Cmptohocah

I think this can be "locked" by using infinite fuel setting in DCS. Looks like I was late to reply. Please go ahead an disregard my post.

Weight should not be a factor, but rather thrust-to-weight ratio. If a heavier airplane has more thrust to its relative weight then a lighter one, it will accelerate quicker.

Lol, I just realized that this was just released. For some reason I thought it was from way before. Please disregard my last comment regarding this.

I see, so this update was not for the search mode once the 120 looses tracking info from the launching platform. I've missed that "detail". It's interesting to thing that a missile like the currently modeled AIM-120 can be used as a 1 vs many weapon in such a way. I am not sure how many can be launched at the same time, but it just blows my mind that a missile can be "sent" to an area and start tracking what ever if finds in its path, and with great efficiency - for such a tinny seeker and no support from a launching platform what so ever. Now, since I have no information that disproves this, I can't really say it doesn't do it, but it does seem like quite an omnipotent thing. Again that's my opinion only.

This "warmup" was introduced in the old days of LOMAC or FC (can't recall exactly) 'cause the F-15 drivers were complaining it ruins their target tracking as the "red" drivers were turning it on and off constantly. AI still has no "warmup" but the flyable planes do.

So I guess this is a bug then right? In the first track (and the screenshots), that I have provided, you can see that the search area is much greater than the stated 15 degree cone. Or am I missing something? It seems that the seeker covers this huge volume in front of it in no time, with the measured angles.

Had a look a the document: nice read in deed. Could you maybe, direct me which part of it disproves the "going for the centeroid" statement?

This right here is the essence. Any discussion on any topic, at least for the "red", that might improve perfomance to an undermodeled system is ended swiftly wit h an answer: "it's working as it's supposed and don't expect any changes". I've seen it too many times here on the forum already. Any real data from the manuals and other credible sources is quickly disgarded. To my question: why is my Su-27's ECM not affecting "blue" planes? I got an answer: they are early access and ECM is no guarantee against TWS. How can something be any "access" without basic system modeling? To my question, how on earth, can AIM-120 reacquire targets within its seekers gimbal-limits volume almost instantly? I got an answer: yeah it's probably too much, but doesn't make much difference. Bottom line is, it seems: "Don't ask to many questions. It's the way it's supposed to be." Well, fair enough. Saves both my and your time.

It can't tell 'cause the receiver is moving around. So while it's doing that it receives false returns and it can't tell which one of them is real. You can see in the Su-27 HUD I posted above, that the entire scope is filled with false targets (returns). I would also expect for the missile in HOJ mode to find the receiver as it's just homing in on the signal source, nothing strange about that. To be honest I don't really know how the HOJ mode on F-15 radar works, perhaps it has some memory and it sees in which direction the emission source is strongest, but there is no way it can detect this in search mode. Also in RL jamming causes the RWR to show false targets, but this is not modeled in DCS either.

No need to doubt, very accessible explanation on how basic ECM works can be found here: HOJ has to do with the missile seeker that navigates to the source of the radiation, but making the radar tell the azimuth is just not realistic - maybe we are not striving for realism here. This is also an option. Everything depends on everything in real life, but we need to start from somewhere. We should not accommodate some things just because they're convenient and use "we don't know" as an excuse. We know 5%? Let's model that 5% and not keep it at 1% 'cause it's fine the way it is. It's not fine!

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but in my book something that should fly around 3.5M should fly around 3.5M and not +/- 1.5M. What kind of explanation is: well to make sure it has range, we decided to add some extra mach to it? Now what type of RIM-66 is being launched here, unfortunately I can't tell as TavView only depicts it as RIM-66.

I wasn't sure I should post this in DCS World thread or here, so I do apologize in advance. First, and for me, the most important issue: Why are 3rd party as well as HF modules blind (not affected) by FC3 plane's ECM [F-16, F/A-18, F-14]? For me that's very important factor, as it denies them from launching in TWS mode at me. TWS and omni-potent AMRAAMs are already over-performing in a sense of their reliability and target finding. Take away the ECM and this turns into a joke. Are "red" planes not important at all? Or are we just supposed to serve as bait? Why is the jammed radar able to "pin point" the azimuth of the ECM source? From what I understand, the jammer sends actively false signals (returns) and this confuses the radar as it does not know which return is true and it consequently can't tell the range - this is currently implemented as a vertical bar of endless targets. But as the radar sweeps from side to side, many more false returns should appear and the scope should appear cluttered, since the radar is receiving false echoes while the receiver is moving. Here's an image on how it looks like in the real world: Thanks in advance.

