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

1910's WWI: • Which 1910's WWI Fight...
1940's WWII: • Which 1940's WWII Figh...
1940/50's: • Which 1940/50's Jet Fi...
1960's (Attempt 1 of 2): • Which 1960's Fighter C...
1970's (Attempt 1 of 2): • Which 1970's Fighter C...
1970's (Attempt 2 of 2): • IMPROVED & EXPANDED Wh...
1980's (Attempt 1 of 2): • Which 1980's Fighter C...
1980's (Attempt 2 of 2): • IMPROVED & EXPANDED Wh...
2000's: • Which 2000's+ Fighter ...
Of All Time: • Which Is The Fastest I...
GRIM REAPERS 2 (KZbin): / @grimreapers2
PATREON: / grimreapers
USEFUL LINKS
GRIM REAPERS (KZbin): / @grimreapers
GRIM REAPERS 2 (KZbin): / @grimreapers2
GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim...
DCS TUTORIALS: / @grimreapers
DCS BUYERS GUIDE: • DCS World Module Quick...
DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble....
PATREON monthly donations: / grimreapers
PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/...
SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
STREAM(Cap): / grimreaperscap
FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
TWITTER: / grimreapers_
DISCORD(DCS & IL-2): / discord (16+ age limit)
DISCORD(TFA Arma): discordapp.com... (16+ age limit)
OTHER
CAP'S X-56 HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.c...
CAP'S WINWING HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.c...
THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
#DCSQuestioned #GR #DCSWorld #GRDCSTesting #DCSTesting #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military

[@grimreapers]

1910's WWI: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYicoaxtq76Mmsk 1940's WWII: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4LCanpjl7qmjLs 1940/50's: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5PcpKd4ga6Mp6M 1960's (Attempt 1 of 2): kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHzGeWqOmK2IiJo 1970's (Attempt 1 of 2): kzbin.info/www/bejne/barcpWWqjJdqp6M 1970's (Attempt 2 of 2): kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXeYmal5jZeUlZY 1980's (Attempt 1 of 2): kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4vFlIureNeKhLc 1980's (Attempt 2 of 2): kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6mxm3d8mLl3pZY 2000's: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5LKaaKnhpWUh8U Of All Time: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmOcf2yKfpylmrM

[@neogenmatrix6162]

The 1980's video shows private.

[@petertyson4022]

The viggen was the only aircraft that locked on to a blackbird. Speed. 2,231 km/h. 1,386 mph. 1,205 kn. At 36.100ft. Max speed machine 2.1. One of my favourite saab aircraft. .. made an airfix kit when I was a kid. Beautiful designed aircraft. Good show. 👍😊

[@secularnevrosis]

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

[@davidcartee2]

I wish there was an F4 Phantom in this race.

[@92HazelMocha]

And a Mig25

[@pierrelahaie6359]

And a realist F-104.

[@adamgraf6616]

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

[@trig]

Electric Lightening would be interesting.

[@gertpacu3926]

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. 🤣

[@grimreapers]

GUYS: Lot's of people complaining that we missed out planes like Mig-25 and Lightning from the race. It is possible to get these planes in game but will take a lot more organisation so will go back and do a bigger race at some point. Also a lot of realism will be sacrificed by adding these planes.

[@No1sonuk]

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

[@Chio_OB]

The EE Lightning was my 1st thought!

[@Vadatajs666]

noooo where is this bitches

[@Vadatajs666]

if ya on cap ta wana del weit meee

[@wheel6243]

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

[@eddievhfan1984]

Note on the intake ramps/cones: aside from forcing the airflow down to subsonic speeds for the compressor, it will also cause a massive boost in static pressure into the engine if the sonic shockwave is captured just right, creating a performance boost for the engine.

[@flickingbollocks5542]

Mig 25 came in service 1970

[@Rover200Power]

The BAC Lightning is the real answer, just it is too cool for the game 😎

[@99IronDuke]

So true!

