Beamscanner

Thats sad to hear.. IRL beaming isn't effective against a SA-3... 1. The SA-3 has a relatively short range. If the target drops chaff at a bearing of 090, beams the SA-3 at these short ranges then it will rapidly change its bearing from the radar. Seconds after dropping chaff the target will be at a bearing of 093 while the chaff is still at 090. This change in bearing means that the main beam of the radar (which is fundamentally narrow, but even more-so at short ranges) moves outside of the chaff bundle, making it less effective. 2. The SA-3 operators use 'A-scopes' that allow them to distinguish aircraft skin returns from chaff. The chaff return has an intense increase in amplitude, while an aircraft skin return has a more gradual increase in amplitude over time, due to certain parts of the air-frame being more reflective than others. Jamming+Chaff is the best way to defeat older SAMs as well as downward vertical maneuvers. An Australian think tank states that the Low blow has a single shot Pk of 50-90% if the target uses chaff. That's extremely good for a 1961 SAM, and probably explains why this 6nm SAM has proliferated around the world. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-125-Neva.html

Low Blow is not a pulse doppler radar bro.. There is no doppler notch... putting it at your 3 or 9 wont do much... Try doing a split S while dumping chaff. For the chaff to be effective it needs to be at roughly the same bearing and closer in range to the low blow tracking radar.. Dumping chaff and then flying away from it (in azimuth) doesn't help you. Also, the SA-3 was designed to enable it to engage low altitude targets, filling the low alt gap the SA-2 couldn't.

The real life Low Blow radar uses a technique known as 'leading edge tracking', in which case the closest part of the reflection is the part that gets tracked. So unless you are jamming, which can mask the the leading edge of a target, the SA-3 can still engage you if you fly in front of your chaff. Though your wingman behind you should be ok!! haha Anyway, the SA-3 is still widely used. If chaff was that effective against it, the SA-3 wouldn't still be in service.

My rwr test mission has an SA-6 in it. My RWR sees it active but I get no audio until it launches a missile in which case I get the 1000Hz tone from the sound files. Yes, my RWR audio is turned up, and I can hear RWR sounds in the A-10C on the same mission. My aircraft starts 13 miles away, and I fly right over top the SA-6 dodging its missiles.. EDIT: So I've switched missions and I get some indications from other radars, such as the N019. But it only pings once in awhile, probably 1/3 as often as it does with other RWRs.. Which makes no sense because the N019 scan period hasn't changed. I hope this gets looked into.

The RWR is not working in 1.5 or 2.0 for me..

has this been fixed?

Sensitivity time control and Duplexer switching times can prevent close returns from being seen. Nearly all radars cannot transmit and receive simultaneously, as the receiver is shielded while the radar transmits. Being that close with such an old radar, the time between the end of a radar transmission and the un-shielding of the receiver could be long enough to prevent close reflections from being seen. Also, the blanking signal is used on other systems, such as an RWR or jammer, to prevent them from receiving signals while the aircraft's powerful radar is transmitting. As far as I know, no blanking signals go into a given radar.

I'd be surprised if the game implemented range bursts for the Slotback 2 radar.. I do not think there is any documentation of this. Considering you can range targets without any indication of the radar being on, I have assumed that eagle dynamics had been inflating the ability of the laser range finder.. I highly doubt that, IRL, there is no way to passively track a target with the EO while having the radar OFF. Hence them implementing a laser range finder... Jazon, Yes the IFF system is separate from the radar IRL (besides the fact that the IFF antennas sit on the face of the Radar antenna). Its very likely that IRL the pilot could use IFF with EO (having the radar off), as the IFF signal wouldn't likely be noticed by the target (for reasons I explained in my previous post).

You are referring to a range burst, where only a burst of 5-10 pulses are transmitted every second or so. I do not believe this is in DCS... The OP was only referring to IFF + EO. I'm pretty sure if you have both your radar and EO on, the target's RWR will be spiked.

