Harlikwin

Yeah, it is a major limitation for BVR aircraft, though even with IFF gear for example the USAF in general had similar ROEs in VN, which was one of the reasons the US forces generally didn't do great, because they didn't really train for BFM much. Navy Crusaders basically were WVR machines and their training/usage reflected that so as a whole they did much better than other USAF/USN units as an example. Currently given the poor range of the R530's (realistically WVR) its generally not a huge problem currently for the mirage. Once the Super 530 makes it in the game I think it will be far more of one. And online servers will have to adapt IMO. On ECW (I assume this is the MP server you mean), the meta that evolved was that since blue F5's had 9P5's for armament which are basically BVR missiles when fired head on, they learned to work closely with human GCI's to find and localize targets. The mig21 with IFF on red those guys had little need for that so it never developed prior to the F1 being on the sever, and currently its "evolving". So I'd assume that whichever team ends up with the F1 will end up using human GCI's more for that reason. Which is totally realistic. One thing that DCS does badly overall is really modeling the level of SA that most fighter pilots realistically have for the non-DL planes (also why those planes are popular). For example if you looked at what hierarchical soviet era IADS/GCI nets looked like basically there is a radar on ever street corner covering everything, and each group of fighters has a lot of hand holding going on GCI wise. In DCS MP, on most servers you are lucky to have some random EWR's setup or a single awacs and tons of blind spots which is laughably unrealistic and seldom anyone doing GCI. A big part of the issue are clueless mission designers, but also the antiquated DCS radio setups. I had high hopes for something better from the IADS dev, but I guess thats been shelved for now so we are stuck with the ancient radio comms.

Yeah thanks for that. Also good thread for the other issues as well.

The K-13 which is based on the Gar8/aim-9B is bugged with regard to its uncage-lock/pre-firing behavior. Currently, you put the gun piper on the target until you get “tone” (~4 deg IFOV). Which automatically “locks” the target, and “uncages” the seeker head, and you can freely maneuver within the seeker gimbal limits (~25 deg). While this behavior or variations thereof may be found on later models of the aim-9 its not correct for the 9B since its seeker only uncages (locks) the target after being fired. Correct behavior would look like maneuver till you get tone on target. Then fire, and the firing process takes ~1 sec from depressing trigger to missile leaving the rail. The seeker gyro is uncaged with the firing command, never before. If the target maneuvers out of the 4 degree seeker FOV during this time you loose lock. Early versions of the sidewinder used a mechanical cage mechanism as described below. Later 9B versions used a magnetic cage mechanism which still mostly operated in similar fashion. While the K-13 did have "upgrades" namely a better motor, and upgraded gas generator, the seeker head/guidance unit worked the same as the 9B with regards to the seeker uncage behavior. The K-13M and K-13M1 likely could be uncaged. Pg 71 Pg 115 sidewinder Magnetic caging and firing sequence, and 9B firing sequence from OP 2309 (3rd) page 2-2AIM-9B (https://archive.org/details/OP23093rdAIM9B) Declassed pre-1980. As stated above, only AFTER firing does the gyro uncage. And finally the first sidewinder to have uncage capability was the aim9E as mentioned in the Project CHECO report from Vietnam (pg10-11). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA486826

The Aim-9B is bugged with regard to its uncage-lock/pre-firing behavior. Currently, you put the gun piper on the target until you get “tone” (~4 deg IFOV). And if you hit the uncage switch you can “lock” the target, and “uncages” the seeker head, and you can freely maneuver within the seeker gimbal limits (~25 deg). While this behavior or variations thereof may be found on later models of the aim-9 (9P, 95 are uncagable) its not correct for the 9B since its seeker only uncages (locks) the target after being fired. Correct behavior would look like maneuver till you get tone on target. Then fire, and the firing process takes ~1 sec from depressing trigger to missile leaving the rail. The seeker gyro is uncaged with the firing command, never before. If the target maneuvers out of the 4 degree seeker FOV during this time you loose lock. Early versions of the sidewinder used a mechanical cage mechanism as described below. Later 9B versions used a magnetic cage mechanism which still mostly operated in similar fashion. And yes I know what the F5 -34 says and it is wrong in this regard (its correct for everything other than the 9B). The 9B could never be uncaged. Pg 71 Pg 115 sidewinder Magnetic caging and firing sequence, and 9B firing sequence from OP 2309 (3rd) page 2-2AIM-9B (https://archive.org/details/OP23093rdAIM9B) Declassed pre-1980. As stated above, only AFTER firing does the gyro uncage. And finally the first sidewinder to have uncage capability was the aim9E as mentioned in the Project CHECO report from Vietnam (pg10-11). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA486826

