Cmptohocah

Seems to me that this "pizza defrosting" timer for the FC3 ECM will stay as is, with an explanation that the F/A-18 is in early access and that at some time in the future FC3 will get updated as well. Then we will wait for years for this to happen and complain here on forums in endless posts, while we get our radar locks broken by the Hornet. In the meanwhile a bunch of "blue" drivers will keep convincing us that ECM is highly classified and that no one really knows how exactly it works and that there are sim limitations and that FC3 is no priority and that ED needs to pay salaries to its employees and that {insert excuse here}... I've seen this movie already.

This looks awesome. Do you have any 3D models to share? The one I used is accurate, dimension-vise, but as you have mentioned the flight surfaces are not fully modeled. I did my tests in Autodesk CFD. Also hit me up, if you are interested in contributing in any way.

Oh I see, you were talking about the chart shape and not the values them selves.

Which part of the manual states this being 50% of "basic fuel load"? I would love to have a look.

I actually don't know what "50% of fuel" represents, as it's only depicted like that on the charts. I guess if the total fuel capacity is X, that this is X * 0.5? Su-27 has no external tanks, so it should be straight forward, no?

So they perform poorly a cross the speed range, or are they better than the conventional fins in one regime and worse in the other? There has to be some tradeoff, since I can't see designers choosing an inferior design for no reason. Yup, larger cross-section will increase the total coefficient of drag, if comparing same missile bodies. Don't know how the fins play here.

This is a graph for a German V-2 rocket. Missiles have different length-to-diameter ratios and this will vary the Cd greatly, so it's not valid to make an assumption that this fits "most missiles". At best, it can be used to verify/disprove the current results which is a very nice to have actually. I will do some tests on the V-2 and see how the results fit or not. Also it says nothing about the air density used to obtain these graphs, so I will assume sea level.

Where are you guys getting these conclusions/information from? Could you please share some references (charts, papers, whatever). This is the second post of this type on this thread that is a "black box".

That's true, but I don't know how I could simulate that bit. I guess even in the real wind tunnel this would be difficult to simulate. Or am I wrong? What is this based on? I mean, what should the values be and why?

I hope it's ok to share a post from a different category here. Basically I've completed the first round CFD trials for the R-27ER missile and the results can be seen here: It would be great if people can comment, verify and/or criticize my results/experiment. The goal is get the most accurate results as possible, within reason that is. Thank you in advance.

** UPDATE ** Here are the results of initial CFD testing for the R-27ER's coefficient of drag and AoA=0: v [km/h] M H [m] Tt [deg C] Rho [kg/m^3] Fd [N] A [m^2] Cd 618 0.5 0 15 1.2 1187.71 7.423 0.0090 1250 1.0 0 72 1.2 4995.24 7.423 0.0093 1840 1.5 0 144 1.2 8330.82 7.423 0.0072 2450 2.0 0 268 1.2 10471.6 7.423 0.0050 3090 2.5 0 375 1.2 12003.2 7.423 0.0037 3708 3.0 0 533 1.2 14962.5 7.423 0.0032 4326 3.5 0 720 1.2 18827.9 7.423 0.0029 4944 4.0 0 936 1.2 23186.6 7.423 0.0022 where: v - true airspeed M - mach number H - altitude above MSL Tt - total air temperature Rho - air density Fd - drag force A - "wet" area 3D model used for flight testing is somewhat simplified in a way that the fins are not tapered, but are rather a simple flat surfaces, ie. no airfoil. Image of the mesh used: There were 10 layers used to simulate the boundary layer.

User-flown Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft can't blink their ECM as they have a 10 second timer between switching the ECM on and it actually emitting.

Oh wow, thanks for sharing this! Now I understand why IRL it's so difficult to ID the "bad" guys. I wish one day we actually have this implemented across DCS instead of instantly knowing who the enemy is.

Performance charts in the Su-27 manual are usually for a configuration with: 50% fuel, 2xR-27 and 2xR-73

Time 22:24 of the video: AIM-120C impacts the target that is almost 90 degrees aspect. Don't know if the F-18 was chaffing or flaring. This seems like a pretty good notch resistance to me. Same thing at 01:16:14, target Bravo 1-2.

