - 1968 Osa [osa - hornet] (SA-8) - 1971 Strela-3 (SA-14) - 1974 S-300P (SA-13) - 1975(?) Strela-10 (SA-10) - 1976 Buk [book - beech] (SA-11) - 1979 Tunguska [toongooska - Tunguska river] (SA-19) - 1982 Tor [tor - torus] (SA-15) - 1986 Pantsir S-1 [pantseer - shell] (SA-22) - 2012
The Tunguska is great guidance on a crap missile. I flew over an airbase once at less than 8,000ft defended by 6 Tunguskas. I had about 20 missiles fired at me, but my steady 2-3G rolling turn bled them all down and none connected. They rely on you not knowing they're out. But a little bit of maneuvering bleeds them down to the nub very quickly.
Depending on your terrain and your notching ability, you can circle high to drain the Missiles constantly changing your altitude. Place your eyes on the target and watch your target closely. When he fires, all you will see is a tiny puff of smoke. The guns can be handled at a low attitude
Fun fact #1: The Tunguska was designed to counteract hardened planes like the Warthog. Fun fact #2: The Tor fires straight up first before redirecting its missiles. This makes it much more dangerous to planes flying directly over it compared to other turret based systems that have to swing around to get an angle. They're also really nasty against helicopters.
The best way to beat any missile is to stay away from its effective range. It is fun to see what can be done in DCS and learning about the systems (thank you Igor Zaytsev), but I can't imagine that anyone would on purpose, bring his plane in this kind of danger. This back to using the right tool for the task at hand - which was not the scope of this video ;-)
I don't know about the Russian systems but the British used the blowpipe in the Falklands. Its an optically tracked wire guided manpad. The operator has to keep the crosshairs of the sight on the target and the missle homes on the target. Sort of a surface to air version of the tow.
These God damn things make me so paranoid I have mistaken a speck of dirt on my vr for a launch. Ironically I do remember jester tellng me "dirt at 11 o'clock." Before I ripped my wings off.
S6 on the RWR: the Tunguska system, including the launcher and associated vehicles has the GRAU code 2K22, the AFV itself is the 2S6, that's why the Tunguska is "S6" on the RWR. Why not simply a "19"? I have no idea, the "19" doesn't exactly collide with other threats.
@@ravagetalon Thanks man, I was *thinking* about the farmer, but given it's age I had assumed that it got deleted from the RWR databases already. Ah well, it's DCS after all and there's a Farmer flying around, so that makes sense again :D
Wikipedia claims the radio-command missile guidance is based on the search radar, so chaff and notching _might_ work. Maybe. Depending how DCS models it. You'd have to notch and chaff against the launcher, though, not the missile like normal. However it's also a reasonably modern, still-in-service system, so very possible the article is wrong, or at least not up-to-date.
I got a weird idea, since using night vision in modules like the a10c allows you to see the laser from another a10c lasing a ground target, wouldnt it work the other way around, if a ground laser sam or system lases you and if the night vision sensitivity is correct for day or night you should be able to see it... right?
This video really needed 60fps. It's not just the fact that it's single pixels and whatnot, it's also the time - we're seeing half the frames you are. Also doesn't help that YT seems to give better stream quality either due to inherently having higher information (ostensibly 2x the data) or because of other factors like less motion blur effect or smearing of frames. If you get the chance just record a 4-5 minute chunk of these missile launches and evasions, no theory, in 60fps - that Tunguska is invisible in this otherwise great video. My $0.02 after working with digital footage for a decades and watching many DCS feeds. Edit: also if you're going to reshoot, change that sun angle...or for an even spicier meatball, twilight...
Couldn't see anything, Cap! If they use radar from the vehicle to initially locate targets cannot a HARM be used? Best, Pete. (I have no experience against these things, thank God).
Yeah, you can throw HARMs their way easy enough - I am dreading the day ED progresses in the integrated air defense shit they have brewing up and improved AI with intermittent switching off radars and relocating TELARs / AFVs. Good times. :D
@@grimreapers Ha, ha! True dat Cap! You showed some nice curves in the Vid..... Best, Pete. (There may come a time when everyone has to carry a couple of HARM's - just in case....)
The way missiles are modded in this game has become ridiculous. Two turns at high speed and you did it. No need to further comment, been commenting about this BULLSHIT for the last 4 vids in a row now. If things were like in dcs i'd find stealth jets to be a useless waste of money.
