nighthawk2174

yup the numbers took that into account I mean the current ISP values and ratios I mentioned seem to be fine for the ER. Plus that chart looks like its under 10km maybe 9.5km.

Really the only solid data we have on what it looks like for a boost-sustain motor comes from the AIM-7F SMC doc where we get ~23470N for boost and ~4530N for sustain or a 5.2/1 ratio. Burn time is 4.5/11 or .41/1 ratio. And fuel wise its 37.65/23.6kg or 1.6/1 ratio. Currently the ER is 5/1 thrust ratio, .43/1 for burn time, and 2.16/1 for each of these ratios respectively which imo seems quite reasonable. Based on a known boost/sustain motor. The current AMRAAM is quite off from this which is why I have doubts about its motor stats but well imho the current ER is reasonable here and is unlikely to be the cause of performance discrepancies. Действительно, единственные достоверные данные о том, как он выглядит для двигателя boost-sustain, получены из документа AIM-7F SMC doc, где мы получаем ~23470N для boost и ~4530N для sustain или соотношение 5,2/1. Время горения составляет 4,5/11 или 0,41/1. И топливо мудрое его соотношение 37,65/23,6 кг или 1,6/1. В настоящее время ER составляет 5/1 отношение тяги, .43/1 для времени горения и 2.16/1 для каждого из этих соотношений соответственно, что имо кажется вполне разумным. На основе известного двигателя наддува/сустейна. Текущий AMRAAM довольно далек от этого, поэтому у меня есть сомнения относительно его моторных характеристик, но хорошо имхо, что текущий ER здесь разумен и вряд ли будет причиной расхождений в производительности.

Yeah its not accurate to rlf but not a bug to how the game currently works. I'd love to see this as well but its going to be a while before ED adds stuff like this.

Problem is that if you keep the fuel weight the same for each stage this would bring the ISP for the first stage unrealistically low (~156sec) and the ISP for the second stage way too high (~354sec). Which unless the current fuel distribution between boost and sustain is also wrong makes the second option impossible. Which begs the question where did the current fuel/thrust characteristics come from? Проблема в том, что если вы сохраняете вес топлива одинаковым для каждой ступени, это приведет к тому, что ISP для первой ступени будет нереально низким (~156 с), а ISP для второй ступени-слишком высоким (~354 с). Что, если только текущее распределение топлива между наддувом и поддержанием также не является неправильным, делает второй вариант невозможным. В связи с этим возникает вопрос, откуда взялись нынешние характеристики топлива/тяги?

Correct as is in that its accurate to how they think it should be and wouldn't change it if they could or they know its not accurate to rlf but its correct to how the current DM works?

I have a book purely dedicated to monopulse radars and there is a section on the ability to distinguish between multiple targets in the beam. I don’t remember the specifics but I do remember it being possible to a certain extent.

Not to mention range gating, edge tracking, the monopulses ability to discern between multiple target in its res cell, and the fact that chaff will slow down very very very quickly. Kalman filtering would be nice to see for sure, so would a lot of the stuff were talking about.

The missile should be able to reacquire so long as the target is still in its fov once the chaff is dropped out due to doppler. Assuming it beat all the other methods of filtering it would still eventually fall below the doppler speed. As such once this happens if the target is detected in a search pattern (could the amraam reacquire from the radars sidelobes if close enough?) I see no reason it wouldn't start tracking again. For the amraam if its getting datalink updates it should continue tracking on the datalinked target so long as it gets updates. From what's out there the missile will drop contacts in favor of what the datalink is pointing too.

Yeah but it's unlikely that the current drag values are accurate to rlf, for example I did my own CFD stuff for the R24 and saw much bigger differences than that. Hec even in the sidewinder chart the differences between the radar nose cone and the sidewinder cone are bigger than that.

Concerning the R73 I don't think people fully appreciate how much extra drag a blunt nose like the R73's adds. It is significant amounts, not to mention it is a large missile with a larger cross section. Something like the R73 would be the top solid line and the sidewinder is more like the third-fourth line down.

