rocaf2003

I think it is obviously so. ASQ239 is an important source providing information for the fusion engine. Under ideal conditions, ASQ239 is capable of geolocation upon receiving threat signals, generating fire control data, and then presenting the threat information on the TSD through the fusion engine. For the ground SAM target shown by TSD in the picture you sent, all the pilot needs to do is to select the target on TSD, observe the target status with SAR/EOTS, and strike with JDAM.

Sir,Will fat amy progress smoothly like this as well?BEGGING for your reply,Sir!

Hope we can see it in Dec.

Gentlemens,I really hope ED can start the develop before June... Thanks for your reply. I would love to get a 3F too, I've been doing endless research since the F35 was announced and there's all the publicly available information about the F35, so I haven't paid much attention to the forums. Earlier versions of Block3F added GMTT,Interim Full Motion Video,Automatic Target Recognition, and possibly enhanced OECM capabilities. How to solve OECM? The NSA disagrees, the FBI disagrees....

The COOL symbol was used on previous USAF aircraft to represent the cooling of AIM9X. This means that when COOL appears, the weapon is ready and ready to fire. From this point of view, it may represent a state of ECM launch readiness?like the green A that appears on the button on the F16 ECM panel.

Since ED began to announce the production of F35, I have been looking up some difficulties about the production of F35 almost every day. I think it is not completely hopeless that ED can produce some EW content; Through the integration of various materials in the past two weeks, I have obtained some working logic of F35 IEWS EA:Like the ALQ184 on the F16CM, the IEWS performs an electronic attack in a highly automated manner: the ASQ239 detects the enemy radar signal and geocalizes it with high precision, transmitting the location data to the APG81, which then performs electronic jamming based on that location data.Noise jamming is used to physically destroy the enemy radar receiving equipment (destroy the LNA), Deception jamming is used to interfere with the enemy radar by providing false target information.If the enemy radar band is low or outside the jamming Angle of the APG81, the ASQ239's built-in antennas perform jamming (due to the size of these antennas, they can only perform self-protect jamming).The whole process is highly automated and the pilot does not need to do anything. The core function of the entire system is that the aircraft can automatically pinpoint enemy radar via RWR(APG-81 MFA/ASQ239 ESM receiver) and control the ECM system(APG-81 MFA/ASQ239 jamming transmiter) to conduct targeted electronic attacks (ECM interference) based on this location data, which is very practical, it saves a lot of jamming energy, and makes it possible to physically destroy enemy radar receiving equipment by jamming noise. The aircraft might able to determine when and in what mode (SP/EA) and how (ASQ239 antenna /MFA) to interfere by the pilot's setting of some TWD options,which may be related to the "OPER" symbol at the top of the TWD page (similar to the ECM PWR switch on the F16?) and the "SEP" symbol at the bottom (toggle EA/SP?). The "INIT" symbol displayed in the TWD thumbnail may represent a working state that interferes with the system (perhaps initiated? Similar to the green ECM ENBL light on F16?) As for the "COOL" symbol, I really don't know what it might mean...

In the days since ED announced the F35A, I have been searching endlessly for any publicly available F35 material to analyze the feasibility of ED making the F35, and I have found that the F35 has a very complex system.However, for a single block2b, the operational content involved in the execution of trigger tasks (using weapons to strike targets) in the cabin has basically been disclosed: all operations are designated targets on TSD, after identifying targets with EO sensors or fine-tuning SAR images generated by ASR, using weapons to strike, and finally through EO Sensors confirm whether the target has been destroyed.Thats it.Thats because the weapon capabilities are extremely limited (all available weapons are 120C7,JDAM and GBU12).The TSD integrates information from multiple sensors, and for a single aircraft that does not use a data link, it is only possible to integrate information from the local EW/IR/Radar sensors.These sensors are configured via the SRCH page.It can also control the display information of TWD.So I hope ED to restore as much as possible the various control options in the SRCH page and the meaning of the thumbnail information displayed in the SRCH page in window mode, Because the SRCH page include the main way to control sensor fusion. The following picture is the clearest picture I have obtained about the SRCH page, which seems to show a radar between different AA main modes some specific radar operating options (RDR NOSLP), some options for EO sensors (perhaps use EO sensors for search to provide fusion information to TSD?)And other information I still don't understand (what is WB anyway?).And what do A,P,RW,HS represent when displayed on the SRCH page in thumbnail mode?Under what conditions do they turn blue?In any case, please try to restore these contents, because they relate to the most basic combat capabilities of this aircraft, please ED, please.

