Beamscanner

To what extent is the pilot participating in foreign electronic intelligence. Flipping a switch at predetermined waypoints or can we expect some real time control/feedback from the ELINT collection system? (other than from the RWR) If not, does it benefit the RWR in any way?

IRL you would still see a powerful emitter that happens to be in your "blind zone", it'd be quieter as its not coming from the most sensitive FOV of your antennas, but being a close/powerful signal that's locking you, it'd come in just fine. The "blind zone" isn't completely "blind", it's just not as sensitive. I've covered this in depth on another thread. This needs to be fixed. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158152

No. But most SPJ's are deception jammers IRL. By design, SPJs trade off directional gain for more angular coverage, which means less power on target. The spacal limitations of the airframe also mean that the jammer antennas are relatively small compared to their typical counterparts, more so for lower frequencies, and thus are less efficient at converting electrical current to EM waves. It's already difficult to have a positive jammer to skin (J/S) ratio as it is, trying to spread the power you have over a large portion of the spectrum (ie barrage jamming) would lower your J/S even more at any one freq in that spectrum. Meaning you'd need either more direction gain toward the victim, more throughput power, or (in most cases) both. So if you can't beat out threats with raw power, then the other alternative (the more common one from fighters) involves deceptive techniques.

Not entirely true. SPJ's will jam any threat signal, regardless if it's sensing a hard lock. Also, SPJ's can perform a large number of different jamming techniques based on the threat it detects. what we see in game looks like a Doppler noise repeater that attempts to use a high jammer to skin ratio to hide the real return from the threat. This is a reactive jammer, and only transmits on the freq.'s that it receives(that are not otherwise deemed friendly or it's own), otherwise known as spot jamming(not barrage.. if it was barrage jamming it'd interfere with it's own radar freq.) in game we don't get the option to set up the friendly channels, so everyone(including friendlies) gets jammed.

I hear that the S530 can be launched as far as 80 miles... So long as the target is flying head on at mach 6.. :P The "range" is useless if you don't know the altitude, velocity and vector of both the shooter and the target. Also, burn time by itself means nothing in terms of range.

The Vertical Scan Zone is represented in thousands of feet above sea level, at the specified range of your cursor. The vertical scan selection on the SLOTBACK 1 and 2 radars (fulcrum/flanker aircraft) are relative to their aircraft's position(or its datum). But this is not the case for the F-15C. Also, the F-15C VSD doesn't ever indicate a negative altitude, so you'd be assuming that the radar never scanned below it's own altitude...

1. When multiple Active air to air missiles launch on a F-15C, the victims RWR (TEWS) only shows that one missile from that direction has been launched. They are different missile seekers, operating on different frequencies. It should be apparent to the RWR. 2. All the radars sound exactly the same in this game.. (I don't expect you to have access to every radar sound, but you should at least use different fake sounds for each radar/mode) 3. The RWR signals do not get louder as you get closer to them.. 4. Signals do not show up at all in the RWR, even if really close and really powerful, if they are not in the "field of view" of the RWR antennas. These "field of view" angles represent the top 3dB of the antennas main lobe, otherwise known as the Half Power Beamwidth (or beamwidth for short). Understanding this, we must recognize that the "beamwidth" does not account for the signal gain beyond these angles. As such, people not familiar with antenna theory may assume the beamwidth represents the entire area capable of receiving signals, and that beyond this point the gain drops off completely. (- infinity dB) The F-15 uses a set of archimedean spiral antennas, spiral antennas are known for their ultra wide bandwidth(30:1 ratio) and are not very directional (~half hemisphere). These types of antennas have a "beamwidth" (or half power beam width / only counting the top 3dB) of 65 degrees @ 9GHz on the azimuth plane. However, the 10dB "beamwidth" (only counting the top 10dB) extends all the way to 127 degrees (and well beyond that for lower frequencies) Below is the actual radiation pattern (in red) for the 2'' Model 53411 spiral antenna used on many US fighters, including the F-15C. Above: I have overlaid the 3dB beamwidth (65 degrees wide) in blue, and the 10dB beamwidth (127 degrees wide) in green. As you can see, there is a gradual decline in gain across the axis, and certainly no distinct cutoff at the edge of the "beam width", which some would strictly consider the antennas "field of regard". Below: Here you can see the same figures comparing the beamwidth across the frequency spectrum. As you can see, its not so black and white. An extremely weak signal off in the distance may only come in if its directly boresight of one of my antennas. Conversely, and more importantly, a powerful signal that's really close (like say from a missile seeker) should be able to be seen well outside of the advertised 3dB beamwidth of 65 degrees in azimuth. (and certainly outside of those angles in elevation, which is considerably wider based on the documentation. I haven't even mentioned the fact that powerful signals will bounce all over and into your air-frame and re-emit from conductive objects with a matched resonating frequency. Eventually, making their way into the RWR antennas if they weren't already in it's beamwidth. TL/DR: I should be able to see close AI radars and Missile seekers that are locked on to me, even if I'm in a sharp bank. An active missile should not be able to strike me from directly below and without making a squeak on my RWR.:lol: Sources: [ame]http://www2.l-3com.com/randtron/img/53411_2in_Spiral.pdf[/ame] http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/travelling/spiral.php 53411_2in_Spiral.pdf