Maybe @NineLine could be of some help I know ED had in the past been looking to integrate user made stuff into the game if it met ED's standards and based on what i'm seeing here it seems too. The F5 tone seems to be quite accurate to what radars sound like in PRF audio based off of F16/A10 hud tapes and if you could generate that stuff for a bunch of aircraft that'd be quite sweet.

Hmm odd this happen in both SP and MP?

Yeah it takes time but its been like this in DCS from the start and no to very little progress has been made since. Meaning to get a WT level of DM will take years at the pace ED works. Just being realistic here updating the ground unit DM isn't a big money maker and as such isn't top priority. Frontally all modern MBT's should be immune (there are exceptions leclerc has a large weakpoint susceptible to 30mm if at close range) to the 30mm fire there just isn't enough penetration. Even at point blank range. The missile themselves have no more than a few kg of explosive in a frag warhead. this could potentially damage components but killing a tank? No its not enough explosive especially from the front.

Its a bug ED has said its going to be a while till its fixed. Not sure if its the exact same issue here but I wouldn't be surprised if their playing off each other. When switching modes it cuts datalink/switches the datalink target to the new target. Causing one of the missiles (or both) to miss.

In general ground units could use some love but it's unlikely to happen for a few years.

What is the size of the AWG-9's resolution cell?

Насколько мне известно, сбитый f16 оказался неправдой.

What is the notch for active missiles? And is the notch simulated for SARH missiles with PD filters?

I thought it was the case that this radar equipped the majority of the su27's even up to recently?

I mean chaff isn't a wall you will still get returns through it, will they be reduced in strength. Take into consideration that the amount of chaff for chaff corridors in Vietnam, with much lower tech search radars, was on the order of 20-25lbs per-NMi to hide a 40m^2 sized target for a short while from search radars. The metaphor I used in the other thread is its like a cloud and the radar is like the sun. Even on a cloudy day you can still see some light coming through. Which lines up with various sources that liken the effect to either weather or noise jamming.

It was my understanding that angular resolution is frequency dependent no? Even then if the resolution is similar to the size of the main lobe the chaff wouldn't stay in the res cell for long anyway especially if the target is moving really quickly. Its probably also part of the reason chaff's stated maximum effectiveness is near the notch, its where the res cell is the largest. Plus on the separation of targets inside the resolution cell it is my current understanding that monopulse systems are quite capable of doing this due to the way they work.

If you feel the performance if off the issue probably lies in the motor data, drag wise its fine. But well we don't exactly have much on the motor. I promise you i've looked hard for data on the HARM's motor and have found nothing. So for now I'd say wait for stuff like the POS modes and then see how it performs then.

Yup this exactly, lets be clear the PK of the amraam in game now is trash compared to what it is currently irl. The INS/Datalink bug, the chaff bug, the ECM bug, weirdness with terminal guidance sometimes causing the missile to miss for no reason at all even on a non-maneuvering target, and a lack of proximity fuzzes all contribute. Plus I've never really liked using missile PK as a metric to say if a missile is good or not. For example in Vietnam a later study found that of the missiles that missed something like 60-70%, or more (going from memory here could be a bit off), of misses could be attributed to human error rather. Poor maintenance, poor loading crews, pilots/wzo's not clearly knowing missile launch limitations are what's meant by human error. Which is beyond the capabilities of the missile itself but had a massive impact on its pk. And it didn't help that if you shoot 2 missiles at a target and the first one hits that's technically a 50% pk. And for the amraam how many missed irl because the bandit split-s'd and ran away at full speed back to base, which works against every missile that's not fired within RNE. Or had 2 missiles fired at one target? Essentially the tldr in rlf PK is a bad tool to say a missile is over or under performing. you'd need to analyze every single employment to get an accurate understanding of that number.

Do you have this document (or at leas the name of it) I'd love to read it.

The fuze I don't know much about so i can't really say much. But even from directly behind the chaff will still fall out of the res cell of the radar very quickly. But most importantly it won't stay in a position to be directly in between you and the missile for very long at all making its impact in all probability still rather minimal. And even while it is chaff isn't 100% opaque to radar. As was posted earlier the effect here can be likened to a noise jammer. And as such you can still get returns through it.