Naquaii

This is not about legality. We do not have classified documentation and wouldn’t look for that either. Do we have documentation not available on the net? Yeah, ofc we do, that doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to have them. We also have information collated through extensive dialogue with SMEs. The simple fact is that when you have put extensive effort and resources into acquiring said information it doesn’t make sense to just give them away. And even so we kinda do in a way as we put the relevant information into the module and the module documentation.

Unfortunately not. We don’t discuss or share our internal research library.

Yes. As for track memory, that's absolutely something it should have but isn't in DCS. It's not by any stretch a "cure all" for this as it'd mostly help you for very quick transitions and/or if the target flies straight and level without maneuvering. We would like to add it but it's also a massive undertaking due to how the STT is coded as is.

I specifically said it tracks in rate. I.e. doppler.

Except that in the AWG-9 PD-STT only tracks the target in angle and rate in regards to keeping locked onto the target. Range is measured intermittently and added to the track file but not used to filter out returns in the radar itself. It's funny as the engineers that designed the AWG-9 saw a reason for it. The sidelobes on the AWG-9 aren't really comparable to newer systems and are not as easy to just do away with and you also have to remember that the comparable RCS of the ground that's causing the zero doppler ground return is comparably massive to a target in the air.

You're not wrong in that there are application where you can use low doppler returns or non-doppler returns as data but for pulse-doppler radar applications you really can't. Especially not older non-contemporary systems. I hadn't thought I needed to specify that I meant in pulse doppler radars for target tracking purposes as this is what we're discussing here. The issue is that the very reasons for the existance of pulse doppler radars are also the reasons why you can't use it when there are none or little doppler on the received signal. There is a reason for a radar like the AWG-9 having both pulse and pulse-doppler modes, they complement each other but the radar operator has to choose which mode to use. For more moderns systems the controlling computer can do this automatically for the operator or use other newer modes and techniques to bypass these issues.

No, you're actually not automatically filtering out all the unwanted returns by doing that, you're just filtering out everything but what's withing the rate gates. That's the key difference. The MLC region doesn't matter as much as there are multiple factors that have to coincide for the MLC to affect the STT but the zero doppler returns from the ground and the leakage from the transmitter will always be there. If I can't convince you all I can say is that I can promise you we are not guessing in any way in regards to that the zero doppler filter is not optional, it's a set filter part of the radar hardware and we know that is a fact. Pulse doppler radars have always had to contend with these factors, it's not until recently that techniques that can bypass these have become common. The term to google for is altitude return line or sidelobe returns apart from pulse doppler radar if you want to learn more about this.

You misunderstand, it's not artificial, it's just how the hardware works. There is absolutely a need for this as otherwise you wouldn't be able to use it at all at lower altitudes and it wouldn't work well higher up either. And a doppler radar can't function when there's no doppler, it's kinda in the name. The altitude return is from the sidelobes of the antenna and that means that there will nearly always be a strong signal present from the ground directly below you. This is an always present issue with airborne doppler radars.

I think you're confusing some concepts here. The rate gate used to track targets in PD-STT follows the tracked target in rate and is not a fixed filter like the MLC or zero doppler filter. You're right in that the MLC is not used for PD-STT but the zero doppler filter is. The zero doppler filter can't be turned on or off and is always a factor in a PD mode as doppler is what's measured. The zero doppler filter will always be present and will always be a factor when the closure rate is between -100 to 100 knots, i.e. the filter is centered around 0 closure rate and is 200 knots wide as returns here have no doppler and is treated as either transmitter to receiver leakage or altitude returns. This means that when you're chasing targets that match your speed more or less and are cold you can't use PD-STT.

The F-14 F110 had variable intake ramps. As per the thread subject.

You can't draw direct comparisons between the F-16 and F-14 like that. The F110 absolutely had them.

The normal datalink host choice shouldn't affect the alignment, the CAINS is separate. Are you sure the alignment is wrong if you just let it align regardless?

Yeah, fringe is correct. Possible to start before but correct procedure was to wait and Jester follows procedure.

The reason I'm asking is because he won't continue his checklist until both engines are up and running as mentioned.

Is this before or after starting both engines?

Unfortunately neither was possible in the real aircraft.

What you're asking for is not really possible unless you move the whole hud physically. As the symbols correspond to real world objects outside of the aircraft it would mean that this would no longer be the case anymore. As mentioned above this was an issue in real-life as well with the pilots sometimes having to move their heads down to see everything.

Yes, in part that's the reason for how it's implemented. But the AIM-54C is much more independent of the AWG-9 than the -A.

As it's implemented the target size switch will (as many of you have surmised) change the activation indication on the TID but it will only actually affect the AIM-54A. The AIM-54C decides these things for itself but the WCS still believes it's in control. As has been mentioned the target size switch is quite hard to exhaustively model in a sim like DCS. As for jamming and HoJ you kinda have to keep in mind that the HoJ isn't supposed to make the missile independent or silent. The purpose of HoJ is to allow the missile to still guide even if jammed enough for normal guidance to fail. The HoJ is a suplement for the normal guidance, it doesn't replace it. You wouldn't fire and forget an AIM-7 in HoJ IRL even if that's sometimes possible in DCS. Jammers for the majority of the use cases doesn't work like the pure noise jammers we have in DCS so it simply wouldn't work in pure HoJ.

Afaik the info we have says it's basically the USN AIM-9 variants from the AIM-9D onwards that it carried. But adding them as a 3rd party doesn't really make sense but if they're added by ED we might as well imo. Afaik the "complete" list would be the AIM-9D, AIM-9G, AIM-9H, AIM-9L and AIM-9M.

Having components be the same in the APG-71 as the APG-70 unfortunately tells us nothing about how the actual interface worked.

No, the missile should HoJ. Being silent or not doesn't make it HoJ or not. Active missiles will HoJ but continuously try to also reaquire actively with own radar.

Yep, it's for all Phoenixes, as far as I've heard that's the reason for it being less common to carry them on the gloves as maintaining/clearing/flushing the coolant lines there being a bit of a pain. As for the AIM-9P I think that's a USAF Sidewinder so not something the navy used.

As I mentioned it's a limitation in DCS currently as it's really hard to add a limitation like that due to how the fuselage stations on the F-14 are designed. The system is basically designed to dismount other weapons when a weapon not compatible with them is mounted but on the F-14 there are so many combinations it's not really possible. As well as the fact that the pallets need to be removed/added. But the simple rule for the phoenixes is that the forward fuselage pallets need to be present and (I think) also have the rails for the phoenixes. That's why you can't have only rear phoenixes.

This is a limitation of the payload selection process. As have been mentioned that is not a valid loadout as the front two sparrows block the phoenix pallets containing the cooling system for all phoenixes.