Vatikus

AI - Airborne Interception radar... which means radar role is air-air (fighter)

https://theaviationist.com/?p=55011

The easiest way to get more info on the K bases is to search for each one... there is quite some material available on the net. For example.. on this website you can get aerial clips of quite some number of them. Good luck.

As GGTharos mentioned it depends on speed of the target... for typical fighter target this is indeed around 80deg. Here is picture from manual regarding where can one expect notch

No, I am using mig29 manual of yuaf. But cross-referencing with russian one it has same data, however it is written in different didactic. Since the given radars are pretty much the same family, there should not be that much difference and the limits pretty much confirm that. So there is section of given speeds of detecting and autotracking, which correspond to the ones you wrote (> 150km/h). Then there is a section of detection and locking which state the given speeds I've wrote. The formula of the closure limit is defined by: Vtarget * cos(TA) > Vmin.closure ... which coresponds to the next page in su27 manual you made the citation from - 70/80deg TA - target entering the notch.

=37.Sqn= vabi v svoje vrste nove timske igralce! Če želiš leteti v organizirani eskadrilji, se izpopolnjevati, in se ob enem imeti še peklensko dobro, potem se nam pridruži kadarkoli ob večernem letenju na naš Discord kanal Prednosti =37.Sqn= so v: Letenje kot ti dopušča čas Druženje v domačem jeziku in meme šale Jedro kadra sestavljeno iz prekajenih veteranov na combat flight sim sceni Lasten dedicated server 24/7 Udeležitev v eventih tipa Red Flag, itd. Letenje v vseh combat flight simih Se vidimo!

In Mig29 manual... one can read that rule of thumb is to keep minimal closure rate of 150km/h for target > 15km and for targets < 15km 50km/h, to minimize chance of losing the lock.

You wrote speeds for autotracking in SNP. The minimal closure speed for locking target is 60km/h or 50km/h if target is making 180 turn (front to rear hem.).

As you well know, statistics is always a complicated topic :) If my mind is not cheating on me, I think Russian scored 2 kills with R24R over the border into Pakistan. How many did they fired w/o success, etc. or what is actual tailly, that is hard to get any data on. Well if you could find the reference that would be nice. However we must not forget that R and ER versions were planned from start. ER did not happen because of poor performance of R. The whole point of R27 was to have modular design. The shorter ranged R is tactically analogues to R3R and it was never meant for BVR exchange.

Esac_mirmidon, I think he means the insta explosion which can happen... but it's the result of using old FM as it does not have proper ground modelling. This should go away once Mig29 is upgraded to at least the rest of FC3 planes...

SinusoidDelta, after I reread what I wrote, I see I've missed "also" (ups) in my sentance... thank you for writing your explanation, making it more clear for everyone.

Actually it is more maneuverable and less draggy at high speed ;) Indeed :) ... If we look at the russian SAHR missiles, with R23 introduction it was in front of AIM7E (Russians got AIM7E and made a copy - R25 which did not perform as well as R23 which used monopulse homing head) and when 7F came out, R24 INS link was answer to the range increase. With introduction of 7M the US was again on pair. Basing on this history, it's only logical that R27 would not be a step backwards ... and we must also not forget that R27 now is not the same as R27 in pre '90s as well... if Russian could make R24, R73... it is a naive to think that R27 is a flop :)

DArt, that is great to hear! Many moons ago I did my service on GCI, and I have quite good material on "eastern way" of doing this if you are interested ... anyways... I am sold, thx for answers! :)

I am considering buying lotatc, however I would like to know what AWACS/GCI functions does it have... especially if: - TA and AO data shows when you pair two contacts with BR line - Does it enable setting custom length of velocity vector for the pair (i.e. 7min) - Does it simulate MTI in a sense, that if contact drops into shadow that it can extrapolate and indicate Memory target If none of this is available, would it be considered for the future updates? thx

Very nice work Alfa! I've only seen 311 cockpit and not 312, so this is a nice moment to see the difference... F18 looks very well polished... few proportion/etc. problems (might be because I am 29 fan as well :D ) with Mig29 but I know it is a WIP so hats off, you are on great path... I look forward to see more :)

this just does not make sense in the given case... I am all for the option of "wornout" and "new" cockpit as I can see it adding the value for the immersion. However as it is now, I am forced to use user mods (most MP mig21 users have done it till date). What is more, this is the only plane in DCS in which user fights with deconflicting canopy dirt and the environment. Bottom line is that there is fault in logic... if it would hold, I should been flying WW2 DCS plane in a rotten state. ;)

While I understand the cool factor, and while it is well done, of canopy with smears all over it, I do not expect such mess on it if plane is not abandoned on some field for a static display. I mean aircraft crew would clean such mess before flying. Maybe some day we will have dynamic bugs, etc. on a canopy in DCS but till then overdoing the weathering should be for plastic kit planes.

Fri13, I am not sure that I understand you correctly. You are correct, single target with 3 channels to guide on and once one is not in use you can reuse it with another missile. The 6 second is the minimum interval hard limit. So, yes, you can space them more if needed.

The model mentioned here can guide 3 with 6 sec interval.

We are both correct. It depends on which SAU mod is in the plane.

No, there is no FBW. However when using dampering, there is soft 26deg AoA limit which can be overriden by pulling extra force on stick (like Su fighters).

Why?

Viggen was as well ...

CCRP is bugged for quite some time. It's been reported multiple times, yet we are still waiting. Problem is most seen when you use ripples and as you target designate it will drop as if it is in CCIP parameters (even if it is not). Least frequient for me to hit this bug is that I try to designate CCRP target while flying level.