[@kaesees]

The F-14A currently gets bit by a trans-sonic drag problem, and as a result you can't really follow the profile in NATOPS (basically accelerate to mach 0.9, climb to 35k, accelerate to mach 1.4, climb to desired final altitude) as it takes forever to break the sound barrier at 35k feet even in a slick configuration. If memory serves, you get better results in-game getting through the sound barrier at something like 20k or 25k feet, climbing to 35k supersonic, and then drag racing there. The F-14B is relatively less affected and has no problems following the NATOPs profile for the -B/D, though the performance in this flight regime for the documented configurations doesn't quite match the charts (over in some parts, lower in others). The ACM performance is bang on wrt. the E-M charts in the 4x4 config, though.

[@slowhornet4802]

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).

[@alasdairwhyte6616]

the viggen was a fighter, the drakken was the interceptor - the viggen was designed to go mach 2 at altitude :) and what about the english electric lightning?

[@slowhornet4802]

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

[@alasdairwhyte6616]

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

[@swedish992]

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

[@secularnevrosis]

@@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.

[@steveashlearnerturner]

the actual answer is the English Electric Lightening Mr Cap. 😁

[@joshuaf14life]

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

[@flatcapfiddle]

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

[@TheNecromancer6666]

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

[@gogogagaoogabooga4245]

The ajs-37 Viggen has the similar speed performance as the ja-37 due to being just a refitted version of the Viggen platform.

[@marcushillerstrom25]

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.

[@MarkMeadows90]

I absolutely love the F14 though. IMO, one of the coolest fighter jets in the 70s and 80s.

[@meejinhuang]

The F15 set many climb records in the 1970s to prove its ability to intercept Soviet bombers quickly. The F14 is a close second but it had the Phoenix also.

[@ElmCreekSmith]

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

[@andreabindolini7452]

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...

[@trig]

No Electric Lightening in DCS then... worth an honerable mention just for its interseption of an SR71 from above and behind.

[@armyboy0579]

I'm actually impressed how the Viggen did since it's not intended for interceptor roles. My initial concern is especially with the Viggen is whether two heat sinking missiles is going to be enough to take down a bomber and if internal machine guns are going to be a factor, The Tomcat is surprisingly handicapping itself not specializing the equipment it was intended to use as a fleet defender. Either way, five crew chiefs are going to cry tonight with worn-out engines to repair.

[@Aenonar]

Viggen is actually quite accurately modeled. With that load option you can hit M1,9 at 11km altitude. M2.0 with a clean aircraft. These are the numbers from the aircraft official manual so the actual number might be even high in reality... According to real Viggen pilots the Viggen is actually under-performing slightly at the moment with the weapons creating too much drag needing more power to maintain speed. Funny thing is that the JA37 had an even better engine...

[@DerekFischer]

7:37 Only left engine was with AB on, Tomcat was clearly handicapped by the pilot.

[@uberschnilthegreat22]

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.

[@DerekFischer]

@@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.

[@masterhighground3677]

The Viggen's engine has 115kN of thrust under afterburner, compared to 70 for the MiG and Mirage and 111 per TF-30, but with much more drag and of course the long time to spool up to that. The Viggen's acceleration makes sense

[@Chase-Man]

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.

[@TheWeatherbuff]

Thanks Cap! I'm getting "The Machine" set up, and will be playing by the middle of next week, as a Newbie. Your videos have been incredibly helpful! Thank you, to you and The Team!

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

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 KZbin, 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

[@Tacx79]

​@@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

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

@@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

[@Tacx79]

@@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

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

@@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

[@TheNecromancer6666]

The Viggen was for a long time the most powerful Single engine Fighter. Only the Big Mouth F16 with the GE F-110 engine equalled its Power with the Block 30 and only the Block 60 onwards, with the F110-132 is actually significant more powerful. That's why Viggen is so incredibly fast (for its time)

[@ConcealedCarrier]

MiG-25 sitting back be like: Am I a joke to y'all.

