Blinky.ben

I had no idea this was a thing, how does this work? This doesn’t involve SRS right?

Sense the 120 is the more superior missile in DCS (with some close contenders) I wouldn’t say nerfing is the problem (which hasn’t happened) but tactics is your issue. Remember a F-16 is capable of putting the same Aim-120 in a better starting position then what a F-18 can. So you need to know what your limits are and what the other guys limits are.

Yeah you can change the frequency that are in the Channels list on the kneeboard. I suggest watching this video and it will show you how to do it. It’s not very easy to explain https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mEG_HlcEw&list=PL3kOAM2N1YJfX0JgLClesrw6SXUrv0isl&index=52

@uboats is there a update? Have Deka made a decision as to if you guys are going to add the CM-400 and the LS-6-100 & 250?

I’m not aware of such a thing? Could you enlighten me as to what’s planned?

But being a game you also lack fear that a real world pilot would have in the battle field.

Yeah just another thread of many that didn’t need requiring posting yet another one so yes please Move along......

Bump ED?

The code displayed down the bottom is for the laser when firing a weapon. When you press LSS the code in the same spot will be for LSS only. So make sure you change the code while in LSS to find the correct laser code. Don’t change it before pressing LSS. That’s if your not using the default 1688. you also need to be pointing in the general area of the target, however if your friend is in a A-10 or AV-8b they have a issue at the moment when user the laser for LSS at the moment. Their lasers are only firing at 10nm or something like that and not actually at the target beyond those ranges so be mindful of this issue.

It is in the upcoming patch.

Agree +1

I feel like I’m missing something here, Why should they both match each other? They are completely different missiles made from completely different technology from different countries. They don’t have the same motors or burn times they are totally different weights and shape. The only thing they share in common is they both fly and have the same role. But I will agree with you I feel the AGM-88 doesn’t do the job very well.

In the F10 view draw a line along the side edge of the runway to get a more accurate heading. Then minus 6 (for the caucus map each map has a different mag variation) off that number and use the number your left with. E.g on the F10 map the runway number is 07 after I use the ruler to get a more accurate bearing I get 073 I minus 6 for mag variation and I come up with 067. I dial in 067 on HSI and land.

I see your point however the modulation used is going to help the pulse compression which is the biggest factors to determining the distance a radar can detect between two objects. (Res cell) Range resolution is probably our biggest factor here and there are a few modulations that help in this area but they all have disadvantages also. There is one in particular modulation I can think off that has the best resolution that I am aware of but With Doppler processing (I say processing cause a Doppler capable radar doesn’t always use Doppler so they can change the process) it creates discrepancies but it maybe be within tolerance, I would be interested in which one it would use. Actually you got me thinking with a discussion we had on another forum with fusing and you might be into something. I’ll PM you.

just a couple of questions don’t take this the wrong way they are literally just questions 1. When you say the Res cell do we know what the modulation is used and what the pulse compression is for the Aim-120? 2. in the scenario asked do we know what effect the chaff would have in terms of AGC which is something that would need to be sorted out before processing begins? This one is very important I would be very interested to know how strong the return would be.

Do you mean as for the User input stuff? If so I mean the user has the ability to manipulate the controls and setting/modes but yes they can just walk away and it will run themselves. Yeah sure my first radar I worked with was the small over weight MSTAR then moved onto GO12 & GO80. Left military and my new role was anti submarine with SV2020 & SV2022 upgraded to the APY-10 and now I do contracted work with a fairly new system. I don’t mean to be rude but I’ll have to leave the new system alone. It would be great to hear from the SME’s ED use. as for the rest of your post I totally agree with everything. Just to make clear I’m not suggesting chaff to be the ultimate defence but it can’t be ignored it does have a level of influence over radars even if it is small. But one small problem isn’t something worth worrying about. However combined with other tactics that all create small problems and we end up with a big problem. All I’m trying to get across is that radars aren’t perfect and it needs assistance from many tools to deal with very common situations and Doppler is just one of those many tools, but it’s not a fool proof system cause it is relying on many other functions. Chaff isn’t something that is just dead weight it does serve a purpose even if the effect is small but it definitely isn’t just something Doppler just eradicates for the radar. There are other systems that will probably remove chaff before Doppler does or remove the pulse not giving the Doppler feature a chance to kick in. A pulse is a pulse no matter what, the radar has to do something with that pulse. But it does do it at a speed that to this day still boggles my mind