My good young man. A free tip: always place Logic over Emotion. It will serve you well in the future work place. Now let's calm down and look at the logic: these missiles are actually radio controlled, driven by a human-operated joystick in the vehicle turret. If the target plane makes a sudden move, it is almost impossible for the human operator to move the joystick in time to adjust the missile back on course and close enough to the target plane at a intercept point to be within the proximity fuses'range. Ask a real Sa-19 operator, and he will tell you the same I bet.
@@grimreapers I've seen enough already at GS' first video with the Israeli F16 vs the Mirage when the Mirage outran an Amraam, designed to hit at 54 km in about 15 seconds, the same way you did. The Amraam was shot at 5mi distance (I think we already spoke of this video?). Remember, he didn't dodge it, he didn't fool it, he outran it. A missile that flies at Mach4. :-) From then on, all you showed was expected (and coincidental, you started showing how to beat SAMs right after he posted his vid about that 1vs1). This is not about emotions. The operator doesn't need to hit you, the shrapnel will hit you and it will hit an alluminum-based airplane full of fuel and weapons. That suffices with all missiles, whatever guidance system involved. I am using logics: it's called electronic warfare, it's called SEAD strikes, it's called STEALTH jets. You're showing brilliantly how DCS works and I'm telling you it doesn't work like that in reality, that's why there's pre-emptive SEAD/EW performed by stealth, cruise and drones before the actual bombing mission takes place. As opposed to what really happens you're showing how a single jet plays around with useless SAMs. It doesn't work like that, man. For instance, when you flew the F5 against a SAM you made it crash into the water. We're talking of a missile that costs tens of thousands of dollars. I remind you a simple barometer costs 10€ in Taiwan. Do you really think a SAM will lead the target into the water because it doesn't know you'll splash before it gets there? ;-)
@@GShock112 A good excited man, first of all, I appreciate your comments and thought about it, but yes, DCS only game in the end of the day But there are several things for sure 1. M2000 module and physics are broken, why? a) If you watch GR's optimum range of fighter aircraft, you can clearly see a gap in the data that he collected, yes, he also human so he can do some human error, but the error in the data are too big for the variable b) I also watched Arianne S. (Il-2 BoS player) he also play DCS M2000, and once, he tried to mask a missile behind a terrain, but he ended up getting killed as the missile ran through the mountain c) Robin T. also once dogfighted 2 M2000 using MiG-21 in Syrian Hero video, he also claimed, it was a hard fight since M2000 have a broken physics d) For me, M2000 module still in progress, in GS fight against F-16C, you can see the reflected image in the mirror wasn't M2000, in GR's video of effective fighter aircraft combat range, you can see the reflected image of F-15C instead of M2000 2. F-16A/MLU/C in DCS haven't modeled correctly, it actually happened to most AI aircraft including MiG-23, 25, 31, Su-30, 34, 17/22, F-15E, F-14A, etc... a) In Commander T. MiG-21 vs F-16C fight guns only video, an F-16 lost the fight because of broken physics and the AI ejected b) In MagZ video of his F-16s clothes merch, he use a clip of F-16C take-off, and you can clearly see the F-16C doesn't have a correct flight model c) In GS's F-14B vs F-16 mod, he also claim the mod didn't modeled the thing correctly 3. In GS M2000 vs F-16C, the Israelis just do a posture shot using AIM-120B, if you don't understand what is a posture shot, watch GR's videos about it 4. In GS's fight, clearly the AIM-120Bs and Cs fired at its maximum range, if you talk about the impossibility of outrun mach 4 missile, yes, you are correct as long as it was fired at its lethal range a) AIM-120B have shorter range than AIM-120C both in real life and in DCS, bacause AIM-120C have clipped fins for stealth aircraft purposes, therefore make them less drag Why did the USAF clipped the 120Cs fins? because they want them stored in internal bays of F-22 for stealth purposes b) In cold aspect, missile have less effective range than in hot aspect, if you wonder why, study physics first, study about vector, study about mommentum and impuls, then you can clearly see why c) The lethal range of AIM-120C in cold aspect with Mach 1.0 @20,000ft (there are contrails at the F-16C) predator aircraft and Mach 1.1 @3,000ft prey only 4.5 nm, thats about 8.1km, in GS's video, you can clearly see the F-16C fired it from 20km away and 12.5km away. If you don't understand, you can see GR's video about optimum missile range and offensive cranking maneuver, GS also said it wasn't lethal since he is 180 degrees away d) Missile that using rocket engines have limited burn time, see GS's video about R-27ER and AIM-7 graph, only 10 seconds burn time! e) On case you didn't know, aircraft can have more burn time with their engine(s) f) missiles are stupid, what make them lethal are the pilots and their operators in case of SAMs 5. You also mentioned about stealth aircraft, yes they are effective but what makes them effective are the mission planner, if the mission planner somehow ineffective, stealth aircraft also an aircraft that can be shoot down like F-117 in Kososvo war, USAF also confirming this, I get this information from Convert C. YT channel, he explained about stealth aircraft, ECM, ECCM 6. Talking about AI, AI skills in DCS are predictable, Fortinero in GR once fighting some AI, and he said that AI have a predictable movement, GS also said so, 104th Macerick also said the same thing, in his F-14B vs 2 enemy BFM series DCS is only a game, but it was simulated. Since the millitary official didn't want to give vital information, ED have to modify some but not all of the module Anyway, sorry for late re-post to you and to Grim Reapers, since I have to find a lot of informations and research before I can post this comment
@@grimreapers why do you say Tunguska is optical? It's radio command guided, detection being done chiefly via radar. It has an optical mode for heavy ECM environments.