In 2015, block2b basically disclosed all major operational content: it mainly relies on TSD for combat, and TSD is a centralized display of sensor fusion. It aggregates information from multiple local and other aircraft sensors (radar,ASQ239 electronic warfare system,MADL,Link16) for centralized display and direct support for weapon strikes. It can display AA targets,SAM targets,SEA targets, fixed/moving AG targets. For a single machine, the main source of information acquisition for these targets should focus on the local radar and EW sensors. As far as EO sensors and ASRs were more used for visual identification and confirmation of targets to be struck in TSD (at that time, all AG weapons were only GBU12/31/32 AA weapons or even only 120C7),EO sensors could also be used for GBU12 attacks. A look at the user simulator video of an early version of the F35 shows some clues; They exhibit a very single strike mode: they always specify and engage targets through TSD, then identify AA/AG targets with EOTS/ASR, it's as simple as..... For AA targets, 120C7 is specified and fired on TSD, the target is seen destroyed on EO sensor, for AG targets, the ground target is specified on TSD, SAR images are generated with ASR to see the target details (or EOTS for moving targets), then JDAM is dropped (GBU12 for moving targets), and passed on EO I saw the target hit on the sensor. This should probably be the main combat mode of the F35 block2b machine in 2015..... So ed's confidence should be based on a rather ingenious historical fact: that of the 2015 F35 in the real world block2b is that simple: Throughout 2015, software development teams struggled with a number of flaws introduced by Block2B, and Block3F with full operational capabilities (including but not limited to full weapon capabilities, better positioning accuracy, reliable sensor fusion results, enhanced radar capabilities, and EW system bug fixes) The Block2B of 2015 is relative to the current F35 The TR2 was a rather incomplete version: the radar lacked electronic attack capability, still could only achieve limited sensor fusion, the EW components were still not fully functional, and the AG weapon capability was only JDAM/GBU12. This has seriously affected its integrity. When it comes to the classified content, I think it lies in the cooperative combat ability of multiple aircraft (such as the specific content and operation mode of MADL network to transmit and share target information) and some confidential content of ASQ239 system.

lpi aesa radar to keep rf stealth.Althrough the best stealth is radar off

ED initially showed a strong interest in Block2B, only to change the argument at a later stage because of the weapon capability issue, which basically means that the simulation is still based on Block2B, but ED said he would reconsider it because of the weapon capability issue, and the early relaese for Block2B are the closest to reality because they are in U All of the SAF has been replaced or updated. ED was initially interested in Block2B, only to change the statement at a later stage because of the weapon capability issue, which basically means that the simulation is still based on Block2B, but ED said it would be reconsidered because of the weapon capability issue, and the early relaese for Block2B are the closest to reality as they have been Be replaced or updated entirely (in usaf).

I don't and I can't make that.I just say people may get a Block2B with SDD weapon

In my opinion,ED's confidence has some basis. Because if you look at Block2B in 2015, its total weapon capability is 120C7+GBU31/32/12. If you want to play the trigger role on Block2B, all you need to operate is Radar +EODAS/EOTS. Because all your AA weapons are AIM120C7 and all your AG weapons are GBU12/31/32,Thats it. With a lot of the information that is publicly available and more that ED may have, it is not impossible to achieve some radar functionality and some (probably more because they are more publicly available)EODAS/EOTS operational content.(Aircraft should also be able to pass EW sensors; Team datalinks and more ways to fire AA/AG weapons, but these are too sensitive....) Having said that, I still hope that our F35 can show some EW content as much as possible... Yes, the first second the F35 is launched, I will pay my money. I saw a lot of people yelling OMG this is terrible, there's so little information available, the FBI won't say yes... Yes, if you look at it carefully, these factors are there, but I would say that any non-military simulator aircraft has more or less a mixture of functional deficiencies that are not realistic... I started to contact BMS4.32 in 2011 when I was 8 years old, and have been using F16CM Block50 until the current 4.37.6. To be honest, even BMS cannot achieve a very complete copy. In BMS, the F16CM has the ability to use JASSM, but this is obviously after the M6 tape, and the closest BMS F16CM B50 is the M5.1 tape. The biggest role of HTS until now is to measure the distance between the source and the radiation, because it basically has no degree of completion, and observing the distance does not require any operation on HTS. So, a lot of times they are not highly realistic. We need to know what we need (for me, or most people who like to play Trigger by themselves, knowing how to start the plane, how to operate the sensors to fire the weapon to destroy the target, is enough, because that is all the tactical significance of a single air combat platform).

Hi,There!As far as I know, the earliest version of F35 that we can get combat capability is Block2B that can launch 120C7,GBU12/31/32 in 2015, and ED is also very interested in Block2B. At the beginning, ED said that he was interested in making Block2B, but I also noticed that the FAQ has questions about F35 weapon capabilities Description of the force: It can use a wider variety of weapons (AIM9X 25mm cannon... Does this mean we will get a Block2B with Block3F weapons capability?Thx for reply!

