IvanK

"And when the F-18C comes, there will be plenty of oppotunities to train ILS ........" For the record the Navy ILS is not compatible with ground based ILS ... totally different systems

Sadly according to Matts latest video there is no ILS in the DCS F5E. Thats a real shame VOR/ILS is an option IRL just depends on the buyers preference. Be nice if we could get an ILS at a minimum.

You shouldn't use the term "realign or align" in flight to remove or reset the INS position. This procedure is "Updating". you are telling the INS ... look I know you are drifting and your position is slightly off let me show you exactly where you are right now, now start computing again using this new updated position. Aligning and realigning is a completely different procedure usually done on the ground. An INS full alignment takes quite a while ... like 6 or more minutes. A quick alignment can usually be done as well its a lot less accurate but may only take 30secs. Same goes for a stored Heading alignment ... great for Scramble type situations but again inherently less accurate than a full alignment. Think of an Alignment as a complete INS reboot. Some systems can in an emergency perform a very basic alignment in flight but require wings level flight and typically a velocity input In addition the use of external navaids like an ILS to "update" the position is always subject to a degree of quality control (done automatically). In the case of an ILS update it typically only uses the localiser info so will only correct in one axis. In the case of the Mir2K I would assume this would only affect the lateral position of the Synthetic rwy and its Course line.

The F5E/F/N Fire Zone computation is limited to Rmax,Rmin and excess G.(probably only relevant to AIM9B 2G launch limitation) Together with actual range these are displayed by the reticle in miss mode. Even these Rmax and Rmin calculations would be very basic as no G versus Target Aspect information is used. Range rate is however part of the Fire Zone calculation according to the Data flow diagrams in the Navy and USAF manuals. What Fire Zone to use for each Missile type is a manual switch selection. This is selected pre flight and the selection switch is behind the seat. The USN F5N and USAF FE/F weapons delivery manual lists only the Aim9B,E and J as selectable options.

Who is COMAO SIM ?

WRT F5E Manual depression bombing its also worthy of note that in the Bombing mode the reticle is roll stabilized up to 22 deg angle of bank ... that makes Manual bombing a whole lot easier

1 X R530, 2 X AIM9B or Shafrir Total 3 missiles.

" but it would be hazardous to expect it to catch the laser spot at the end of the loft trajectory" .... why so ? it was a standard RAAF method to Toss GBU12's from steam driven Mirage IIIO's just using a manual TOSS computation then stopwatch timing from the IP pull pickle .... Designator was turned on at Peak apogee .... didnt loose any GBU12's here we are doing it GBU12 TOSS starts around 8:00 min in [ame] [/ame] This was all filmed with handheld Betamax behomth cameras :)

Raku in the video you were asking about Gun dispersion. For the F5 .... all versions its 8mills/80%. Source Nothrop F5E Tactics Manual Part 2: The other Sight lines etc are below as well :

Neat vid. Looking at the Missile shot you never actually did achieve a Lock. The F5E gunsight in MSL mode will provide Rmax, Rmin and actual range and Excess G cues for Missile launch if locked on :)

Neat video ... Navs are so quite .... as they should be :)

NacH. RWR was not fitted to all Mir III. On those that had it fitted it was a small plan form display that had a series of lights that indicated the direction of the emitter with CW alarm as well but thats about all. The display unit was located on the right hand windscreen frame near the top right corner of the gunsight combining glass.

The radar had reliability issues but in its day was a pretty clever bit of kit .... certainly way way better than the MIG21 version we see in DCS. Quite a difficult radar to jam after it was locked on. The Gunsight likewise was pretty advanced and provided steering orders for all missiles and a NAV function as well. HOTAS 1960's style: Mirage III Radar Hand controller .... TDC plus other controls like Azimuth scan selection, Spiral scan acquire, Direct lock on, Wobulating lock on, break lock, Manual gain control and Antenna elevation control The R530 was unbelievably unreliable and probably more dangerous to the shooter than the target :) Mirage IIIO Radar in AG mapping mode Large Black area on the radar scope near the bottom is terrain shadow caused by a large mountain left of the nose.