Thank you.
There are some different aspects of SAM guidance:
1. Detection. The most basic detection is provided with only voice commands or datalink, for the systems that do not have their own search radar. It is true for MANPADS, Strela-1/Stela-10 and AAA, including Shilka. Although Shilka has a theoretical option to use a fire control radar to search targets on its own, but without some previous knowledge of the jet's altitude and approach angles it is virtually useless. More advanced and/or long-range SAMs have dedicated search radar(s) in addition to a datalink. These are S-75, S-125, Krug, Kub, Buk, Osa, Tunguska, Tor, S-300.
2. Fire control, i.e. the means to lock on to the target (to determine its coordinates and speed relative to the air-defence system) and to calculate a fire solution in order to launch a surface-to-air missile or to fire artillery rounds. Some systems do not have a fire control system as such, like MANPADs (which are a passive guided missiles). Other systems do have a fire control radar and almost always they also have a secondary or back-up IR/optical systems.
3. Homing, i.e. the method by which the homing or self-guided missile is directed towards the target. Some short range air defence systems (especially Russian) do not have a guidance system but rely on command guidance instead. Systems that do rely on homing are MANPADs, Strela-1/10 and long range missile systems like S-75, S-125, Krug, Kub, Buk, S-300. All MANPADs use passive guidance (like "fox-2" in AAMs), all Russian (rather Soviet) long-range SAMs in the DCSW use semi-active guidance (like "fox-1").
4. Radio command guidance. Used to guide the missile towards the target by providing it with flight control commands or flight path, so the missile itself is flying "blind". Used by shorter range SAM systems: Tunguska (missiles), Tor, Pantsir (missiles), and also as an initial stage guidance in some longer-range systems. This method makes it possible to reduce the missile cost, since the only "brain" is located in the launcher and the missile itself only has the the receiver to receive and execute the guidance commands on the flight controls. Command guided missiles are tracked together with the target by the ground based guidance system, which also calculate the intercept trajectory and either forms the flight control commands to be transmitted to the missile via radio or uses a radar beam (in which case the missile will calculate its own flight control commands in order to stay in the center of this beam) to guide the missile towards the target. On the other hand, command guidance does not allow pinpoint accuracy on longer distances.
Returning to this video, as far as I understand, true optical guided missile system is Strela-1, which uses photo-contrast guidance system. Strela-10 uses dual, optical and IR homing, and Strela-2/3 & etc. MANPADs which use IR homing only. Tor, Tunguska etc. can use a secondary IR/optical channel for fire control, but they rather should be called command guided missiles. If I remember correctly, both Tunguska and Tor use radio channel to relay commands to missiles, and they are still rely on a fire control radar or a laser range finder for the range data. Technically, older IR still can be called "optical" -- I think -- but then there is no point to differentiate the guides on how to evade "IR" and "optical" guided missiles.
Regarding homing method. IR homing missiles like MANPADs and older short range SAMs will not have a range-to-the-target and target speed vector data, so they will fly directly towards the target. They will not climb in order to optimize their range, and they will not try to predict the target's flight path in order to fly to where the target should be. On the other hand, command guided surface-to-air missiles may have different guidance methods. I think that Pantsir, Osa and Tunguska use "three points" guidance meaning the missile is guided directly towards the target (like IR homing), while Tor calculates optimized flight trajectory to guide the missile towards the target (like in the more advanced SAMs and AAMs).
