ngreenaway

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask how the timelines have been affected, and I don't think OPs query was worded in a way that warrants that response. I think a simple "yea you can add a few months to this estimate, or no-that team isn't a part of the bug fixing effort so it's still mostly on track" from ED would be enough to for OP I don't see anyone trying to nail ED down to a date so they can say "Gotcha! You promised and failed to deliver!" At a later date

:megalol:

i just went fown the line and the following had free campaigns packed in the module: a10c,ajs37,k4,f14,f18,d9,jf17,ka50,m2k,mig21,mi18,mig19,p51d,gazelle,su25t,uh1, flaming cliffs I dont have CA (i dont care to do DCS as an RTS) some of these may be copy pasted, because theres the k4 challenge, the d9 challenge, and the p51 challenge. I think it was on hoggit that nineline said he felf all modules *should* come with a packaged campaign

a heartbeat is a pretty universal thing, but didnt know for certain whether it was used in missiles or not what kind of UAVs did you work with? I remember installing some machinery at the IAI plant in tel aviv and saw a couple UAVs being crated up there, but couldnt get close the closest i have isnt very advanced at all, but i do have a target drone, id love to get it flying again one of these days(its been shot at once before) : heres a video on the company

yes, some operate on two separate frequencies. In CNC machines (and quite possibly other pieces of equipment) you have whats known as a "heartbeat", a signal between processors essentially saying "im still here, and here's my status" that gets repeated at a fixed number of cycles. as for which missiles uplink only, or both- i dont know. Any missile capable of TVM (which dates back at least to the mid-70s) absolutely has to have 2-way communication. the 9m330 doesnt have TVM, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some telemetry sent back to the base station. now, i have zero background in missile telemetry, but it stands to reason the missile periodically sends a status word as a heartbeat. if the ground station misses a few of them, it could send a query signal (essentially, "hey, you still there?}. a missile receiving those queries after having sent a series of status words could logically determine that downlink contact had been lost here is an article from cia webpage on missile telemetry. i havent had the time to read thru it to see how applicible it is, ive got some things around the house i need to take care of. enjoy! https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol8no4/html/v08i4a03p_0001.htm

i was pretty much out for the same reasons. i only stepped back in when he asked what a graph means, but really this is like discussing update cycles with jasonbirder (who has been remarkably silent lately)

You've misread my statement, I don't know it that's deliberate or accidental. For any given detection range, the LNIP (air defense equivalent of CCIP) will be closer on the fast moving target than it is on the slow mover. I never said that the graph was about detection range.

Yes, i can. Its all about closing speed, a TBM moves faster than an ARM or an AGM (its unclear which is being represented), and all of those move faster than an ABT With a similar detection range, the TBM will have travelled much closer to its target than an ABT so the intercept point is much closer

look FRI, at some point youre simply being unreasonable with your expectations. it appears nothing short of documentation from MKB Fakel will satisfy you. The defense industry, and in particular "redfor" defense industries, tend to be notoriously opaque when it comes to limitations and shortcomings of weapon systems, and for good reason. its entirely possible russian air defenders dont know the reason for the limitations of their equipment. Its entirely possible that ED has actual documentation but is required to adhere to "published" documentation. I know this from personal experience when trying to share what i know , but finding a lot of it is not publicly releasable. you're perfectly entitled to believe what you want to believe. what i can say is based on my personal experience, and the published information, i believe ED is correct. the OP (nor have you) established any documentation to dispute this fact. this isnt the same as saying they are categorically correct, but i have documentation to support my conjecture, whereas you only have your doubt to support yours.

the TOR has an active self destruct mechanism dictated by internal logic rather that a timer like the others. that can be inferred from this article: https://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/tehnika-pvo/69-boevaya-mashina-tor-9a330 where it states towards the bottom that if the missile loses radio guidance, the missile auto-destructs. there could also be other defined cases, or the 6km ceiling is a function of the radar itself. some radars are very good at looking up, but not necessarily out, others can look out, but not up so well. or they can do both, but in order to do one, they have to drop search sectors in the other. 6 km couldve been chosen as a point where communication with the base station begins to drop off

its possible. its possible that there was a defective component. I wouldnt rule out human error either. when we occupied a patch of real estate on the south end of Baghdad International Airport, I remember seeing a british bomb, unexploded on the ground near the southernmost hardened hangar. I wish i still had pics of what i found- im sure if the pilot know, he wouldve been pissed: the fuse on it was stamped "for training use only"...guy risked his life to drop a useless bomb

this is not about ego, im simply establishing that i have the experience to make an educated inference based off of other systems. i dont have the burden of proof, the OP who stated that this modelling is illogical is the one who needs to prove why this is so, or the modelling is incorrect. there may be some variation, as in autodestruction +/- a few hundred meters , but an engagement envelope is an engagement envelope heres a visual example of that , using C-RAM. all those explosions arent rounds hitting the targets, theyre when they reach a predetermined range (predeterminged time by known velocity of the rounds) you'll note that *most* rounds self destruct in vaguely the same location for each burst

