nighthawk2174

3.5deg per bar I think i'd need to check. Yes but this is true for all mech scans ESA's are a new game and not really pertinent to this discussion. If you have an idea where the targets are its not an issue, plus you can always slew that volume left and right to check those areas every once and a while as well. its not as extreme though so it does make a difference. Still less though as many of the aircraft on the plot are in lookdown, the F15's radar also has a bunch of other usefull modes that the su27 does not have. RAID being an example. Rog something I've noticed is that sometimes Russian documents also make reference to the mig-21 when referencing the 3m2 value. which its average frontal RCS over a 40deg arch is ~3m^2 but head-on its 7.4m^2. Something to consider. Well its the best we got considering the topic matter. The ability to carry them means nothing if there's like 3 sets for an entire squadron. Yeah and if the "internal fuel tank" isn't being used it carries less internal fuel. Even with two tanks, a common loadout, the F15 is still fully capable of reaching M1.5 at high altitude. With the AMRAAM up to 8 active missiles, and with Sparrow 4 radar and 4 heaters. Same as the F4. Maybe for Russian doctrine but that doesn't negate its advantages. Having the ability to AAR allows you to stay on station for longer and to have your bases further back keeping them safer. Except the F15 is far more capable of handling that situation than the su27. Still though one cloud in the way or on a poor visibility day such as a lot of smoke or humidity in the air would negate this system altogether.

The delay on datalink implementation was due to the fact that the terminal for JTIDS couldn't fit on the F16. So there was a delay until one small enough to fit on the jet could be developed from scratch. Besides link 4C was being used by the navy's F14's since the late 80's and 4A had been around since the 60's iirc. I mean its 60deg/sec if the range scale is above 20NMi (its set to something like 80 or 90deg if range scale is below 20 and there are targets being tracked). That's not slow, 8sec for a full 4bar scan. You can always reduce the scan width as well to increase the effective scan rate of a piece of sky. This is for the F-15A, the MISP program would improve upon these numbers. Additionally your 6m^2 estimation is to high, doubling the RCS of the target improves range by ~19% not the ~33% you drew here. Plus iirc the numbers listed here for the 27 are in lookup, the F15 is detecting head on targets with good regularity, in look down, at 60-70NMi. If not further with one detection at 75NMi. Also the 3m2 target just it say for sure its 3m2 or is it against a mig21? From what we've heard from pilots significantly less. The radar is rumored to have extremely poor ECCM in comparison to the F15. The pods were always in very short supply iirc. Every single eagle had a DECM set and OECM aircraft were in service in numbers with NATO. Not twice the internal gas, the F15 has 13400lbs internal the su27 is 20750lbs when maxed out, with only two external pods the F15 carries more gas. At full internal the SU-27's performance is not stellar and unlike the F15 it can't jettison that weight if it has too. Adding the third tank to the eagle gives the eagle an additional 24.5% more gas over a fully fueled flanker. Plus it can AAR, I would not say that the SU27 has an advantage here. Which can be jammed and is heavily impacted by weather respectively. Not to mention the EO can only range aircraft out to 12NMi.

It shouldn't be changing

I've heard the opposite from others, and factors such as ECM that may not have been considered in those discussions would be a factor irl. The US army had the USAF for aircover, meanwhile i'd look at the USN it is currently the undisputed king of airdefense. It has sam's with no equivalents anywhere else. And once the CIA thought that the mig-25 was a super jet with high mach 2 speed and better maneuverability than the F4, the CIA can and has been wrong especially if its inital guess work on performance. And yet I have pilot friends who say the opposite of what you have so well...

We have extremely detailed flight test data for the APG-63 on the F-15A in terms of detection ranges. Detection range on a SU-27 sized target is absolutely in the range of 140km up to 180km (actual SU27 RCS dependent), in lookup, for the original -63 on the A. Best guess is that the MISP program added 10-20% ontop of that. If they even had enough ECM kits, from my understanding the number of ECM kits was rather limited, so you could be in the situation of not being able to jam at all going up against an aircraft with jamming support from EF-111's/EA-6B's and internal DECM. With a radar that isn't particularly capable of handling jamming. PTB? If you mean the fuel tanks they can be jettisoned before combat. Additionally the 4 of the F15's missile rails are semi-recessed reducing the amount of drag added to the airframe when carrying missiles.

