Bacab

For a plane it's possible but I don't think it's possible for the weapon they carry.

I'm wondering how DCS will manage those old missiles that were not bad because of their performances but because they were not reliable (motor that won't ignite, radar seeker failure, proximity fuse failure...). So far DCS does not provide a way to simulate those random events on missile. Therefore I think the representation of those missiles in the DCS environment will be far from the reality.

Very interesting, thank you for your answer. I was not aware that systems operated would be different between PVO and Army. It explains why there are so many systems with the same time frame and analog performances.

No, it means they don't care for now.

If we are talking about flight manual, then no they are not for public viewing. French fighter design, systems, name and documentation are covered by either intellectual property or state secret. Movies are shared online even if it's illegal. Same thing goes for those flight manual. If you can't understand it then do as you want and think whatever you want. It's not my job to educate and it is not my job to enforce those rules.

Indeed I've found the answer I was looking for in the form of a map of SAM sites. It appears modern systems like sa-10... were quite rare indeed. A lot of countries with limited budget would have relied on legacy SAM with one or two modern systems around their capital back in the 90's. As far as I'm aware it might still be true today. Edit: since someone quoted ausaairpower again I may repeat myself: they have interesting data on individual systems but they never talk about the way systems interact with each other. Moreover confronting facts to their analysis I found out they insist a lot on recent systems that indeed remain quite rare outside of Russia.

Thank you all for your sources. I have a google earth overlay that might be useful and I'll study the website you have linked. @Weta: is that the one ? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1956490&postcount=22 EDIT : OK great with all this data I am more than satisfied :D I honestly didn't think SA-2 would be that prominent in the area, it's a shame it is not depicted in DCS.

I know this website and nearly everything I know about IADS come from them (although caution should be taken when they are talking about relative performances of systems since they have a huge bias towards PLA/Russian) or from ACIG website. However I have difficulties seeing the pig picture. For instance I haven't found yet answer to those questions : - How many SA-10 site should I set up ? one by base, one every 100 km ? - Should they be protected against low flying opponents rather by SA-19 or by SA-15 ? - Were the SA-11 sites used in pair with SA-10 sites or by their own, co-localised or not ? The aim is not to do something particularly difficult for the player or to do something balanced but it really is to do something "realistic-ish". @Weta: thanks I'll look if I found it.

Hello everyone, I'm looking for informations on the configuration of russian SAM sites IRL in the 90's so I can design realistic missions that involve penetration of enemy air defences. More specifically I would like to know the proportion of each system in service (was it for instance 1/3 SA-10, 1/3 SA-11, 1/3 point defence SAM) and the likelihood to see those systems in service in other countries than Russia. Thank you in advance for your answer.

They are officially classified. So if the French state decide to press charges against you because you own document you shouldn't have access too, then it can, it is his right. I shouldn't have to remind you that that not everything on the Internet is legal.

The -5 is still a frontline fighter in the French Air Force. Moreover the MICA is the main air to air missile used to protect the French airspace. Therefore both the plane and its armament are heavily classified. Unlike the USA, France keep armament data classified even when they are decommissioned. Even older systems like those on board the Mirage III are still officially classified. The DCS M2000C is in this aspect an anomaly. I don't know what kind of agreement, if they have any, Razbam has with Dassault, the DGA... but it's unlikely to be valid if they decide to do a -5. As for doing a FC3 level aircraft, ED specifically said they don't want a third party or themselves to do that kind of things.

I checked the documentation provided by the BMS team for their M2000 so it might be different in DCS. The maximum ITR is 23 deg/s at 10 000 feet with a speed of 0.65 mach. The maximum STR is 13 deg/s at 10 000 feet with a speed between 0.65 and 0.8 mach.

It seems it has not been said enough: Mirage III has nothing in common with Mirage 2000 except the general shape. The aerodynamic was improved on the 2000 along with the engine and the command system (the 2000 is FBW, the III is not). So the testimony of Mirage III pilots is not relevant in this case.

Super 530F might be done by Aviodev to go along the Mirage F1 they are working on. The R-77-1 would be both difficult to simulate correctly (near zero technical documentation from reliable sources) and there is no flyable plane to use it (I'm not even sure there are AI plane that can use it).

I'm guessing the radar also pack more processing power than the RWR so you might get more informations from it than from the RWR. PS: the radar antenna also provide elevation data so it does have an added value relatively to the RWR.

Moreover the RWR is mostly intended as a protection device, not as a primary sensor, so the choice may have been made to not over complicate its design with other functions. But that's a personal thought that may be proven wrong.

If I understood correctly what GG said it's different because it shows everything in the bandwidth of the radar receiver while the RWR filters to only show potential radar emissions. So jamming won't be seen on the RWR but will be seen in SNIFF.

The more I think about my proposition the more I found it stupid. Indeed it's of no use even in the perfect case because it doesn't prevent the radar from seeing the ground when there is no target of interest.

This is pure speculation as I know nothing about how old radar signal processing was done. Should the length of the pulse be short enough the target of interest would generate an echo distinct from the ground return. Then it might be possible to keep only the part of the signal containing the first rise in power. As soon as the power decrease again your stop listening and therefore get rid of the ground.

I know but this is the only other trick I know to do that so I was wondering if an other one existed I didn't know about. Can something based on contrast could have been used ?

+1 Which technic is used by the MTI of the RP-22 ?

[emoji1]

I am aware. That's why I said you should not wait for the R-77 to appear on your RWR to take defensive maneuver. The S version has an improved radar to accommodate the R-77 as far as I know so I doubt it was put into service before the missile reached IOC in the 90's.

I'm not sure about the S variant of the MiG-29. By the time the R-77 comes up on the RWR you should already have taken defensive actions. Otherwise you are likely to be in a very bad situation. :)

Thanks !