nighthawk2174

The seekers on said missiles are monopulse seekers and not the Cassegrain antenna on the slotback radar so they don't have this limitation. Also from my understanding the sidelobe radiation that blinds the antenna at extreme angles does so by increasing the base noise level to a point it can't see anything because the horn that blocks this radiation isn't on the antenna gimbals.

Imo, its because chaff acts like flares in game not like chaff. Probs a leftover from LOMAC if not the Flanker 2.0 days. - This is accurate behavior for the slotback radars. Their cones can't rotate fully due to the design of the radar cone. And as far as i'm aware this blinds the radar largely due to sidelobe radiation, i'll need to read up on it again to be sure. Ehh from my own CFD the performance gain for the ER/ET (R/T are quite bad) isn't as much as I think you think it is. Besides the ER will always be fundamentally limited by the fact its a SARH missile compared to the amraam.

Question I have is if the art on the radar is showing what is happening accurately, because if so, then that 13 bar scan would explain a lot.

I agree with that since the last update the radar is not detecting targets as well as it did in the first few patches after launch.

CFD is a powerful tool: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnCsA6-d5ZzV1uL7UeaNgyg_E66vGt6A/view?usp=sharing

Biggest issue now is it seems last update for whatever reason the thrust was reduced slightly along with other drag changes which gave it a more appropriate drag curve (as in how quickly it slows down although imo its still a touch to draggy based off of my own CFD and IASGATG's CFD. But most importantly it lost ~300kts in terms of max speed from before. Beyond this the chaff resistance of all missiles (not just the amraam) is way too low. The size of the notch is too big. And the guidance is some wired form of pure in some situations and a bit of lead in others, not the Optimal control guidance law that it should have. The SD10 actually suffers from this worse than the amraam as it seems to be very susceptible to chaff and have an even larger notch.

Almost seems like they guide like SARH, without a launch warning and without the need for a radar lock, until they get close, then the enemy gets an active missile warning. Although will see if they ever fix it it' been years and years and years that they've behaved like this. Probably an artifact from the LOMAC days.

Sort of and yes. Detection ranges often depend on how big of an RCS you decide to base that max detection range off of. Now for missile ranges a really good example is the SA10 I would say has ~50 less range than it probably should.

I think the SU15 would be a really cool jet to do would love to see it in the game.

From my understanding you can tweak the g-performance of the pilot for each jet. I remember that a while ago, I think it was belsimtek, fixed a bug where either the mig15 or F86 piolt couldn't handle any g's at all.

F was the first in the new line of sparrows from the previous gen. It got the new MK56 motor which is shared by the rest of the sparrows. It got a new seeker that allowed it home in on PD waveform as well as CW. And got a slew of massive electronics upgrades. The M was next and got a new monopulse seeker and nosecone that increased its lock on ranges and effectiveness, along with giving it HOJ. Although it became incompatible with CW as a guidance method. The MH is a slightly upgraded M variant with parts from a AIM-7P. These were all electronic and improved the CCM resistance and gave the missile lofting logic. Now in the code the F model has a really low chaff resistance (FAR lower than it should be) but is identical to the rest in every other way. The M has much better chaff resistance but is identical to the F in kinematics. The MH has the best chaff resistance and can loft, even if the loft in DCS makes the missile useless. But once fixed this will be the best sparrow variant.

So something that I've seen a few times now over the past month or so is this: - actual loadout is 2 PL5E and 4 SD10. Obviously some kind of dysnc. I've seen it happen on a 18, 16, and a 14. As well as the JF17 in the pic above.

Not to mention that by 06 the 120C7 had come online and its supposed to have similar range to the phoneix, not to mention the 120D was in development which improved upon the already impressive range.

I thought that was fixed a couple of patches ago. It not working for you?

When a radar tracks something it isn't a like a laser beam often there is a cone often in the range of .5 - 2°'s in size. And if your in that cone you'll get the launch warning/lock tone same as everyone else. That being said I think that in DCS you get the warnings way to far outside of the cones but i'd need to test first. Additionally from my understanding of RWR's what trigers a lock warning/launch tone is not necessarily a change in power but a stark change in the PRF of a radar.

