Jump to content

nighthawk2174

Members
  • Posts

    1482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nighthawk2174

  1. The C did received a brand new electronics package that was much smaller. I'd be surprised if it wasn't also more power efficient as well.
  2. Agreed @NineLineI'll get a track when I can but from what i've been seeing the missile is still really easy to notch, I tested with a few dozen shots and was pretty easy to notch almost all of them. There were a few that made it through, however the majority didn't. The difference this patch is it seems that if you support the missile it will at least reacquire now, most of the time, sometimes it just doesn't and I have no clue why. Has there been any progress on proximity fuzes? Also can the team re-examine the random aiming errors thing as far as I'm aware one of the many major advantages of monopulse is scintillation is essentially not a factor for it. There is a video which I don't have time to find now of an amraam hitting a tiny target drone at low alt, as in a direct shack while in look down.
  3. What tape are you guys modeling?
  4. Something though that should be mentioned is in the beam the targets RCS will also explode. It's often orders of magnitude higher then frontally. Which would reduce the chaff to target signal ratio. But it would mean more time between the chaff becoming a larger target then the aircraft as it takes time for chaff to bloom.
  5. What exactly did the changes they made to the amraam entail exactly, if you know? And are we sure they all made it in as intended?
  6. @BIGNEWY or @NineLineYou know the dev teams thoughts on this, as per beamscanners post -which I fully agree with- and is accurate per every book on radar i've ever seen the current behavior is not correct and can be set fixed in 5sec by anyone with access to the code.
  7. Will this unit also come with fixes to the dispersion of the CIWS system and or new round types?
  8. As far as i'm aware its a doppler based fuze. So it should largely ignore chaff and ground clutter, there will be edge cases where the chaff is still fast enough to trigger the fuze. However for now there are far bigger fish to fry in terms of fixing things.
  9. Chaff is not a mirror, its far more appropriate to view it like a cloud. And like a cloud sunlight still gets through, the intensity will be reduced but most certainly not reduced to nothing.
  10. As far as I'm aware modern missiles fuzes use the Doppler shift of the target to filter out clutter. The older fuzes on the SA2 I believe were just simple radio proximity fuzes that went off when a return above a certain threshold was detected. This is part of the reason for their inability to hit low flying targets.
  11. depends on the fuze, if the seeker is IR/laser based it shouldn't do anything. Most modern missiles have a doppler based radio fuze which should prevent this if the chaff has already stopped.. Older systems like the SA2 sure.
  12. Yeah i've had tracks get corrupted and be very off even just minutes into a replay.
  13. According to Galinette, when I was discussing this with him iirc, when he was making the new M2K's radar model and testing against chaff just the Doppler gates alone worked 99% of the time, including going into the notch. And its pretty clear from the one example he was able to get of it not filtering out the chaff that even the simplistic countermeasures of radar coasting or RCS edge tracking would have prevented it grabbing onto the chaff momentarily.
  14. Thanks for your work on adding video and tracks to this issue archer. Lets hope this thread succeeds where the various ones i've made or have heavily participated in have failed to get any changes.
  15. Okay, but this is very recent, assuming they end up buying them in useful quantities. The current set of DCS modern jets is focused on 2003-2007. As such, it doesn't fit into the current period. Not to mention the lack of information about the rocket itself. If anything its much worse based on my own testing.
  16. Must of missed it in the patch notes then? I’ll take a look
  17. I've never really seen any indication in any manuals that they are different in the American jets, F15/F16/F18, in all the manuals I have for these jets I haven't seen it stated that STT can't be done the moment the target is detected. Maybe I'm wrong. @Beamscanner is far more knowledgeable here then I am, is there any reason they should be different in range.
  18. Not just that but i'm sure that you could turn the doppler filters off as well and track purely in range. Something an active monopulse seeker would be really good at given its absurd range resolution. Now as to if the amraam can do this... your guess is as good as mine.
  19. I still see no reason that TWS would have a lower resolution then RWS. TWS is the same waveform as RWS the only difference being the computer builds a trackprofile and updates it over time.
  20. It shouldn't really do this period due to things like range and velocity gating, especially since you had a lock on him for a short time as well.
  21. The obvious question is smoke or contrail but if not contrail then yes I was wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...