Speaking of which how is it going on fixing the F15's radar in DCS? I know that GG gave you the performance doc of the original -63 a while ago, which would have less range than the MISPII radar we have in game by a good percentage number. And from my understanding they are still even in low numbers, not enough for every jet, iirc? It's -7E1- G limit was raised significantly from 15G to 25G and its safety distance was also reduced, it could be set to this mode by a switch on the ground. The AIM-9J was still a 22G missile only slightly less than the R60 and the 9L/9M are 40g missiles. Both of which have superior range seeker and kinematics wise. Plus part of this is how long the missile stays at peak maneuverability, (AIM-9L) the R60 would have just a very short period of time where it could achieve its peak maneuverability where the AIM-9 would have a longer period.

The AIM-7F when being guided by a CW signal had a limit of 22NMi against a 2m^2 target while being guided by a transmiter with rather lower power. The kind you'd find on the earlier F4's. When being guided by a PD signal from the -63/AWG9 it would have much better range than this. Not only does it have more power to receive from the target but the PD signals in general have better range iirc. 30 miles for the seeker limit against a flanker sized target is probably a good conservative estimate. I don't have much but a friend of mine got access to some pretty in depth technical analysis of the MIG-29's radar for both the slotback 1 and 2. I don't remember much as this was ~4.5 years ago but he ranted for over an hour about how bad the radar was. The only thing I remember for sure is that he called the ECCM a joke and that in certain situations (tail chaise in particular I think?) the slotback's had difficulty in getting and maintain a solid STT lock. In some situation I think it could take up to 30+ sec for the radar to establish an STT lock. I'll see if I can find him and see if he still has access to said documents.

The farther back you go the worse the RWR tech for the Russians is, back in the mid to late 70's a large number of their jets only had the SPO-10 if even a RWR. By the 80's the SPO-15 was starting to make its way a lot of the Russian front line jets but their allies would have lagged behind. It would make defending against longer ranged sparrow shots a lot harder. Keep in mind the current F15 radar in DCS is in some ways underperforming the original APG-63 on the F15A. Such as less detection range, no RAID, no 8 bar scan, and no track memory. Which for STT shots is a big deal as being notched is the end you will not reaquire and your missile will miss, irl it probably won't. Yes but there are tactics you can employ here to help with this, its why sorting is so important and the setup to the fight as well for Fox 1 fights. Additionally shots within 15 miles for the sparrow at 20k feet are quite dangerous. Only a split-S and increasing the range will save you, and well at that point you've given up the fight as you won't be able to turn back in safely unless there are other fighters to cover you and engage the enemy. Your ignoring ECM, the F15/F14 has an internal ECM suite and there are a number of USAF and USN OECM platforms as well. From what we know the soviet radars of the 70's and 80's had extremely poor resistance to ECM (F4/F16A is probably in the same boat as well). Which if combined with their rather poor detection range is not a good combination for the Russian jets. The APG-63/70 would have faired far better being a more powerful radar with a lot of ECCM systems. Close in the far superior cockpit visibility and usability of the close in radar modes should not be underestimated, not to mention superior maneuvering performance, and the maneuverability of the 9L, while not an archer, it is still a very maneuverable missile. Plus the farther back you go the rarer flare dispensers on the Russian jets become. Every common US jet has flare dispensers with a good number of flares. A flight of 4v8 would probably start with attrition the enemy flight down heavily before the merge. This happened in every single engagement between western and PACT jets I know of. Attriting the enemy down from superior or equal number down to equal or fewer in number. Additionally as was shown in the Lebanon ground based GCI systems are extremely vulnerable to attack and jamming. And if your jets are reliant on the system staying up when and if it goes down you will suffer heavily. Meanwhile the airborne systems of NATO and superior radars on individual jets only makes this worse for the Russians. Good luck effectively completing sorties and getting coordinated attacks with superior numbers if your entire GCI system is being attacked and jammed. I don't think so the superiority of western jets in aerial combat, and traning, would absolutely make this a very likely outcome.

