Beamscanner

APX-111 replaced the APX-100 on older F-18s between 1997-2000. The latest Hornets (2007+) received the APX-117/118 upgrade which replaced the TX/RX unit, while retaining the antennas/beam forming network from the APX-111. So, its safe to say that the field of regard limits are the same for even the newest Hornet IFF. Of note, the F-16 block 50/52 use a slightly altered version of the APX-111, the APX-113, which was received starting in 1999. So from a dev perspective the functionality and underlying logic should be the same. https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=144 https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=170

How did you buy one? I've visited the store several times a week for the past 5 months..

sounds pretty normal.. What would be more interesting is tracking both migs simultaneously with separate AIM-9X's. Once you get within range simply double tap the weapons release button. Two missiles, two targets, no close in acquisition.

Correct. The real life APX-111 CIT limits are ±70° in azimuth and -30° to +60° in elevation. Some sources say ±60° in azimuth, but it's probably similar to how the radar can scan "±70°" but at different elevations the field of regard is compressed. (ex. the antenna can only scan roughly ±63° or so at higher elevations)

FYI, the blurry MFDs are also apparent in the exported displays. regardless of resolution. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3631456#post3631456

Radar slave ATFLIR Slave Ground Marking (same as HUD ground marking) Radar designations (two TD boxes. one for L&S and one for DT2) Ground designations (from radar, ATLFIR or link-16) Link-16 (friends, wingman, foes (with NCTR), tankers, ships, etc) RWR strobes

Question for those who've used the DCS JHMCS / 9X. If you select a 9X from pylon 1, uncage it on a target so the 9X seeker starts tracking. What happens when you switch to pylon 2? Does the 9X on pylon 1 automatically cage and stop tracking the target? Or does it continue to track it? What I really want to know if its possible to get multiple 9X's tracking separate targets prior to entering the weapons engagement zone. So that I can instantly pop off two or more 9X's without having to find or fix targets WVR.

The color option isn't super useful until you get LTWS, TWS, IFF and datalink. So it makes sense that the feature hasn't been a dev priority.

The F/A-18 never flew without TWS and LTWS. Never underestimate the power of SA

thank you for the clarification

Cant tell if this was directed at me or not.. RP-5 is pulse radar. The real one had ground and cloud clutter. There is video footage showing this. Are you suggesting that it is a clutter free radar (coherent, pulse doppler, MTI)?

It was a good preview. Would have liked to see the radar in action.

Zeus, One of the MIG-17P manuals mentions some precautions with the RP-1 (RP-5 is an enhanced RP-1). --------------------------------------------- Ground check of the RP-1 Radar 444. To test the RP-1 pilot must: 1) Turn on the sight. 2-3 min. after turning on the display screen appears raster line noise and electronic attitude indicator. 2) To secure control handles "Bright" and "Fok" get on the screen of a weak, but clearly the presence of background noise from luminance noise in the failure zone of 2 to 5.6 km. Start noise should be at a distance of 0.2 km, and the upper limit should be placed on their range of 12 km and more. Noise azimuth should be restricted zone of 60 ° to both sides of the zero azimuth. RP-1 in flight check 445. Enabling the radar scope of RP-1 and prove that it works in the air produced in the same sequence as in the verification on the ground. After 3-4 minutes. after the crosshair on the display screen at a distance corresponding to the height of the flight, the signals appear altimetrovye land in the form of bars and spots. With increasing altitude terrestrial interference decrease; at 7000 m , they almost disappear. At altitudes below 3000 m observation marks goal against interference from the ground is difficult, resulting in operational use is limited scope minimum height of 2500 m After 5-6 minutes. after the scope and level flight mode to check the position of electronic artificial horizon line guidance with respect to the line of banks and if necessary adjust their relative positions, mode and level flight at the same check on the flight and navigation instruments. Small aircraft evolutions make sure that the operation of the electronic artificial horizon. -------------------------------------- This further points to the RP-5 radar having ground clutter (ie noise) in the radar scope. So much in fact that they say the radar isnt useful below 2500 meters. With the ground clutter noise gradually decreasing as you climb in altitude (noise is almost completely gone past 7000 meters) I've also adjusted the color and blended all of the frames from the video into one picture so as to get a feel for what the pilot would see (phosphorus film on the CRT screen naturally blends the rastered images for the pilots eyes) Original footage: Recolored: Recolored / Blended frames (most accurate depiction): Recolored / Blended frames / Double sided to account for the missed CRT rasters by the camera's shutter (most authentic depiction):

1. I believe it can be adjusted in TWS, but its positioning is limited if you have a L&S designation. If your gonna narrow your search, mine as well switch to TWS.. That being said, you also get Spotlight search in RWS. Its just not implemented yet. 2. IRL, STT has automatic range adjustment. It can also be manually adjusted, but it'll no longer adjust automatically once you manually change it during a lock.

