dundun92

..or we could not

AFAIK RAZBAM has confirmed AMRAAMs, 9X already, not sure where that info is coming from

According to the missiles_data.lua, the ER uses a boost-sustain motor. Boost phase is 73.5 kN for 3.0 sec, sustain is 14.5 kN for 7.0 sec The missile is probably hitting the sustain phase when it appears to hit this "speed cap", which is the point behind boost sustain; boost takes it up to a certain speed, then sustain "sustains"/slightly increases that speed for a bit.

Alamo 1-1 | dundun92, F/A-18C

INTRO Top Notch is a 1v1 BVR Tournament. This is all-out BVR jousting! DATE AND TIME This second edition of Top Notch will start at 2030z on January 23, 2021. Registration ends on January 22. OBJECTIVES AND TOURNAMENT STYLE Each match is conducted as best of three rounds. The objective is to destroy the enemy aircraft, while remaining flightworthy. Flightworthy is defined below: Must clearly be able to sustain (relatively) straight and level flight for at least 30 seconds Must also not be out of fuel after destroying the bandit. Airframe must have AT LEAST 1 wing present (no wingless F-18s pls), if you can fly stably with one wing it is acceptable. The competition is a knockout-style competition, with players being eliminated after loosing 2 rounds. Draws count as a win for both sides. RULES Aircraft types may not be changed between rounds. All spawns are air spawns at 30kft separated by 80nm. The competition will be run on the Caucasus Map. Fuel Tactics (indefinite running away) are not permitted. Ping limit of 300 is server-enforced. No AWACS will be present. To keep the event running smoothly, I would ask that suggestions/questions be kept until the end of the event, unless they are relevant to/will affect the remaining rounds (e.g, concerns about excessive lag/rubber banding). ECM use is not allowed More Rules TBD WEAPONS RESTRICTIONS This edition features a roughly 2000s rule set with some exceptions. The BANNED weapons are: AIM-9X, Nukes. Restricted weapons are: AIM-120 (all variants) total to 6. AIM-54 (all variants) total to 4 (pending fix of desync bug) COMMUNICATION All players must be present on the Alamo Squadron Teamspeak (server info below) during play. IP: 73.32.85.67 PW: 5775 Questions are to be asked either in PMs, or on this thread. STREAMING AND PRIZES There is no anticipated stream as of RN. If you would want to volunteer DM me. There are no prizes, its simply for the fun of it! REGISTRATION Registration format is as follows: Player Name, Aircraft Type Note that your aircraft selection is not binding and can be changed, it is simply for reference purposes As an example Alamo 1-1 | dundun92, F-15C There will be a limit of 16 players. OTHER RESOURCES None

Yep, thats definitely planned. Thread will probably be up in a day or two

Video as well:

After seeing some threads regarding the tomcats ECM trashing AMRAAMs/SD-10s, I attempted to reproduce, and found that it isnt a tomcat thing, but how the AMRAAM interacts with chaff + quick ECM blinking. If you constantly turn ECM on/off, and deploy chaff at the same time, the AMRAAM will get trashed, and behave as if it were notched, and will not reacquire. Now, I know that IRL chaff + ECM would have effects (potentially similar) on ARH missiles, and this could very well be semi-realistic, but that isnt the question here. What I would like to know is this specific interaction, and how its 100% reproducible in 100% of situations (e.g, as long as you have chaff and blinkable ECM you are 100% immune from AMRAAMs/SD-10s), is intended behavior from ED, or not. Tracks attached below: The tracks "ECM Blink" and "ECM Blink_ECM+chaff" involve usage of both ECM and chaff, while "ECM Blink_ECM" is ECM only. Plane used is Mirage 2000C. ECM Blink_ECM.trk ECM Blink.trk ECM Blink_ECM+chaff.trk ECM Blink_ECM+chaff.acmi ECM Blink_ECM.acmi ECM Blink.acmi

May I ask exactly where AMRAAMs in PvP have an 80% Pk, or even 30% Pk? Certainly nowhere ive been, or in any of our scrims, and thats without chaff.

yes, and thats because they dont use datalink, they simply look for reflected signals

