BlackPixxel

With the current state of Flankers and R-27 in DCS there must be a bright red WARNING: DO NOT USE THIS AIRCRAFT IN ACTUAL COMBAT! in the manual.

Are we really expecting soviet/russian engineers to be that stupid that they do not know about some effects that happen at high speeds? So that as a result the g limiter they develop for their own plane does not work at high speed? Your posts makes it seem as if game developers have more knowledge about this aircraft than the aircraft engineers themselfs. The G-limiter in the DCS Su-33 is just not programmed correctly, and it should be very easy to fix. On top of that we have now for years stress damage on red birds but not on the blue fighters. This inconsistency in realism creates an unrealistic advantage for one faction. Does this not apply to american planes as well? How does the F-15C with full weapon load, full fuel tank and 3 full external tanks pulls 12g at Mach 2 without any damage?

Holding full stick in DCS is activated by pushing the g limiter overwrite button, so without pushing the button the limiter should work. In the Su-27 the limiter always does its job, only in the Su-33 it fails when flying fast. Is the calibration that you mentioned for the Flankers in the game or from the real ones? You can snap the wings in the DCS Su-33 with 2xER, 2xET and 2 ECM pods and 25% fuel.

Is this issue being investigated? I uploaded the requested tracks in a previous post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4087461&postcount=18 The G-limiter does not limit the G-load properly when flying with some speed, especially when the plane is equipped with a few missiles. There is no point in having a G-limiter in the real Flanker when it does not do its job. I would really appreciate if the G-limiter in the Su-33 would be fixed.

Or, as previously written, have a bank of notch filters. Then you basically get the same as when doing a DFT. Each of the filter will be a frequency bin and the output of the filter still has amplitude and phase information.

Each plane has two coefficients, one for afterburner on and one for off. The aspect is the second variable. The radiated heat is a (linear?) fuction of the angle towards the plane, and the same for any plane. From the side you have 2x the range (4x the heat) as from the front, and from the rear you have 3x the range (16x the heat) as from the front. Each seeker now has a simple threshold for the heat required to detect the target. Any other state (plane on/off, slow/fast etc.) does not have any effect. The whole weapon coding is super primitive and propably did not change from Lock On.

1-3 chaff is often enough to defeat the R-27 in the tailchase, but the Aim-120 needs 30+. When the chaff creates a pretty much solid screen, then the Aim-120 should not be able to track targets covered by a row of 30 of those screens. Even if it has a better radar and better processing. In this case the Aim-120 seems overestimated.

Of course, chaff are far more effective against SARH than the ARH missiles in DCS in any situation.

Well it is still a way of "modelling", although extremely simplistic. I am fully aware that the seeker behaviour when chaffs are deployed only depends on a few things (propability of defeat mainly seems to depend on aspect, speed, lookdown yes/no and ECCM) No matter the situation, the difference in chaff effectivenes under each situation seems to be always the same between the missiles (simply depending on the ECCM value). But in the tailchase the missiles should maybe suffer a little more equally. An easy improvement would be the proposed nonlinear scaling of the ECCM-value in a tailchase. К сожалению, разработчики ED редко отвечают на английском форуме. (Google Translate) Unfortunately ED developers rarely respond in the english forum. Here they seem to be a little more active.

So chaffs create a radar screen, then how can the Aim-120 in DCS track the target through 30 of those radar screens? I maneuver after deploying 30 chaffs directly between me and the missile, and the missile instantly follows my movement. Isn't that a very optimistic modelling of the seeker? With a target completely hidden behind a thick cover of 30 chaffs any guidance algorithm in the seeker can hardly do anything more than tell the missile to stay on the last known intercept heading and hope for the target to show up again. I assume that in the tailchase scenario the chaff effectiveness is still depending on the ECCM value in the missile config, but maybe in this case the difference between the different missiles is too strong. It was said that in a tailchase + chaff scenario the chaff can completely screen the target. So behind a wall of many chaffs the seeker will not see the target, even if it is more modern. With different target aspects (e.g. notching bandit) the seeker still gets a return from the target and can use its advanced processing to follow the return of the target instead of a chaff, but if there is no return at all then even the Aim-120 should lose the target. The advanced processing does not help when there is no return, and so the advantage of the Aim-120 should not be as big as in other situations. Maybe in a tailchase situation the ECCM values could be scaled with an exponential function (e.g. ECCM_tailchase = e^(-1/ECCM) ) to get rid of this huge discrepancy of seeker behaviour.

Yes it does currently, but it enjoyed complete chaff immunity for a long time in between. For the russian side the R-27 is the main weapon, while the blue jets take Aim-120 99% of the time. Aim-120 can be defeated the same way, but you need significantly more chaff (40+). How can this Aim-120 track my aircraft movement through 30 walls of chaff?

I also find the designator behaviour odd when adjusting the position. This makes it really hard to adjust the cursor and usually you do not have alot of time before you are in the effective range of AA.