precisely. I give my statements on a mixture of published data and over 10 years of work in the air defense world in 5 countries. if you reject that, fine, but the original assertion by OP was given on the basis of "this doesnt feel right to me" dont think that a tor missile would autodestruct at the edge of its envelope? even a missile as rudimentary as a stinger will, in FM 44-18-1 it states: "Should target intercept not occur within 15-19 seconds after launch, a self-destruct circuit initiates warhead detonation". if a target is 22 seconds of flight time away from the gunner, sorry charlie- that missiles blowing up even if it has the kinetic energy to continue the flight . in history of the redeye system (precursor to stinger) Citation here it mentions a self destruct timer. The aim-9 has a timed self destruct sequence reference here why is that relavant? the Aim-9 was used on the chaparral air defense system, and the same self destruct mechanism is listed in TM-1425-1585-10-1 Vulcan rounds self destruct after 1800 meters the self destruct at the edge of the engagement envelope, or when engagement is no longer possible or desired is important for two reasons: first, you dont want missiles or rounds raining down on populated areas of concentrations of friendly troops. second reason: you dont want an intact missile falling into someone elses hands. The Atoll missile is a classic example of this, it being some mig pilots lucky day to be struck with a sidewinder that didnt explode on impact. it was then reverse engineered, seeing widespread usage even today. another concern of captured, intact missiles ,as highlighted in this article is that means of defeating or distracting the missile from its target may be researched. with all that being said, i find it entirely logical that the tor would self-destruct at the edge of its engagement envelope. If you think thats illogical, in the face of a preponderance of precedent, provide documentation that would indicate the tor should ignore its parameters and continue the engagement

it looks like dcs:vaporware )shrug(

no, 6000 meters altitude is the top of the published engagement envelope

its an invalid engagement because the point of intercept falls outside of the engagement envelope. the missile cant simply say "well, im almost there, so ill keep going" . it has logic parameters that indicate certain actions must occur at certain points of flight. In a similar vein, when i was in Patriot, if an engagement was projected to be outside of the engagement envelope prior to launch, you would get an alert on the screen saying "IPOUT", in that intercept point was out of coverage and the missile wouldnt launch...even if that point was just a little out of coverage in other words, an engagement is valid or its not. the target is in the envelope or its not. its not "kinda" "sorta"

no, i meant downlink, the word choice was intentional but uplink is likely more correct. let me explain: first it was conjecture that the missile would self destruct if radio contact was lost, on that much we agree, but i hadn't dug deeply enough into the 9m330/331/332 missiles to see whether they had TVM capability or not. if they lost uplink, its more likely when the missile is low to the ground (if the missile would even launch). If the missile had TVM capability, that wouldn't kick in until the end of flight, potentially masking a downlink fault until the terminal end of flight. it doesn't appear the TOR has TVM, but that doesn't mean there isn't some telemetry communicated down from the missile to the base station

So,lemme get this straight: the target climbs outside of the missiles operational envelope and you think it's illogical that the missile destroys itself rather than continues on an invalid engagement?

According to wiki, max ceiling is 6000m , speed 850m/s (3060km/h) and a range of 12 km

Patriot has a setting called URLAT , for urban low altitude trajectory of something like that. It prevents an intercept if that will take place below a certain altitude over populated areas. Prevents the missile from chasing a target where the intercept will cause more damage than letting the target go in on it's own. The missile will cease the engagement , travel to a different trajectory and self destruct. If I remember correctly, a cease engagement command will destroy missiles in flight, but I can't remember what command it was (there was another that allowed missiles in the air to continue the engagement, but no further missiles could be launched against a target It wouldn't surprise me if tor had similar capabilities to half an engagement Its entirely possible that it's set to autodestruct if it loses its radio downlink for a certain amount of time.

I didn't know midi was still a thing these days.learn something new every day

i dont have access to the p-47 yet, since i play stable. i jost wanted to chime in and say thanks to the whole crew for what is ultimately a fantastic product(we've all come a long was from microsoft flightsim 1!) & thanx to those who have the sometimes difficult, oftentimes thankless job of engaging with an incredibly passionate community, and thanks personally to Nick for being personally accessible to the community, the first to shoulder responsibility when things go wrong and to defer compliments to the crew when things go right i dont even know much about the p47, but i look forward to flying it when it comes to stable

I'll have to check, but sound is fine on my f2 view, fine with all other airframes, on the f1 view for the su25t, I get radio and weapons noise, just engine (or airbrake ,iirc) noise is silent. I've been gravitating towards a10c lately while I try to figure out what aircraft I'm going to focus on next, so I haven't gone back to the 25t

Wow, 5 years for this? I may as well give up on my sound bug

Why should it? For some arbitrary sense of game balance? They use completely different systems so there's no reason the reload should be the same This is where two of the US army air defense employment guidelines come into play: Overlapping fields of fire & mutual support If the systems are emplaced accordingly, the 20 minute reload isn't such a big deal