nighthawk2174

An example I found is the 9B sidewinder directly head on is touching ~ -23 DBSM or ~.005m^2. So for the above 60NMi's for 5m^2 it would end up being ~10NMi for this missile head on and nearly undetectable from the rear due to, quite often, massive reductions in detection ranges due to negative closing velocity especially on a missile that's still at or near peak velocities. For most other aspects the missile sits around -17DBSM but peaks to really high values side on due to creeping wave returns. @GGTharosFor the amraam isn't it a possibility that it could be programmed irl reject insane, say, 2500+knt closure rates as not being targets? This would prevent it from locking onto missiles in most cases no?

@Chizh according to the sam sim guy in his history of EO missiles (sourced with Russian documents I haven't been able to find) the RMD-2 has a larger motor and a dual band seeker which was first seen flown in 1997. Was it just never purchased?

Right maybe I should clarify I don't consider the secondary effects of the linear array the R73 has to be directly comparable to dedicated CCM measures such as directly filtering out flares by various means. It has a higher natural resistance than say a spin-scan seeker due to it having a small I-FOV but while the flare is in the I-FOV it is still just a susceptible as older seekers as it lacks any way to filter them out inside the fov.The RMD-2 though should be added to the game imo and should probably be in the ball park of more modern 9M's in terms of flare resistance.

Yes and that's more of a consequence of its seeker being a modern cooled seeker with a small fov (giving it the ability to see skin heat reducing the amount flares pull the aimpoint) rather than any dedicated CCM circuits as per my current understanding of the tech in the RMD1.

It is my current understanding of the missile. Also @Chizh what are some of the new A/A missile RCS's? Seems they've been changed.

The 9M has dedicated CCM circuits where the RMD1 does not.

Something else about jammers don't some jammers like the F-16's also have a limited angle above them? So that may be something to consider here as well when and if more ECM effects become molded. That if your above say this jammer is out of parameters to work (or even off to the side as the same jammer only has an arch to the front and rear it works) that range denial stops working.

Speaking of FC3 how hard would it be to make it so they can rearm and refuel with their engines on @Chizh?

If we had fully modeled the F15 in the early to mid-2000s (to match the era of all other American aircraft), it would have been much better than it is now. And yes, it will have a data link, it was the first American jet to be integrated, not to mention it was also the first to deploy the 9X and jhmcs. In addition, TWS in the game lacks a ton of additional modes and features, including track memory. On the other hand, let's be fair here, the version of the Su-27 we have in the game has been the most common variant of the SU-27 for quite some time, even in the 2010s. Now that's no reason not to add SM. But it's not like during the period of the new bluefor planes, the current planes in the game wouldn't be the most common threat. And, ultimately, more importantly, the 77-1 were only bought after a deal in 2015 and are still far from the most common missile.

I unfortunately haven't found any good sources for the OGB's yet only that they were longer, made thicker, and had a redesigned end brace holding the barrels together. But considering that the biggest contributor to the dispersion for the gun according to the above sources is the deformation of the barrels due to rotational forces this makes sense. The above document lists a 40% reduction over the MK149 and I see no reason to doubt that. As these rounds were designed to work with the new barrels and are listed as being incompatible with the older barrels. Additionally if you guys do add the MK244 shell something I've had worries about that I'm hopping you can also make note of is both the max range and the reaction time of the system. I unfortunately don't have access to the lua files anymore but this was something that I changed was both the system reaction time and max range. CIWS while in combat can be set to an automatic targeting mode not requiring any human input allowing rapid engagements the moment targets came in range, iirc there is a significant delay in DCS. Not only this but the system is meant to be trying to hit targets at the limits of its range with a controlled burst. Currently the system will only begin the engagement process once a target hits this Rmax and then with the delay it allows the target to get much closer.

Understood, although these results are still before the 1B barrel upgrades so the dispersion would fall further still. Additionally are you guys going to add a new round for the gun either the 149 or 244?