The Gar8/aim-9B is bugged with regard to its uncage-lock/pre-firing behavior. Currently, you put the gun piper on the target until you get “tone” (~4 deg IFOV). Which automatically “locks” the target, and “uncages” the seeker head, and you can freely maneuver within the seeker gimbal limits (~25 deg). While this behavior or variations thereof may be found on later models of the aim-9 its not correct for the 9B since its seeker only uncages (locks) the target after being fired. Correct behavior would look like maneuver till you get tone on target. Then fire, and the firing process takes ~1 sec from depressing trigger to missile leaving the rail. The seeker gyro is uncaged with the firing command, never before. If the target maneuvers out of the 4 degree seeker FOV during this time you loose lock. Early versions of the sidewinder used a mechanical cage mechanism as described below. Later 9B versions used a magnetic cage mechanism which still mostly operated in similar fashion. Pg 71 Pg 115 sidewinder Magnetic caging and firing sequence, and 9B firing sequence from OP 2309 (3rd) page 2-2AIM-9B (https://archive.org/details/OP23093rdAIM9B) Declassed pre-1980. As stated above, only AFTER firing does the gyro uncage. And finally the first sidewinder to have uncage capability was the aim9E as mentioned in the Project CHECO report from Vietnam (pg10-11). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA486826

Amusingly at its base its IRC with a better UI. But anyhow if you wanna talk to Raz thats the place to do it.

There is a cutout on the bottom of it allowing access to the controls, easy to see in VR, impossible to use in VR...

Its not quite a year yet, usually "soon" means next year.

Yeah I eventually found most of that in the Aussie M3 manual. Gimbal angle given there is also 30 deg which is interesting unless it means +/- 30 deg. since the track rate is 40 dps. Can you draw me a picture of what you mean by that.

Honestly I don't disagree here, but it also depends on if Exocet integration had additional changes within the pit/controls etc. Like the Super530F was a capability for the F1CE even if Spain never bought the missile. And IDK what you mean about the Sea Eagle on the 101, it has the sea eagle.

Yup in general Razbam forward facing side is much more discord oriented and they don't really post much on forums here. So as suggested.

Is this documented somewhere?

lol really?

Thats pretty interesting. From my understanding is that Patrick was specifically a thermal pod aka PDLCT, using tech from martin. Whereas I've been told that ATLIS had no actual thermal capability just day vid and LLTV ("IR" mode).

Pretty sure the Patrick had nothing to do with ATLIS, but it was another TGP the F1 could use.

Interesting. So EQ.5 was the only one the iraqis had that could use it? (EQ.6 got stuck in france afaik) Yeah be cool to get martels into dcs.

Hi Guys, So, per my understanding any inaccuracies before the missile "leaves" the aircraft are handled by your team not ED. My understanding of the F1 manual, the 530IR and the 550 magic 1, can and do have an "automatic uncage" behavior. I.e. when they get a tone for a target they unlock the seeker so it can track the target thats over some minimum signature. So good job there. However. US missiles used on the mirage this is generally not the case. Bug 1: Aim-9B cannot be uncaged on the aircraft until fired at all. I.e. you have to keep the missile within the sidewinder IFOV of 4 degrees until launch, where it uncages. (Current bug, seeker acts as if auto uncaged once you get tone, it is impossible to do this with this missile). I.e. lock target and then move the missile centerline off the target. It should loose lock outside of the 4 degree IFOV cone. (source F8 tacman Pg 1-149, as well as F4 tacmans pre-1980) Bug2: Aim9J. Again does not automatically "uncage/lock", basically you have to maneuver the target into the seeker FOV (2.5 degrees in this case) centered on the flight path. THEN you either manually must depress (and sometimes hold down) the "uncage switch" or you can hit fire and shoot it caged like a 9B (will uncage when fire is pressed). Source (most USAF -34s have this info f4/5/15/16). With the uncage switch pressed the seeker will track the target through the 40 degree seeker gimbal. Presumably the 300/600/gun lock switch does this Bug3: Aim9 Juli, basically similar issue to the Aim9J i.e. "auto lock" but more complex since its basically a 9L seeker which does have the ability to be pointed by either the radar or "seam" but in each case you basically have to "lock" the target by using the uncage switch. most USAF -34s have this info f4/5/15/16. Presumably the 300/600/gun lock switch does this. Also there is likely a way to switch between SEAM/radar modes.

Cool, looks like they will be including alot of those older missiles "when the time comes"... Be kinda fun, cuz they have to model both "navy" ones, with stuff like SEAM/radar pointing. And for the iran cat the 9J/E which didn't have seam just the basic 2.5 deg seeker window and uncage.

Yeah that vid is more or less an unintentional leak IMO. And this plane is a few years out a minimum IMO.

