red_coreSix

From what I've seen with the new FM of the maverick it seems like they've actually modeled seeker angular tracking rate. So anything over a certain LOS-rate can't be tracked by the sensor. This means that you could theoretically kill a fighter flying Mach 1, if he is coming straight at you (so slow LOS-rate).

1. The F-15 radar is roll stabilized to 120° left/right IIRC, and pitch stabilized to 60° up/down. 2. No, in the AACQ modes the radar is not stabilized but follows the aircraft boresight.

Guys, thanks for all the feedback. We will revert the mission to an earlier stage before it went on the NA servers. We also hope to bring it back to an EU server eventually but no promises when that'll happen yet. Edit: The map layout will not change in the foreseeable future, there is a lot of coding involved to make that happen and would require a complete rewrite of certain scripts.

Yep, just realized. Thanks :thumbup:

Current tacview online debrief doesn't work.

Video in question: Around the 0:20 mark. Guy is beaming left and deploying chaff at about 2nm range. Still, the chaff manages to break/deny the radar lock.

For anyone interested, here is some footage of the Pechora-2A, an upgrade of the S-125M1. Includes impact of RGPO and noise jamming on the low blow.

The guidance of radar guided missiles is extremely lacking in dcs currently. The AIM-120 should have an INS that keeps tracks of the targets movement, and that is where the missile would get vectors from, should the antenna loose lock. Chaff shouldn't cause the missile to "switch to the chaff" like it does now, it should merely drag the aimpoint off the aircraft for a little while until the chaff has slowed enough to be rejected (in beaming/near beaming conditions). Yes, the R-27 has the same issue, but in contrast to the AIM-120, which has an active seeker, the R-27 relies on the Su-27s radar for guidance. And that is prone to loose lock pretty easily in the notch.

You keep mentioning operators, out of curiosity, doesn't the SA-3 typically employ an auto-tracker, AGC and doesn't require much input post-launch? Or are you talking about a manual launch, via CLOS? If the radar is capable of leading edge tracking it could easily switch to trailing edge tracking in such a case, couldn't it? I imagine that makes it quite vulnerable to ECM though...

I agree that dragging is the overall better choice, but do you always have the time when getting shot at from close range? Beaming is a good choice when you don't have time to turn cold. The leading edge tracking won't do much against a repeater jammer unless the low blow has some sort of PRF jitter and/or frequency hopping.

The same source states a 20-50% Pk against a "maneuvering target", with no chaff mentioned. Very ambiguous figures... Beaming will still have several effects on the SA-3. It will deny a leading edge tracker, making chaff more effective (right after deployment, shifting the centroid). It will force the missile to pull maximum lead. Not so sure what jamming will do at the short ranges the SA-3 operates in. The low blow has a 270kw peak power rating.

In-game it's a doppler. So notching is the way to go as far is the game is concerned. Realistically beaming will still work against leading edge tracker.

Fighters can fly low, no? There can be mountains behind the fighter causing look-down even in a "look-up" geometry. BTW, "beaming" means putting the radar at your 3 or 9. Notching is the effect beaming has on a doppler radar.

It does, ground based radars still have a notch to eliminate ground movers. The notch might be disabled when in look-up, similarly to fighter radars but it's there. Doesn't really apply here though, the point is that chaff is more effective when beaming because LET doesn't have an effect.

Strange indeed, can you post a tacview so we can have a look?

Not sure if it's specific to the F-5 as I don't own it, but I've been able to defeat 100% of missiles launched at me by notching and chaffing. A leading edge tracker tracks the leading edge of the skin return, as opposed to a centroid tracker which tracks the average center of the return. This is an ECCM technique to reduce the effect of chaff and some ECM techniques. It's usually used in conjunction with PRF jitter.

I don't know, maybe because it's the same colour as the sky? Also, do you really think it looks bad? I think it looks pretty nice.

The blue colour was chosen because it makes it easier for the pilot to transfer between the bright environment outside and darkness inside the cockpit, reducing fatigue.

Chaff works perfectly against SA-3s, you just gotta be beaming it so the leading edge tracker has no effect, as Beamscanner pointed out.

1. No, it's only the display range. 2. Simple answer, in DCS, no. There are modes on the real APG-63 like raid assessment that help with that but those aren't simulated in the sim. 3. When you bugged multiple contacts in TWS it will auto switch to the next one when you've launched an AMRAAM. Other than that there is no way, AFAIK, to cycle through designated TWS targets. 4. You get the post-launch timer in the bottom left of the HUD. IIRC, "T" is time to pitbull and "M" time to impact.

That's what I was saying, the radar is on but in a special mode and there is no indication for it (in the sim). It doesn't matter because all of this is not deeply simulated, but the effects are there. :)

The Su-24 is actually the only SPO-15 equipped aircraft that has full back hemisphere sensors. All SPO-15 display units can support those but the lamps are not screwed in. Example: Edit: Apparently I'm blind, this obviously is a Tu-22M in the video, so it appears they fitted those to more than just Su-24s :D

There is, IIRC the SU-27 (some version) pilot manual mentions it. Off course these aren't really simulated in-game, but the intent is there, it's not by accident. The LWS in the A-10 and KA-50 will only give an alarm once inside 5km or so, according to your theory they should at 50. Off course you could passively track them without having the radar on, you just won't have range when outside laser coverage. But AFAIK the radar is always used when tracking targets in EO, they seem pretty confident on its LPI abilities. The laser rangefinder is there to allow accurate gun employment at close range, the radar, in this range only mode, is probably not very accurate.

IR itself only gives angle and angle rates. Radar gives range at long range and laser at closer range, that's how it works in reality and how it is documented and that's how it's represented in the sim. The IFF system is integrated in the radar, so when you turn the radar on in EO+ILL you're using the IFF antennas to IFF and the radar in a low frequency, LPI, range only mode for ranging, that is until you get into laser range. You can get from EO+ILL to RL by pressing "O".

Below 4km, yes. Or are you saying the laser reaches out to 50km?