But what if the bandit pilot sneezes and accidentally moves the control stick half an inch and causes a slight flight patch deviation ? What if the wind changes direction by a little bit? What if you fired it 0.5° off of the ASE circle? What if you rolled a bit during launch, and the time the missile took to correct meant that the missile had to make a slightly larger turn to get onto the target, giving it slightly less energy (assuming the missile does this sort of manuever)? Do you really want to instruct pilots to be firing at a range where something like that trashes the shot? There has to be some sort of margin, even if its not that big, but the question is how much? Until we know that you have to treat DLZ ranges like this as Raero at a minimum, but with potential to be higher.

According to ED this intended, you are not supposed to be able to relock targets and resend datalink. It doesnt make sense either; why would the radar, upon generating a new trackfile that it has no idea if it is the old target or not, send datalink signals on old datalink channels to a missile launched at, as far as the radar is concerned, a different target (different trackfile = different target from the radar PoV)?

ARH missiles are STT yes, but you have to realize that there is inherent innacuracy in RWRs, and that the F-16/18 RWRs really arent good comparisons as they are over modeled in the accuracy department. Comparing this to something like the F-14, which has an actual realistically modeled RWR, is much better, and youll get a better idea of what RWRs are actually like IRL.

No matter how "good" jester is this will always be the case. A human RIO is always the better option.

The thing is, an unsupported AMRAAM, as of the last couple patches, has no clue what an "original target" is, and it shouldnt without appropriate radar support. It looks like the AMRAAM was tracking you initially, but it wasnt, it was simply using the 5(?) seconds of onboard autopilot/memory mode extrapolation of the last known datalink signal. But it went after the first target it saw with its own radar; the AMRAAM never saw you. Whats questionable here isnt the root behavior per se, its the fact that it can magically see an AAM at 15km. Also, IRL im sure the missile, based on the last known datalink position, would probably know not to go for another target 11° away and much closer than the last known position, the target simply couldnt have moved that far in those few seconds. But until we see a fully modeled INS/Datalink interaction thats not happening, and it still wont fix the problem entirely until RCS affects ARH detection range.

What QuiGon said is correct, but I must add, you will be seeing this more often than before. The reason is that AMRAAMs, if the lock is dropped before active, no longer only go after the original target with the old magical ±60° FoV. Now, with the realistic updates, unsupported AMRAAMs have a) a much smaller either 15° or ±15° FoV (not sure which one it was), and b) will lock the first target that it finds, as it essentially goes maddog if unsupported, as it should. The biggest issue here is how far it can detect and AAM, it shouldnt be seeing AAMs at the full 15km. But again, this is a universal simplification for all ARH missiles (R-77/SD-10 included), target RCS doesnt matter, so this isnt an AMRAAM OP kinda thing, this is just how ARH in DCS works.

No, If RWRs gave datalink signal warnings for TWS launches, everyone in the general area (TWS scan area + sidelobes) would get an RWR warning. which is very much counter-productive in most scenarios.

Thats because a hit on an F-16 generally kills the pilot instantly, where on the F-14 it doesnt. F-15 has a similar-ish tendency.

Just a reminder that the event is in 30 minutes!

Preliminary brackets:

In fact, I decided to download the tacview and see what the turn rate was. The maximum turn rate the missile reached was 12°/sec, and a max G of 8.4. This is well under its maximum G/turn rate capability at that speed. So again, nothing is factually wrong, unless you have evidence that a 12°/s turn rate at M1.2 is somehow too high No thats not what he's referencing, at least its not whats being shown in the tacviews. He is referring to the initial turn after the saftey manuever

watched it, see nothing wrong. Has nothing to do with having "half good eyes" The question is, what is your rational, evidence based reason its incorrect? The fact that it looks/feels undynamic to you is irrelevant. Still waiting on some actual evidence that the missiles are turning too quickly.

Did you measure the actual turn rate or are you going off what feels "correct" to you?

I dont know, but I do know of several beta team testers who are aware so Id assume theyve told ED

This is a known issue, high AoAs in MP for some reason induce desync.