Which 1970's Fighter Could Perform The Quickest Bomber Intercept? | DCS 

The 1980's video shows private.

And a Mig25

And a realist F-104.

If they redo it in like a month or 2 there will be

Electric Lightening would be interesting.

He needs to not say "Valued Viewers". For the longest time I was wondering why he was saying "Valley Viewers" until I finally asked and it was clarified. 🤣

I think the one in the game is the AJS37 or AJ37. The JA37 is the fastest of them. I belive it's even Mach 2.2

The Lightning would be very interesting if someone made a mod for it.

EE Lightning top speed was M2.2, but very limited range.

There is an official mod in the making for the F104 coming that hasn't been announced yet. My buddy works for the company who is making it and there's no secret with them, they just haven't announced yet.

@@deekamikaze ​ @deekamikaze F-104 Starfighter module for DCS.... it would lose in dogfights against anything. It would be shot out of sky in BVR by anything. It would need half of the map to turn. Fly a little bit out of her parameters and she will stall/spin/crash. Actually, she would probably not spin but violently pitch up and twist her airframe, but that's another story. Payload? What payload? Even the CEII has a higher payload. So what kind of mission would you do with an F-104 in DCS?!? I don't know but I would hit the purchase button Lightning fast the second it would appear.

@@slowhornet4802 What kind of mission for the F-104... Intercepting incoming Tu-16, Tu-22, and Yak-28 bombers I guess. Also, while it was never operational in this configuration, there was an option to use the Genie AA missile. Though that might make the simulation less interesting.

The EE Lightning top speed was M2.2, but very limited range.

The EE Lightning was my 1st thought!

noooo where is this bitches

if ya on cap ta wana del weit meee

the Lightning, Phantom, and F-104 would be 60's era race anyway.

Maybe one day in DCS we can have a English Electric Lightning

Id love to see an EE Lightning pitted against a MiG 25 Foxbat in a similar test.

In the west yes. It looked really dumb bit was a bloody powerful aircraft

Interesting.

A lot of the 50's/60's stuff is faster in a straight line race than modern stuff. They were built to go fast back then but a lot of modern weapon/range/stealth improvements have come at the cost of speed.

The EE Lightning reached Mach 2 about 3 mile after take-off. That was usually also the point when she reached bingo fuel level.

Royal Air Force operated the Lightning from 1959 to 1988. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#Operational_history

Wrong, AJS 37 viggen was an upgrade of the aj37 desigend as an attacker with limited fighter capability (self defence) when aj37 was introduced the primary fighter role was j35 drakens task, not until mid 1980s when the ja37 viggen was introduced the viggen got the primary roll of that, vastly different performance in engine and radar capability. Ajs37 was introduced i 1990s when aj37 was the primary fighter

@@swedish992 The whole aircraft is also a bit longer and have other modifications to the airframe. The say that the AJ version accelerated faster as it was lighter, the recce version even more so. The JA had a reworked engine that preformed better with AB and had fixed the compressor stall problems. It was capable of M2.2 at altitude.

So true!

Different engine, the ajs had the RM8A and the ja had the RM8B. The B version had 10kN more thrust with afterburner compared to the A model of the engine, and 7kN more without afterburner.

That's actually one of the F-15s roles. By the time the F-15 came out the technology had become good enough that dedicated interceptors weren't really needed. For that matter look at the F-4.

It could have been a fuel-saving method since those TF-30s are greedy, greedy fuel suckers when you run them on full AB, it can run from full to dry in 7 minutes on continuous full AB, not counting external drop tanks.

@@uberschnilthegreat22 True, you're absolutely right, those engines don't play around when it's time to consume fuel, but I don't think that was the case, I believe the pilot forgot, he turned it on later.

I'd like to see the F-20 in the mix, just for curiosity, with the range 150 miles.

Actually, F-15 main mission wasn't to intercept Soviet bombers, but instead to gain and mantain air superiority against Soviet fighters over the Central Europe (a scenario in which the Phoenix missiles would have been pretty useless). The primary USAF interceptor was initially the F-106 Delta Dart; only later the F-15 took over the role. Anyway, F-14A is nowhere near the F-15 climb performances...