The Tomcat, with it's superior pilots, radar, fuel load and missiles(pre-AMRAAM period), would have crushed F-16s (from that period) from BVR.. Yeah, it might be easy to defeat an AIM-54C launched at 80 miles.. but good luck defeating one launched at 20 miles when your trying to launch and fully support a AIM-7 fired at less then that. A smart tomcat pilot would use his long range active missiles well inside their envelope, and could probably take on several F-16s at once due to the nature of his weapon system. No pilot would let themselves go into the merge if it wasn't absolutely necessary, that's a big risk.. Even for a Flanker or a Rafale. Modern F-16s would stand a much better chance today with their AIM-120s.. but that's if they can make to that missiles envelope without dying or losing too much of their energy defeating aim-54s(thus reducing the range of the AIM-120).

nvm

That doesn't make sense... chaff should be completely useless if you don't maneuver(static Doppler velocity outside of the velocity notch) and don't use a jammer.

I got chased down by a 2000 while flying home in a F-15.. Tacview hasn't been properly recording for me, so i can't show the flight data. I was going mach 1.4 at 40k ft running home from enemy territory. He had climbed up from low alt/behind and caught up to me and took me out with a 530. He had me locked up for awhile(~30 seconds), but I wasn't really expecting him to catch me in a climb. Does the Mirage have some crazy awesome acceleration..?

Considering you can easily pick up powerful AI radar signals in excess of 200nm(yes even from smaller radars)... Do not associate signal strength with detection range.. There are so many other (and more important) factors at play with radar detection ranges. a small amount of energy being reflected off the skin exactly back in your direction, which has traveled 2 trips in the distance between you and the target... the target(and his receivers) don't see small reflections of energy, but the main beam itself. Plus that signal has only traveled 1 trip between you two. i'd say that what your seeing is actually pretty accurate based on it's placement inside the ring. If your trying to emphasize that it becomes difficult to isolate really powerful signals close to you, then yes i agree. You would think they would have expanded the inner proximity outward so you can still tell what direction they are coming from. Similar to the american RWRs.. Also, whenever you hear about RWR audio they are referring to the unique sounds of individual radars. Mainly from their particular PRF, PD and Scan type/time. Almost all of these are classified, and thus cannot be replicated in game. Meaning the tones you hear in game are just three synthetic tones (one sound for search, lock, and missile launch). Real pilots have used the real radar audio to help distinguish radar type and mode.

Haven't seen that before. Though I've had the radar switch to a 120 degree scan while still in TWS.

Can anyone confirm whether or not switching to STT after pitbull increases your missiles pk. I have been trying this in MP, and there seems to be a difference. But of course I cannot be 100% sure that it isn't a coincidence. What really needs to answered is whether or not the AIM-120 still receives data from the APG-63 after pitbull. If so, then it is to be expected that it'll be more difficult for the target to break track from the APG-63/seeker combo, vice just the seeker. I realize that data from the APG-63 radar is not needed, as that would defeat the point of a FaF missile. But to me, it would make sense that if given the opportunity the jets radar could drastically improve the missiles ability to bypass certain countermeasures and maneuvers. (i.e. chaff, seeker head jamming). also to the two axises from the seeker and the APG-63 would make it more difficult for the target to effectively go into both their the Doppler notches.

I only brought up the sickness because I expected one of you to use it as an excuse for the delay. Not to imply that it was a lie. I, nor anyone here is entitled to anything from these developers prior to payment. But that doesn't mean we can't speak up when developers can not keep their words. Especially when it happens to entice hype for their studio. Cobra, I remember your post. I've been watching and waiting for awhile. I know that you want to wait until you have videos, music and pictures on your product when you announce them. I also know that your team has been working hard on the MIG-21 since 1.5 came out. I get it, I'm glad your team ensures their product continues to get support. However, I disagree with your decision to wait on the announcement that was planned 3 months ago solely for the purpose making it an extravagant reveal. I don't believe the modules will come out any faster for it, but I do think it'll mean you made the best effort to keep your word. Santi, Not angry, though you sound upset considering that you used the following phrases "high horse", "incredibly self-centered and self-entitled", "you should learn to manage", "self-entitledness" and made the following assumptions "you're angry, you're not patient", "because you're too impatient to keep it shut", and that I don't know what "maybe" and "probably" mean.(which BTW they used "hope to") If what they say is not worth believing, why say anything at all.. I will hold my excitement for the December update.

