Beamscanner

Thats not an accurate estimation, because the DLZ circle is non-linear. I believe Rmax1 is always at the bottom of the circle, regardless of the max range of the missile (ie the bottom of the circle wont always represent 20 miles or any specific range). Also that image is WIP. Here's the real deal Watch this video to see what it looks like in motion.

They said it would after EA release

I'm perfectly fine with cheating the Mode 4/5 IFF simulation.. Its not like there much more to it than 'are you friendly or not'... yes, but only in certain modes. For sure STT, and maybe the L&S (soft lock) track under certain conditions.. HAFU is the only way to know if a target is friend or not. HAFU tracks can also be colored (if the color option is selected on the data sub-page) green for friendly, yellow for unknown or ambiguous, and red if hostile. Tracks are automatically made "friendly" if they have the correct IFF response. Every track without the proper IFF response is made Unknown. The pilot has to manually alter tracks to make them "hostile" or "ambiguous" in the SA page IFF information is also displayed on the top right of the radar attack page in small numbers representing the modes the current track is responding to. Below you can see mode 4, 2, and mode S being displayed. The image is taken from a youtube video. The CRT display can raster red and green, but also both red and green to make a yellow icon. in this case we can see that its rastering both a green and a red icon for the IFF info, meaning that the true color being seen by the pilot is yellow. (IFF data is actually yellow, the shudder of the camera makes you only see either the green or the red raster of the CRT) Those triangles are ALR-67 (RWR) tracks :) If flying a 'realistic' mission (no flankers on blue team/no eagles on red team, etc), these can help you associate radar returns with BLUFOR vs REDFOR emitters. (ie you have only raw hits on the radar, but directly above those raw hits you have a MIG-29 Radar on the same bearing) If a track is made "Hostile" the TD box will rotate 90 degrees and a diamond (instead of a box) will be displayed in the HUD.

FYI, the radar will display HAFU (Hostile, Ambiguous, Friendly or Unknown) symbology if targets are -designated L&S or DT2 (soft lock) -under the cursor in LTWS -hard locked in STT -target is being tracked in TWS As of now, the only one of those available is STT. And STT doesn't seem to work for more than 2 seconds right now anyway. Raw hits (bricks) wont display if the target is friendly or not. That is unless ED is simulating a newer lot of the radar than I'm familiar with.

This guy looks like he can zoom in and out

Everything you need to know can be found in the Gulf War Air Power Survey. Here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279742.pdf ---Basic overview--- Iraqi Air Defense Sectors Iraqi Strategic SAM Sites SA-2 SA-3 SA-6 SA-8 Roland Of note, the above map shows the sites of the SA-2 (larger circles/ max range 27 nmi) and the SA-3 (2nd largest circles/ max range 14nmi). The SA-6, SA-8, and Rolland missiles were positioned with either SA-2 or SA-3 sites for added protection. Quote: "strategic SAMs were not widely dispersed throughout Iraq. Instead, they were concentrated in dense pockets around potential high-value target areas (Mosul, Kirkuk, H-3, the Baghdad area, Basra, etc.).1162 As Figure 8 indicates, the vast majority of Iraqi airspace was not covered by radar-guided SAMs." Distribution of Iraqi AAA and Infa-Red SAMs in each sector Enjoy

Well thank you for getting a response from the team so swiftly! :thumbup:

We understand. What we didn't expect was this to happen so silently.

Cool, thanks for being more up front about it.

How is that virtue signaling?

At what point will the EA list stop changing? It seems rather unethical to silently change the features available after having sold pre-purchases. Perhaps be more open that something was removed from EA.

Thanks, I corrected it So here's an idea. Why not use the Air to Ground API ED is working on for simulating pulsed radar operation. Real beam mapping modes are essentially just pulse only waveforms (LPRF) with pulse compression. Just adjust the following parameters -range resolution -Azimuth resolution (radar beamwidth) and point the beam up instead of down. That way you have realistic ground clutter in the scope.

Awhile ago I made a post about the inaccuracies of the simulated AN/APQ-159. At that point, I had no footage of the real radar in action. However, thanks to a member of our community, I have acquired some actual footage of the F-5's radar. AN/APQ-153 radar Taken from an "F-5E produced in 1974/1975". I believe we are seeing the radar being operated on the ground, hence the intensity of the clutter. A lack of clutter, say in a look-up scnario, should look something like this. AN/APQ-120 radar I hope to see this revisited by the devs at some point.

http://www.aircraft-reports.com/mc-donnell-douglas-f-a-18-a-b-c-d-aircraft-organizational-maintenance-principles-of-operation-radar-system-manual-a1-f18ac-742-100/ This is as close as i could get.. The AN/APG-65 principles of operation (maintenance manual). (early lot F/A-18C) While still not the golden egg, much closer than the AN/APG-63 manual. EDIT: I can say that it explains quite a lot about the functionality and display of the radar in RWS, TWS, STT, etc.

yup... We know the SA-3, SA-5, SA-6, and SA-11 (a bunch of ancient SAMs that can only engage 1 target at a time) shot down the majority of the missiles (which are capable of simultaneous time on target) because RT (a Russian state owned news organization) said so. I mean its not like they have a export market to protect.../s

The thing hit a B-52's tail gunner radar.. If the radar operates in the freq range of the HARM's RF sensor, yes. Just know that target movement can significantly degrade the missiles performance. Especially if the radar spins slowly or is blinking on and off. (ie if the HARM seeker gets intermittent updates while the target is moving, its pk will drop) In the B-52's case, while the target WAS moving, it's tail gun radar was more or less fixated in the direction of the HARM's seeker (ie constant updates)

Can someone clarify; is Simple radio 'built-in' to the F-14 or is it just simple radio 'friendly' (simple radio still a separate executable). i.e. If a friend of mine has never downloaded SR, will he need to to chat with me flying the F-14 online?