I think a couple of aircraft had to climb, than unload and literally dive through the transonic speed range. I think the F-104G was one of them (if loaded with weapons).

Likewise for the F-16, in 1978.

@@terminalfx yeah it certainly would have been one of these two in they were included

Agree but we have F-15C so I figured best put it in the 1980's.

@@grimreapers The C model Eagle first flew in 1979, still in the 70s. Think you're going to have to redo this one super cap...please 😁 I'm sure it would win, I don't even play DCS, I just enjoy watching you guys do it...

F-15A with the Vmax switch is faster than the C anyways

Except that the F-111 was a bomber, not an interceptor. There was an F-111B variant that was proposed to be designed as an interceptor for the US Navy, but it was never adopted. Instead, the F-111B was shelved and the design features the Navy liked were incorporated into the F-14 Tomcat.

Cap please do this mission. If you need more info read James Hornfischer's Last of the Tin Can Sailors. It's a brilliant book about the Battle off Samar, a part of the Battle of Leyte Gulf where Bull Halsey screwed up but got away with it. The pilots of Taffy 3 (Escort carriers with a few DD's and DE's) fought off a Japanese battle group that included the IJN Yamato, multiple heavy and light cruisers and numerous DD's. It's a story of great heroism on the part of the USN.

OK

@@grimreapers you owe it to yourself to look up specifically the USS Johnston with Taffy 3. It's amazing it could float with her captain and crew's giant steel balls.

Stand by for the steepest learning curve you have ever participated in. Even with all the videos from GR and the dozen or so on RU-vid, it's incredibly hard to master. Just getting the editor under your fingertips is a triumph, and you always discover something new. And if I could give a word of advice from someone who has only had DCS for about 4 months now: Do not download a new module until you have the aircraft you have mastered. Start with the Frogfoot that's included in the download. It's not a high fidelity cockpit, but it's still a great plane to learn. Once you get that under your belt, then move on. And invest in decent controllers. You will need pedals, throttle and stick. I got the Thrustmaster set of all three for about $200. Not bad, but the weakest link is the foot pedals. They are the slider type, not the push type. And finally, the most important piece of gear is the Track IR head tracking camera. I began without it, just using the keyboard and the stick hats to look around. That will not get you far. Once you go to head tracking, there's no going back. It's just game changer, pun intended. And finally, there's several levels of tutorials. Wags (Wagner) is the most in depth, college level instruction and can be overwhelming. I suggest one like GR or Growling Sidewinder for down and dirty get into a cockpit and start blowing shit up straight away. Then go watch Wags for the finer details and scope. Don't get frustrated and rage quit, like I have several times. You will think you are all set up and squeeze the trigger and nothing happens. Turns out you forgot to flip a switch or adjust a setting or whatever. But the first time a missile leaves the rail and your target blows to hell, it's a great feeling

​@@valuedhumanoid6574 it's not that steep, 3 days ago I got "back" to playing dcs (year ago I started by flying mostly f-22 mod for a few days on someone's other pc (also a bit of su57, mig 21 and flankers)), now I'm learning/flying frogfoot and su-34 mod with xbox one controller and some primitive head tracking and I have no issues with not enough buttons, on f-22 I can dogfight, use radar etc with only xbox controller and few keys on keyboard, it's not super precise but if you already have any console controller you don't have to buy entire hotas to start having fun if you set up buttons correctly (air refueling is a big no without proper stick) I think the learning curve depends on how you approach to the new plane, it feels fairly easy if you learn by "what I need to make X thing" or "today I'm only pounding ground targets and I will use only x and y weapons to learn them" and then slowly working your way up, on the other side I can see DCS overwhelming if you want to learn, remember every single thing and become pro in one go, it's just not possible and process will be stressful As a primitive head tracking I use "FaceTrackNoIR", it's not as good as separate equipment but it's doing its job and all you need to have is any webcam (even phone camera would work), this + controller you already have is possibly the cheapest not involving option to start playing and enjoying dcs, if you won't like it, you won't regret spending tons of money on equipment About buying modules (I can't mention @Montgomery Burns here for some reason): You have 50% off for the first purchase, you can buy whatever you want but Flaming Cliffs 3 has few nice planes in pack and allows you to use majority of mods (like f-22/35, sukhois etc) and if you buy it first you save 25$ (instead of 3-4$ when buying other modules) so I think that's a good deal for new players if they decide to stay in the game