Yeah well it is a SARH missile so the amraam even if it is incredible buggy and slower than it should be, right now still has that decisive advantage.

no they weren't deploying chaff

So something that seems to have become a regular occurrence is: that after a short while tons and tons of ghost contacts will start spiting out of real tws contacts in random directions. (All the contacts behind the two groups marked as 1&2 and the one quite close to the bottom of the screen) -No jamming -Targets are flying straight and level -It starts to happen after shortly after a tws target is given a priority number. -If a missile is in the air it will start to track the new contact, stop lofting, then stop again, then start tracking the original contact and go back into the loft. Each time jinking hard and killing speed. This is a pretty critical bug as if this doesn't get fixed it will effectively render TWS and by extension the updated phoenix's useless.

certainly doesn't seem like its particularly stealthy half the time.

The reason I posted the drag force graph was to disprove a point. It appears to me that, -as far as I can tell- you seem to think that at the transonic region the rate a missile is losing speed should increase due to the significantly higher CD value than at high supersonic and subsonic speeds. This graph is meant to show that even at these speeds as your slowing down the drag force continues to drop and does not increase or even level out. So even as the CD increases the fact that the squared factor velocity is still falling will ultimately mean that the drag will too even at these high CD values. This is why you don't see this "inversion" at these speeds. Additionally, the difference between the highest point and lowest point of the large drop off (the point where the CD value falls off after its peak value at M1.2) is 175lbs at the top and 67lbs at the bottom... the amount of force is incredibly small (considering how high it gets at high mach numbers). That's also why I posted the resulting speed vs time chart as well to show that it matches (in terms of shape) what we see in DCS and frankly in that other jet sim as well. When looking into terrain the effect this has on PD radars is that it increases the intensity of the background noise which decreases max detection range. But once detected and locked onto maneuvering to place terrain behind you won't break the lock. Rather you either need to break LOS or get into the notch, which when trying to do against a missile that's probably under 5 miles from you would be next to impossible. Partially due to the incredibly high los rates due to the guidance equations. Not to mention if the host aircraft is still providing datalink updates notching ain't going to work at all. But on top of all of that it should be near impossible just due the very small notch's missiles are supposed to have; staying in a notch that's probably in the range of 30-45kts for any period of time that could actually cause the missile to lose you would just be almost impossible.

One thing is that the detection ranges for the 15's radar are definitely less than what they should be, and as far as i'm aware the newer full fidelity jets are on a completely new radar model. As too what it improves/changes I don't think we've ever been told.

The in game AIM-7 has a full drag curve as in every .1M value has a unique CD value associated with it. *note this graph is from my missile mod thread and expected is using the rlf drag curve and thrust values from "Standard Missile Characteristics AIM-7F" -From all the info I've ever seen on Russian missiles the current thrust values for all the Russian missiles being discussed (24,27,73,77) are correct as is currently. -A burned-out R27ER weighs only ~473lbslbs(79.3kg) which considering the size of the missile isn't really that much. -It has almost double the current lift because the 27 series hasn't been updated yet -? The target was well above the nose of the launching aircraft (who is even very slightly nose down). The course corrections steering dot was almost off the top of the max error circle... -The real lift coefficients and max aoa absolutely have been measured and tested in wind tunnels/flight tests but we won't see those numbers for decades. -why????? give it time and each missile will get improved, additionally, that would give the Russian missiles more performance than they should have. -Besides this game isn't about being balanced and there will still be missiles with appropriate drag values such as the phoenix and SD10 anyway. -I never said they designed them for this purpose. But I mean it shouldn't really be surprising that the 77 should probably lose speed quicker: It's a bigger missile with a very high transonic drag for its class. So even if the fins produce less drag than the 120b's the other aspects of the missile such as the larger size, slightly different nose cone shape, large central wings, and all the other small bits such as the datalink antenna bar all add up. -Maybe so I never said that at high supersonic speeds the lattices weren't rather low drag as far as fins go. It's just there's more factors than this that add up. -yup agreed -Yes agreed -Well I guess its a matter of how much extra drag the ER produces over the amraam. -An empty amraam weighs around ~238lbs(62.6kg) and as said above an empty 27ER weighs around ~473lbs(79.3kg). Considering these weights I have little doubt that each could get quite slow considering the relative sizes and weights. Well yeah, i never said the current speed of the R77 in-game was correct. I disagree, from a document I have called "Aerodynamic Coefficients Measurement on a model of a Sparrow Aim-7M Missile in the DREV trisonic Wind Tunnel" shows that these values are probably quite a bit higher than .7-.75. DCS currently for the AIM7 uses a value of 1.14 for low Mach numbers. and well... we have IASGATG's work as well The only differences between the Amodel is that the Bmodel "had a new WGU-41/B guidance section. It had software in reprogrammable EPROM modules, a new digital processor and other electronics updates." The above are actual flyout charts as in this is what the missile does. 5V55R: Let's visualize this in terms of drag this is just a quick chart generated by a small matlab program I wrote. I basically just had it calculate the drag for the entirety of a flight for the HARM drag curve I had generated. As you can see at the transonic region there is a notable rise in the slope of the drag curve but it's not for a particularly long time From my understanding, those numbers are max launch ranges, not how far it will actually travel. And as such a drag reduction, lift increase, and lift induced drag decrease, would probably allow the ER to hit in the above conditions. I'm a bit lost by what you're trying to say here. The amraam is a PD seeker and really doesn't care that much about ground clutter. In terms of it losing lock on a maneuvering target if you speaking about this as it is in DCS right now this is due to the seeker no having a MPRF mode currently which would significantly reduce the size of the notch (from my best understanding of the sources I've read somewhere in the range of 30-45kts is probably what it is irl). And yes the range (ins bug) and angle off the boresight they can lock are bugs.