Nice. Didn't know the Highlark had mono-pulse detection. That being said I'm willing to bet it used amplitude comparison instead of phase comparison.

ED said that they planned on incorporating this... So yes. My question: Can we expect ALR-67 data to be displayed in the HUD and Radar Attack pages as seen in the below thread? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=197024&page=2

I'm very familiar with the Flashdance radar... And while they got a fighter ESA first, it's first iteration ended up under-performing (poor scan limits, detection range, waveform selection, etc.). But if that's the logic were going to use, then the Russians have still failed to field an X band AESA radar for operational fighters. An achievement reached by the U.S. and Japan in 2000, then by France in 2012, and the CAPTOR-E and whatever SAAB has shortly after. Planar Array design, superior memory and signal processing, mono-pulse tracking, number of weapons quality tracks, NCTR, Doppler Beam Sharpening (used with SCAN RAID), superior RWR tech (a by-product of superior radar engineering), ECCM countermeasures.. As an example, the AWG-9 and Highlark radars went operational in 1974 and 1972 respectively. Both fitted to newly introduced interceptors. The AWG-9 was a coherent pulse doppler radar that a had Planar array, mono-pulse tracking, coherent pulse integration (CPI), track while scan (24 targets), HPRF & LPRF waveforms, and sported a detection range of ~100nmi against a large fighter. The Highlark was coherent, but was not pulse doppler, only used a LPRF waveform, had no multi-track capability, no mono-pulse receiver, non-coherent pulse integration (envelope detection), and a detection range of ~24nmi against a large fighter. The radar is said to have been similar to operational U.S. fighter radars from the 60s. More-over, they struggled to get the thing to work and ended up releasing the first MIG-23s with the old Jaybird radar from the MIG-21. My point exactly. Part of having inferior technology, is not having the funds to research, develop and test new designs. This also means less experience in the field. I don't presume that Russian engineers have lower IQs. :huh: As for SAM developments, this ties into funding just explained. U.S. doctrine relies on air/naval dominance for offensive and defensive strategies, not SAM sites. Never the less, I wouldn't dare say that the THAAD's TPY-2, ARROW ll's Green Pine (joint venture with Israel), or the Patriot's MPQ-65 are inferior to Russia's S-400 system radars. Russia has led the way with rocket design. They've put alot of money into it and made some risky moves that westerners didn't think could work (closed-cycle rocket engine design). As I said before, the U.S. is interested in more missiles with more advanced tech, rather than longer range missiles for 5th Gen fighters. https://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/ Also, a great article on the whole 'is the meteor worth it' for America topic. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4678/is-the-european-meteor-air-to-air-missile-really-the-best-in-the-world

Other things to consider regarding Meteor vs. 120D Potential limits to employment range -RoE -Radar detection range vs low RCS opponents. -Radar detection range vs jamming opponents. -NCTR capability and range -IFF capability Other limiting factors that must be considered. -Meteor's added size due the intakes. -Meteor's added RCS due to the intakes. -Meteor's cost (3 million vs 1.8 million of the 120D) -OPSEC.. 6 euro nations working on one missile vs just the U.S. making the 120D. -Missile Sensor capabilities (while I'm sure the meteor is highly advanced, history tells us that U.S. radar technology is superior to Euro manufacturers by ~7 years, and well beyond that of REDFOR nations) In the end, for 5th gen fighters, it may be more important to have more missiles, or more advanced seekers, rather than longer range missiles. Never the less, the Meteor is an intimidating threat in the 4th gen combat scenario. Especially against high value targets like AWACS and other ISR aircraft.

could you please explain the fix... I ran a repair on 2.5 earlier for other issues. And once i jumped back in the eagle I no longer had the radar exported to my second screen.. Below is my monitor setup lua. I have two screens one on top of the other. The bottom screen is only used for MFD / radar video. _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('Camera + LMFCD'); Description = 'Left MFCD on the left and camera on the center' Viewports = { Center = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 1920; height = 1080; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1920 / 1080; } } LEFT_MFCD = { x = 54; y = 1133; width = 445; height = 445; } RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 1425; y = 1133; width = 445; height = 445; } UIMainView = Viewports.Center

Ohh piece of candy! RWR audio can be heard 00:49-01:00 Keep this in my back pocket whenever ED decides to release the Falcon.

Well i have found video evidence of the ALR-67 airborne emitters being displayed on the RADAR ATTACK page. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3411089&postcount=18 So now we know that ALR-67 indications/data can be found in the following places. -Azimuth Scope -HUD -JHMCS -SA Page -EW Page -RADAR ATTACK Page

Movie was terrible. But i did figure out the 'purpose' of the movie. -kill off 90% of the "resistance", cut off any loose ends to the previous rebellion/jedi order, and recreate it under a new vision/culture. expect more purple hair