SwingKid

Thank God... -SK

Hey! Doesn't that belong to Canada? :icon_evil -SK

Speaking as Canadian, I don't mind if somebody portrays us as evil aggressors. Canadian war plan vs. USA and Russia: (1) Concede Russian land rights to Nunavut eskimos (2) Concede USA land rights to Mexicans (3) Position country between two nuclear powers and say :bebebe: (4) When enemy ICBMs are launched - duck -SK

I like your sense of humour :) -SK

Первые F-15C были и без AIM-120 и без APG-70. Принимали оба с "MSIP" (Multi-Stage Improvement Programme) нач. 90-х. Но, F-16C нач. с "Block 25", всегда использует APG-68. -SK

Нет, не правильно. Для AIM-120 надо APG-70 или более новый. F-15A, APG-63 -> F-15C, APG-70 F-16A, APG-65 -> F-16C, APG-68 F/A-18A, APG-65 -> F/A-18C, APG-73 -SK

I don't think we are communicating very well. If all you need is a mission file, then go ahead, create one with the mission editor. What are you asking for? Be advised that for mission files larger than 64 kB and smaller than 8 kB, you will start to notice significant changes in the file format that there is no "template mission" to cover them. -SK

Может быть самонаведение на РЭП цели. -SK

ТАК правильно!!! Что такое, всё о РВВ-АЕ? Баланс, хи... У неё никакого преймущество ни сравнение AIM-120 нет. ДВБ без реального РЭБ - это не ДВБ! А ДВБ с реальном РЭБ - это так же не ДВБ. Вот, правильное российское преймущество. -SK

OLE... Is THAT what it is? Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Where did you learn that? I've been asking ED for a clue for years. It seemed to me, that even THEY didn't know. :) The binary "container" allows the mission text to be combined with user input data if it's a track file, world state result data if it's a campaign file, or both if it's a saved mission. The "container" format is similar (but not identical) for all four - .mis, .trk, .cmp and .sav. So, you can "fly" a .trk file almost as if it was a normal mission, since it includes the xml mission as part of the combined file. The data is broken up into 512-byte "chunks" and the binary container contains data about their quantity, location, and sequence. I tried to copy this container by using my own code for SkyWars2, but it's very complicated and, I think, crude. Unfortunately, the OLE container changes, depending on how much data is actually contained in the file. I think Pat01 might have developed a better system, for his mission-randomizer tool. -SK

Во Въетнаме, американски лётчики так же не хотели РЭП, потому-что её не поняли. "Что такая магия, давайте прежде, ещё одну бомбу!" Но в борьбе, быстрее учиться. -SK

Is there not already a key that cycles lights from solid-flashing-off? Maybe it's only for AFM Su-25(T)? -SK

Welcome to the board, ULF! Out of curiosity, why does CH allow this to continue? Can they not make their own ergonomic metal replica, to win flat-out? Or, Guillemot is correct, and a metal stick is simply unprofitable? -SK

"Me three!" GG, I agree that the AI's offensive tactics could use improvement, but what's wrong with the defensive tactics? The AI seems very adept at performing fantastic dive-for-low-altitude beaming maneuvers. I think this defense is superb, and that's part of the problem - this whole discussion, it almost goes without saying that we are only talking about missile effectiveness against a beaming target. I think this is a more common type of target in the sim than in real life, because the defensive beam drops own illumination for the offensive SARH shot. The defnse-minded AI seems to forget this. -SK

Post #216: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=117972#post117972 What is "undeniable?" And, "fact"? -SK

With bated breath :D -SK

End the party without ED arrived? -SK

Thanks for the update! I was wondering what was going on in there. It always seems so full of non-Lock On conversations. Have they learned about the, "dive to stay below the target and 'look-up' to avoid ground clutter" SARH trick? :confused: -SK

Sounds like copied Strela-1 technology ;) -SK

D-Scythe: 1 SwingKid: 0 Good grief. I just made some tests, in a look-up situation, and it confirms that I was wrong. The AIM-120 is very susceptible to chaff in Lock On - about 7% chance it will chace after each bundle, almost 50% cumulative probability it will get fooled. AIM-7 - I didn't see it chase after the chaff, not even once. Correct. If both the transmitter and the receiver are "looking down", then the AIM-120 can have some advantage because it "knows" the speed of the transmitter (i.e. itself), and can more accurately identify what is the Doppler shift of the ground clutter, so to filter it out. The AIM-7 has to make a "best guess" by "inverse-processing" all received signals, to determine which is the target and which is the ground clutter, and might have a wider "notch" for the target to hide in as a result. If both the transmitter and the receiver are "look-up", then you have the same problem but only caused by chaff, not ground clutter. But, this doesn't seem to be the case in Lock On. Nice images. It isn't usually necessary to predict where the "majority" of energy will go though, because by the time the missile is in homing range, the 1/R^4 or 1/R^2 signal strength relation dominates the RCS anyway. RCS plays a greater role in the inital detection range. If it were a signal strength competition, the chaff would win every time, regardless of how much energy is being reflected from the target at a given aspect, because the chaff dipoles are cut to a length that is resonant with the radar wavelength, so their RCS is gigantic. (This is why the packets can be so small, and why F-4s were able to lay entire "corridors" of the stuff in advance of B-52 raids in Vietnam.) They can only be filtered out by Doppler. Imagine for example, shining your headlamp on a bicycle reflector, or on the bicycle itself. No matter which way you turn the bicycle, the reflector will always be more reflective, because that's what it's made to do. Here is a good illustration of MPRF operation from Stimson's book: On the one hand, it gives a pretty good indication that even at 24 nmi, ground clutter (the big black blob at the right of the scale) can easily swamp target returns. The planet just doesn't "go away" at any range, your radar just has to filter it out one way or another. An LPRF radar can just filter out any signals that are received after a certain time, thus ignoring anything beyond a certain distance away, no matter how strong it is. An MPRF or HPRF radar has no such luxury, because the second pulse is transmitted before the first pulse has had a chance to return. That is - by the time the signals from the second pulse are being returned to the radar, they are being mixed with longer-range returns from the first pulse. So, the returns get "collapsed" into the "range profile seen by radar". (For HPRF, you have the same effect but the collapsing interval is even smaller.) So, you have to filter out that ground clutter by its Doppler shift, because you will never beat it with target signal strength, until you're really really close. In case you're wondering what the huge spike is in Zone 1 - that's sidelobe clutter. It starts at a range of h (the fighter's altitude) and has a Doppler shift of zero as long as the fighter isn't climbing or descending. It needs to be filtered out by a "guard horn" or something similar. (This is why the Russian jets in Lock On have a "second notch" for pursuit targets that are "h" distance ahead, with a similarly low Doppler shift.) -SK

