KlarSnow

You have already modelled that stuff correctly..... .This is what happens AFTER the bomb releases, and how it gets to the target. this is what everyone cares about. The HUD and symbology will not change other than the LAR if you change the mode. The HUD and jet does not take any of this into account. This document is what "Mode 1" means on the MFD. There are other things that would happen if you could set Mode 2,3, or 4 but those are not openly available that I'm aware of. All happens in the bombs autopilot based on release angle and altitude. All setting Mode 1 on the jet means is that the Jet is calculating a generic LAR bucket for a GBU-24 that is going to fly based on how this document lays it out. It does not change and there are no other indications or setting in the HUD or on the MFD's. The bomb automatically decides what it is doing based on your release attitude and altitude as described here. Nothing will change in the cockpit. How the bomb behaves will change drastically as you can see if you read this document.

@NineLine This is the DTIC article that clearly lays out how Mode 1 for the GBU-24/B (And A/B) works. from 1988, completely open and lays out all of the guidance modes and release modes. There isnt any easy to find data on modes 2-4 that is open source so good luck with that. But Mode 1 would offer a ton of functionality and it is laid out in entirety in this document. Precision Guided Weapons Training and Employment Starts on Page 7 Figure 1 on page 38 has a graphical flowchart depiction of its decision making process, also the different scan modes the seeker uses to acquire the laser spot, based on flight profile.

The other thing is chaff that is employed straight and level should be far less effective than chaff employed while maneuvering. This is due to several reasons. First while the target is changing parameters and not in a steady state, the likelihood of the tracking or coasting mechanism biting off on a false target is higher. Second, bloom rate. In level nonmaneuvering flight regardless of aspect, chaff does not bloom very quickly. It must bloom inside res cell of the threat radar to be an effect. In maneuvering flight, wingtip vortices and other turbulence from the maneuvering jet disperses the chaff bundle and helps it bloom much quicker. Essentially if you turn to the notch and just sit there pumping chaff, it should be very ineffective for all the reasons mentioned. However if you dispense chaff as you are maneuvering aggressively into or out of the notch, that should be more effective. Overall the biggest issue with chaff is the interaction in the game is in the wrong place to feel like a good mechanic. If you want an example of this. Radars on fighters can detect launched AAM's: a small RCS target that they are not really designed to detect that should in most cases be below the noise floor of what they are trying to detect or track. Radars however cannot detect or display false targets from chaff at all : a large RCS decoy specifically made to try and decoy radars and radar operators... Incoming AAM's should be very minimally affected by chaff in most situations relative SnR is so much higher for any missile due to how close it is to the target, and their range and angle gates are going to be much smaller, just due again to how close and how rapidly they are approaching the targets. Host supporting radars however have a much more even SnR and due to the range they are at will have a much wider azimuth cell. This is where chaff should be effective, at pulling supporting radars off the target, not randomly making missiles just stop guiding while the supporting radar still has a good lock/track. This should apply to just about every missile in the game SARH or ARH

The F-4E’s that have AIM-120s are the Hellenic Air Force ones otherwise known as the F-4AUP from the late 90s, which recieved massive upgrades including an APG-65 (F-18A radar), MFDs, new HUD, and many other new updates. There is also the F-4F ICE (German 90s upgrade to their F-4F’s) and the F-4EJ Kai (Japanese upgrade to their F-4EJ’s). While AFAIK HB hasn’t ruled out making later variants that are upgraded. It’s a bit of a stretch to expect their current USAF F-4E post and Pre-DMAS ( which is what they have said) to stretch to include this. In USAF service even with the updates in the late 80s, the F-4E (and G) were never compatible with AMRAAMs. And that seems to be what they are intending to make initially. Maybe much later down the line as an additional variant the HAF F-4AUP’s or Luftwaffe F-4F ICE might show up. But definitely not in the initial or probly even second or third tiers of release seeing as how they have also talked about wanting to do navy phantoms. It would also be contingent on getting ahold of manuals and documentation on any of these upgrades and how they actually work. Making any of these phantoms would essentially be making almost an entirely new jet compared to what Heatblur is currently talking about. So it is highly unlikely they would be a part of the currently announced F-4E module

Doppler and pulse doppler radars do not have issues seeing through chaff, it does not block or interfere or reduce detection ranges with tracking or search modes. It may show up as a false target, briefly (depending on wind and how quickly it blooms) but it does not screen or block anything to a doppler or Pulse doppler radar. From the openly available "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals" book.

I would assume B, P, P5, L, and M (all the ones in the game right now) initially, and then at some point all the USAF ones inbetween, they all were compatible with F-4E's up through the 9M, obvioiusly if they are making a "pre date X" version then any sidewinders that are pre that date wouldnt be available, but the DMAS/ARN-101 F-4E should be able to support everything upto the 9M. So the ARN-101/DMAS variant should be compatible with AIM-9B, E, J, N, P, P5, L, and M. For the Pre-DMAS variant, then it would be compatible with B, E and J, and depending on the exact date, possibly P's (P's are upgraded J's essentially)

The APG-82 was not added in any kind of operational capacity until much later, 2007 is essentially when they started developing it. From your Wikipedia link literally the last half of the same sentence... The conversion pipeline didnt start until the early 2010's, with full adoption not even complete today. If you think Razbam can get any data on any capabilities of it, I think you should reconsider what is possible within DCS and the consumer market. Razbam has stated its going to have the APG-70 and that it is a Suite 4+ (2002-2005ish) PW-229 engined aircraft with possibly more or less capabilities if they can find details on it (things like SDB, AIM-9X, JHMCS, etc...).

