Bacab

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 !

Thanks but video don't give you the big picture, I would rather have an ACMI.

Is there any tacview recording publicly available for me to make my own opinion ?

I might not have been clear enough in my original post. My point is that you may want to fly down the Mirage only against fighter that are more advanced and when flying over friendly territory. The only planes that would force you to do that are fox-3 planes, planes the Mirage wasn't originally design to handle. Against opponent firing SARH missile like the R-33/R-40/AIM-7 it should do fine and flying low doesn't seem to be a valid tactic anymore.

See my edit, I was 2s too late. The AIM-54 is an hybrid SARH/AARH designed to take down bombers at long range. I doubt it would have behaved well against fighters (otherwise I don't understand why the AIM-120 would have completely changed the aerodynamic and the system design). The Iran-Iraq war is very difficult to analyze due to the lack of documentation.

The AIM-120 A was delivered for the first time to US forces in 1991. Therefore it wouldn't reach a country considered to be a threat to the French before at least a few year. And indeed 5 years later France began receiving Fox-3 The AIM-54 is an other story. I have no idea what threat it would have been. Iran claims several hit during the Iran-Iraq war but I have never seen an unbiased study of those engagement.

It might also be relevant to keep in mind the fact that the Mirage 2000C was never intended to counter any Fox-3 fighter. When it entered active duty the most advanced missiles available were all Fox-1. Later, when Fox-3 became the norm, the Mirage went through an upgrade process to stay up to date. Flying low has several drawbacks: it diminishes your range and the duration of your flight, it prevents you from flying efficient CAP by your own, it puts you at a disadvantage if the enemy spot you first, it makes you vulnerable to ground fire... I think it's only viable if your opponent has a huge advantage (which in reality may not have been the case since when this version of the plane was the backbone of French Air Force, Fox-3 weren't a threat yet)

Not very useful from the testimony I have red. However its efficiency in the sim remains undetermined because the main issue seems to have been its reliability and this is not simulated.

I think a target can be targeted by a 530D only if the radar is in HFR so cycling prf might not be a good idea.

Glad to see other people suffer from this, I was wondering if my Warthog could be the source of the issue and now I'm reassured.

I don't think the Super 530D was fitted with an INS unit so even if the plane had been able to send data to the missile it would have been useless because neither the missile or the plane know where the missile is. That's why it rely only on its seeker to guide and because of that you need to shoot it in PIC. The reprogramation feature means the embedded software could be updated without changing the whole guidance section.

A Hawker Tempest !

In the context of DCS where missiles can't experience random hardware failure it might be better than it was IRL.