The radar itself is off in your scenario, until a missile is launched. In which case the radar needs to support the R-27R/ER. Concerning the first part.. The radar is separate from the IFF system. The IFF system isnt tracking you, its only broadcasting its interrogation signal in the direction the IFF antenna is slaved to. In this case the IFF antenna is slaved to the EO target being passively tracked. If an accurate reply is detected, the passive track is identified as friendly. If not hostile. Assuming the US RWR could detect the IFF interrogation, which is at a much lower frequency than normal radar signals, then it could inform the US pilot. Though in order to get a bearing on the Russian IFF source, the US RWR would need a number of low band antennas to perform amplitude or phase comparison. IMO this is probably asking too much based on the number and size of the antennas needed. Though a single antenna could be used to just inform, but no direction of the signal would be available. also, assuming any RWR could see an IFF signal, theres no way of knowing if its from a fighter, AWACS, ground station, or ship. In fact, a number of Russian IFF sources would being pinging all the aircraft non-stop. So it would be useless to detect IFF anyway, as it'd be going off every second. As it goes, there is no information indicating that the F-15 RWR can detect the Russian IFF signal. Thus, IFF to your hearts content. Just keep your radar OFF.

HaHa I wouldn't trust VP protecting themselves, let alone the Carrier!:lol:

Can we get the f-5 as well?

Is it possible to use the TCS as a forward looking camera (fixed in front of the jet) instead of having the virtual terrain screen?

Probably thinks he's going to get some extra outfits/weapons if he pre-purchases:megalol:

berlin

You can already remove them from your game... Or are u mad that they hunt you down online..? You know, a high fidelity F-15C would have an even easier time of finding and engaging you.

Whatever route ED goes, they should make sure to specify which block/flight/model/year for their aircraft (which they have been doing). Other than that, I do hope we get an F-15 from beyond the 70s.. Though I highly doubt we'll get an AESA radar anytime soon, I do think that ED can implement missing features into the current APG-63 (ECCM techniques, ECM Ranging, RF Sniffing, TWS angle on jam, Manual Gain Control, etc.) Also, anyone worried about balancing in DCS should you should go fly an arcade game. The majority of us enjoy the simulation, and some of us are tired of the spoon feed "AAA" "games" on the market. Some countries build better weapons/sensors/aircraft than others.. Deal with it. I hope ED brings all of the best systems from every nation around the world. Here's to hoping the R-27P/EP makes it someday.

The Super Duper Hornet!!! But seriously, the F-35 isn't as expensive as people make it out to be.. The cost accounts for all expenses (research, development, testing, initial purchase, maint., fuel, upgrades) for 2400 F-35s for their entire lifespan. (out to 2070 or something, which is a very long lifespan for a Strike fighter) And they've been cutting hairs to bring down the production price of these aircraft.. This guy has made some informative videos on the F-35, though I cant say the voice is good (its not) IMO, the Super Duper Hornet isn't a long term answer for our near peer adversaries.. Its a good aircraft out to 2030.. Beyond that point its only useful in situations against under developed militaries or after modern threat system are eliminated from the target area. Time will tell..

IRL even a fixed side lobe from the the tracking radar should trigger your RWR... Your rwr has no idea if its a side lobe or main lobe its receiving. It doesn't know if its receiving a reflection off the mountains. It doesn't know if its you're wingman using a repeater jammer. It has no idea if its friendly or not. It cannot be sure if your the one being tracked.. All the rwr knows is that this signal is active at roughly this bearing with these parameters (RF, PRF, PW, Scan) that most match "XXXX" radar system. Depending on the parameters and signal identification, the RWR may give a number of visual and auditory warnings. Even if this is an unintentional bug, its closer to reality than not having this happen.

AIM-7 is guided by pulsed Illumination, not CW. Flood mode has no Datalink.. --Indications of STT Missile Launch-- Yes - Fixed amplitude (Radar staring at your receiver) Yes - HPRF waveform or CW signal Yes - Datalink Signal --RWR gives Launch Warning-- --Indications of STT-- Yes - Fixed amplitude (Radar staring at your receiver) Yes - Pulsed waveform No - CW signal No - Datalink Signal --RWR gives Lock On Warning-- --Indications of TWS-- No - Fixed amplitude Yes - Pulsed waveform No - CW signal No - Datalink Signal --RWR gives Search que-- --Indications of TWS Missile Launch-- No - Fixed amplitude Yes - Pulsed waveform No - CW signal Yes - Datalink Signal --RWR gives Search que-- (the RWR may see the datalink signal, but cannot prove the missile is targeting ownship, the RWR could be programmed to give warning whenever datalink is present, but you'd get false alarms all of the time when other people were getting launched on) --Indications of FLOOD-- Yes - Fixed amplitude Yes - Pulsed waveform No - CW signal No - Datalink Signal --RWR gives Lock On Warning-- (exactly the same as STT) --Indications of FLOOD Missile Launch-- Yes - Fixed amplitude Yes - Pulsed waveform No - CW signal No - Datalink Signal --RWR gives Lock On Warning-- (exactly the same as STT) FLOOD mode should only ever trigger a STT indication.

