Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Posts

    32875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

5 Followers

About GGTharos

  • Birthday 11/14/1978

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS
  • Location
    Earth
  • Interests
    Flight Simulation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The manual I have for Harpoon (B-52 launched) shows Harpoon sea-skimming (if programmed this way) until it's time to pop-up to search for the target, then come back down to sea-skimming. Of course, my manual is quite old and guidance software could have easily changed since then.
  2. Couldn't this be automated? You could choose the offset or it could be set automatically according to that map
  3. Nothing strange there. To get a Phoenix to mach 5 you have to launch it at mach 2.
  4. The storage aspect is one thing, another important thing is that they can generate the same lift as a normal fin with much less motor torque, so it is easier to say, drive them electrically.
  5. It does. It uses the radar equation. Perhaps what you mean to say is that it does not model complex RCS.
  6. The obvious thing is that copypasta has been a thing as long as you could overlay one paper over another to trace things over and thus...copy/paste. In a very physical manner.
  7. Because it's the WCS simulator. As well, this isn't the only document with suspect/incorrect graphs. It happens in western ones as well. You can also run some very ballpark math and see that the graph has suspicious behavior. As you can see mathematically the differences are not huge.
  8. You won't be able to replicate NASA's shots in DCS, they fly a specific profile which is not available in the game. That said, the graph does give you an idea of the missile's performance, but who shoots at M1.2 at 45000' with 45 degrees of pitch?
  9. The answer is a little nuanced - so, IRL and only 'more or less' because detailed information is not available: APG-63 with some upgrades (late 80's/90s), the F-18's APG-73 and F-16 APG-68 are capable of correctly tracking a helicopter by the radar return from the spinning rotors. The RCS is significant (between 2-8 meters squared according to studies), so for something like an F-15 this is detectable quite far. Newer versions of AIM-7(M+) and AIM-54C are also capable of correctly tracking helicopters in the hover. And of course, AIM-120. Older radars like the F-14's and Su-27 (and original APG-63, older versions of APG-66, 65 etc) probably perceive the spinning rotors as a doppler jammer - ie. denial of speed measurement, but they can still tell that there is 'something there'. Ranging would have to be done using motion. In DCS, this effect (spinning rotors showing up on radar) is not modeled ... if it is, this would be a recent change. So then you have to rely on the speed gates of the various radars and missiles, which in DCS work in a simple way: You're either in, or out - and as the radar gets closer to its target, the speed gate becomes smaller. Also, there is no speed gate in a 'look up' or co-altitude situation, so a low flying fighter will see even aircraft in hover, if I recall correctly.
  10. These drones aren't likely to be harder to pick up than a cruise missile. They might be easier to hide in a notch due to their speed but overall, they're not indicative of anything at all with respect to detecting and tracking a missile. Construction, orientation and speed all matter.
  11. Watching payload (or pieces of an aircraft) separate on the video of the tracked target (radar video, not visual) is very different from picking up the weapon in free flight after it has separated.
  12. The AIM-54 will accelerate with ~4g for 27-30 seconds and depending on altitude. AIM-7 will accelerate with 10g for 2.5sec, and 0-2g for 10 seconds thereafter depending on altitude. 10nm head on at low altitude - maybe even medium - the AIM-7 might not be so easy to catch thanks to its higher acceleration at start. This is math question though, the math needs to be done.
  13. Are you really that certain that it's something like that and not say, certification up to M1.5 because they didn't test further? Reality is fickle and its fickleness is not simulated There are a lot of fuel tank related things that aren't happening to anything that carries fuel tanks ... not just eagles or vipers. Hint. From the little I know, the greatest area of concern is transonic, that's where a tank is a little more likely to do something unexpected like come back up and take a couple of feet of wing off - it's happened, but it's also not exactly what you'd call a common occurrence.
×
×
  • Create New...