FoxAlfa

Let back track our conversation to yesterday... you said 'it has power for days' it ended up being 80-90 sec... you say here it is more than enough for power, I don't share you optimism and disagree it can be 100% reliable pickup at that range like now due to many factors (antenna size, gain, cooling).... remember lot of ppl are having issue connecting to Wi-Fi rooter in the next room with bigger antennas and 30 years newer tech, so I will just leave it there.

I am not sure for of the exact range for the sparrow but that seams about right, but for sure it needed support radio above it. That was limiting factor why it R-24 and R-27 had radio correction added. and also that is ideal conditions. Also yes 1/8th power is correct, but that assumes same Transmitter Power and Gain... where my reserves come into it... we are not talking about 29 inch antenna with all the power and more important cooling needed... but a small battery powered 5in one and not to get into a cooling issues of it going mach 3... and currently it picks up any non-notching target 100% of the time at 8nm...

Let me elaborate, if we take 80's tech radar from the similar timeframe of the Aim120a dev timeline, like AN/APG-67 from the F-20 ( ) we can see that 'marketing' numbers (optimistic) are 42 nm lookup, 31 nm lookdown, and we are talking about detections, not track... and the antenna is at least 5 times bigger with full fighter radar processing power behind it.... similar numbers are for the 90ties F-16 radars popping up... that is why I find 8 nm quite optimistic... in a lookup on hot bomber, for sure, but a look down on flanking or cold fighter...I find its performance too optimistic (I could be completely wrong)… in the end all of the Aim120 kills interviews I listened the missiles were supported till the very end and with a good reason.

Correct, as far I my information goes. Marked on the diagram. I do agree they shouldn't on going active too early. Also, I do have some concerns about the power and reliability of five 5 in antenna to pick up at 8nm and track a fighter in the weeds especially unsupported, since now it is 100%.... high flying bomber, sure, but fighter in lookdown, not so sure.

My concern is, if AMRAAM has a lifetime of 80 sec (documented as well according to ED) during standard use, if support is dropped and that missile goes 'Pitbull' early, according to law of conservation of energy its lifetime should be shortened. If you disagree please provide me a perpetuum mobile, there is good market for it. This can be solved with two timers, one standard of 80 sec, and one Active time life which triggers when missile goes active.... whichever triggers first missile dies since out of power... or energy use coefficient which increases when missile is active. We can also go into battery energy density which increased 10fold in last twenty or so years or how much energy actuator expend do fight the airstream at Mach 3, as much as you like... but I didn't come up 80 second lifetime on it...

I guess you didn't use batteries 20 years ago... or goggle chrome on your phone now.... no matter if something has 80 sec lifetime on standard use... it should have much less if forced to go active early and increase its power consumption... law of conservation of energy

I do agree about the actuators, but that are working and steering the missile regardless if active or SARH/supported mode. And true there are many factors, but bottom-line is same active missile will always use more power in active state thus have a shorter life if in that state.

Understood, thank you! I was wondering since I expected to have 'active battery life' for ARH missiles. Reason being since the battery drain in 'active' state is much higher due to radar power use, thus missiles that are 'mad dogged' should have much smaller 'active' life then a full supported missile till active range.

I have a question about 'battery life' of the missiles, are we talking about electrical or hydraulic battery life?

Since developing it would allow ED to work on GCI and go more into details on systems done by soviet way of thinking giving them base for outer projects. You guys keep saying you want five story building, but without building the first floor.... but there are more than enough of us that just want shelter!

This is excellent, thank you! Any chance of SPO-15 display?

We need this :D

upgraded versions can do stacked bombs... not sure about initial version but I didn't see such a option in the armorer's guide for it.

Flight and target strike of the R-27...

Excellent, thank you! All the missile improve are much appreciated!

Ups, I did switch them up :doh: But then follow up question would be, shouldn't there be reduced Angle of Attack limits at the start to prevent the missile tumbling under power? Since I am not sure those small wings wouldn't be overpowered at high AoA and high instability?

Excellent! Thank you! I have one more question, is the Center of Mass shift taken into account in missiles modeling? With 40% of the mass being expended at the rear end the CoM shift toward Center of Aero is substantial. Due to that one would expect that on the start at least the missile is much more aerodynamically stable design and that is would have much more "unwillingness" to turn, at least at the start.

Anything new/news? I love the Foxbat!!!

+1 for Gina

The main issue with the FC3 aircraft is that the lookdown penalty keeps "climbing" with the aircraft. instead of effecting targets and aircraft only down low. I already reported it and hopefully it will be fixed soon. This is for the Fulcrum but you can test other FC3 aircraft. Here is the table I produced, the RLE min and RLE max are ranges the manual states target should be picked up, first two columns are hight of the target and the fighter.

Honestly, we don't know what a state of it is... is it being worked, on hold...? Last info was from mid-2019 or so... The work done on C-101 is excellent and I real hope AvioDev produce a new module.

Please keep in mind there is smaller number of us who like the change of Multiplayer... where it is not your choice, but the other guys choice... so not a valid feedback or solution. Thank you!

I would prefer we get R-27P instead, there are manuals stating it range, there are pictures of planes caring them, there was a picture of a squadron aircraft with loadout chart with it in it... and both Russian Vympel NPO and Ukrainian Artem advertise it on their sites meaning that they have finished product before Rus-UKR split.

I will just leave this image here... and no 4 x R-27 is not a valid loadout... but 6 Mavs let the cat out of the bag.....

Will R-77 get loft?