JunMcKill

AFAIK, the Chinese J-11 was build from the SU-27SK model (Source: Famous Russian Aircraft Sukhoi Su-27 by Yefim Gordon)

The N001 was during the early 1990s superceded in Russian Air Force production by the N011 planar array design used in the Su-27M. It remained in production for export Su-27SK aircraft delivered to China, Vietnam and other global clientèle's. A series of incremental upgrades have been performed on the N001, primarily to improve reliability and provide additional modes. The N001V/N001VE have improved digital processing, with a Russian Baguette BCVM-486-6 processor, compatibility with the R-77 / RVV-AE Adder BVR missile, and a range of air to surface modes to support multirole operations and air to surface and anti-shipping munitions. The relationship between the N001VE/VEP is not unlike that between the APG-63 on the F-15C and APG-70 on the strike oriented F-15E. Sources: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html#mozTocId228428 http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan's%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm Anyway inside the missile_data.lua of DCS, all missile parameters are below the specs given in all published docs, mainly the Rmax (Raero) and the Max speed, including head to head encounter at 10k height and 900km/h, the ones at 10k-900km/h pursuit and head to head at 1k height - 900km/h You're right, the AIM-120B deployment started in 1994 and the 120C in 1996

In fact you lock to emit a narrow pulsed or continuous-wave in order to make the target reflects more, but suppose that you launch a R-27ER to a target 50km away, as you say, the missile radar seeker is small compared with the attacker receiver and will not catch the rebound emision until it close the distance to the target. Now, in this phase of the flight, the missile use INS, making corrections via radio commands and do not need the radar CW emisions (remember the missile is in the first stage, and is close to the launcher, and is not a beam riding missile with a radar receiver in the tail), the missile monopulse seeker is all the time on, ampliflying the incoming microwave energy reflected by the target until find it (or not), at the final stage the missile will be far from the emitter and the RF guidance is no longer necessary, the seeker is able to amplify and receive the target reflection and fly to destroy it. (correct me is Im wrong) The only thing that the target RWR can detect is the change of the radar mode from a standard pulse emision to CW, but dont know if you were simply locked, or a missile is on the way, as is in DCS RWRs (all FC RWR aircafts have the same problem, you can detect all missile launchs, with the exception of the one launched by F-15 using TWS)

The real deal is that we dont really know how it is with the SU-27 and their 90s radar (not the original N001), and the 90s soviet RWR (not the ones sold to 3rd world allied countries in the 80s). For what I read, the radar of the german MIG-29G was not bad compared with F-16 and F-15, but the US interchange pilots found, was that the R-27R sucks in range (compared vs AMRAAM), and the IRSTS was so bad that they forgot it, and used only radar. The MIG-29 was in maneuverability between the F-16 and the F-15. Source: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

The lock happened at 8000 feet in own Rodriguez words (26:00), and he received the lock not at 4nm but from 8 to 4 nm, it's not clear

Honestly, he saved, because the Iraqis only had R-60, if they had an R-73 at 4nm, kaput!

I agree with you that a LOCK (STT) signal, should be a warning to the pilot and begin defensive maneuvers. But what is in discussion here is what you posted, whether the target RWR receives (or not), the missile launch warning. For example most F-15 in desert storm used AIM-7 (SARH) and the iraquies MIG-23MF and BN never had a clue of what was flying to them! But at the same time, an iraqui MIG-29B (Capt. Jameel Sayhood) locked on "Rico" Rodriguez F-15, and he considered that a missile could be incoming, and he began defensive maneuvers.