Regarding RWR. Tunguska has both search (the big rectangular one folded on the back of the turret) and fire control (the smaller round one at the front of the turret) radars to detect and track the target. It may use optical system together with its fire control radar for better ECM and SEAD immunity.
Regarding the smoke. Tunguska and Pantsir use detachable motor missiles. The first stage has the solid fuel rocket motor which works for a short while and then detaches. The warhead and command guidance system are in the second stage which does not have any means of propulsion, only its kinetic energy. That is why unlike Tor, Pantsir and Tunguska are bad at intercepting targets which have significant radial speed (i.e. targets that are not flying directly towards or away from a launcher). They both use unoptimized three points guidance and detachable short burning motor.
Sorry for the long post. Also, I did not research this thoroughly but mostly relied on what I remembered from some years ago, so it is not a reliable information.
P.S. Some additional info, including Russian and NATO names and official induction to service year:
S-75 (SA-2) - 1957
S-125 (SA-3) - 1961
ZSU-23-4 Shilka [sheelka - Shilka river] - 1962
Krug [kroog - circle] (SA-4) - 1965
Kub [koob - square] (SA-6) - 1967
Strela-2 [strela - arrow] (SA-7) - 1968
Strela-1 (SA-9) - 1968
Osa [osa - hornet] (SA-8) - 1971
Strela-3 (SA-14) - 1974
S-300P (SA-13) - 1975(?)
Strela-10 (SA-10) - 1976
Buk [book - beech] (SA-11) - 1979
Tunguska [toongooska - Tunguska river] (SA-19) - 1982
Tor [tor - torus] (SA-15) - 1986
Pantsir S-1 [pantseer - shell] (SA-22) - 2012
Thanks Sir, great info.
Cap: “If it looks like I don’t know what I’m doing it’s because I don’t know what I’m doing.” - Engraved on Cap’s virtual gravestone lol.
So true...
The Tunguska is great guidance on a crap missile. I flew over an airbase once at less than 8,000ft defended by 6 Tunguskas. I had about 20 missiles fired at me, but my steady 2-3G rolling turn bled them all down and none connected. They rely on you not knowing they're out. But a little bit of maneuvering bleeds them down to the nub very quickly.
Depending on your terrain and your notching ability, you can circle high to drain the Missiles constantly changing your altitude. Place your eyes on the target and watch your target closely. When he fires, all you will see is a tiny puff of smoke. The guns can be handled at a low attitude
That missile zooming right over the canopy made me jump tbh lol. riveting job my dude!
Love when you say you're not a great pilot... the more videos I watch of you, the more respect I have. You Cap sir, are one heck of a pilot!
lol thx
Fun fact #1: The Tunguska was designed to counteract hardened planes like the Warthog.
Fun fact #2: The Tor fires straight up first before redirecting its missiles. This makes it much more dangerous to planes flying directly over it compared to other turret based systems that have to swing around to get an angle. They're also really nasty against helicopters.
thx
Absolutely loving this series about SAM systems.
LOTS to come.
The best way to beat any missile is to stay away from its effective range. It is fun to see what can be done in DCS and learning about the systems (thank you Igor Zaytsev), but I can't imagine that anyone would on purpose, bring his plane in this kind of danger. This back to using the right tool for the task at hand - which was not the scope of this video ;-)
I don't know about the Russian systems but the British used the blowpipe in the Falklands. Its an optically tracked wire guided manpad. The operator has to keep the crosshairs of the sight on the target and the missle homes on the target. Sort of a surface to air version of the tow.
15:51 man.. where ??? how do you see
Amazing flying Cap! Superb video
These God damn things make me so paranoid I have mistaken a speck of dirt on my vr for a launch. Ironically I do remember jester tellng me "dirt at 11 o'clock." Before I ripped my wings off.
impresive, well done!
5:55 the hornet EWR is much better because it is easier to understand in combat i Personaly think
S6 on the RWR: the Tunguska system, including the launcher and associated vehicles has the GRAU code 2K22, the AFV itself is the 2S6, that's why the Tunguska is "S6" on the RWR. Why not simply a "19"? I have no idea, the "19" doesn't exactly collide with other threats.
beyond me Sir
"19" on western RWR is for the MiG-19P.
@@ravagetalon Thanks man, I was *thinking* about the farmer, but given it's age I had assumed that it got deleted from the RWR databases already. Ah well, it's DCS after all and there's a Farmer flying around, so that makes sense again :D
Seems like dodging this sam is like avoiding burst missles in the scinfaxi with a slow climbing aircraft.
You are a south paw?! Nice!