[@HockeyFan1972]

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

[@alfiebaker5267]

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

[@Rover200Power]

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.

[@ElmCreekSmith]

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

[@HockeyFan1972]

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

[@morrielarsen]

Lets not forget that the F-15A first went into active service in 1976, so it too is a 1970s fighter...

[@terminalfx]

Likewise for the F-16, in 1978.

[@morrielarsen]

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

[@grimreapers]

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

[@morrielarsen]

@@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...

[@appa609]

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

[@Gozar111]

Totally epic seeing a South African Mirage F1!

[@martinlagrange8821]

Thrilled to see Aristide Woodley's F-1CZ skin in action - his new grey-diamond 'Le Spectre' finish is soon to come !

[@Hairysteed]

6:34 Tomcat afterburning with just one engine?!

[@solidkreate5007]

MACH 2.83 for the F-14A. It is stenciled inside the intake at the position markers for the intake ramps. I have personally seen it. I believe the A/C can only do that once before she is un-serviceable. - AD3, VF-32, USN, 94-98.

[@grimreapers]

I heard the canopy melts over M2.4?

[@appa609]

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.

[@CAL1MBO]

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

[@solidkreate5007]

@@CAL1MBO wasn’t talking about the A 😂

[@redssracer4153]

16:22 SuperCap: "...very good chance I'm wrong...so argue with me..." 😏 Don't worry Cap, people will, they most certainly will, and us "Most Valued Humanoids" will just lean back in our chairs, nod our heads, and smile...😁👍👍

[@Mouseend]

Fastest or not, best or not, yet the Viggen makes me so damn proud of being a Swede. Its soo damn good looking, and a really good fighter, especially for its time and considering that it was developed in a very small country.

[@s.millington1512]

You need to do this test with all 70's era jets intercepting at 36,600ft altitude. This altitude is where air temp/density are optimum for thrust/drag and has a name which escapes me. The Tomcat and Fishbed should have an bit of an advantage above that because of their variable geometry intakes giving them some ram effect and compressor stall control at speed. This used to be modelled in DCS very well.

[@appalachianamerican2075]

Putting the Tomcat in a bomber intercept scenario without the Phoenix it was designed for is like putting Usain Bolt in a 100m race, but wearing stilettos.

[@mickemike2148]

This gave me an idea! I'm gonna set up a race between the fastest jets at different altitudes with 5k ft altitude intervals to see which altitude is best for each of the modeled aircraft in DCS.

[@Goober_____]

Greatly modeled, one afterburner on

[@dct124]

Based on an interview with an F-14 pilot, they supposedly pushed the F-14 past Mach 2.8 but also damaged the jet.

[@paulallen8597]

When I worked at NASNI (naval Air Station North Island) in San Diego one of my favorite things to do was to watch the F-14 air wings take off at full AB at night. In my mind there is still nothing else like it.

[@ryanrundell8538]

I want to see one of these done with the Mig-31 and other comparable planes

[@silas4lagoon776]

Cap, can you do a video on wether or not the grim reapers can protect taffy 3 during the Battle of Samar? I feel that it would be a very appropriate subject you you since during the battle, the aircraft used a wild assortment of just about every weapon available except for rocks and kamikasis.

[@markstott6689]

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.

[@grimreapers]

OK

[@mfreed40k]

@@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.

[@peteruk8925]

Pity the English Electric Lightning wasn't used, surely it would keep up or overtake the jets shown 🤔??

[@SupaBuma]

"...and when that V-TECH kicks in yo.." [insert overmodulated Gas Kings music here] 😂

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

FYI, The F-15 Eagle is a 1970s Interceptor...

[@janissaryone1906]

My bet is on the British Electric Lightning. It was the only fighter capable of doing a rear intercept on the Concord as I recall. Even the more modern fighters couldn't do that.

[@jimgoff1170]

Would the carrier launch make much difference for the tomcat’s time to speed?

[@AmenMoto]

Good job Simba Wimba

[@Anita95_original]

Viggen is the only aircraft ever intercepted the SR71...

