Маэстро

..... Аэродинамически располагаемая перегрузка меняется в зависимости от режима полета и может быть как меньше ограничения по прочности так и больше. Все это у нас моделируется. Книги Федосова у нас есть и мы их используем. То есть мы по-вашему продувок и расчетов не делаем и цифры с потолка берем...

Каких правок? По аим-120? Это не референс ни разу. Вы ссылаетесь на оценку характеристик ракеты выполненную тремя игроками англоязычного коммьюнтити в которой для некоторого режима полета у них получилась располагаемая перегрузка в 30 единиц. Какое это все имеет отношение к ограничению по прочности реальной ракеты?

Sorry, I can not provide any value. AMRAAM Klaman filter is non-stationary, filtering level (for a specific target type/size) changes based on current measurement noise level, relaive velocity and range. Different filter state variables(los angle, angular rate, target acceleration) have distinct lags("delays"). It's obvious that reducing lags may help, but as I already said these lags can not be just reduced.

I'm afraid it is not practical. If target will do any other maneuver than barell roll missile will not properly guide. Enableing and disabling this pase shift is not an option. How missile will identify type of maneuver to enable phase shift? How fast it be able to indetify that such maneuver had started or ended? What if target will not fly directly to the missile? etc. It cannot be "fixed". Please read careafully my first post in this topic. But since last patch make things even worse we will roll back filter prarmeters closer to previous values.

I just meant that it may be quite hard to find more optimal solution, because our implementation is based on a number of works of scientists for whom this field is of primary interest. And it's also based on some knowledge about several real systems.

You are welcome. They can

9e is fully operational, just has no poper model because it's not ready yet.

Exactly. Once R-27 is moved to the new API it will be affected in more severe way than aim-120. As you said if this is correct... Look, it's absolutlely unclear what they mean by kill radius. What type of target and Pk corresponds to that radius? There is AIM-54 with 60kg(!) warhead and the same 15m kill radius. Do you think aim-120 warhead (BTW which one exactly? wdu-33 or wdu-41?) can provide the same Pk at 15m distance as aim-54 one? Sorry, I'm not in charge of aircraft damage model. Can't say anything. Are you sure you good at math enough? Of course I can not share our model, but there are public sources on that matter you can start from. Overview of optimal guidance solutions 29-01-Palumbo_Homing.pdf Kalman filtering for missile https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V29-N01/29-01-Palumbo_Guidance.pdf

Just roll?? BTW high-g barrel roll is the worst type of maneuver to intercept. And not in DCS only, but IRL as well. Unfortunately, not much. We already readjusted amraams Kalman filter twice in last two years because of reports on forum. The "problem" here is indeed lag/delay in guidance command. But any real system have such a lag(bc filtering always introduce some lag). Minimal level of filtering/smoothing(and lag) is limited by noises(mostly by glint at short distances) and excessive reducing of smooting will lead to increased missidstance because missile will react to noise inputs and twitch. So, there is always a tradeoff between missile agility and terminal guidance accuracy. I've made some additional changes last week that should make missile a bit more agile, but should not increase much missdistance due to noise. However, missile will stay vulnerable to high-g barrel rolls anway, just will require a higher roll rate to be defeated. Current level of filtering is already quite low and its further reducing require unrealistically low level of noises. I would like to avoid such changes.

Thanks! Finally, after making some averaging(since we have no smooth boost-sustain thrust transition in DCS) i set it to 47.5*3.4 + 9.2 * 12.5 at sea level (70kg with isp 235s + 57kg with isp 206s respectively). It's about 2% less total Isp due to lower sustainer pressure now, but all that looks quite reasanable to me(and very similar to aim-7's mk58). Absolutely agreed.

Frankly, I do not remeber all assumptions made for my estimation several years ago(and can not refresh them now because all this left on my old PC which i do not have at hand now), but grain shaping obviously was different and I remeber that it has slots through all its length while your variant has round canal in forward section. Currently booster provides about 59kN of thrust for one second(Isp=235s) and sustainer provides average thrust of 11kN for 20 sec(Isp = 226s). Now I'm going to change tehm in the next way: booster - 53.3kN for 3.2 sec; sustainer - 8.4kN for 13.5sec. BTW could you provde Isp or grain mass for every stage for both blue and red variants? Thank you!

Indeed verly lttile of iformation about HARM is availabe. In DCS we have total impulse about 29000s and propellant mass of 127kg, but boost phase is shorther and sustain is longer. I think your estimation is more accurate. Will try to use it for our HARM(if you have no objections:)) BTW. What's the source of AIM-4 Cd figure?

Этот скрипт выглядит как версия 8-летней давности. И это касается не только феникса, но и многих других ракет в нем.

Ничего подобного в нашей версии скрипта нет. Возможно у вас были какие-то моды?

Да, мы знаем что получилось не идеально, но пока будет так.