Yes I think that it would be more accurate to just place the 54C onto the 120B's guidance, adjusting values as necessary.

It seems that there are some decently detailed docs on the 27's guidance system, the ones posted earlier. Are there plans to implement the unique traits of the missiles guidance?

So something me and a few friends have been debating is whether or not the 54C has the same limitation as the 54A needing the active command from the AWG-9. I recently found this had been posted on the forums before: This description of the AIM-54C's inertial system could easily be copy pasted into the amraam's description. I have some documentation on the AMRAAM and the terms used to describes its INS system are the exact same as the above terminology and description. This just makes sense too considering the time period of the AIM-54c's electronics update coincides exactly with the amraam's late term development. Which was done by the exact same company, Raytheon, and considering the 54c didn't have the same space limitations as the amraam I see no reason the programing already done for the amraam wouldn't have been included in the 54C upgrade; especially the electronics/ECCM upgrade done to the 54C in 1988. Not to mention the more advanced lofting and optimal control guidance algorithms, which could explain the higher G-limit on the missile. I find it extremely improbable that the 54C doesn't act exactly like the amraam. As far as i'm aware anecdotal evidence says that the AIM-120A's and -54c's guidance systems are the clones of each other. And again since the AIM-54C knows its own position in 3D space and by extension the distance from the target (or predicted target point) I see no reason it shouldn't be able to turn on its own seeker. The reason this limit exists in the A is it does not poses this ability and relies entirely on the AWG-9. Not to mention the above quote directly states that it "...switches on it's own radar transmitter..." And while it is far from the most important factor something to consider; it would give a real reason to carry the 54C over the 54A-MK60. It would differentiate itself with better guidance algo's, lofting algo's, CCM, and the ability to go active on its own. The tradeoff being somewhat worse kinematics.

Yeah and Kaliningrad is also right there as well which opens up modern scenarios as well.

I know they did this after saying that the radar dishes were good sources of radar returns? Wouldn't the refraction caused by the material of the missiles radome mitigate or even negate this effect?

lol odd google translate ftw then.

@totmacherДоступен ли используемый вами скрипт для загрузки другими пользователями? Я хотел бы провести некоторые тесты скорости поворота на F15 на 20/30/40 тысяч фунтов стерлингов по сравнению с документом -220, который у нас есть.

I think that the odd behavior I saw of the contacts switching is almost certainly a bug. You have the initial combined target then when the new target is found the initial contact is lost (sometimes resulting in a false return that flies off at Mach 10) and then having the new one designated as the old one; sometimes also producing a false target. The first issue identified by the OP is also almost certainly a bug as well I'm not sure what's going on with it though. This is where on the DDD you sometimes get a random contact separated in azimuth significantly from the target. The third thing identified is the fact that RWS as substantially better ability to break out contacts with TWS which seems very odd, i've not seen anything in the various radar books i've read that would indicate that TWS/RWS should be any different in their performance here. Imo this is a bug but i'm willing to be proven wrong here.

Yeah it is quite strange

I think its graphics settings related it is quite annoying as looking out the back is quite difficult as the white fog effect makes it really hard to see anything.

If your SNR is within the limits of the radar I see no reason that it would have difficulty. Especially for a PD system. No the PD illuminator is not turned on in TWS, the missile gets updates through the radar's side lobes.

Yes i've also posted this paper in other threads, considering the tech difference between a PD/Monopulse/Ku band/Digital electronics amraam and this radar heavily implies that chaff has a significantly lower chance of break lock.

I don't know imho considering how consistent his alpha was through the turn indicates otherwise at least up to a certain point.

Rog I believe its a C with the engines in game but I ofc could be wrong.

Also no pylons clean jet.

no pylons, iirc this was a blue angles jet and I haven't seen them do a show with pylons.