[@Mikeatthenet]

Why you didn’t drop your tank on one of the other guys 😂 You are running the AJS Viggen. One of the most underestimated planes from the 1970’s since it never went on export. In the 1980’s the new version JA37 Viggen was even faster. One of the few planes that could get a lock on SR71, and also helped an SR71 with engine issues on the Baltic run to get safe back by escorting it away from russian fighters.

[@mrbcc]

AJS is the strong Viggen for that mission, JA37 would have been even faster.

[@5Andysalive]

Wouldn't it be funny if someone takes out the competition with a dropped tank? I feel like there is an idea in there somewhere.

[@muff10000]

Hope you know Viggen Interceptor probably have the shortest length to get all weals in the air. ( a couple of meters. more specific, those sitting in carport like sheds without walls that's for emergency interception. they fly out of the shed after burning for a while on afterburner with brakes on ) When you grow upp next to a air force base in late 80's you gonna have high likelihood of witness thing's that isn't official.

[@robertomartin8731]

Why no MiG-25?

[@inf3243]

Poor Tiger pilot should've dropped his wing tanks first. Believe it feeds from them before draining the centre tank.

[@vrbnjakd]

14:45 The nose cone is for redirecting the shock-wave away from the inlet. Shock-wave hitting the compressor blades is baaaad. :) The shape of the intake is what slows down the speed of the air before hitting the compressor. Going from small section to bigger section is what slows the air speed.

[@joshuahudnell7401]

My initial guess would be the Viggan or the f-14

[@daniellee5192]

We need an English Electric Lightning model, what an interceptor!

[@martinpalmer6203]

Mig 25 is hands down the fastest cold war interceptor

[@timbaskett6299]

Violet is going to give Jester an "ejection seat divorce"!!! 😄

[@jacobchandler2083]

You act like simba being crazy is a new development

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@RogueWraith909]

I heard a rumour that Tornado was coming to DCS... Tornado F3 was an interceptor...

[@99IronDuke]

@Grim Reapers English Electric Lightning...

[@lukethibodaux790]

How did we miss the MiG 25 Foxbat in a race of 1970s interceptors, last I checked it was the fastest of the bunch hitting a peak of mach 3.2 although going that fast ruined the aircraft.

[@dusty1-183]

F5 finally dropping tanks when the races was over lmao.

[@runner1086]

I think the Viggen is just to fast to get up to speed in DCS, but fact is it could fly over mach 2 on afterburners. But the AJS stands A for Attack, and J for Fighter, S stand for Reconnaissance.

[@marcushillerstrom25]

Well, the J stand/stod for "Jakt" and that has always been used interchangeably by the Swedish Air Force for interceptor and fighter. The official number for it's top speed is Mach 2.1, but I've seen interviews with pilots claiming to have gone faster.

[@runner1086]

@@marcushillerstrom25 Jodå ! jag vet det. jag är Svensk :)

[@ilejovcevski79]

Hey Cap? The F-14A flight model is really bonkers above mach 0.80-0.85 or so, and it's been that way for almost a year now. Not even completely clean can it punch through mach 2.3. It just hits a wall there. BTW, a hint for a better dash profile, climb to angels 40, accelerate to mach 0.90-0.95, then go into a shallow dive to angels 36 and level off. This should give you best transonic acceleration.

[@waltertx.6020]

Goooo Violet 👍

[@charlietheunicorn5383]

I'm not sure but..... F102, F106 and F101s could be tossed into the match as well. If DCS even has these airframes; an Electric Lightning, SU-11, SU-15 might also be worth a whirl. But GR, we all really want to see an F4 and a F14 drag race!

[@Istandby666]

Tomcat....😁 Well shit, I was wrong....😂

[@douglasarthur2673]

Is the English Electric Lightening modelled ? It was 70’s and a Mach 2 interceptor.

[@Nathan-ng1jt]

English Electric Lightning easily....

