Tiger-II

We've gone from missile operation to missile guidance design! :D Yes, you could. There is sufficient data available that integration of angles and rates is exactly how the real unit ranges. I'm not sure in the case of Jeff/LD-10 but in the case of the HARM on F-16, the aircraft has the processing capability to use seeker data to determine threat location and range, which is then programmed into the missile as target data (approximate position) prior to firing. The missile can fly to the last approximate location, and will position update if the emitter goes active for any reason. PK is still extremely low if the emitter is OFF in the terminal phase, but it will get the missile to the target area. ACT mode of LD-10 is supposed to do something similar, but it does it based on pilot entered coordinates, not system determined position.

It was my understanding that it wasn't possible to get the LD-10 to fly to a specific emitter. There is: * ACT - fly to a waypoint and kill any emitter * PAS - fly maximum range profile and kill any emitter * SP - fly to the highest threat emitter currently tracking the aircraft

Does it have the same battery life as the B? It appears both run out of power.

Another ACMI, this time featuring the F-16 and AIM-120B and C models. Target at 39300 ft and Mach 0.65 (I set 0.80 so not sure what's up with that) AIM-120B: F-16 at 42000 ft and Mach 1.04 (deliberately slightly fast so I'm not accused of bias) lofting again at +15 degrees. Launch distance: 79.35 NM Missile dead distance: 21.59 NM (missile); 50.05 NM (me) Straight-line distance when missile dead: 28.46 NM (52.70 km) << expected AIM-120C: F-16 at 44000 ft and Mach 1.00 (deliberately slightly fast so I'm not accused of bias) lofting at +14 degrees. Launch distance: 59.45 NM Missile dead distance: 5.87 NM (missile); 33.63 NM (me) Straight-line distance when missile dead: 27.76 NM (51.41 km) << unexpected. Same FM as -120B? Tacview-20200618-180342-DCS-JF-17 - Caucus - Kobuleti - Ramp - Training - MP.txt.zip

So RWR can detect the datalink between the launch aircraft and the missile?

I can see fine? HUD vanishes as expected.

Oh. I did try that and it seemed to be OK?

Looking great guys!! :D :worthy:

How do you mean?

I know. If anything, all these tests are proving the SD-10 is about where it should be. :thumbup:

I've got the same set-up as his track, so I'm now going to try this with the F-16. I just posted the results with the JF-17.

Target: 39300 ft. Mach 0.65. Me: 42380 ft (+3080 ft). Mach 0.89. Lofting missile at +15 degrees. Distance at launch: 71.68 NM Distance when missile dead: 7.69 NM (missile); 45.63 NM (me). Straight-line distance when missile dead: 37.94 NM (70.26 km). Tacview-20200618-163627-DCS-JF-17 - Caucus - Kobuleti - Ramp - Training - MP.txt.zip

Well... 1) Try this with the latest OB!!! 2) You are comparing to the AIM-54 which IS NOT USING THE NEW API! 3) You seem to have hacked the SD-10 onto the F-15. I assume the battery life is programmed into the file for the missile. EDIT: Target is HOT ASPECT flying straight at you and not maneuvering, and the time the missile actually impacts, range to target is 37 NM. Thus, the target was not actually 60 NM away, but 37 NM away. I see nothing wrong with this. 37 NM = 68.542 km. Missile had a good loft to 83300 ft, you are 10000 ft above the target at 42000 ft, and flying at Mach 1.1 at launch. It looks very reasonable.

I see the same thing. LD-10 max range is only achievable when launched from 45000 ft at Mach 1.0. It has DCS HARM guidance, and right now won't loft or otherwise fly correctly. It will fly straight at the target, which is not what HARMs do, generally. LD-10 should fly at any emitting source, and you should in theory be able to shoot down aircraft with it as well (as long as they keep their RADAR on and aren't really maneuvering). Good for shooting AWACS.

You should get TRACKING...TRACKING... in STT without launch. I didn't think the missile emitted, nor the aircraft could detect the launch from front aspect at such a distance (the system would detect every missile fired from anywhere giving nuscience alerts constantly which would be useless). The reason Jeff has sensors looking at the rear aspect is because it can alert you to an IR missile launch during BFM. The launch occurs close enough that it can detect the plume of the missile.

You know SD-10 has >80% PK? 1 out of 5 missiles MISS (assuming launched correctly). I tried to play your track but I need the F-15C. Can you get TacView and create an ACMI? I think playing track will cause this to happen. I know ED won't use ACMI to debug issues (tracks contain internal simulator data), but for analysis purposes as we are doing here it is fine. ...or...can you at least explain the setup? In my testing here, there is no way I could get the missile to hit a target >50 NM. I think it is extremely unlikely, because the battery will expire before it reaches the target.