Lefty's unite!
the SA-19 uses radio-controlled Missiles. the only way is to dodge them, chaffs and flares won't work.
Wikipedia claims the radio-command missile guidance is based on the search radar, so chaff and notching _might_ work. Maybe. Depending how DCS models it. You'd have to notch and chaff against the launcher, though, not the missile like normal.
However it's also a reasonably modern, still-in-service system, so very possible the article is wrong, or at least not up-to-date.
I got a weird idea, since using night vision in modules like the a10c allows you to see the laser from another a10c lasing a ground target, wouldnt it work the other way around, if a ground laser sam or system lases you and if the night vision sensitivity is correct for day or night you should be able to see it... right?
wi'll try
So if they are optical guided then clouds should stop it from firing right?
actually that is completely true yes. bloody good way of beating them.
Yeah they have to have Los
@@grimreapers so, I should bring some cheap MiGs (19 & 21) to drop a lot of smoke, then another aircraft, SEAD mission, can mask on the smoke ?
This video really needed 60fps. It's not just the fact that it's single pixels and whatnot, it's also the time - we're seeing half the frames you are. Also doesn't help that YT seems to give better stream quality either due to inherently having higher information (ostensibly 2x the data) or because of other factors like less motion blur effect or smearing of frames.
If you get the chance just record a 4-5 minute chunk of these missile launches and evasions, no theory, in 60fps - that Tunguska is invisible in this otherwise great video. My $0.02 after working with digital footage for a decades and watching many DCS feeds.
Edit: also if you're going to reshoot, change that sun angle...or for an even spicier meatball, twilight...
Ya good point
Fun fact
Tunguska are never alone there in a 4 squad with some other aa Tanks
I have a challange 4 tunguska Skill level best of the best
And 2 manpads
6:23 can't you tell with the sa page?
Good point. Haven't tried, but should work with AWACS on datalink?
Will the SA page on the F18 show the location?
hmmm.... possibly with a datalinked AWACS??
@@grimreapers It will with Datalink.
Couldn't see anything, Cap! If they use radar from the vehicle to initially locate targets cannot a HARM be used? Best, Pete. (I have no experience against these things, thank God).
Yeah, you can throw HARMs their way easy enough - I am dreading the day ED progresses in the integrated air defense shit they have brewing up and improved AI with intermittent switching off radars and relocating TELARs / AFVs. Good times. :D
Roger Pete think so, but not quite as sexy.
@@grimreapers Ha, ha! True dat Cap! You showed some nice curves in the Vid..... Best, Pete. (There may come a time when everyone has to carry a couple of HARM's - just in case....)
You're going to hate the RWR in the F-16.
oh God
@@grimreapers It's threat based. The guy who fires a radar guided missile at you might be five miles away or he might be fifty miles away. Who knows?
Never saw a single launch.
it's only 2-3 pixels so it won;t come out in the mp4.
the very last one is clearly visible. you can see the red dot as the missile takes off
@@Proximax9 I was squinting my ass off and couldn't see it.
A scary thing
If russian bias is in their side, no sam can be dodged
The way missiles are modded in this game has become ridiculous. Two turns at high speed and you did it.
No need to further comment, been commenting about this BULLSHIT for the last 4 vids in a row now.
If things were like in dcs i'd find stealth jets to be a useless waste of money.
My good young man. A free tip: always place Logic over Emotion. It will serve you well in the future work place. Now let's calm down and look at the logic: these missiles are actually radio controlled, driven by a human-operated joystick in the vehicle turret. If the target plane makes a sudden move, it is almost impossible for the human operator to move the joystick in time to adjust the missile back on course and close enough to the target plane at a intercept point to be within the proximity fuses'range. Ask a real Sa-19 operator, and he will tell you the same I bet.
@@grimreapers I've seen enough already at GS' first video with the Israeli F16 vs the Mirage when the Mirage outran an Amraam, designed to hit at 54 km in about 15 seconds, the same way you did. The Amraam was shot at 5mi distance (I think we already spoke of this video?).
Remember, he didn't dodge it, he didn't fool it, he outran it. A missile that flies at Mach4. :-)
From then on, all you showed was expected (and coincidental, you started showing how to beat SAMs right after he posted his vid about that 1vs1). This is not about emotions. The operator doesn't need to hit you, the shrapnel will hit you and it will hit an alluminum-based airplane full of fuel and weapons. That suffices with all missiles, whatever guidance system involved.