Not only SA-2 had the iraqui force, read this: 19 Jan 1991 [w/o] 87257 87-0257 USAF USAF 614 TFS F-16C Block 30F Details Pilot, Major Jeffrey Scott Tice ejected safely after travelling 150 miles inside Iraq, but became a POW as the ejection took place over Iraq. It was the 8th combat loss and the first daylight raid over Baghdad. The aircraft was struck by an SA-3 just south of Baghdad. Aircraft 86-0225 was brought in to replace this lost aircraft. Major Tice's aircraft aborted and 87-0257 was the spare for that day. Wreckage was later found by the US Marines who contacted the squadron to see what they wanted done with the aircraft as the aircraft was largely intact. Order was give to destroy the aircraft. Location of the crash site was in a section of Iraq that the US Marines had occupied. Most reports have the two losses of F-16's from this squadron switched on this date. Flew 4 missions before being written off. January 19 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 87-0228) was shot down by a 2K12 Kub (SA-6) surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Captain Harry 'Mike' Roberts) was captured. He was released on March 6.[10] January 17 – An F/A-18C Hornet (Bureau Number : 163484) was shot down by an Iraqi Mig-25 in an air-to-air engagement. The pilot (Lieutenant Commander Michael Scott Speicher) of VFA-81 was killed but his body was not found until July 2009. January 19 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 87-0257) was shot down by a S-125 (SA-3) surface-to-air missile. The pilot (Major Jeffrey Scott Tice) was captured. He was released on March 6.[11] March 27 – An F-117 Nighthawk (Serial Number : 82-0806) stealth ground-attack jet was shot down by a Serbian SA-3 surface-to-air missile during the Kosovo War; the pilot (Lieutenant Colonel Dale Zelko) survived and was subsequently rescued. May 1 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 88-0550) was shot down by a Yugoslav SA-3 SAM. The aircraft crashed near Šabac, in a rural area of Serbia; the pilot (Lieutenant Colonel David L. Goldfein) survived and was subsequently rescued.[20] I'm only taking SARH missiles

Ohhhh a challenge!! you loved it! :pilotfly: here you are

In the same website, we have this: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alr-56.htm It means that the RWR can detect certain RADIO FREQUENCIES, in order to detect if they are a radio-command signal for a SARH missile, but that does not necessarily make it so. IMHO the SARH launch warning that ED modeled in the RWR of all aircraft is wrong and nothing to be with reality, the use of SARH is intended to keep his flight hidden all the time, receiving only the lock from the emisor aircraft (in models prior to AESA or PESA radars)

Sorry GGtharos, again the same discussion, it's NOT A RADAR SIGNAL what is used for guidance!! it's a radio-command signal!! The radar lock is used to be received by the missile anntena when the missile is in the SARH mode after the INS and radio command flight time. There are a lot of videos in youtube of real combats, that you only hear the RWR lock signal, but the missile launch is detected visual by the WSO, in this videos you NEVER hear the missile launch sound

Terrific thanks!

} but in this case, what we can expect from the F-14 developer?, the terminology of DLZ could say that is the Rpi (Range Probability of Intercept) or the Ropt (Range Optimum)? [ame=http://ffw08.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/4/7/30476526/aim-120_dlz_update__apg-68.pdf]http://ffw08.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/4/7/30476526/aim-120_dlz_update__apg-68.pdf[/ame] Read this and tell me what do you think, how to understand the so called DLZ in the current DCS fighters?

then in the same line of thought, we can say that the AIM-54 specifications are also embellished ,and we should expect something below when the F-14 hit the shelves? The specs I have read are not from the manufacturers, but from own pilots and weapons specialists publishing missiles data, in all cases the DCS specs are 1/2 of the published specs http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-10.htm http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#mozTocId611424 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) This are the DCS specs: R-27 : Range_max = 35000.0, R-27ER: Range_max = 60000.0, -- Max range at max altitude. Use AI only. AIM-120C: Range_max = 61000.0, R-77: Range_max = 50000.0, AIM-54: Range_max = 140000.0,

IMHO, ED should fix the guidance and range of all missiles to real life specs in DCS world, before the AIM-54 enters with the F-14 module. If you analyses the missile_data.lua, will notice that most of the Rmax figures are below the published specs, the same for russian than for american weapons.

