near_blind

Which is why you have the pulse modes and Sparrows, at least according to the original design documents. I'll save the long answer and say while it wasn't their primary design consideration, the Pulse Doppler AWG-9 modes and AIM-54 can absolutely deal with fighters, and it's a testament to the engineers at Hughes that a radar set from the 60s is as capable as it is given the technology underpinning those modes. I can confirm that you can successfully override the launch timer with the next launch button with minimal strangeness.

Remember the AWG-9 In general, and TWS in specific were designed to counter mass numbers of bombers and cruise missiles, killing as many as possible as quickly as possible before they can get past the aircraft. The simple answer is the system is intentionally designed to prevent what you're trying to do so that in the confusion of a massed missile attack, precious Phoenixes don't get wasted on the same target. If you wanna doubletap, go STT.

You wouldn't happen to have the ACM guard raised by any chance?

Generally speaking, there were about 11 grey Tomcats for every colorful one :music_whistling:

Is there any update on the radar's trouble rectifying lost tracks with located contacts? Is this intended behavior?

In your picture the aircraft's water line actually is resting on the horizon line, but the representation of the aircraft's attitude has been artificially lowered in the HUD by five degrees to make it more readable by the pilot. This was a deliberate design choice by Grumman due to side effects of the HUD being projected directly onto the windscreen. The aircraft's true waterline, that is where the nose is actually pointing, is about where the heading carrot is. This seems more extreme because in cruise and A/A mode, the representation of attitude is compressed so it shows every 30 degrees of attitude instead of every 5 degrees like in landing, take off, and A/G. Generally speaking this is a very early HUD, and is meant as a tool for weapons employment. It's not really intended to be precision navigation instrument like some later examples.

A thing to keep in mind is the F-14 was designed decades before NVGs became a truly common fixture in aircraft cockpits, and is not optimized for them. Try turning down the brightness to make it clearer. I personally find it's also easier to read the HUD in NVGs with the red night filter disengaged.

And finally missiles fired by a Hornet. AIM-7 Close Miss 7.trk AIM-7 Close Miss 8.trk

Attached to this posts are tracks showing the behavior in missiles fired by an F-15C. AIM-7 Close Miss 5.trk AIM-7 Close Miss 6.trk

With the release of OB 2.5.6.50321, I have observed an issue where Sparrows are not aggressively maneuvering to intercept targets during the last phase of flight. The missiles appear to have the necessary energy to intercept, and have not been decoyed by CM notched, or otherwise had the target obscured, but do not appear to be fully utilizing their available energy to pull more than 10Gs. This is manifesting in a series of close misses with missile falling outside of the target's turn circle. The only successful hits I have seen in this patch have been when the missile has not been required to exceed 4Gs to intercept. I have noticed this behavior in The F-14B, the F/A-18C and the F-15C. Attached to this post are tracks showing the behavior in missiles launched from an F-14B AIM-7 Close Miss 1.trk AIM-7 Close Miss 2.trk AIM-7 Close Miss 3.trk

You can crank the elevation down in pulse search and get what is effectively real beam mapping like what you see in the Viggen, or what just got added to the F/A-18. You can even use this to update your navigation fix. The system doesn't have any functionality for surface targeting though, it simply wasn't a design consideration for the radar's purpose or the fighter's role. The only dedicated air to ground mode is Air to Ground Ranging, which provides slant range for computing weapons delivery.

The AIM-7M was credited with a hit rate of greater than 50% and achieved 2/3s of coalition air kills during Desert Storm. It's hardly infallible or perfect, but to equate late model Sparrows with their performance in Vietnam is a bit reductive.

Friday night I had a similar issue where I somehow registered upwards of 7G on the cat shot and had a woefully misaligned bomb fall line in A/G mode. This afternoon my wingman was telling me he had massive INS drift immediately after the cat shot following a hot start.

Sorry to revive this. The latest patch did wonders in reducing most ghost contacts, and I'd like to give kudos for that :thumbup:. I did however notice that while generally much more resilient, when track hold is engaged the radar still seems prone to shed a new ghost track off of an existing track after a moment of ambiguity instead of correlate it back to the original track. Here is a video of an example engagement against two J-11s starting at ~1:50 in (I've attached the tacview and can provide the server's track if needed). After I shoot and track hold is engaged, the targets maneuver, but neither violently nor into the notch. TWS seems to lose the back, right most track for a second, extrapolating it away from the targets position. In the next frame it has already regained contact, and generates a new track instead of correlating the position to the original one. I've seen this multiple times in the latest patch and it only seems to occur when track hold is enabled, without track hold the radar now does admirable job keeping things sorted. trackhold.zip.acmi.zip

That is the issue I am reporting, correct.

