ShadowFrost

Wrong forum....

That is a possibility. However, the scan pattern in STT is not 50 degrees wide in elevation. And for a traditional off boresight shot, both the missile and radar are looking in the same direction off azimuth. Whereas, with an aggressive manual loft, they can be split and this could lead to the rear antennas of the missile being outside of the cone of correction and unable to receive radio correction. That being said, we have gotten to a granularity that is probably not going to be relevant in DCS.

There have not been many theories created here, most of my arguments are in direct reference to discussions with SMEs and how we in DCS assume certain options which are not valid methods of operation. Similar to the LOAL controversy with both the R-27 and the Aim-7, they are absolutely not valid tactics due to how the missiles are harmonized with the radar but many in DCS belive them to be. And I agree with most of what you have said, we can very much use additions such as the R-77-1, 120A, 120C-7, and PL-15 or etc. Or also options like the R-27R1 or similar for more scenarios. More variation in our environment is desperately needed.

It is a bug of the 18. It should not be allowed. Memory mode currently works on the Mig-29 when not entered from gimbal limits. (IE target maneuvering) Memory mode does not work when gimbaled.

You keep arguing in such a manner that, as far as seen, is not allowed per the manual. I'm not sure if its a translation issue, but it sometimes sounds like you think I am arguing the R-27 is a extremely smart missile. I have simply stated, that with better modeling, we will have a basic datalink which is not going to be as optimal as what we can do currently. Both the HZ documented in the 9.12 manual, as well as other documents, indicate the radio correction is relatively simple and with limitations.

It's just what's allowed currently. The missile will have no trouble finding its way home as currently. Thanks, but I do expect when (if) we get english bias for the aim-7 they (being non-MH/P variants) won't manually loft super well anymore. And I'm not aware of an option to disable english bias. And for those that don't know, English bias is a preprogrammed turn towards target of the missile for the seeker on the aim-7 to acquire. Used as early as the aim-7e and should help significantly in the F-4's case with missiles not acquiring in close range WVR combat.

The aspect about "breaking the missile by lofting 50 degrees" is verbatim from an SME in internal discussions elsewhere. You can't just use missiles in ways they weren't designed. Even those that do loft inherently may not be able to be manually lofted. Using aggressive manual lofts is a somewhat recent addition, which you can find footage of in the early 2000s. I would like to see the documents if you would like to PM them. I would imagine english bias could be used as a poor man's loft. But even then, english bias is going to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the loft because it will point the missile toward the target for the aim-7 to acquire.

What you've quoted doesn't explain any limitations, just how the guidance deviations are corrected. And I'm not seeing anything here that disagrees with what I've said. Its just explaining how the commands were encoded through the radar. I put more faith in what SMEs say who have better knowledge on the topic.

Might as well link the secret projects while you're at it lol

I would expect the optimal path the current missile takes (due to simplicities in guidance currently) is going to be reduced somewhat significantly. It is a fairly simple datalink with low HZ and also has limitations in the manual as to what maneuvers can be performed while ensuring guidance. Secondly, with an aggressive loft, you have the possibility of losing radio datalink connection with the rear antennas. Though INS does have the possibility of bringing it back, referencing the manual, I would not expect it to make aggressive changes as even with radio datalink, as there are references to be cautious of target and ownship aircraft maneuvering that can exceed datalink's control authority. With the datalink being radar encoded and that the sidelobes are not strong enough to send the signal. The sidelobes could theoretically be strong enough. But generally speaking, referencing SMEs, launching in configurations not inherently designed for is an easy way to break missiles. Now, I should add that a small loft in the range of 10-20 degrees would probably not break the missile. But if we get into the ranges of say 45-70 degrees.... The odds are not favorable unless explicitly allowed by the manual. Lastly, if the INS were fully capable and understood the kinematic benefits, why would it not loft itself when needed? (Without the need for manual lofting) No R-27 that was in service at the time (or currently) has shown such evidence. It was a rumored improvement of the 27EM; however, that missile never made it into production or past the prototype stage. And as a note, only the Aim-7MH/P should loft. (aim-120 is also modern enough) The R-27R does not as far as the evidence supports.

If anything, we are going to lose options there; the missile only performs a main beam avoidance maneuver after launch and then guides to an intercept point via a very basic radio datalink to a point at which the seeker activates. Currently, we can manually loft it, but that isn't quite correct.

Whats that? Besides general seeker items/overhaul, its mostly FCR stuff we need. Selectable range for seeker activation (datalink prior) and a flood fallback mode for the 29 FCR is about all that is missing IIRC

No idea

Known internally. Supposedly the radar should not enter memory mode on gimbal limits the track should just break, but the missile should recover in memory mode otherwise. I have an automatic test that tests this precise mode every patch

I will pass the message on