Кош

May you show me a fragment that describes this? Although looking at how it's assembled it should not matter at all regarding blanking from radar as it overrides any frequency. Still very strange to see such long timing with anything radar related, and thus, interesting. All processing timings in Russian SPO book is in microseconds. Regarding SPO blanking signal. Once again I need to make myself clear. Filling a register by CPU and polling that register by external devices IO are two different events. Blanking command is sent not when CPU fills the register. How second is done determines everything.

I know the difference between own binning and external blanking. It doesn't because it doesn't need to. Like I said logic and hi frequency stuff are separate and asynchronous. PRF and CPU operations do not correlate. I am using logic descriptions and time diagrams, sources are N019-11, N019-38, N001-35M, N001-45 books.

Are you talking about this?

bis was not "patched". It started production years after combat tree was discovered and had SRO-2M from get go. For realistic historical context you need F13 and PF.

There should be only MiG-15 and 19 in that list. Everything else has SRO-2M or newer. Unfortunately there are no older 21's in DCS.

Blocking is essentially 2 alternately locked К134ЛР1 logic chips(you can choose what they should be based on connectors, here used as 2AND gate), signal from radar is just a logic pulse in whatever voltage, piggibacked in parralel on locking pin of these gate chips. Latency of K134ЛР1 is 0.66 microseconds. I know that on board CPU(BTsVM) works asynchronously. IE duty cycles of CPU and duty cycles of radar(aka radar PRF) are not synchronous. I know that computer receives data from radar, IO devices etc, and sets digital data rather as flags to be read asynchronously at own paces by whomever they concern. Or in other words, CPU does not work like "oh it's a radar pulse, now I have to send blocking pulse), rather "Hey devices, Radar PRF is 166512 HZ until furter notice". RWR blocking command is set in a register as a flag, I yet have to figure out how that is polled. If it's a high freq constant then ED is right. There are "Radar start emit", "Radar stop emit" and "Radar receiver block" digital signals but they are not sent or synced by CPU, rather CPU commands a separate device that sets frequency at which they should be.

We're talking exactly Combat Tree. It worked with SRO-1 and SRO-2 but not SRO-2M and furter systems.

Thank you! Now this is an adult level of conversation I was striving for. From the onset I have to say that wiring diagrams(I saw everything you have posted on my own before) per se don't tell us anything new and don't answer how blocking works, for that we need timing diagrams analisis - I have them but sadly it takes time and I'm a bit saturated with payware tasks at the moment. So far: RF binning is used not for spillover but for threat recognition. 40 should be microseconds because milliseconds doesn't make sense with any threat SPO-15 is known to identify. Also, what document cites this number? Is it cited as static or a result of a control law? Do you know that central computer's IO is refreshed at 2.5 megaherz, despite 100 kiloherz CPU?

У вас есть что-то ясно показывающее временное соотношение сигналов ИЗП и РК1?

Можете по пунктам написать как надо чтобы можно было вас зацитировать разрабам?

40 микросекунд они заявляют период смены сортировки самой СПО - она там переключает фильтры чтобы решить туда угрозу закинуть или сюда. Откуда эта цифра неизвестно. На бланкирование от рлс это не влияет так как импульсы с рлс, но как мне кажется не бьется с сортировкой истребителей-"тинэйджеров" в их категорию. Я пытаюсь собрать в кучу все временные диаграммы сигналов синхронизатора, это непросто.

First, SPO has nothing to do with combat tree, RWR doesn't emit anything. Combat tree is a repeater of intercepted interrogator signals. It then listens to transponders. In DCS only transponder that is vulnerable to Combat Tree IRL is on MiG-19. Everything else has later encrypted models APX-81 can't deal with.

looks like they landed on a divert field that hosts other type, and they don't have specific ladders. Famous 4 ship of MiG-31's landing on a civilian airport also gave some headache how to tow and then pick the crews out of them.

Why do you use non original manuals?

@BIGNEWYKOLS Lase is literally equal, albeit much much more precise, to (own altitude - target elevation)*sin(pitch angle). Also SME said target elevation was just never necessary in IRL operation. How your AG modes work is a math\logic bug.

It's correct as it is if laser ranging is not performed. AKA like in MiG-21 with radar off. How exactly do you calculate the solution with the laser so you still need target elevation? null

Не знаю. По схеме так выглядит. Он вроде как при захвате должен подтвердить госопознавание. Если нет - то нет, я не спорю.

А по идее должно. Меньше действий БЦВМ совершать.

Если чисто по характеристикам и использованной элементной базе БЦВМ то 9-12 где-то между томкетом и F-16A. Кстати, у кого есть модуль, СНП ускоряет захват? А захват свой-чужой в свой?(последнее отключает запрос и гарантию что ответа на запрос точно нет)

База цели должна влиять еще на дальность пуска. Влияет в модуле?

There is nothing about changing HUD FOV angle thare. Pressing hat switch enables this "Zero method" of gunnery which is initially used for when you don't have visial, and as a side effect you can use it to shoot "under the hood" at high G loads.

Good catch! Did you try to disable the damper?

Yes just use radar outside of merge. It's not MiG-23 or Su-27 after all.

Is it because of insufficient thrust or insufficient lift? Can you also try K quality test and climb test?

yes but you're pursuing a strange unrecommended usecase