How usefull are the statistics from Ethiopia? Is it known if they where fired within parameters, and if the missiles were supported until they could reach their target? When two factions with the same SARH weapon fight against each other, it seems unlikely that they will go for the kill with each missile fired, as they have the same range that the enemy has. Chances are about 50/50 to get killed when both launch under the same conditions and do similar maneuvers. This seems like a risk not worth taking.

You have to wait a bit when spooled up (or when electronics are turned on, I cannot remember) untill the navigation system is aligned. Then the compass reading will be correct in the Su-25.

Then it would be nice if the active missiles would behave similar and not require magnitudes more chaff than SARH. The active missile emits its radiation closer to the chaff, so the ratio of the amplitude of chaff return/target return is even worse.

This would mean that whenever a chaff is deployed the seeker is blind, not just in a rear aspect chase. Almost similar to using flares vs. IR missiles. Radars use notch filters to remove the unwanted reflection from reflectors with no radial closure speed (ground, chaff). Any return within that frequency band will be attenuated, so the seeker is not blinded. Aim-7 were broken before the last update and were 100% chaff imune (Except for the F14 Aim-7 that used the old Aim-7 model). Now they go for chaff again. Aim-7M has the same value as the R-27 for chaff resistance, while the Aim-7F is worse and the Aim-7MH is better.

You can defeat an Aim-120 in DCS the same way, but you need all your chaffs and not just 1-3. The missiles seeker will also have a much stronger radar return from the ground than from the target when fighting in a look down situation. Still it is able to tell what is target and what not by the doppler shift (depending on the aspect). Compared to a CCD array the radar has additional information to work with (phase, frequency, delay etc.)

Chizh said that this is how they want the ER to behave in a direct tailchase. He sais that the chaff will form a solid screen which the seeker can not see through. I find this very hard to believe, as the chaff is a bunch of floating particles that will spread out and not form a solid wall. In your case it also looks like it was chaffed, as it flies right through it. Check the moment when the missiles pulls g the last time. This is just ridiculous. ED obviously thinks that the R-27 is made by monkeys. All the ER does in DCS is keeping the bandit busy until you are in close range for a R-73 shot. If the blue guys knew how bad the ER really is they would not turn cold on every launch warning and stay much more aggressive.

The chaff issue appears to be fixed, at least according to todays change log!

But that section just says that the antenna will be stabilized within this limit (stay level with the horizon). Also it is about scanning mode, not target tracking if I read it correctly. When the roll angle is > 120° the antenna will not be level anymore on the roll axis, but how will that make any radar operation impossible, especially when the target is already locked?

Thank you! Now I found the following section in the Su-27SK manual: "В режиме ВЕРТИКАЛЬ обеспечивается захват и сопровождение визуально видимой цели на дальностях менее 5 км на всех ракурсах, кроме 4/4, во всем диапазоне скоростей сближения (отставания). На уравненных скоростях возможен неустойчивый захват цели. Для устойчивого захвата необходимо обеспечить разность скоростей истребителя и цели не менее 150 км/ч." I am not sure if that is refering to the SU-27 being able to lock and track targets at any speed and any aspect (except for 90°) when within 5 km in vertical scan, or if it means that the vertical scan only works up to 5 km. I could not find something that gives a range limit for the radar for close combat modes in general in that 27SK manual. In DCS at least something is happening with the radar when the plane is in one of the close combat modes within 5 km. Within this range of 5 km it is able to track targets when flying upside down below altitutes of 1500 m above ground level. Above 5 km or in a BVR mode the radar will not work under such condition. I have not read anything about radar not working while rolling > 120° in any manual yet, only that it will no longer be roll stabilized above that angle (max roll angle of the gimbal is about +-120°)

Do real Su-27 or MiG-29 have the range limitation of 10 km when locking targets with radar in visual combat modes (vertical scan, helmet sight etc.)? I could not find such a statement in the Su-27SK manual or in a MiG-29 manual.

The IR variants have a less aerodynamic nose, so they will have a little less range than the radar variants with their pointy radome.

Hi! I cannot get custom cockpits to work with the MiG-29. I can select the custom cockpit in the spezial settings, but the cockpit in the game will still show the default textures. If I paste the custom cockpit into the default cockpit folder then the textures get changed, but the FPS become really low and unplayable. Does anyone have the same issue or maybe a solution? Thank you in advance! EDIT: Looks like the performance issue was caused by using Visual Studio to get the DSS files. With files converted using DXTBmp the performance is good. The issue with the custom cockpits not working remains, until then placing the custom cockpit files into the default folder is a workaround, but those files will be overwritten when updating the game.

In this case it is about having a strong signal to make up for the loss due to the chaffs. The signal level needs to be high enough so that is above the minimum sensitivity of the seeker. The return of the chaff should be filtered by the notch filter. Why does the notch filter work when the target is notching and the missile is going for the chaff, but not when the target has a big doppler difference towards the ground + slow/stationary chaff? The usable signal/bad signal ratio does not change of course, but the power of the reflected signal from the target is higher with SARH vs ARH in this case.