Muchocracker

ED claims that it's specifically unable to blank out the HPRF waveform. So what do those documents say on that.

Myth. F-X program was active before mig-25 and had solidified the requirements that would end up becoming the F-15 without it even being considered the primary threat by US intelligence. Su-17 was.

It cant do what it's physically incapable of.

More or less correct. Along with lower duty cycle it uses 2 PRFs for eclipsing reduction. The FMR is also in 3 stages for range resolving and de-ghosting. Lower duty cycle would invariably mean it's a lower PRF is my assumption, probably closer to 100khz, vice Velocity Searches waveform being closer to 180-200. Somebody would have to do the math on that one i dont know what pulse widths were used. The best i've been able to gather for what exactly the waveform for PDI is on the 65/73 is it's the high duty cycle HPRF used for Velocity Search that is broken up by periods of the range bin'd HPRF for "burst ranging" (mentioned on other documentation about the 65/73). This is the reason i have become skeptical of claims that the late sparrows launched by more modern fighters dont give launch warnings. Should be a case by case basis determining if the waveforms change between STT and illumination. Which in this case it does and should trigger launch warning imo.

Just change the program in DTC. The manual is out of date regardless now

There was. It's left crtl + shft + alt + S now. It used to be only alt + S i think.

This is the F/A-18C bugs forum. F-16 bug reporting forum is over here https://forum.dcs.world/forum/333-bugs-and-problems/

Known issue

ED has the "timeframe" standard. We can all argue about that standard for as long we want. But that's what it is. To that standard, the GBU-54 did not even exist within that date and wasnt introduced onto the legacy hornets till 2012. This is a pretty cut and dry discussion. I don't understand why this keeps coming up.

Observed in your track and reproduced in my own. Internal reports made. FACQ seems to work okay and will command STT on TUC's so i would reccomend using that for now or TWS until fixed. For future reference please make tracks in caucasus. That is the preferred map for the devs to use for debugging.

Its's known issue that currenthill has confirmed elsewhere.

There is a known bug with the undesignate logic in MP. It effects RSET as well effectively paralyizing you from switching targets

been using TDC depress today with no issues. What map is this the trk doesnt appear for me in the replay list.

i am well aware of TWS centroiding. His question was specifically in the context of the SURV tracks which you can only have 2 at maximum designated at this time.

AUTO should be centering the volume on the L&S At all times, no matter if the trackfile has radar contribution or not. As long as the radar is on and transmitting (not in SILENT) it should still provide command link's to the amraam. If it's not it needs to be reported what conditions is causing it not to.

find a SURV track on the RDR ATTK page, and TDC depress to designate as Launch and Steering

It was added a long time ago i dont even remember when.

I dont really understand what the issue is here. What are you meaning when the missile does reach its target?

FLIR trackfiles are pretty explicity not MSI trackfiles if you read the sources. You can desigate them to slave other sources to them to create MSI trackfiles. They are not MSI trackfiles onto themselves. It applies just the same to AOT's.

This is by design and is how the TA mode works, it's not meant to be a terrain following system stabilized to the horizon like LANTIRN or other TFR systems. The antenna is roll stabilized to the horizon but is aircraft stabilized in pitch and will depress with the velocity vector during dives. This is so the antenna has visibility of terrain protrusions when diving down.

HARM only produces AOT's, so you can't. FLIR is also in a similar boat, but it does hve its own separate FLIR trackfiles that it can produce (up to 8). They don't contribute to MSI so you can't L&S those either but they can be correlated to MSI trackfiles.

Forward complaints to mcdonnel douglas on that one.

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.