I mean you can look at the code as well and this isn't the case. Keep in mind the drag coefficient isn't the major factor in the drag equation, velocity is as its a squared factor. It is the major determining factor, all the other variables are either constant or don't change drastically (for most shots). As such the CD value will largely just impact the rate the drag force increases or decreases with V. Additionally, the amount of time spent in the region with a really high drag coefficient, M0.9 - 1.4 (on most missiles), is quite often not particularly long. Well, there are several things here. A) All the other missiles are still the old model from when they were reworked back in 2012ish so obviously they would underperform quite a bit compared to the newer amraam (Not that they really should be anyway). The Russian missiles are absolutly still to draggy, as such just give ED time to fix them. Now that they've finally admitied there's a problem with the missiles and are actually working on them... It takes time to run CFD though. B) The R77 is a strange missile, while at high supersonic speeds it should be similar (but still more draggy) to a 120b in drag but as it gets closer and closer to transonic speeds those grid fins will start producing more and more drag than a standard fin model. So I don't exactly know if i'd use it as a missile to say 'amraam slows down to slowly'. Same with the ER as its a much bigger missile than the amraam as well. - Additionally from my own cfd work the R77 is a bit slower than what I have it as. The truth probably lies somewhere in between ED's values and the ones I have: Something I think your forgeting/ignorant about is that the body of a missile adds a huge amount of lift and in particular the nose cone shape can have a dramatic impact on this as well. The below image is from a document called "Performance Improvements with Sidewinder Missile Airframe Variants" you should be able to find it somewhere on the internet if you want to see for yourself. But for now, the basic summation of the paper is that they were testing the basic shape features of the amraam, in particular, the nose. So they put an amraam nose on a 9L/M and significantly reduced the rear fin size. Yet: the Cl and hence the g performance of this modified missile went up! This is in no small part due to the change in the nose cone shape which has a significant impact on drag and lifting performance; far more than one would think it would at that. Something I've noticed over the years is this general rule which really hasn't let me down yet. When dealing with Russian equipment, stated max range numbers tend to be for the most optimal launch conditions. While for US/Chinese equipment it tends to underestimates/more conservative criteria. Just as an example during the Iran-Iraq war a silkworm flew, and hit, a tanker at 120%+ of its previously stated max range. Wel from my info the 9M should have a max alpha around 20°. So, assuming that this higher value is true, if I was a betting man I'd bet a decent sum of money this is due to the fact that all non- AIM120 and AIM7 missiles suffer from more lift induced drag than they should. And that the max alpha values were limited to allow said missiles to have appropriate ranges. Much like how the majority of missiles in the game have had their Cl values (including the R27 and R77) reduced so they don't just kill themselves off the rail.

Yeah pretty much, ECM in DCS is incredibly basic, wouldn't surprise me if the code is from the flanker days back in the early 2000's.

Is it possible just to make it an option in the special options to switch between the old and new settings?