(sigh..) I was afraid you'd say that. True. ;) Ok. I may have misinterpreted message #93. I should probably run some tests, to convince myself. What are the "two ways"? I thought you meant they were TARH and SARH. This was drawn from our messages #90 and 93. Maybe miscommunication. The clutter is not the ground itself, but rather radar reflections from the ground. As GGTharos correctly pointed out in message #97, when the fighter's own radar beam is "look-up", then there is no illumination of the ground to bother the AIM-7 seeker. But when the AIM-120 is "looking down", there is - and beaming (i.e. "hiding in the clutter") becomes possible. Monostatic radar follows a 1/R^4 equation, bistatic 1/R^2. So, active has a homing advantage in theory, but I don't think "angle-off" has much to do with it - the RCS in off-angle directions can be larger or smaller than backscatter, that's pretty random. If the AIM-7P can receive AIM-120 datalink then it has multi-channel capability. This would probably require some new hardware and software. -SK

Chaff = airborne ground clutter. Any radar that is LD/SD is equally resistant to chaff as it is to ground clutter. What makes you think Lock On's AIM-120 is also susceptible to chaff? I thought we agreed the AMRAAM was being defeated in tests by ground clutter and beaming. If what you're saying is, "any TARH missile must surely also be capable of SARH," then I hesitate to agree that this is a valid argument. The problem is not that the diving AMRAAM can't see the illuminated target, but rather that it CAN see the illuminated ground, because its own active transmissions, and this creates an SNR problem. These will be present regardless is the target being illuminated "look-up" by the launching fighter or not, because the diving AIM-120 is still illuminating the ground - whereas the diving AIM-7 is not. Even in the "passive" HOJ mode, the AMRAAM still transmits MPRF pulses. I don't recall reading that that AIM-120 has an "inverse processed" seeker that would allow it to home on third-party illumination - inverse processing is something distinct from monopulse and is associated only with SARH. Do you have a source? -SK

Vulcan так же нет. -SK

Oh yeah.. I could be mistaken but isn't that the one with the smaller dimensions? I remember reading that one of the AIM-120 versions freed up more space in the missile tube for fuel and warhead by using smaller (not necessarily better) electronics, but that - at least initially - this extra space was not actually used for anything. Hence the new version C-1,2,...6 each of which was making different improvements in stages. This site: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html does refer to "improved ECCM with jamming detection," but I'm not sure what this means since even the AA-10A has "improved ECCM with jamming detection" - there are many different kinds of jamming. My best guess is that this would be an attempt to deal with terrain-bounce glint (one of the few ECMs that might still work against monopulse, once in a blue moon), that might provide no new capability at all against non-terrain-bounce ECM - i.e. it might not improve the (already superb) resistance to chaff at all. My guess would be size/weight. The R-77/RVV-AE also have different guidance sections of different size/weight, depending on the manufacturer of some components, but the ECCM capability (AFAIK) remains the same. See "terrain-bounce glint" above. You can tailor your ECCM to whatever specific threat you want to imagine, but in the words of the engineers who make ECCM - you're fighting a "paper enemy". i.e., the specific ECM your ECCM is designed to defeat will quickly be discovered by the enemy not to work anymore, and thus not be used against you, at best... or might not even exist in the enemy arsenal in the first place, at worst. It can thus be a waste of time and resources to develop in wartime, but a sweet military pork-barrel job in peacetime because you can keep selling "improvements" to pre-emptively defeat different kinds of purely imagined ECM, regardless of the probability the enemy actually using it. The best practical ECCM is "general" ECCM that is resistant to all kinds of ECM rather than a specifically tailored one-for-one countermeasure. And this is something that monopulse does really well - no matter if you're using range gating, blinking, almost whatever ECM, monopulse can still usually get a bearing lock and track you HOJ. Any further ECCM is just icing on the cake. The F-4 did not use PD or pulse integration, so it could theoretically filter out ground clutter by range, if the target was near enough and the ground far away. This may be why one Bulgarian MiG-23 pilot claimed that "in some situations" (i.e. anything but look-down), he preferred the MiG-23 radar to that of the MiG-29. The original APG-63 of the F-15A even retained an LPRF "Pulse" mode, "just in case." Nevertheless, if you read "Clashes" you can see that even pulse-radar F-4s were still basically blind to anything flying below them, and depended on the "Combat Tree" enemy IFF interrogator to detect low-flying MiGs. The EC-131s would even fly at low altitude to bounce their radar beams off of the sea, in order to "look up" at enemy MiGs without ground clutter - even though that ground clutter would have been hundreds of miles away. -SK