NCTR uses Jet Engine Modulation and High Range resolution to perform target recognition. So yes, the A-50 would be identified as an IL-76. Perhaps because that particular Boeing 707 is squawking mode 4 IFF, the system calls it the E-3..

Most of the following information was found via MIL-G-85742 AGM-122 Receiver Info: -Made 1984 -Uses a Local Oscillator/mixer to down convert the received signals to IF -Can detect PRF, PW and Amplitude --This correlates to a superheterodyne Receiver-- -Scans between frequencies "A through G"(likely a unique band code, not referencing NATO band codes as a seeker that small wouldn't be able to track such low frequencies) -We know it can detect an SA-8 and a ZSU-23 radar, thus we know it can at least see signals roughly between 7 and 15 GHz. -Generates a tone for the pilot to hear that matches the signals PRF. "WGU-15(XCL-1)/B" Seeker info: -Conically scanned. 'Gyro speed.. between 7-20Hz' -'Unambiguous FOV>15 degrees' -"The system gain in each of the four quadrants" Implies a 4 quadrant array ---Of note, the seeker must be able to detect linearly polarized signals from any angle (given the missiles chance of spin), but also must be cheap given its purpose. Knowing this, the tracking technique, the rough size of the seeker, and the time of IOC, the missile likely used a small 4 spiral antenna array ---Spiral antennas are cheap, have wide bandwidths, and can see nearly all polarizations. The band width these antennas provide would indeed allow the seeker to see the SA-8 and the ZSU-23 from such a small aperture. ---Spiral antennas have wide beam widths, making for poor tracking. Though, using the sum of 4 spiral antennas can narrow your beam width and increase your tracking performance. Other: -Uses PN guidance -"The AGM-122 was less capable than newer antiradiation missiles like the AGM-88 HARM, but also substantially cheaper, and its lighter weight enabled it to be carried by combat helicopters as well as fighter aircraft and fighter bombers." -"While Sidearm is less capable than modern anti-radiation missiles (like AGM-88 HARM), it is still a cost-effective alternative against low-tech threats." -"it was proposed to build new missiles as improved AGM-122B. The AGM-122B was to receive a new guidance and control system using re-programmable EEPROM memory boards." --The above implies that there were some short falls with the AGM-122 guidance against modern systems. This would make sense if the missile used a conical scan tracking system like I hypothesized, as multipath effects, jammers, decoys, and amplitude modulation could cause to seeker to guide off target. Based on the following -PN guidance -no INS unit -no target plotting -the use of conical scan tracking (also called 'lobe on receive') The missile was probably very ineffective against radars with a scanning antenna. I imagine shots were only made on radars who's beams were fixated (locked) on to the launching aircraft. Reason being that the seeker would lose the radar every time the beam spun around to the other direction, in which case it might home in on a reflection off an illuminated object (think of a flashlight spinning around). References: http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-2/page2.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-3/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-4/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-5/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742/index.html http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-122.html https://www.onwar.com/weapons/rocket/missiles/USA_AGM122.html

Thanks for the reply This makes perfect sense, since the A-50 is an IL-76 with the Squash Dome radar on top.. Thanks for the feedback Mav.

Nice. thanks for the reply!

So TARPs is good for LARPing? You build your mission, placing the enemy where you like, and then go fly over them and take pictures... Recon pilots are proud of their mission set because doing it nets the intel community a product that may be used to analyze the enemy. But you already know where you've placed the enemy forces in your single player mission. As someone stated earlier, its not a worthwhile tool outside of dynamic campaigns with recon modes available to real people to look at and plan around. Sure, if it had some built-in mechanic that allowed me to make use of the recon flight. (ie a reward for the action). Otherwise, no. But if that is something you want to do, then you don't even need the camera pod. You can pretend to have one, and take a snapshot looking out your canopy...