OK - I will check it, but did you try the setup in the latest OB that dropped yesterday where all this was changed? What matters to me is: reproducibility. If you are in an MP session it is possible there was a desync issue causing weird things to happen (this is famous in DCS).

Did you check my ACMIs? SD-10 is about where it should be. I wouldn't say it is "over-performing", nor would I scream it is under-performing, based on what I've seen in limited testing so far. Can you provide ACMI as I have done, proving it is over-performing? Here's a link to TacView (free for 21 days): https://www.tacview.net/download/latest/en/ ... but I really think you're trolling. If you aren't, then you really don't understand missile physics. You must remember that all my tests are against a non-maneuvering target. This is how missile ranges are defined IRL. Obviously, if I fired at a competent pilot, the chances are the missile would be defeated, probably most of the time. I'm assuming the AIM-120 behaves similarly at this point. I'm going to go have a break, then fly the same test routines with the F-16.

STT should be the only RADAR mode that triggers the alerts because it concentrates all the enemy RADAR onto your aircraft, increasing the power received by the RWR and pushing it over the alert threshold. TWS and SAM targeting ("soft lock") shouldn't trigger any alerts because the RADAR energy focused onto the aircraft is still too low. Unless the aircraft can "see" the missile trail to give a missile launch warning, no alert should be received of a missile launch because the launch aircraft will datalink the target data to the missile as long as it has a lock, preventing the missile using its own seeker and triggering MISSILE alert.

Some might argue "too powerful!", but they wouldn't have bothered making them require a laser designator if it didn't work. It's like the difference between a dumb bomb and an LGB. I don't think anyone doubts the precision of an LGB, so why a rocket should be any different, I don't know. BRM-1 is the JDAM of rockets.

Target is beaming. I'm at 11000 ft, target is at 40000 ft. In the second sequence, the first missile is fired at 26.88 NM (49.78 km). The second missile is fired at 18.0 NM (33.3 km). This is "miles" (pun absolutely intended :D ) away from 70 km, even working on the assumption of launching at 20 km altitude as per the charts. I'm slightly higher, faster, and pointing at optimum intercept. For each shot I pitched up and aimed at the dot, at in excess of Mach 0.95. Enjoy. ;) Tacview-20200618-134823-DCS.txt.zip

I haven't finished yet... next sequence is at 10800 ft.

I have come armed with an ACMI. Preliminary analysis of the ACMI combined with lack of bias (I want this thing to be accurate - not OP or under-OP) shows that whatever you are talking about "120+km" is absolute nonsense. My first missile shot is against a non-maneuvering AWACS at 74 NM. Remember: it matters not what the missile is - you can shoot anything at any range. It doesn't change whether you are in weapons range or not! So to be clear... I fired at 74 NM. What happened? Look for yourself. The missile battery expired 33 seconds before reaching the target. The missile had tons of energy left (Mach 3.03). It was out of power, and dead. Even better: after firing the missile, the target turned towards, closing the distance. Any other questions? @Max1mus: I enjoy missile discussions as much as anyone, but please, stop with the BS and actually start providing some data we can use. Your post is just ranting that the SD-10 is heading towards properly modelled. Aside from your obvious bias against the JF-17, I really don't see your point. Based on the data and watching the missile speed in the sim, based on a speed of 1800 kts (Mach 3.0-ish) and a battery life of 100 seconds, the missile has a maximum range under ideal conditions of 50 NM or 92.6 km. Note also that I launched below the target altitude (I'm at 33000 ft; the target is at 40000 ft). I pitched up to 15 degrees before lofting the missile at the optimum intercept angle (nose pointing at the dot). 70 km (37.796 NM) missile range is based on firing from 10800 ft (20 km) altitude. I'm 3.2x higher than that. In the second sequence, similar set-up: 33000 ft at Mach 0.95. Lofting on optimum intercept. Missile fired at 58.13 NM. Missile goes dead 11 seconds before reaching the target, and misses by 0.74 NM. These are ALL NON-MANEUVERING TARGETS. Tacview-20200618-113750-DCS-JF-17 - Caucus - Kobuleti - Ramp - Training - MP.txt.zip

These are great! Also worth noting that the launch aircraft is LOWER than the aircraft it is attacking (not look-down-shoot-down), so the missile is immediately fighting gravity to get up to the target.

I tried this in the latest OB, and setting the switch to NVG just causes the normal lights to illuminate.