The F-4D/E could both carry them, the C could not. at least not unless it got upgraded later in life, but that was one of the defining splits between the F-4C and the F-4D when the F-4D came out. This is the line from the 1970 -1 for all the USAF F-4's (C/D/E) On two pages, but the loadout is the top, and then on the next page it has the limitations.

Yeah I cant find any definitive source but some googling seems to show that the APX-76 was around from 1967 onwards, and it was only (initially) installed in F-4's so I'd assume that potentially any/every US F-4 from 1967 onwards has IFF interrogator capability.

Continuing just a little deeper a F-4B manual 1-245FDB-1, change 1972, has both the AN/APX-76 and the Gaintime Interrogators installed, the Gaintime is also mentioned in the F-4C/D/E -1 from 1970. This may be the initial Combat Tree Interrogator, but there's not much out there on it besides this site. Not a whole lot and not really full of super convincing details, but its the only thing on a quick search I could find on what the Gaintime could be. It also says to reference the classified tactical supplements for operation in both the USAF and Navy manuals Update, was looking in an F-4CDE manual from 1970 and boom up in the effectivity of changes section All F-4E's were built with the AN/APX-76, and it looks like all F-4C/D but the very initial block of F-4C's (if you QC those F-4C/D serial numbers with the block numbers) this is a list of what changes are effective, so it doesnt give the date this change occured, but should suffice to say that all F-4E's had A/A IFF capability. At most by 1970 (this -1's date) or whenever this change was effective (sometime prior to that) there were at most (assuming the serial numbers of the initial block are sequential) 14 F-4C's, the very first ones that did not have this capability.

And to further clarify, the combat tree system piggy backed off the APX-76, used the same antennas, just had a different signal generator/box of magic installed to make it work. You cant have combat tree without the AN/APX-76. I dunno if later they just combined the two into a single unit or changed the naming, but you needed the AN/APX-76 to make combat tree work. So to clarify if a jet has Combat tree, it has to have both the AN/APX-76 and the AN/APX-81, eventually they just combined the two designations into one and called it the AN/APX-80, so all of these are the same thing and reliant on the AN/APX-76, which appears to be on all Phantoms of all varieties, going back to at least 1970.

The 1970 -1 for the F-4C/D/E has the reference for the APX-76 saying to reference the F-4C-34-1-1A. So thats pre DMAS, and applies to the F-4C and D as well as the E... So I think thats pretty conclusive that they had the APX-76... This is specifically referenced on page 1-60 of the 1970 -1, and it says INTERROGATOR SET AN/APX-76 For description and operation of this set, Refer to T.O. 1F-4C-34-1-1A If we/ heatblur dont have that particular document the Navair one that shows how the same system works on the navy phantoms is probly more than enough.

The AN/APX-76A display and functionality on the radar scope is also described in the Navair 01-245FDB-1T thats floating around, page 1-156 and on, has what it looks like. Now the navy jets have different radars, but the interrogator system is essentially the same. This manual is dated 1972 and is for all Navy F-4's in service at the time.

If you are in the tomcat there is currently a bug where the RWR spike will stop showing if the bandit maneuvers. I’ll bet you are seeing this. I’m not 100% on what exactly causes it but it has something to do with the threat maneuvering, and then your spike will fade, then after they pitch back even if they are still spiking you (locked supporting a missile) they show back up on the RWR as nails, so you think you are safe, and their missile is still guiding. It sounds like you are running into this issue. It’s been a bit of a problem over the last couple of months since you will just run into his missile with zero SA that its still guiding. Recommend you post this in the Tomcat bug forum to see if they have any additional data on it.

Harlikwin, you are talking a very contrived reason for a capability that does not exist in any missile that uses an active seeker. DCS actually makes it far worse than it is IRL for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with how missiles actually acquire and guide to targets. There are a thousand small miracles that have to happen for the missile to get there and terminate its target successfully. Target ID is not a part of that sequence. Once the missile is launched it is launched and the entire guidance system is doing its best to get it to the target. It is on the aircrew to satisfy all of that prior to launch, not Hail Mary the missile off into nowhere land. A significant weakness of the radio signal to get activated command is what if that signal is jammed? Giving the opponent a vote in whether your missile can function or not seems like a much much bigger problem than being disciplined and careful with your ROE.