TUC = Target Under Cursor. Its part of LTWS. Its one of 3 designations available to the pilot. 1. Launch & Steering Target (L&S): The primary designation. If a weapon or sensor is slaved, its slaved to this guy (if not the JHMCS). 2. Secondary Designated Target (DT2): A second designation for SA purposes and engagement. DT2 and L&S can be swapped rapidly via the undesignate button. 3. Target Under Cursor (TUC): A third designation that shows trackfiles for bricks under your cursor. Purely for SA purposes.

Yes, indeed. But this only furthers the point that the screen is riddled with radar clutter. A clean screen (no radar clutter) wouldn't brighten up because of a shutter. The camera's shutter can only hide light, not add to it. The RP-5 radar scope is not a clean screen display. Even the much more modern pulse radars of the F-5 and F-4 had radar clutter, and Russian radar design greatly lags behind the west AND the Scan Odd radar (RP-5) is 10 years older than these. F-5 APQ-153 F-4 APQ-120

Love the number of options in the reject page :) Looks like we can see friends and foes via JHMCS (MIDS info, Member, Doner, Closest Friend, other)

#1 Are the search antenna's #16 Is the STT antenna MIG-17PF Manual Courtesy of the CIA [Declassified] https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-01043R004000110001-0.pdf I'm very interested to see how well RAZBAM can pull off an analog pulse only radar. A proper simulation should have accurate ground, cloud, and chaff clutter as well as target size/intensity variation due to target RCS and aspect..

there should also an expand (EXP) option on the DDI for the L&S target in the future

Can we expect a revisit to the F/A-18C DDI export? The A-10's works fine, but the F/A-18C's is still blurred.

Anyone have footage of the A-6's sensors? I've only seen them via "flight of the intruder" haha

Haha, yes. *without

This is incorrect. That IS a SA-3 being identified as lethal because its an SA-3. Its likely a SAM simulator and poses no real threat between practice runs. If it was a friendly radar it wouldn't be identified as a lethal threat. To further emphasize my point. You can also see a lethal indication for a AAA radar while he's refueling (indicated by the "A" symbol) and he doesn't seem to care. (its probably a simulator as well) He's also seen making a bombing run on a ground target with the "A" indication. Furthering the point that it is indeed a simulated AAA threat. https://imgur.com/a/E7yLw1k

1. They clearly go over land to blow stuff up. 2. SAM simulators mimic threat waveforms for RWRs http://leonardodrs.com/air-combat-training-systems/products/electronic-warfare-simulators/ 3. The pilot is clearly showing alot of sensor footage while in a live fire event. Its not a big deal to show a SA-2 simulator. The F-20 Tigershark sales video shows a bunch of SAM simulators on its RWR. 4. The ALR-67 likely cant even pick up the E-2's radar IRL due to its low frequency. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192936 5. After closer inspection of the indication, it may in fact be a "Z" not a "2". The "Z" may be an indication of the ZSU-23 on IRL rwrs. 6. I can guarantee that the SA-2 radar is indicated by a "2" on the ALR-67. Not as "FS" (Fan Song). Either way, "2" or "Z", neither of these is a E-2 radar indication. You've misinterpreted the video footage. The all the docs indicate that the dashed line is a lethal threat. You mean this one? The stems above are short and solid. Finally, you dont know what the brick on the stem means. For all we know it could indicate that you're jamming it or it could represent an emitter about to age-out.

Zeus, I did notice something in the RAZBAM update video that I didn't understand. I keep hearing the "status change" tone playing when nothing is happening. I know you're working the ALR-67(v) for the Harrier, but the (v2) cant be all too different. In the (v2), status change tones happen when 1. an emitter appears (unless its a fighter radar, in-which it plays a waterfall tone instead) 2. an emitter moves up in threat (ie from non-lethal to lethal, or from lethal to critical)