Part of the motivation for the development RIM-116A Rolling Airframe Missile was to provide greater intercept range against supersonic sea skimming missiles at greater range than the Mk15 Phalanx, but in greater volume than the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow so that warhead fragments and debris from fast moving missiles would be less likely to impact the ship after destruction. As of 2.5.6.49314 the RIM-116 cannot hit supersonic missiles such as the Kh-22, Kh-31 and Kh-41. RAM2.trk RAM4.trk

Issue persists as of 2.5.6.49314 and also effects the new Arleigh Burke unit. SeaRAM.trk

The RIM-116A Rolling Airframe Missile was added with the latest open beta patch 2.5.6.49314. The model for CVN-74 has two RAM launchers, however they are not defined in the ship's lua and the ship will not use them.

I said the first part, nowhere did I say the second part. :)

Bigger plane also means more lifting area, 120 isn't an abnormal landing speed for the Tomcat.

DCS Options -> Special Options -> F-14B -> Uncheck "Switch PD-STT to P-STT when going WVR"

I said I supported an IFF button. It's a fine idea and you're hardly the first person to request it. It still wouldn't be a crutch for bad habits.

If your missile is just as likely to kill your buddy as an enemy's, you're not really helping him. Even if it's literally the last possible option available, it's still a terrible idea and speaks more to a general failure of tactics than anything else. I'm all for HB adding an IFF button for Jester, but shooting into a dynamic situation like that where you're not able to predict where everyone is going to go is a recipe for fratricide. Friendlies and hostiles maneuvering in a confined air space creates a massive amount of problems. As you're finding out IFF is one of them. Even if you achieve positive IFF at range, there's the possibility your radar will switch targets due to a friendly flying too close to a target. A Phoenix in that situation is about as likely to engage a friendly as an enemy. In the sim an AIM-7 is less likely to switch targets but it's still a possibility. Heck, I've even been in a situation where a buddy thought he was "helping" and fired off two missiles into a fight. The first missile completely obliterated the target, the second punched through the debris field and acquired the first thing it happened to see, which was me. If you want to help you're better off closing to a range you can get a positive visual ID on what you're locking up and are able to ensure you've got a clear field of fire before shooting. If it were an actual player you were helping, you could also tell them to run in your direction, dragging the hostiles behind him and giving you better opportunity to sort and shoot.

Generally speaking, firing into a fur ball is a universally bad idea.

That campaign is using a script that simulates a competent SAM site operator recognizing a likely HARM shot and shutting down his radars. If the AGM-88C in the sim does have an INS, it's almost certainly only rudimentary enough to keep the seeker vaguely oriented towards where the emitter was last detected so the seeker can reacquire if the radar flips back on. The AGM-88E might be a bit different, but we don't have those in game. As for real life, a thing to understand is that the HARM is a suppression weapon. There's a reason SEAD and DEAD are two separate mission types. The idea behind SEAD isn't necessarily to destroy the air defenses around a target, it's to degrade or otherwise negate the ability of the defenses to exert control over a section of air space. Imagine it like this. You are a SEAD element for a strike package striking a target. The target is defended by a SAM, which you detect and shoot a HARM at. It will take two minutes for the HARM to "time out". During those two minutes the SAM operator has two options: radiate or don't radiate. If he radiates, he can engage your strike package, but he risks his radars getting blown up by the HARM. If he doesn't radiate, he loses his ability to engage your strikers but lives to see another day. Depending on the value and availability of replacements this might be more important than preventing the local baby formula factory / chemical weapons plant from getting bombed. That's a single HARM. now imagine at the end of that two minute period, you shoot another HARM, that's another two minutes for your strikers to do their business. Ideally the attack will be completed by the time your run out of missiles. This is the doctrinal reason the HARM exists. In reality they have an extremely low hit percentage, and that's not a bad thing because we don't shoot them with the intent that they're going to kill every time. The HARM is a support weapon, sort of like a machine gun pinning troops in a trench. You shoot them early and often to force the enemy IADs to keep its head down and allow your bombers to do their job. If you're attempting to go in and actually physically destroy a SAM site, there are better tools for the job.