Because that is a key term in how AMRAAM works. If you are familiar with AMRAAM and how it works, the terminology is used in exactly the same manner in the references up there. Those terms are not thrown about lightly. The unrealistic thing with the AIM-54C is how it isn’t really a choice currently in game. And most people go with the IRL inferior missile. Best guesses are plenty fine, especially if it results in more realistic differentiation between weapons. It would be better at this point to just remove it and just have the A, rather than have it be an almost objectively worse option. If you aren’t going to at least make the anecdotal evidence of the AIM-54C being the best version of the Phoenix somehow true in game, I’d argue you have a far more inaccurate representation than just systems and switchology. Phoenixes of all types are already banned or limited in all the competitive servers where this kind of slavish attention to every little detail is flayed to within an inch of its life. It’s not like making a mildly speculative, but based on limited evidence better version of the missile will change that. But it will allow those of us who don’t care about that kind of competitive gameplay to use a more realistic and effective weapon. Informed Best guesses often come much closer to reality than many would like to think.

Supersonic launch above 30,000 feet with a shooter assisted loft, against a hot target in the 20-30,000s fighter sized that maneuvers. If he stays pointed at you or turns no further cold than the beam the missile will have a decent chance, if he turns colder than the beam most likely defeated. As with any launch at these kinds of ranges, when the target maneuvers is as important as how much the target maneuvers. If it maneuvers immediately after launch, the missile will probably never make it. If the target maneuvers in the last 10-15 seconds of the time of flight, the missile can probably hack that and get to the target. This is all before CM resistance or lack thereof comes into play. Pure kinematics and battery life of the missile.

Looks to me like the CCIP pipper is attached to the coordinate system that is drifting, instead of aircraft velocity vector and inertial rates like it should be. Think absolute coordinates and the pipper doesn’t know about the drift, so it goes to those absolute coordinates, but the aircrafts INS has drifted. whatever’s going on that’s pretty screwed up.

So the problem with that is that the training is limited because you aren’t shooting real missiles. You train better by shooting actual missiles than shooting simulated missiles every time. So that’s just a limitation of the real world. You are getting the training fighter pilots wish they could have and know would be way better than all the artificialities of the training environment. But we can’t do because you know, cost, killing eachother, risk etc…there are downsides to employing that way and we know it.

TCTS/ACMI pods in DCS are solely there for looks, they have zero functionality. Also you are making a lot of assumptions about how they work and are integrated in jets in the real world. This also seems way more like an ED feature than a heatblur one. But I also don’t see any dev putting any effort into virtual training tools within the virtual game environment when invulnerability and infinite weapons exist…

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-14_carrying_AMRAAM.jpg This is a test F-14A with an AWG-9 and an AIM-120 It was capable of it if modified to support it. The APG-71 was not necessary or required for that integration.

The P does not have D/L midcourse guidance. It is an iterative improvement on the MH, as mentioned above all of these missiles are much more alike than they are different. There is no specific capability the P has over the M/MH, it just is "better". Really just think of the MH/P as AIM-7M2/AIM-7M3 just like AIM-120C5/AIM-120C6 are iterative improvements on the AIM-120C. Same missile, just better in terms of seeker, chaff resistance/guidance logic, etc... For DCS purposes this works out to better at resisting chaff, and maybe better at HOJ/anti-ECM stuff (pending overhauling those systems).

You are assuming there is a function or ability to do so. There appears to be no evidence this ability existed. There is no similar capability in any other jet with TWS that Im aware of. This is just one of the issues the awg-9 and TWS and extrapolated tracks has.

The F-15 has a conventional flight control system, it does not limit your inputs through a computer like the hornet does. You can in most situations pull or apply enough force depending on your airspeed to break the aircraft and it will let you. It and the hornets flight controls are completely different in how they work. This has nothing to do with the flight model, and how you control the aircraft. The hornet and F-15 have very different flight control systems, do not expect how you fly the hornet to transfer over to any other aircraft, it takes care of you and prevents you from doing stupid things that can break or depart the aircraft like slamming full rudder in while supersonic. The hornet has a computer between your stick inputs and the control surfaces, this is the Fly by wire aspect of it. If you move the stick or push the rudder pedals, the computer takes that input and outputs something within the controllability of the aircraft. The F-15 ( for the most part) is a direct connection to the control surfaces, there is a pitch ratio for the stabs (elevators) that automatically changes how much throw you get out of them as you get faster, and in the real jet there is a mechanical limiter for the rudder pedals above Mach 1.5, The manual just says it limits it to half of rudder travel, and does not say whether that will keep the aircraft controllable or not, so you have to be careful with your inputs. IRL you know this and don’t use, want, or need rudder inputs at those speeds so it’s not an issue. I am simplifying this, the F-15 does have a CAS system that is sort of fly by wire that has limited authority over the rudders, however you still have more than enough authority to break something if you decide to do something stupid like that. It sounds like you might need to do some research to see how these very different aircraft actually work IRL, they are not very similar at all in how they fly. The Russian aircraft are all completely different as well.

While I agree that there are solutions out there, and they are great, it would make everything far far more straightforward and immersive if it was all in the games core functionality, no alt tabbing, no editing configs or Lua’s hopefully for kneeboard support that doesn’t require external software… etc.. etc… These kinds of quality of life implementations into the game instead of allowing third party’s to hack together a solution payoff in stability, ease of use, and seamless ness with the game. especially a pdf reader and the ability to search a manual would massively help new players learn the game