First of all it affects my radar too. I can't get a valid lock until the burn-through distance, so I don't really have any information on the target at all until that point. Or does the AI stop flickin' it past the burn through? I am not sure, hence the question. I will politely ignore what you called "whining" and even more that part where "you will keep telling me something". I don't see this being productive at all. I agree, if the real Eagle does not go into STT then it should not do so in DCS either. Having said that, I do believe that this "annoying" behavior just contributes to ECM 'cause it makes it even more harder to gather info about the enemy. Last sentence is under the premise that the lock is possible at distances past the burn through. Slight blue bias is apparent, but I don't see it as a conspiracy or anything like that. Its just that the developers chose to prioritize western airframes and weapons over the eastern ones.

Let's be honest: this all comes from the old LOMAC/FC era when the F-15 drivers started complaining. And if it really was an exploit, why are the AI not affected by this? They happilly alternate it on 'n' off and one can't really get a valid lock until burn through. I see nothing wrong with that. Oh wait, TWS and HOJ were affected by this.

I am actually currently running some CFD testing for the R-27ER missile. Once that's done I would gladly do some CFD for the Flanker if you are willing to join me in this endeavor.

Yup, my bad. It was the AIM-120C. Can't find the original site now, but someone made a screenshot (not the yellow marked row)

I was talking about the lead of the MiG flight. He had a malfunctioning radar, and although he never explicitly stated that his SPO was dead, he had mentioned on 2-3 occasions that he was going by his wingman's RWR indications. Doesn't necessarily prove anything by it self, but indicates that his SPO was probably dead or at least not picking up the F-15's radar. He later on states that he made a "command" to go defensive after visually picking up missile contrails. At least one of the MiGs had a broken radar (flight commander) and possibly the wingman also (not confirmed).

Not to insinuate on what the F-15C pilot tried to state and why, but the fact is that leading MiG-29 had a non-functioning RWR so he indeed never detected the AMRAAMs via his SPO. Perhaps this lead the American to reach the conclusion that the active AIM-120 is not picked up by an RWR. Also such a claim could only be made by a person that had an RWR and was actually shot at by a live AMRAAM, or maybe a drone with a fitted RWR. The trailing MiG-29 had its SPO functional and had picked up the F-15s radar, but I don't have any information if he ever detected the AIM-120's going active. P.S. The flight lead actually noticed AMRAAM launches visually as he saw contrails and commanded his wingman to take defensive action. It was to little to late as both of them got shot down.

Pardon my ignorance about the AMRAAM, but there is high chance that AIM-120 can produce contrails. This comes from the testimony of a downed serbian MiG-29 pilot hat was shot down by an AIM-120A in 1999. He reported that he had visually identified 4 contrails heading towards him and his wingman. From the mission debrief, of the F-15C pilots that actually fired those shots, 3 x AIM-120A were fired from an altitude of around 20k feet, so I guess those were the contrails from the AMRAAMs. The MiG-29 pilot specifically recognized them as missile contrails coming from two launching aircraft. What is questionable here is how come he had noticed 4 contrails when only 3 missiles were fired, but I guess this be accredited to stress. Of course, this is only under the premise that the A variant had a smokeless motor, which if it didn't renders my post useless.

I really don't understand what you meant to say by this, but the fact remains that this feature is: described in the real manual used by real fighter pilots mentioned by a real fighter pilot who flew professionally on a Soviet-made MiG-29 I simply mentioned that this is one of the real-life features that would be nice to have. Then you swoop in and start commenting about how useless it is. Useless or not, it exists. I mean with all due respect, but who are you to deem it useless? And even if it is, it's no argument to not have it. Real thing has it, DCS thing should have it, IMHO.

I've been flying the Soviet jets almost exclusively for 10 years now. Tried to fly the F-16 the other day: I got so lost. Completely different philosophies. First shock was the RWR

I don't know about other NATO platforms, but ECM against F-15C forces it into STT from TWS so there is one huge difference. There is also a thing called masking where multiple airplanes are hidden behind ECM so you can't tell if you are engaging a lone wolf or a squadron. Also we don't know who and why decided when the burn through happens when it happens in DCS, but I guess some common value had to be used. In RL jamming does so much more than just deny you from getting ranging info. Some of them interfere with the DL, some of them prevent you from guiding your SARH/ARH missile. I guess that was why Soviets developed the T and ET variants.