I am using logics: it's called electronic warfare, it's called SEAD strikes, it's called STEALTH jets. You're showing brilliantly how DCS works and I'm telling you it doesn't work like that in reality, that's why there's pre-emptive SEAD/EW performed by stealth, cruise and drones before the actual bombing mission takes place.
As opposed to what really happens you're showing how a single jet plays around with useless SAMs. It doesn't work like that, man.
For instance, when you flew the F5 against a SAM you made it crash into the water. We're talking of a missile that costs tens of thousands of dollars. I remind you a simple barometer costs 10€ in Taiwan. Do you really think a SAM will lead the target into the water because it doesn't know you'll splash before it gets there? ;-)
@@GShock112 A good excited man, first of all, I appreciate your comments and thought about it, but yes, DCS only game in the end of the day
But there are several things for sure
1. M2000 module and physics are broken, why?
a) If you watch GR's optimum range of fighter aircraft, you can clearly see a gap in the data that he collected, yes, he also human so he can do some human error, but the error in the data are too big for the variable
b) I also watched Arianne S. (Il-2 BoS player) he also play DCS M2000, and once, he tried to mask a missile behind a terrain, but he ended up getting killed as the missile ran through the mountain
c) Robin T. also once dogfighted 2 M2000 using MiG-21 in Syrian Hero video, he also claimed, it was a hard fight since M2000 have a broken physics
d) For me, M2000 module still in progress, in GS fight against F-16C, you can see the reflected image in the mirror wasn't M2000, in GR's video of effective fighter aircraft combat range, you can see the reflected image of F-15C instead of M2000
2. F-16A/MLU/C in DCS haven't modeled correctly, it actually happened to most AI aircraft including MiG-23, 25, 31, Su-30, 34, 17/22, F-15E, F-14A, etc...
a) In Commander T. MiG-21 vs F-16C fight guns only video, an F-16 lost the fight because of broken physics and the AI ejected
b) In MagZ video of his F-16s clothes merch, he use a clip of F-16C take-off, and you can clearly see the F-16C doesn't have a correct flight model
c) In GS's F-14B vs F-16 mod, he also claim the mod didn't modeled the thing correctly
3. In GS M2000 vs F-16C, the Israelis just do a posture shot using AIM-120B, if you don't understand what is a posture shot, watch GR's videos about it
4. In GS's fight, clearly the AIM-120Bs and Cs fired at its maximum range, if you talk about the impossibility of outrun mach 4 missile, yes, you are correct as long as it was fired at its lethal range
a) AIM-120B have shorter range than AIM-120C both in real life and in DCS, bacause AIM-120C have clipped fins for stealth aircraft purposes, therefore make them less drag
Why did the USAF clipped the 120Cs fins? because they want them stored in internal bays of F-22 for stealth purposes
b) In cold aspect, missile have less effective range than in hot aspect, if you wonder why, study physics first, study about vector, study about mommentum and impuls, then you can clearly see why
c) The lethal range of AIM-120C in cold aspect with Mach 1.0 @20,000ft (there are contrails at the F-16C) predator aircraft and Mach 1.1 @3,000ft prey only 4.5 nm, thats about 8.1km, in GS's video, you can clearly see the F-16C fired it from 20km away and 12.5km away.
If you don't understand, you can see GR's video about optimum missile range and offensive cranking maneuver, GS also said it wasn't lethal since he is 180 degrees away
d) Missile that using rocket engines have limited burn time, see GS's video about R-27ER and AIM-7 graph, only 10 seconds burn time!
e) On case you didn't know, aircraft can have more burn time with their engine(s)
f) missiles are stupid, what make them lethal are the pilots and their operators in case of SAMs
5. You also mentioned about stealth aircraft, yes they are effective but what makes them effective are the mission planner, if the mission planner somehow ineffective, stealth aircraft also an aircraft that can be shoot down like F-117 in Kososvo war, USAF also confirming this, I get this information from Convert C. YT channel, he explained about stealth aircraft, ECM, ECCM
6. Talking about AI, AI skills in DCS are predictable, Fortinero in GR once fighting some AI, and he said that AI have a predictable movement, GS also said so, 104th Macerick also said the same thing, in his F-14B vs 2 enemy BFM series
DCS is only a game, but it was simulated.
Since the millitary official didn't want to give vital information, ED have to modify some but not all of the module
Anyway, sorry for late re-post to you and to Grim Reapers, since I have to find a lot of informations and research before I can post this comment
@@grimreapers why do you say Tunguska is optical? It's radio command guided, detection being done chiefly via radar. It has an optical mode for heavy ECM environments.