@@Tacx79 Dude, you must be super human. To make a scenario that you can just fly in, set up a few enemies to shoot at, yeah, pretty standard stuff and not too hard. But to make a complex scenario with triggers and all the scripting, that is not easy. It becomes easy once you understand it and have some keyboard time under your belt, but, like I said, steep. And coming back to something is not the same as opening it for the first time. Not even close. And the reason I suggested mastering one aircraft at a time is that unlike a flight sim like MSFS where all the keyboard commands and controller bindings apply to all aircraft all the time, it changes dramatically from one plane to the next in DCS. I have a button bound for dropping flares in my Frogfoot, but the same button is for force trim in my Apache. Keeping them straight in your head when you change from one to another is not easy. And even from one helo to another is different. Maybe you have the computing power upstairs to keep all that stuff straight, but I don't. So that's why I recommended one at a time. But if he's comfortable getting the FC bundle, more power to him. I am just relating the struggles I had as a noob

@@valuedhumanoid6574 right, I forgot about scenarios, "Through The Inferno" have some nice dynamic missions and campaigns where you choose your plane and enter something similar to cold war servers, it works both on single and multiplayer. Stuff around you is happening randomly and you need to plan your actions and react, especially when you're flying above target in frogfoot and there's bunch of f-14s seeing you on radar. I would say it's a nice way to learn how to play before entering public servers

@@Tacx79 Totally agree. Using someone else's missions is one thing, making a mission that is fun, interesting, has random elements to keep it fresh, is not too hard but still presents a challenge is a delicate task. Many missions are just too difficult. It's like the mission creator wants to see how fast he can swat you out of the sky. I just get set up to make my attack run and get blotted out of the sky by some AAA that was set to late activation and I tripped the trigger to make it spawn. How's that fair? I don't mind challenging, but hell, give me a chance! If I want to go down in flames continuously I will go try to meet women at the club

The 101 has a bigger diameter and is a higher bypass engine therefore not faster and will not fit the f14.

I heard the canopy melts over M2.4?

Just because the speedo goes up to 200 doesn't mean your car will do it... they designed the intake ramp with a bit of margin because that doesn't cost much.

This is error due to uncalibrated airspeeds, F-14A was not capable of Mach 2.8 🤣

@@CAL1MBO wasn’t talking about the A 😂

TF-30 is ~78kN per engine static sea level, GE-F110 for the B is ~125kN. TF-30s had the same thrust output static sea level as the J79 engines on the F-4J (TF-30 obviously had the top end performance though). But the phantoms weighed ~4,000kgs less than the Tomcats. Would love to see the F-4E in this test as it would out accelerate everything except maybe the AJS Viggen or the Mig 21Bis on emergency afterburner.

I just tried a similarly loaded F-15. Reached M2.5 at 38000 ft

@@No1sonuk 👍👍

F-15 would probably smash this lot.

@@grimreapers Was there a reason you didn't try it?

@@grimreapers 😁👍👍

MiG 31 as well but you beat me to the MiG25 first introduced in 1970.

its a mod for the game its not actually part of the core game

Yes, because it would have to be controlled from the ground according to Soviet doctrine. It took them ages and two different intercepts to find that Korean 747 they shot down, and that wasn't even trying to evade detection.

It would still be sitting on the tarmac waiting for the tubes in the electronics to heat up.

@@Rover200Power But they shot that KAL 747 down with an SU-15

F-105 wasn't even designed as an interceptor. It's a bomb truck strapped to a rocket.

No, it's not.

It's not currently in DCS.

Thanks!

Not in game.

F15A-D motto ‘not a pound for air to ground!’ Only the F15E is multi role 😊