A bit late to the party, but I can confirm this. The manual clearly states that the non-terminal phase is performed via inertial guidance with radio corrections. Correction signals are being sent by the aircraft. Upravljanje - means to steer/control/manage

Hello, from the sources I could find on the internet RIM-66 should be a 3.5 Mach missile, but in DCS it manages nearly 5 Mach. Would be great to know if this is a bug.

Ah, I knew you were going to say that. Would you be so kind as to share what sources?

Cite from "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering" by R.L. Shaw: So it looks like it does happen.

Better a RL video with unknown weather conditions, than nothing.

I think the closest we can get to, without an actual MiG-29 driver's input, is to compare the RL landing videos from the cockpit to what is happening in the sim. Mainly comparing the stick travel and the aircraft's response. If in the video the stick moves X amount in one direction, what happens in the sim when same thing happens? Is it consistent or not? Things like that.

Would be grat if you could share what are the mentioned capabilities, since I don't fly this aircraft. When it comes to Russian jets: I think that era was over as soon as the first custom module came out. In LOMAC/FC all the fighters were kind of simplified and in a way balanced out. Fast-forward to today and we have servers that are mostly a playground and eventually we ended up in F vs F situation. In this new era the Russian fighters are completely obsolete since they are missing those detailed features from RL. Not to mention that most of the MP public servers have toy settings, like external views and such. I think if ED were the only ones doing the development, we would have some sort of balance, but like this - hardly possible.

From what I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, the seeker will lock on to the most radiative source if there are multiple source in its field of view. If the sources have equal level of radiation, it will calculate the average and go for the center of the n (n=2, 3, 4...) sources - which could be between two aircraft, for example. The issue here is that in DCS the seeker sees 3 things equally: R-27T in front of it, flares and the enemy aircraft. As far as DCS is concerned these are designated 3 points in space that could be a potential target and one is chosen. How, now that's a black box for me, but the point is that they are treated as equal. This is the core of the problem. I've posted some months ago a video where my R-73 goes directly to an incoming AIM-120 and not the target aircraft even though the AMRAAM never came into that "straw" as you have described. Same issue is here with that R-27T: it should go for either the flares which were inside it's straw, the target which was there also or nowhere since the radiation source was lost - just like the R-27R does. How did it manage to find the missile in front of it and track it, is a bug in my opinion for the reasons stated above.

Nice videos @dundun92 , by the way.

Thanks for the reply @dundun92, what I was referring to in this case were water reflections from the ground, the sun, clouds etc. What is the difference if they are radar guided or IR when it comes to objects jumping in between the LOS of the seeker and the target? Do the ARH missiles have a filter to cancel out this effect?

I see what you mean, and to be honest it would be great if this kind of thing happened more often on a global scale, as IMHO it would bring the simulation a bit closer to reality - as opposed to the kind of binary system of True/False we have now. The thing I respectfully disagree with though, is the explanation of loosing lock, searching and eventually finding a new target. Why am I saying this? Well first of all, there is no way that a burned out missile can give better contrast and IR signature than flares or an aircraft. The missile never went for neither flares nor the target. The argument doesn't stand ground since the 27-T never looses lock to flares and then re-acquires, the target for example. If it does, I would certainly be more than grateful to see a track or a video in action. I am yet to experience this. I know in RL IR missiles can track many other heat sources than the intended ones, but this is not implemented in DCS. Also, if you have a look at the first track and the 2nd and 3rd AMRAAM, you can see that they fly right next to each other in close "formation" and they don't interfere with each other at all. Neither of them gets spoofed by the chaff and notching effect are not there. It seems to me that there might be a slight disparity, but maybe it's just me. I am slowly reaching a conclusion that only guns solution is the one that can yield optimum results, since extensive flaring/chaffing renders the R-27 family useless even from very short distances. Sorry for the long post.

@dundun92 I see what you mean, but the point was not the velocity vector. That line that's extending where my v.v. pokes out, is the actual line of sight from the missile seeker. Now since it's at 90° degrees to my plane of motion, there is no relative velocity between us. For example if both the missile and I are flying at 100m above ground level, I will enter notch by flying 90 degrees to it's flight path. But imagine that this time the missile is diving at me straight from the vertical - like someone fired it from straight above. I should be able to fly any direction (heading) and I will still be in a notch compared to the missile seeker, since there is no relative motion between us again. In this case I would need to fly either up or down to come out of the notch.

In 1999 officially one F-117A (Stealth bomber) and one F-16 were shot down by Neva system S-125, which was designed in 1950's. So, I would say: "Yes, it can be very effective." It just depends how it's used.