Ah yeah, that article actually makes sense with the 140. I mean any cooled PbS detector is gonna work roughly the same though, physics is physics. At any rate the US equivalent sidewinders basically had that same cone as 120 deg as the ideal envelope (60 deg each side) though you could prosecute higher Angle off attacks, just the envelope for those shrunk significantly both due to detector limitations as well as guidance/aero/manuvering/etc. limits on the missiles. Here is one of the links that explicitly mentions radar slaving as being a "new" thing on the Magic2. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781315884851-39/air-air-christopher-chant Magic 2: entering service in the mid-1980s, this improved version has a genuine all-aspect engagement capability, an improved motor, greater structural strength and better aerodynamic controls for enhanced dogfight manoeuvrability, and a seeker that can be slaved to the launch aircraft's radar to provide optimum launch conditions I also went back through the whole tacman trying to figure the whole radar/seam thing out. So it looks like following things are true. #1 The 530IR and 550 both are mentioned in conjunction with radar modes. However in those cases it all seems to point to using the radar to calculate intercept parameters for the fighter (or lag pursuit in rapid lock on mode). However there are literally 2 lines in the whole tacman that are useful. #2 The radar can point the 530IR seeker toward a locked target, this is explicitly called out. No mention that the 550 can do this. So I'm gonna say it can't be radar cued. #3 The Magic1 (R550) is described as scanning around its centerline, so this implies some sort of SEAM mode. #4 The other fun thing being there doesn't seem to be an "uncage"/lock command for the missiles its all automatic. So this is pretty interesting in light of how it compares to US missiles that work like the following. Aim9B: Find target, put nose on target in a 4deg IFOV cone, wait for tone, keep target in that narrow 4degree IFOV. Fire, missile seeker then uncages and tracks. Aim9D/E/J/P1-3: Find target, put nose on target in a 2.5deg IFOV cone, wait for tone, hit uncage so the seeker can track while still on plane. Pull lead if you need (within limits). Fire, missile seeker already tracking. Navy 9G/H/L sidewinder was to either point it by: 2.5deg IFOV window, radar, or VTAS or it had the Double D SEAM search mode. Then you hit the uncage button once you got tone so it would keep tracking. And then fire missile. So anyways it seems the 550 basically works either by having seeker nutation around its axis (like SEAM) that when you get enough of a signal "auto locks/uncages" (certainly possible, the Aim9P5 has this capability but is a MUCH later missile with way better false target rejection). The auto lock thing is fairly interesting and sort of dangerous as you have no symbology to display what is locked onto to. Hot rocks, a cloud edge, your wingman, etc... It does beg the question how the Aim-9J/Juli works on the mirage, as every US tacman I've seen states you have to uncage the seeker via a button though I guess you can fire it while caged. I wonder if there is an uncage button added at some point for the spanish CE.

Oy that 140 number again. I think this is weird mistranslation/frenchism and it refers to the angle off engagement envelope of the Magic 1. I.e. 70 deg R/L of the rear of the target, which is a very typical engagement range for cooled PbS seekers (i.e. Aim9D-P). And works with that rear 3/4 engagement mentioned as well. As for SEAM, honestly I don't know how typical or not it was. During the 70's it was only a feature on the navy sidewinders (Aim-9G/H and later 9L) the USAF sidewinders totally lacked that capability till the 9L. And soviet missiles generally did not have it at all, with the possible exception of the R-13M1 which ostensibly was designed as a "dogfight" missile. The R60/60M could be cued by radar or HMS though. I have seen a few webpages highlighting that the magic2 could be radar slaved which again implies the Magic1 couldn't. And in the combat employment manual for the Mirage F1 there is nothing to suggest that the 550 is radar cueable or that it has a SEAM type "mode" (it does specifically call out the 530IR as having a radar slave capability).

Yeah it would make sense if they had similar interfaces. But likely you couldn't use all the magic2's fancy tech i.e. slaving the seeker to radar etc without some additional integration work. Or stuff like a SEAM mode. I can't find much on Magic1 if the seeker could be cued by radar or if it had something like SEAM. Like for example the aim9J and most 9P's you couldn't do either.

We don't have the correct variant for it. Iraqi EQ.2 or .4 did. .6 for sure, but those were never delivered. At any rate we don't have an EQ even if the devs wanted to do one, no docs.

Radar performs too well TBH... But the list of coming improvements looks to include some granularity to the "noise" animations which should hopefully make it worse in the situations it should be bad. Its a bit basic relative to what raz did for the m2k, but like go fly that at low alt without the A filter, or look down with it, and thats a bit more of what this should work like. From the few images of the radar I have, it should be worse in lookdown, almost clean looking up, and probably pretty bad at low alt.

Do you happen to know if the seekers were also improved between early/late variants of the 530, either the radar one or the IR one.