I know, but better than nothing! :thumbup:

ISVA released a new model of his mod for the SU-30M Air version (works with 1.5.x) https://yadi.sk/d/NWeZyZ4_rRjkJ And this one is with SU-25 cockpit for SU-30M Ground option https://yadi.sk/d/VsAY8vk6ordB4 This is the ISVA clan page: http://isva.clan.su/load/dcs_1_5_mods_aircrafts/1-1-0-12

Yeah I think ED is doing their best to make the simulation closest to reality as can be, that's for simmers. And for gamers, with only set the option GAME, they can enjoy simple flight model to make what they want!

"Introduction and improvements In the West, the new fighter was given the NATO reporting name "Fulcrum-A" because the pre-production MiG-29A, which should have logically received this designation, remained unknown in the West at that time. The Soviet Union did not assign official names to most of its aircraft, although nicknames were common. Unusually, some Soviet pilots found the MiG-29’s NATO reporting name, "Fulcrum", to be a flattering description of the aircraft’s intended purpose, and it is sometimes unofficially used in Russian service.[14] The MiG-29B was widely exported in downgraded versions, known as MiG-29B 9-12A and MiG-29B 9-12B for Warsaw Pact and non-Warsaw Pact nations respectively, with less capable avionics and no capability for delivering nuclear weapons. Total production was about 840 aircraft.[citation needed] In the 1980s, Mikoyan developed the improved MiG-29S to use longer range R-27E and R-77 air-to-air missiles. It added a dorsal 'hump' to the upper fuselage to house a jamming system and some additional fuel capacity. The weapons load was increased to 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) with airframe strengthening. These features were included in new-built fighters and upgrades to older MiG-29s.[15][16] MiG-29UB trainer Refined versions of the MiG-29 with improved avionics were fielded by the Soviet Union, but Mikoyan’s multirole variants, including a carrier-based version designated MiG-29K, were never produced in large numbers. Development of the MiG-29K carrier version was suspended for over a decade before being resumed; the type went into service with the Indian Navy's INS Vikramaditya, and Russian Navy's Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier. In the post-Soviet era, MiG-29 development was influenced by the Mikoyan bureau's apparent lesser political clout than rival Sukhoi.[citation needed] Mikoyan had developed improved versions of the MiG-29, called MiG-29M/M2 and MiG-29SMT. On 15 April 2014, the Russian Air Force placed an order for a batch of 16 MiG-29 SMT fighters.[17] There have been several upgrade programmes conducted for the MiG-29. Common upgrades include the adoption of NATO/ICAO standard-compatible avionics, service life extensions to 4,000 flight hours, safety enhancements, greater combat capabilities and reliability. In 2005, the Russian Aircraft Corporation “MiG” established a unified family of 4++ generation multirole fighters: the aircraft carrier–based MiG-29K, front-line MiG-29M and MiG-35 fighters."

If you are going to fly a real aircraft one day, it's good to have rudder pedals and get used to them from the very first day! With time you use them instinctively, and are really useful in combat dogfights, crosswind takeoff and landings, formations, and all related to flight (I think that's something every aircraft still has isn't it?) I have a Logitech G940 which include pedals, force feedback and many other beauties that make the flight very real

Good book, and it's not outdated

Thanks Darkfire for your calculations and time, we got similar results (yours are better) doing maths!

The only utility of the maneuvers in this case, is to show to F-15C pilots that in DCS, they are flying an UFO! :pilotfly: at the same way that people complained the SU-27 with FBW off (magic button) and high Gs, fully armed at high speed were unrealistic

I'll ask you a very simple question , you as physicist, think that is possible for a F-15C to keep the wings bags attached after multiple barrel rolls, with those bags full of fuel and in the same hardpoint two missiles, flying at 573 knots IAS (1,061.19 km/h=0.87M) and pulling to 14.5Gs? Take a look, tested in single player, no lag. (minute 1:06) DuUQ6Oq7xoM

You're right, most if the 30+ Gs posted are in MP with lag, a friend of mine was making test with the F-15, and I told him to make everything in single player (analyzing the information of the track vs Tacview), he told me that in single player the max Gs he reach was 12, but will make the test with bags full and weapons.