nighthawk2174

Sure but even in wag's video the frag from the bomblets probably would have obliterated the SA2 site and SA10 site launchers potentially causing fires/explosion's. And on the convoy the BTR's probably would have been shredded and the BMP's the same as while their front would be resistant the lower sides and rear are not and probably would have killed the crew. Their weakest armored points would probably resist the frag if they were outside the main pattern area but inside I have doubts. Now ofc a direct hit would probably severally injury or kill crew. At best it only kills the engine which eats the shell and the crew bails out. Bailing out is something that should happen more often as is if the tank is penetrated the crew is probably going to bail out. There are even cases in Syria of poorly trained crews bailing out after a hit even though they did not got penetrated.

That amount of pen for the frag within that distance seems fair as most lightly armored targets have that amount of armor or less.

I wonder if there is also a safety margin built into that number as well making it a bit higher than that as this is the case in a lot of places. Thanks for the info.

There Take note of the truck at 1:25, if there were people in that truck they would be dead. Same thing should apply to the missiles at the SA2 site and SA10 site. And anyone in the command vehicles in the site.

I don't think there are any ASAT weapons that can reach up to the GPS cluster yet.

The thing with GPS jammers as I understand it is that for anything on a strategic scale your going to need a rather large antenna which also considering its putting out EM would be trackable and as such engageable by standoff stuff. Wouldn't this limit their potential long term utility? I mean just as with the pre GPS days you could do a nav fix on the system to get accurate coordinates again. And with modern TGP's with laser ranging I'd imagine it would be as simple as fixing on a landmark near the target a minute or two before drop. Yeah you may not get sub 10ft accuracy but well I can't imagine that the drift on the INS would build up to a point bad enough to cause such a large miss that JDAM's would be unusable. And as you point out, GPS jammers are traceable by ELINT and would almost certainly be priority targets air picture permitting. Also a lot of modern weapons have dual guidance modes now such as the GBU-54 or SDBII

honestly imo its close enough they should just add it. IIRC on another thread it was determined the first viper tape that was compatible with the SDB came out in 2008.

How does DCS make the red circles seen in the demo video? Didn't realize DCS could do that.

It should, I have a F18 radar manual and a friend of mine shared it with ED. It should attempt to reacquire by going into a mini-raster scan where it thinks the target should be. It should continue to do this till either it reacquires or is commanded to go back to search. Additionally the radar will go into low-prf (no PD filtering as such no notch) and attempt to lock the target. It will attempt to do this if the target is either separated sufficiently from the main lobe clutter in range. Or if the targets return competes against the ground clutter then it will be able to track it.

IIRC there is a multiplier added to some A/A warheads to give it a bit of a boost over the raw explosive value.

Does the latest version have the new Marianas airbases listed in its database?

As far as i'm aware it was adjusted by ED after some work on their end and drag wise it matches what I predicted. From what I recall it falling between the B/C is more an anecdote than anything else. Now don't get me wrong i'm suspicious about the performance of the C, specifically its motor, but as of right now we have nothing to really challenge ED's modeling. Maybe one day we'll get some declassified documents about its performance.

To be fair based on the vid it appears there really weren't any flares in the air near the aircraft having been deployed a number of seconds before the missile is visible (small ifov on the 27T) so its exact resistance can't really be pulled from the vid. Based on my understanding the strength of the 27/73 seeker is it has small IFOV not that it has a good ability to ignore flares in the fov. The question is this at all a part of the flare decoy calculations the fov size.

From my understanding its more that he's been saying that the cfd in some areas matches or exceeds the dlz chart. While there are others where they appear not too but this can easily be explained by the errors in the DLZ chart.

iirc this comes from multiple sources at this point, I don't have all of them, but I do have a F15 and F18 manuals that both state this. From your source it is referencing the 7F which is compatible with both CW and PD signals.

Out of curiosity do you know the time period of each of these different models?

Well they ran CFD on the missile and implemented it it not matching the chart isn't their fault and indicates that the chart may be wrong. The charts may be unreliable. But you can't just change the fly out performance in one regime and not have it also affect all the others where the missile is more or less matching the chart. Probably not

Something that keeps coming to mind for me, the chart that keeps getting referenced in terms of the 150m/s needed closure rate being the limiting factor on its R-max circles (probable hand drawn errors aside). Is it at all confirmed that it does take this into account? Or is it just a raw look at the kinematics?

Is the 150m/s closure rate backed up by any other sources beyond the one picture that i've seen posted?

Yeah this needs fixed from my research in the dispersion thread for the phalanx it made mention that the block of CIWS we have in game should take less than 5minutes for a two man crew to reload the system.

good find

is the 790 number above the planes speed the targets velocity? Additionally does the hud give the targets altitude?

From my understanding some of these G-limits are also just because they haven't been tested beyond that point an article I have from an F-16 test piolt called "Don't Stretch the Limts" notes that there are a lot of limits like these that are due to a lack of testing/ lack of need to test. For example (from what i've been told) the F-35 has no glimits for its ordinance indicating that the bombs themselves may not be the issue but other things such as the pylons/plane-weapon connectors, weapon release characteristics, or just general safety precautions may be the cause for such limits. So for example the bomb just outright breaking 100% of the time if you just so happen to exceed 5.5G is probably not realistic.

The early 90's F15 weapons manual also makes mention of lofted steering cues for the amraam.

I've seen the dual band on some sites refereed to as the "MK-80M"