@Yo-Yo @GGTharos For the study initially referenced the values referenced are for a circular area representing the total 100% circle: Normal modes of vibration of the PHALANX gun : Peterschmidt, John C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Correlation of bullet dispersion and transverse barrel tip displacement on a firing PHALANX gun system : Cela, David : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive It was noticed, according the document linked below, that when better measuring equipment came online that the dispersion for the system was higher than expected. While each barrel fired individually was averaging near the 1milliradian dispersion total. When in full use (especially with longer bursts) these values would rise up towards 2mills which was considered unacceptable. Essentially the document was a study looking to reduce the then current measured range of average 100% dispersion values from the .9-2milliradian range down to the desired sub 1milliradian. Keep in mind when Phalanx first came out it looked like the below sample lacking the additional bracing structure seen nowadays. In addition to this new barrels were given to the system starting on the block 1B further reducing dispersion. These barrels were not part of the study above so the values seen in the study would be further reduced with the addition of these barrels. Now ofc something else to consider is the MK 244 round which entered service in 2004. Which from the documents shown above reduces dispersion by a further 40% over the MK 149. Which considering the time period of most of the aircraft being added to DCS right now may be worth adding. shell("M61_20_MK149", _("MK-149 APDS"), { model_name = "tracer_bullet_red", v0 = 1160.0, Dv0 = 0.0060, --https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=266214 Da0 = 0.00008, --Block 1B with reduced dispersion barrles factored in Da1 = 0.00008, mass = 0.0741, --Tungsten penetrator is 74.1g round_mass = 0.253, cartridge_mass = 0, explosive = 0.0, life_time = 16.0, caliber = 12.75, --Is SubCalliber Shell; Diamater of 12.75mm s = 0.0, j = 0.0, l = 0.0, charTime = 0, cx = {0.12,0.7,0.80,0.22,1.9}, --just a copy paste of PGU drag values will be different k1 = 2.0e-08, tracer_on = 0, tracer_off = 0, scale_tracer = 0, name = "MK149 APDS", cartridge = 0, }); These are the stats I was able to gather on the MK-149 round, although the MK244 round should ED choose to add it (which I think they should) would have different values. of note also: Something to note for the aircraft guns as the values currently being used are the worst possible values allowable for a gun to pass. Hopefully you'll consider this in relation to the airborne Vulcans.

@BIGNEWYany chance of finally getting this reported?

Squadron Name: UOAF Discord ID: NHawk Contact person Discord ID: NHawk Aircraft Selection: F15 Piolts: USA - Nighthawk2174

Agreed the hornet/super hornet has shown that's its fully capable of fulfilling both its more A/G centric role and A/A roles. In today's world a plethora of weapons with different capabilities offers far more flexibility and effectiveness in specialized roles (at lower costs) than developing an entire aircraft for that role. This philosophy of multiple aircraft makes more sense back in the 50's where imo it belongs (due to limited weapon tech). Not the late 70's + and especially not now now.

1000% agreed.

The SD-10 and LD-10 are in the same missile body with the same motor iirc so you'd expect the same drag and motor values but they are wildly different:

Р-27Ер все еще находится на старом ракетном коде, который, вероятно, несовместим с новыми изменениями. Следовательно, missile_data и missile_table lua вместо одного файла.

Yeah if you use a significant amount of chaff you can reduce the return to a point radars won't be able to see you. But your not invisible, a powerful enough radar close enough will see through it. In Vietnam to hide a medium size bomber target or a fighter like the F4 when seen side on (40m^2) it was on the order of 20-25lbs of chaff per NMi. Now that amount would almost certainly have to be much much higher for the modern jets/radars in game right now. There's a reason stand off jamming, TALD's, and towed decoys are the norm now. The direct quotes I listed are from skolniks handbook and introduction to airborne radar.

With chaff however it's not like a mirror it acts more like heavy weather or noise jamming (direct quotes from multiple sources). Plus the res-cell of most radars is at its smallest in the range aspect (often single digit meters for modern stuff). Ontop of this the time it takes for chaff to drop below the notch filter is a very small it loses speed at ~1500m/s (+-300 depending on the source which is significantly less than a second). As such the chaff will separate from the target rapidly, especially if the target is moving quickly. With a continuous stream, based on what i've seen in various sources, is it'll make the target appear larger and drag the aim point behind the target. As too if this would be enough to cause the missile to miss is unclear and would depend on the specific system. It shouldn't just eat chaff that's a) not even in the rescell/radar beam anymore. b) below the notch for PD missiles.

iirc that's for the A/B right? I've always wondered if the same limit applies to the C as it did get newer (and smaller) electronics.

As far as i'm aware it was one of the reasons the C7 was developed as more range was requested by the Navy.

We don't know if they do for sure, all we really know is that the C7 has more range than the C5 and received electronics updates. It could be the case it got a larger motor, smaller electronics section allowing for the bigger motor, or the fuel could have been upgraded to burn with higher thrust, or both.

I wouldn't say its a great chance but it will be the highest chance. IMO the chance of actually breaking lock though is still going to be very low. Even if in the res cell returns from the ground will still be filtered out by the PD filters. Additionally I know there are ways to mitigate these effects but when I first read about them I wasn't well versed enough to really understand what was going on. Agreed Sure for older radar types it would be more effective than the negligible effect that imo it would have against the amraam. But in a document posted in another thread in testing against a 50's X-band FCR showed only about a 1-2% break lock chance up until the notch where it just lost lock anyway.

Yeah the lack of frag damage is a big deal just watch the video below. You'll see especially against the pickup truck at 1:25 that the frag was showering it all over which would have turned the crew into swiss cheese. (also @BIGNEWY what penetration values are on the bomblets iirc there was a doc that listed it at ~220'ish mm against rhae)