Bimbac

+1 Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

Definitely! +1

That's something different than what I had in mind. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

I'd like to add one thing to this wish. Snap views and head movements could be done by smooth transition of the view angle, not by sudden jump - this could improve spatial as well as situational awareness, especially when not using TrackIr or similar device. Also, a key to temporarily reset the view to center would be great - releasing the key would return the view to the previous angle/mode. This would be very useful while using the padlock. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

I can confirm this. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

Guys, let's calm down a bit. Arguing about behavior of a simulated missile in the simulator is entirely pointless. If anyone would ever make a simulator which would take into account a realistic atmospheric model along with detailed physics simulation and a realistic simulation of the electronic environment, only then we could get the results which could be considered relevant. I believe ED would like to do it all but there are hurdles to overcome, like security clearances, time, and money. If any of you is willing to pay $1'000 for a software like that, then we're talking! ;) Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

Welcome to the real world! ;) The very first assumption many people suffer from is that when you introduce a new weapon of any kind, the adversary always comes up with the exact match. You can't be more wrong than that. It's about similar results, but different approach, doctrine, and tactics. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

It has, otherwise it wouldn't hit anything. Chizh said there is no variable PN coefficient in R-27 guidance logic. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

That's correct. But they would focus on seeker performance and guidance logic, not kinematics. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

Information verified and acknowledged. ;)

No, what I meant was that there is limited space on the airframe and some distance between the various systems' antennae is desirable to ensure correct functioning, not mentioning the space for the multiple systems under the surface or the excess weight. The required wavelength dictates the size of the antenna - it can't be random, or "made to fit," and the position is critical too - to allow the proper function. Your conclusions are correct, more or less.

The reason is quite simple. The airframe is relatively small, and RWR is not the only system which needs antennae to function :) Besides, the interferometers need to scan quite a broad spectrum at the expense of accuracy. You should see the RWR as an aid to point your radar or other sensors in the right direction so you could acquire the target and as an Early warning device. There are ways to use the Electronic Warfare suite in more advanced forms, but since it's classified, I can't say anything more. Sorry.

It's not that simple. Only the most modern and advanced EW systems can detect the M-links. As I have written before, there is no way to tell for the RWR the missile is underway, so everytime you get locked in STT, you could be fired upon. That's the reason why the STT lock is considered a hostile act/intent in general ROE. I cannot answer the rest of your question. It's not about the strength, signal modulation, and PRF would be more relevant. It can. The rest has been answered above. No, MAWS works differently. It's based on the detection of the IR/UV rocket motor characteristics, unique to the missile - it cannot recognize the difference between enemy and friendly missiles, so in intense close combat, there would be many false alarms - comms discipline with the appropriate Fox calls could reduce the problem at the expense of the increased pilot's workout.

That's right, the datalink is not a requirement (as a matter of fact, for any missile) but it allows the missile to be launched at longer ranges and also increases the hit probability because the seeker has to be on in terminal phase only. The prime example is the R-27ER (AA-10C). If no datalink is used/available, the missile still homes in on the reflected radar signal - then there is no difference in radar operation. On the other hand, if you get locked in STT by enemy radar, you always have to assume the missile launch is imminent or in progress.

Usually, there is only a 1-way datalink, only the most modern (and most expensive) missiles have 2-way datalinks. In the former case the aircraft only computes the time when the ARH seeker goes active. In the latter case, the missile can send the information it has acquired a target.

There is no difference. The only thing different is the radar generating a datalink channel for the missile. As long as the target can be tracked. In general, the radar is just one of the sensors. The computers aboard the aircraft are the "brain". For the rest of your question, that is correct, more or less. Yes it is, but not in DCS :smilewink:

No need for extra buttons. We already have brakes ;) Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

It is, but the accuracy is considerably worse compared to radar or laser ranging. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

Are you sure? A short excerpt from AV-8B Tactical Manual: I know it refers to a different aircraft but the principle is the same.

I think the A-G accuracy with unguided munitions, including the gun, is going to improve a great deal when the Air-to-Ground Ranging (AGR) radar mode is introduced. Right now the WCS is relying on the aircraft attitude with radar altitude to calculate slant range which is highly inaccurate in nature. Let's wait and see ;)

You have to switch from STBY to INS (bottom left button). Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

It's a little bit more complicated, because you have to consider the target's composition, shape, materiel and any moving surfaces. A propeller driven plane or a helicopter would be visible even when stationary. Modern radars also have variable Doppler filter threshold so you can change the setting in real time, basically removing the notch, making any reflective contact visible, along with many false returns, of course. The contacts are always visible, they may be just filtered out. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

Well, not entirely true - that would apply to the older radars with no look-down, shoot- down capability. Modern radars are not so easy to get fooled by notching - and I'm talking about 1980s technology. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

You are correct with your first question - the beam maneuver means they flew westwards perpendicular to the F-15's radar beam. That, of course, doesn't mean maintaining a precise 90° angle, but anything between 80° - 100°. It looks to me like those MiGs were under GCI control, so their pilots knew the distance from the F-15s, meaning they kept themselves outside the Sparrow Weapon Engagement Zone. Most probably, the F-15s could see them, but the contacts were intermittent, therefore unreliable - and out of Sparrow's range. Probad's picture gives a perfect explanation. :thumbup:

It depends on the wavelength, too. But if the fog is dense, even thermal imaging cannot see through. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk