Muchocracker

The amraam command links wont be transmitted by off-board source. The only US interceptors capable of this even today to my knowledge would be the NIFC-CA enabled Standard ERAM and IBCS enabled patriot missiles. For our hornet it's going to be your own radar sending the links no matter what. The only difference is just where the track data comes from, and MSI is built to be agnostic in that respect. The offboard trackfile gets passed to the shooter, who then fires his amraam. Shooter receives new SURV data over link, and re-transmits it over the missile link to the amraam. And theoretically (as wags has alluded to in the TA video) the radar itself can be in silent mode during all of this. With it periodically breaking that silence to transmit the command links. And yes the quality of that data would vary depending on the source observing that target. Another hornet and its X band radar will provide a higher accuracy track than the UHF radar from a hawkeye. Not to mention slower update rates that happen over link-16 (inherent to its TDMA protocol)

i always just used helmet designate over snowplow. Then scanned the horizon as i needed

Changes get missed all the time (case in point the mk-80 series warheads change) I honestly never used snowplow when it did exist. Who knows when it got removed. Could have been years.

It may have been removed as an inaccuracy at some point. Documents on the ATFLIR do not mention any snowplow function, only VVSL. At least the one that i have.

There was a known issue with some other SAM systems that would get paralyzed when there were an amount of targets over some threshold. Could be a similar case here.

The GPS and INS are 2 disconnected systems operating concurrently. The Mission Computer will initially just output a position estimate based on the INS alone, but it is observing the position errors between it and the GPS. When it recognizes that the INS exceeds 300 feet of error it will then introduce the GPS data into the kalman filter and correct the blended positiong estimate in the MMC. There is no actual automatic fixing going on in the INS like you would see with EGI. For the kalman filter, the GPS is just there to be a reference (a noisy one) that it uses to corral the blended position estimate to under 300 feet. When running a FIX it should then correct the INS back to an accurate error state. The kalman filter will at that point stop blending the position estimates and go back to trusting the INS alone again, until the error accumulates back up to above 300 feet and the cycle repeats. I have not flown the F-16 in quite a long time, but that is my recollection of how the FIX function should operate.

important clarification to make here is the numbers for the 18 and 16 are its 1% single dwell time probability of detection range (the 18's range was definitely not 95 before the phase 2 overhaul btw, more like 55). All of the others you listed except maybe the 14, and m2000 do not model probabilities of detection and presumably have guaranteed detection distances corresponding to their real 50% criteria. This skews the data a lot. It's pretty much guaranteed that the modelling work done by ED will carry over to the 29A. It will thus get a significant "Effective" detection range increase from that Pd spread.

Do i have to be a broken record? This thread is not about the warhead's kill radius. Make another thread and make arguments for it there. If you have some new evidence that missiles can perfectly compensate for target glint and live adjust their tracking filter weighting for maximum reaction time then by all means. Post it.

Again. It's an entirely irrelevant debate to this thread. The proximity radius was increased to be more accurate and to secondarily fix the over-effectiveness of the HGB. Debate the kill radius elsewhere.

What? The "fix" was making the proximity fuse radius more accurate (it was the same distance the aim-9 mind you. A warhead half the weight) and make the HGB not a 100% defeat chance exploit. It was not to make the maneuver useless. The damage performance and the damage models of the aircraft had nothing to do with that. The proximity radius /= 100% kill radius. ...He didnt say that? Hobel is bringing up a point (which was emphasis of the original debate) that the energy state matters. What solution? There is no solution where there is no unrealistic problem. Both of us have already been over this. The HGB in of itself is not an unrealistic tactic.

Is this not you disputing the desync issue as just players cheating? The debate on the maneuvers realism had already long ended brother. That's why the thread shifted focus to the proximity fuse. You can check my other replies in the thread i backed the opinion that it was and reinforced maestro's reasons for why it is. Lol, the current state of amraam notch width is also completely realistic but nobody wants to hear the hot take. I dont think you quite read the whole history of this thread, might wanna do that and get up to date.

The desync in MP caused by the loaded barrel rolling is well known and has been repeatedly domenstrated, i don't know why you're trying to dispute that it doesn't exist. The main issue was the proximity fusing being too short (also inaccurate) and it made the HGB too effective to the point that it was an i-win card. That got fixed with the PF increase to 15m. Now it's risky, as it should be. The one that has not been remedied is the desync in MP. That is why people are distinguishing the MP rolling and SP rolling.

reproduce it, and post the trackfile

It has to be wide enough to encompass the spectra at any point in time or you get leakage past the clutter canceller notches and the rejection filter. When the antenna is pointing farther and farther away from the aircraft's velocity the main lobe clutter spectra significantly widens. GMT's and their center doppler frequency also get shifted farther away from the MLC. Close range sidelobes also have to be considered with this. It's 133 knots wide for added tolerance.

The radome is designed to be transparent to radio waves in the frequency range that the radar operates in. It will not reflect any notable amount of energy back at the antenna that wouldn't be just folded under the transmitter spillover. I would like to provide a clarification on the topic of "Zero doppler" because i believe calling the MLC filter this is not only misleading but factually incorrect, and further contributes to confusion and misunderstanding on how pulse doppler radars work. For a moving platform, the ground will always have an amount of radial velocity with exception to 90's down, and 90 degree's to the side of the platform's velocity. And the doppler shift produced is a direct relationship of that. Straight ahead of the aircraft the doppler shift of the ground is going to be nearly inverse of its own velocity and it decreases closer to zero as the angle increases towards 90. stimsons introduction to airborne radar For a scanning radar this results in the spectra of the main lobe clutter to shift as the antenna is moving and as the velocity of the aircraft changes. It almost never stays in the exact same place (in doppler frequency) What "Zero" doppler actually looks like is the altitude return, coming from the sidelobes straight below the aircraft. And the transmitter spillover. It's not impossible to detect targets in this region but it requires the targets to be very close to the radar in order to have its return strength overpower the clutter. The main reason why the MLC region is wholesale excluded from further processing is not because of the MLC itself (you're not detecting targets in there anyway), but ground moving targets. GMT's are a gigantic clutter and airborne target discrimination issue (albeit not as much of an issue for HPRF as MPRF) that is not considered or even known about by most of the DCS space. The actual MLC spectra is typically only going to encompass an envelope of a few hundred Hz, but the MLC filter has to be made a few Kilo-Hz to cover the region where GMT's are likely to appear and to reject them. All of this generally applies to search modes and not Single Target Track or illumination modes for reasons not relevant here. It's not hardware, it's a fundamental property of EM physics. When Discriminating targets based on doppler alone it is impossible to detect targets if their doppler shift equals and is buried by main lobe clutter. There is nothing the radar can do that will change that. Range discrimination will be the only way to detect this target, and that's where MPRF tries to bridge the gap between LPRF and HPRF (but is not immune to notching and creates its own drawbacks).