It's not official, until it is official. I too would very much like it if LN would at least come out with it already. Even if it's just a paragraph worth of info on the aircraft we think it is. It's sad that people here think it is cool to defend these companies who use hype to entice the audience. If the point was to surprise the community with modules not far from release, they completely failed. It's always next month, next month, next month. Oh right, one of the team members was sick.. too sick to give the announcement he told the community about. :smilewink: Lets be honest, it doesn't take but 30 minutes to take a snap shot of the two aircraft and write a paragraph on them. We don't need epic montage videos.. We need developers we can trust.

don't think the ECM jammers employed on these bad boys operate in that freq. range. Also, we'd see IFF issues elsewhere if that was the case.

It surely does. I never said it didn't. I said the APG-63 used a superior mono-pulse array, which happens to be a planar array. the N019/N001 use twisted cassegrain antennas, the same type used on their MIG-25s and late MIG-23s..

The max detection range on the display represents a value chosen by the engineers that takes into account the radars maximum unambiguous range and the max detection range vs large RCS targets. like bombers... When comparing radar detection ranges you want to use a constant value for the targets RCS.. such as 1 square meter. The APG-63 is described as detecting 1 square meter targets past 80nm.. Comparably the modified SLOTBACK (or N019m) on the MIG-29S will detect that same target at less then half that range.. The APG-63 is larger then the N019.(higher gain->narrow beam->more energy on target->also means more energy received from that direction in space->more sensitive on receive) It also uses a superior mono-pulse array(planar array vs twisted caisgrain), for higher quality angle tracking. It also sported digital signal processing techniques(including digital doppler filters, giving it that "clutter free" radar display). The N019 only used digital processing for Tracking AFAIK, and was made up of vacuum tubes vice transistors.. Russian radar technology lags behind the west by more than 10 years.. More so, if strictly compared to the U.S.

Depending on the targets closing velocity, the notch angles widen or narrow. For example a high speed target may need to get within +- 4 degrees of perpendicular (86-94 degrees) from your radar beam to reduce the relative closing velocity enough to be filtered out with the low doppler ground clutter. Now if that target is already flying at low speed, then your target will fall into your doppler notch much earlier into a beam maneuver. The target may only need to put you within +- 10 degrees of perpendicular because its closing velocity is already low. The exact notch angles vary on your targets speed and your radars exact velocity notch. (i.e. anything below X knots get filtered out) The lower the velocity notch filter, the harder it is for your target to get filtered out (they need to be closer to 90 degrees perpendicular. But it also means more ground clutter traveling at high speed can make it into your radar processor, such as cars) If your wondering if it helps in game to slow down in a beam maneuver so as to hide your return.. yes it does. So long as your cool with losing that energy. I'm sure many of you have seen how easily you can lose track on a low speed ground attack aircraft. (tho terrain masking plays a big role in this as well)

At what velocity does the Doppler notch kick in for the RDI on the Mirage? "Doppler notch" isn't truly a factor of angle/aspect, but rather of closing velocity. (i.e. the effective notch angle of a target widens as it slows down, and narrows as it speeds up)

I already have a 2001 SAAB 9-3 Viggen.. But now I feel obligated to buy this.

show us the A-6 already!

Inaccurate, just like the rest of your post(which was already hit on by GG). Side lobe suppression is a process for both transmit and receive. Look into monopulse processing, adaptive nulling, spatial adaptive processing, Sidelobe cancelers, digital beamforming (and many more) for insight on how RF energy can be suppressed outside of a main beam (on receive). Yes, even aircraft ingame(f-15/su-27/mig-29) use side lobe suppression techniques on receive to help filter out returns from ground clutter. Cheap missiles(as you say), don't carry all of the compliments of a modern AI radar system. And thus are more susceptible to intense energy outside of their main beam(on receive).

Considering that the aircraft can engage 6 targets simultaneously, then it does NOT need to hard lock targets for the aim-54. It would have to do TWS for that. Not sure if RWRs of the day were designed to pick up the mid course link(or if they ever have). But I'd say that it's really unlikely. Especially considering how rudimentary the spo150 is. Aim-54s dive on their targets at high speed. So I'd guess that the time between pitbull and splash is short:)