18 years working with military radars ranging from short range radars to detect explosions up to airborne anti-submarine and air tracking radars. that are some of the best systems made to date and can I can absolutely put my hand on my heart and say none of those systems are that good. But basically it’s just my education opinion in the end That depends on what systems. A lot of Sam sites work as a network and they have great advantages over air to air radars. Remember the Aim-120 is a small tracking radar not a search radar. One is they can search and listen at the same time greatly enhancing their accuracy. They are usual backed up but much more powerful systems that allow them to have much greater search modes and more processing power. They are also usually fairly reliant on user input and not completely automated like the ones in our fighters and missiles I’m not saying it should be disregarded or that it useless because it is very important but this community does put into a higher power then what it actually is. There are many many features to a radar and they all play a much more important role then Doppler. In fact Doppler can not even work effectively without these features doing their job first. Making the Doppler a tool that’s towards the back of a chain of tools the radar is using and it is these features that some people are trying to get across that Doppler isn’t this magical thing that solves all problems. When in fact many problems have to be solved first before Doppler can be considered. And this is the most important point of ALL. No one here knows this answer, I highly doubt a fighter pilot who shoot these missiles would even know the true data. A lot of this kind of data are very tight secrets that the manufacturer and a close few actually get privileged to know this information. So I guess this is where ED listen to what their SME’s say over what material there is available on the internet. They are working close with military’s around the world and developing systems for them that we as common folk don’t get access to, this will be giving them real knowledge that can’t be read about on the internet I can’t speak for the Aim-120 but I can have a fairly good educated guess as to what anti-clutter circuits it will have and there are at least 3-5 other anti-clutter circuits that will be taking effect before the radar narrows downs enough spikes to interrogate, before it considers the Doppler within a pulse but this will be heavily decided by what aspect the radar is looking at the contact with other clutter. 2 of these features could very well completely ignore the radar return that has the contact within it but this is mostly done to make sure the antenna doesn’t burn out but it has a anti-clutter side effect. But due to insane PRF many other pulses will be making it through. This is my main point that’s being missed. It doesn’t have to create an immediate break lock. Chaff needs to introduce problems for the radar to solve. For a simple example is if the chaff is creating such a massive return the radar MAY need to change search modes (I’m speculating here cause I don’t know what the actual search patterns is does or if it even has multiple modes) this will mean a different set of anti-clutter circuits a different PRF a different pulse width so a moment in time that has delayed its tracking ability. I doubt the Aim-120 would actually change or even has multiple search modes with such a short range radar but I hope this is at least showing the point I’m trying to achieve. Like I stated before. A small tracking radar on the Aim-120 was definitely better then any of the most power search radars that I’ve ever used in my time.

This is interesting, I always figured it was just it would pickup a bigger target further away then a small target so it goes active further away.

This chart doesn’t help a lot for this specific situation without knowing what was being used. Sam radars are entirely different systems compared to air to air radars. Air to air will always be the inferior cousin to Sam networks. Do we know what system was used for these charts? I would imagine this is ground based information. what was the result they were trying to achieve. Are these results if the radar is now tracking chaff or is it the radar just lost lock on the aircraft? All chaff needs to achieve is to create problems for the radar to deal with and that will always happen. All the examples you have that the radar has as features are all processes that happen AFTER the radar has already done much other processing that the chaff has made the radar go through due to its new presence. Meaning it has had to see the chaff and go through the process to identify it is not the target you want to track and then remove the chaff. So no matter how amazing a radar is chaff will ALWAYS no matter what have some kind of effect no matter the situation and no matter what aspect it just some aspects will have less issue the others. All the features you explained are features to help the radar stop tracking chaff but doesn’t exactly stop the missile losing lock which can happen for a huge amount of reasons before Doppler, speed gates, range gates have even started being a thing, when the missile is tracking the contact the radar pulse is still picking up objects in the area and it still has to process what keeps coming back to the missile while its still tracking a target and even if one pulse comes back too strong or makes the missile miss other pulses or anything that forces the radar to change a setting before Doppler is introduced then a problem has been created and the missile has to deal with that. This is why a lookup aspect is almost one of the greatest advantages you can have (I would argue it is more important then the Doppler feature that is over rated by the community) and look down aspect has such a huge disadvantage and this doesn’t include the problems that notching bring to the table either. But again notching only helps defeat the last part of the overall processing the radar has to go through. Im with BIGNEWY in that I think there is some Hollywood expectations happening by SOME not all. The resistance from the Aim-120 before the change that caused this topic was too resistant, I’m not saying that’s it not broken now either but it definitely should not be how it was before.

This ship which is a LST took four 2,000lbs bombs and it took over and hour to actually start sinking. these types of ships are usually less armoured to allow for the extra weight for tanks and to still keep up with the fleet. So with a well placed bomb sure you could hurt and if super lucky sink a warship but unlikely you will sink it with one bomb Just like a tank if you can kill the running gear doesn’t mean it can’t keep shooting. Some ships in history have taken massive beatings and even direct torpedo hits which are far far far more devastating then a 2,000lbs bomb and they have still managed to sail back to a port. The German Tirpitz took 2x 12,000lbs bombs to stop it in its tracks.

I could be wrong but I do find that the Radar in the JF is slightly more narrow then most other modules, so you need to be a little more precise with your elevation then what you might be use to.

Yeah I just read your link. He doesn’t sell it as if it was a concept in the podcast that’s for sure. But he squashes the idea that it ever happened in the article.

23:50mins talks about the missiles they could carry 30:40 says the secondary role of the F-117 is to kill AWAC’s https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/072-f-117-nighthawk/

I also thought this but you should listen to the fighter pilot pod cast where they interview a F-117 pilot. They did in fact carry A/A missiles and they had to constantly train for air to air combat. Been awhile sense I’ve listened to it but it is an amazing interview. I won’t spoil what he talks about what he did in IRAQ but it will blow your mind

I’m not sure about that, the modifications would be so great I think it would cease to be called the F-16 and more like F-16000.