Santi871

Oh, I guess it's only flood mode that uses CW? Either way, interesting stuff in this thread, I'll test all this stuff out later.

You can use the Mercury pod, it has an infrared camera which will make it easier to spot targets. The Shkval is just a TV camera, no IR, so yeah you mostly have to rely on your eyes.

I have no idea. If I were to speculate, maybe the launching aircrafts radar changes PRF in accordance to the missile's distance to the target to optimize the tracking, I don't think the ER uses continuous wave tracking but the aim7 does I'm pretty sure and the spo15 can still detect its strength. But then again it's speculation.

It shows the strength of the missile so basically how close it is, regardless of whether its ARH or SARH. I don't know why this works with SARH or if it's realistic, but that's how it is ingame. Generally RWRs detect launches because guidance PRFs are different, or sometimes continuous wave is used. I believe newer RWRs might also detect datalinks between the missile and the launching aircraft but I'm not sure.

Research in this field is actually a thing, and it has been for a while. https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/237202 http://www.google.com/patents/US7876256 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/623072.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_probability_of_intercept_radar

Yeah that could have been possible in real life but it's not modeled ingame. Yeah that's 100% validated from when I said "I'd be inclined to believe you if you could provide any source for that." My point is, with the amount of money and research that goes into radars, it's safe to assume they would attempt to reduce or eliminate any unintended effect (like backlobes), so I'd be careful when comparing it to more common things where having a backlobe isn't a big deal. That's why I ask for sources, because it's difficult to believe they wouldn't do anything possible to reduce unintended emissions (which they do in AESAs).

Yeah, that's for the own aircraft, where the radar is. I'm talking about dozens and hundreds of feet behind.

So according to you if I fly right behind any FC3 plane in the game while their radar is on they should pop up in my RWR. Try for yourself.

Wait, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. There are only two flap positions, raised and landing, but the ASC can automatically set the flaps inbetween those (for example for takeoff).

The F is just a toggle, so whenever you press it the flaps will change states. The Landing Flaps and Flaps Raise bindings only work if you press the opposite to the current state. It's for selectors and toggle switches in joysticks.

He did say the factors that affect whether it'll miss.

That's a different scenario really, a laser pointer is much sharper than a radar antenna, and anything from the ground to birds to clouds returns noise. You shouldn't picture the radar beam like a beam but rather a diffuse cone with "spillage" to the sides, where chaff can get caught. This picture will help: As you can see from that rough diagram, it's not perfect.

Depending on how strongly the chaff produces clutter, the missile can "think" it is the target. The difference between chaff and a mountain is that chaff returns noise in a very small concentrated spot, whereas a mountain will return noise in a much wider area. Depending on processing techniques, the missile's avionics might determine that a small concentrated spot of noise = target. Remember that we have old radars in DCS, even in FC3 planes, nowadays radars are much more advanced.

I think you have a misconception on what "locking" means. "Locking" simply means the host radar focuses its energy on a target. Depending on the width of the beam and the aspect, it may be able to illuminate two different sets of chaff. SARH missiles are simply guiding off the return of the radar (without counting datalink), and since they are sensitive, its possible they see chaff as the target. I'm not saying you're wrong, though.

Yep. As always good to hear info from actual pilots. Seeing as there are no double rail launchers, I'm sure they only realized this once the TERs had been designed, built and shipped, and it was probably easier to just not load the innermost Maverick rather than designing a whole new launcher.

Hey dude, I have you on steam since a while back (from Arma 3 wasteland IIRC). I'd be happy to help.

The oscillations in the Su27 are due to the relaxed stability, which the F15C doesn't have.

There's no way those values are correct. Edit: I realized you are talking about vertical scan. So disregard what I just said.

3 decimal accuracy is a little hard to achieve in real life :) Also, the Su27 and Mig29 were designed to work with GCI, that's why the "expected target range" setting is there - it makes it a lot easier if you were being guided by GCI.

Nope. I'm saying the vertical scan and uncaged boresight modes in FC3 are realistic.

Oh I get it now, yeah, it's not unrealistic as far as I'm aware.