[@dbtest117]

Are you sure the viggen is that over modelled. After all it did get a lock on the SR-71 irl. Not that I don’t think there were some migs doing the same, but that has never been acknowledged.

[@Eo_Tunun]

No F-4 and F-15? F4s were the backbones of several airforces in the seventies. And, as @Bjørnar said, the Lightning and F-104 are missing.

[@flickingbollocks5542]

1

[@Istandby666]

2 videos before noon here....😁

[@hoghogwild]

Having 4 under fuselage "AIM-54 launch rails" installed isn't helping anything. IIRC there's about 3000 pounds of weight there. The 2 AIM-9s on the glove stations are almost inconsequential.

[@paulh5027]

YF-12 1963, Mach 3. Production porotype. 3 were made, mod to SR-71B. Try again with just AJ-37 and YF-12. Mach 3.2 at 80,000 ft. should give the missile range.

[@Kevin-hb7yq]

I've enjoyed this content.

[@roytelling6540]

why don#t they have the English Electric Lightning in game?

[@wrongoloid4749]

You should have included the MIG 25

[@Goober_____]

The mig25 is a mod not a stock vehicle.

[@wrongoloid4749]

@@Goober_____ damn

[@Echowhiskeyone]

With those choices, I'd say F-14A. It was designed for bomber intercept. Edit After: Viggen is good, but IRL the Tomcat would edge it out.

[@JacobBite]

No Tornado?

[@glenproctor1999]

Shame no one's modelled the Lightning yet. Would need a tanker almost as soon as it took off but so fast. Race between Viggen, F-14 and Mig-25 would be good too?

[@ElmCreekSmith]

The F.6 version was not as short-ranged as the earlier EE Lightnings.

[@kieranviner9496]

Hi Cap! Question if I may, in DCS does spamming chaff/ flare make a difference compared to flaring in intervals? Hope you’re all doing very well!

[@idontwannaidontwanna7307]

Answer: BAE Lightning...by a country mile

[@bamafan-in-OZ]

I wish they would make the F20, that thing had so much potential

[@bamafan-in-OZ]

@Robert S yes there is a lot of new aircraft that are now following the F20's design philosophy given the skyrocketing cost of frontline fighters these days

[@CAL1MBO]

F-20 was garbage. F-16 was superior across the board.

[@paulybassman7311]

Shock Cone

[@twodaves9480]

Is the EE Lightning modelled in DCS?

[@mattschm5486]

As long as you have 2 sidewinder ready. How can you be 2nd in a race

[@daniellee5192]

Should have left out the F5 and added a B1!

[@timallison8560]

phantom?

[@penponds]

Surely the EE Lightning would be the quickest to high altitude…?

[@Micha-qv5uf]

missing the Tornado here :(

[@rubiconnn]

3:05 As someone who spends most of their DCS time in the F5, I am offended.

[@92HazelMocha]

What how? F4E hasn't been released yet?

[@rubiconnn]

@@92HazelMocha Oops, I meant to type F5 lol

[@grimreapers]

GREAT plane! But slow as hell.

[@The_ZeroLine]

Can you model for flying low in extreme weather conditions?

[@evanhighschoolairplaneslov4377]

Tomcat Fighter Aircraft have twin engines !the plane can reach to Mach 2.15 and the trust of F-14A can reach to 20900 Ibs , so for my opinion Tomcat will be the winner

[@micaharmstrong6407]

Yooo wasup reapers!

[@tadficuscactus]

My prediction: F-14a fastest at high altitude. Vigen fastest at low altitude.

[@gm_bwalsh3987]

Wouldn’t a Mig 25 Foxbat win this with ease?

[@melissasmith5109]

EE lightning hands down

[@gordonlumbert9861]

I was amazed that the F-5E was chosen for this. It was intended as a bargain fighter US allies who were poor.

[@adamlairsey6700]

What about the Foxbat??

[@allengreen6885]

where do you get your maps?

[@MTBScotland]

english electric lightning

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

F-15? introduced to squadron service in 1976.