Ahhh A true French Lady in DCS that would be something :) Poetry in motion Eats F5's for breakfast :)

So we have a logic problem. Most of the jamming we currently see is Noise jamming. That is the multiple azimuth strobes. Now for the first time (for me anyway) we see False target jamming effects in the Mir2K. However as I understand it this is because the Mir2K coders have chosen to show jamming as false targets. Take the situation you set up a Mig29S versus Mir2K and F15 and an SU27. The Mig29 is jamming, the F15 and SU27 sees this jamming as Noise jamming (Azimuth strobes), the Mir2K sees it as False target jamming .... alas the DCS MIG29s is coded as a noise jammer is he not ? So why should the Mir2K see false targets .... should it not be seeing the same jamming type as SU27 and F15 ? Perhaps the Mission designer should have the option to choose what jamming mode he wants the emitter to have ? .... That is Noise or false targets

My 2 Cents worth ... a Non FFB user. Seeing the pitch trim change with flap and gear is the important thing. If the trim change is there you will still react "naturally" by doing what you need to do with the Stick first to hold the desired nose position. So for a FFB user he applies a force for the non FFB user he moves the stick..... then both trim. Reaction to Flap and gear is going to very from type to type. To me the important thing is the trim change is present. IRL the pilot just does what is needed to counter the trim change ... there is no perceived I need to hold force or move the stick you just do what needs to be done.

If DCS can provide Noise and or False targets for the coders then logic says the option should be coded by the emitter. So as the receiver you will get to see the emitters jamming style. If I read it correctly in the Mir2K the coders have arranged so regardless of the emitters mode you only see jamming as false targets ?

Well that is good news as it adds to the ECM suite that coders can employ in DCS.

Eddie No I have not seen RGPO in DCS. So far the only airraft I have seen with False targets generated is the DCS Mir2K when going up against a DCS jammer.

Go on Eddie tell me .... When I see Jamming strobes all over my B scope I see noise jamming ...... When I see False discreet targets I am not seeing NOISE jamming, That is A false target generator ECM or repetitive jammer doing its stuff , When I see Locked targets rapidly moving I am seeing Range Gate Pull offs working.

Why are we seeing these False targets on the Mir 2K when we dont see them on any other aircraft in DCS ? As I understand it in DCS the only jamming modeled is Noise jamming. There are no false target generators in DCS. So imo all we should be seeing are jamming strobes ... like you see for the SU27/MIG29 and F15..... or however the RDI depicts them.

When are we likely to see R550 30deg x 30deg search and auto lock implemented ?

Hmmm a far better book and far more objective "Hostile Skies" by David Morgan ...none of the emotive FIGJAM stuff you find in Wards book :)

"I guess I need to read a little bit more into how jamming works to figure out if it makes even sense in terms of physics if narrowing the beam would mean faster burn through. Intuitively it seems so (the more focused beam could be distinguished from the noise created by the jammer earlier than a beam which energy is spread over larger area), but my intuition has been wrong before " In a former life using the Cyrano II in the Mirage III a standard technique to increase burn through range against a simple noise jammer was to Spotlight the target. This was done by stopping the antenna azimuth scan over the jamming strobe (Physically you placed the Lock on cursour or TDC at the same azimuth as the jamming strobe but not at target range). You then pressed the lock on lever. This then stopped the azimuth sweep and provided a narrow pencil beam. If successful the target blib would then appear in the jamming strobe, You now had Azimuth and range.... though of course this technique could also be taken by the jammer as an attempted Lock on also.

The pre purchase info says ...."Martin Baker SIII S-3 ejection seat" .... No such animal :) Most F5E's stuck with the original US Northrop seat. Some countries upgraded to a Martin Baker BRQ7A seat (Brazil and Iran for example). The SIII S-3 moniker sounds more like a Stencil seat designation ... not that the F5E was equipped with these either. The images released show the Belsimtek F5E to be equipped with the Northrop seat.