Thank you very much for your professional and patient help, Sir! Yes,I think our aircraft should be close to a certain PSC standard, certainly not Meteor P2E, but the PSC standard must be there, in terms of simulation I'm not looking for 100% full simulation because things like ECM,IFF and so on are highly classified at all times. So I was thinking that it would only need to simulate a specific PSC that existed in the real world. With Meteor, I think it's more of a playability thing, because the PSC content of P2E is so secret that it's hard to simulate. So I think HB didn't choose to do that and instead applied Meteor to a specific PSC from before. I'm just hoping that HB will be able to simulate an aircraft for a specific PSC, so that it also fits what they're saying about this aircraft not being completely unrealistic

Thank you for your reply,Sir! May I ask. Do you think there really is a mix of different Tranches in RL?Lookibg forward for you reply,THANKS A LOT! Thank you for your reply, Sir! Do you think there really is a mix of different Tranches in the RL world? Looking forward to your reply. Thank you very much Thanks for your help,Sir!I think tranche1 is a nice plane.If the SU57 is 5Gen aircraft,I think The Typhoon is 5Gen too,Sir

Hello,There!I was wondering if There was any hope that we could get an "extra" version of the Typhoon when it was released, i.e. Tranche1 Block2 version, which could only carry AIM120 typhoons. As far as I know, Tranche1 Block2 has been considered for retirement, and a lot of data has been made public, so it is easier to simulate this aircraft accurately to the maximum extent. Tranche2 and Tranche3 may be too advanced to simulate some Avionics features, which is just an additional option. Just like F14A vs F14B in DCS, (Honestly, I'm pretty happy with Tranche1Block2. What the Tranche 1 has is already very good: a radar that can detect 5m2 targets up to 185km, and a 1.4M supersonic cruise with four BVRAAM mounted half-buried and head-on RCS like the SU57)

I think data information should not be too serious a problem, and the EFA developed by HB has been applied to the NOR platform. This means that it should have enough information, HB needs to do is to show this information on the DCS platform, but you can see, in 2024, ED is not active in the DCS business, I suspect HB is now very worried :EFA will undoubtedly be a leap across the era, but will there be SE like the situation? I started to touch the BMS F16CM B50 in 2011 when I was 8 years old, from 4.32 to the current version 4.37.4.2. From hybrid versions equipped with FCC and M3/4 tapes to versions using MMC7000A and M5.1+ tapes around 2010, nothing has changed in my impression of the F16's AA BVR capabilities: yes, in my opinion, it struggles to gain any advantage in non-overwhelming BVR battles. In AA BVR operations, it is more suitable for AWACS operations. But AWACS is a sitting target in non-overwhelming combat. Because enemy radars can spot this dazzling, flighty target farther away and quickly smash it into a burning heap with R37M-class missiles. So to be honest, I'm also very much looking forward to getting EFA, only the AA ability of T1B2 is OK, not even the T1B5 is required. Because it is an aircraft that can really gain an advantage in non-overwhelming BVR combat against RCS 3-5m2 AA radar up to 185km, the clean configuration carries 4 BVRAAM 0.5m2 rcs in the belly. This literally changes everything, it has the ability to compete with the Su35 (technically speaking, the T1B2 is also the most realistic, many T1B2 are already considering retirement because they are difficult to upgrade, and the T1B2 has no IRST)

MMC 7000A,the improve version of MMC7000. MMC7000 can inprove 33% range while the radar is same v9,I dont know it can improve how many range while radar is v5. MMC7000A used on USAF 2011 F16CM.The 2007 F16CM version in DCS maybe use MMC5000.

Thanks for reply!I would like to ask about the MMC version of DCS f16, the roadmap shows the development of pods, weapons,etc... No specific version of MMC was specified

Hi,There, I would like to know what is the MMC model of F16CM in DCS now? In the DCS, the F16CM was simulated after a CCIP upgrade in 2007, and in the CCIP upgrade the F16 appears to have already had the MMC7000: a 2005 news article shows that the USAF entered into a contract with Raytheon in 2005 to develop the MMC7000A upgrade of the MMC7000.(Here is the link: https://www.avionews.it/item/130304-lockheed-martin-aeronautical-co-awarded-of-a-over-10-usdm-contract.html ) So I want to know which MMC model does the DCS F16CM use? Any help would be appreciated, THANKS A LOT!!!

Hello,Hodo! I have recently been doing research on JF17 wing-tip BVR capabilities, and I saw your reply to a thread in 2021 stating that several PLAAF FC-1 documents indicate that SD10 can be mounted on JF-17 wing-tip pylon, do you remember the source of this document? Any help is greatly appreciated! Looking forward to your reply!(And Here is the link of the thread :https://forum.dcs.world/topic/255617-any-plans-to-add-more-weapons/page/2/ )

Yeah,The chengdu company owns it,PLAAF don't use it,The Hodo says JF17 wingtip can carry SD10 and he say he saw some documents of it.I contact him but still no reply.... Until now I can't find JF17 can carry any information of SD10 on wingtip that can be used as evidence

I'm still willing to believe that it's technically possible, it's possible that the PAF didn't do it because it affected life/couldn't carry other equipment/too few weapons etc.