GGTharos

The APG-v3 which is an AESA radar would implement SWT, but for the older MSA (v1 or older), RWS is the primary search mode and you certainly can go STT from it.

No, it won't work because: No, this is completely dynamic. You need to be stirring the stick and you have to anticipate what your corrections will do. Lose a knot, nose drops, gain a knot, nose rises.

You will still have a strobe in TWS. STT tends to be better at dealing with jamming, TWS would be better at not triggering it.

Depends on IRCCM type. An AIM-9X (and missiles using similar digitally processed imaging) wouldn't care unless the flares and smoke can completely hide the target that is, like a curtain, and the target is able to escape the FoV at that time. Other missiles may care, and in some cases it can overwhelm even certain older digital IRCCM (non-imaging or pseudo-imaging). Flare effectiveness is proven against certain types of seekers, but not just by existing - release spacing can easily be important. There are situations where flare effectiveness is zero as well. None of this stuff is modeled in DCS AFAIK, other than some aspect and afterburner in/out effects and maybe distance from target. Until such things are modeled, it would probably be fair to return the flare effectiveness where it was. As for the inverted release thing, that's just silly. In some cases the aircraft itself may hide the flares but please point to a case of IRL advice to 'invert when flaring' - if it mattered, why not simply mount the buckets in the correct position? Why do aircraft whose biggest problem is stuff coming up from the ground have buckets mounted to shoot up?

Macross Zero, Shin in his F-14 looking at the Russian veritech that's about to shoot him down.

SRS works well with FC3 but you can't tune any radios with it - that is, the only input you have with FC3 with respect to AI etc, is to basically limit the radio calls to yourself or to hear them all. SRS WILL tune you to the correct SRS frequencies for you to speak to other people, and I would recommend to make your life easy that you set up pre-defined channels and have a channel/comms plan. This way you can go up/down channels as desired, and you'll also see the frequency for the channel displayed on screen. So basically, SRS to DCS interaction in terms of gameplay is pretty much none for FC3, but SRS to SRS works exactly as you would expect a radio to work.

The shape of it is, and it is AFAIK, set by the fuze/target sensor. A radar fuze will use the doppler effect to determine closure and therefore set off the primer charges in a given order. There are other ways to accomplish this, eg. the 'head on' and 'tail on' settings may affect missile settings, etc. Not sure if a laser fuze would do more than just 'reflected the beam with enough intensity, go boom now'.

Yes, you should be doing just about everything by sight. It doesn't have to be the missile specifically although seeing the smoke trail will help.

The maximum distances occur against high, FAST, non-maneuvering targets. Something like 20km altitude and mach 2.

Fair point, I only see them unfolded in images where they're mounted on pylons. Chances are they're not all captive-carry, in which case perhaps the folding mechanism is only used for storage and transport, but then ... how do you fit them inside the Su-57 bay? Maybe you don't.

The '1' series of missiles are export weapons with a simpler (probably not very effective) ECCM system. The rocket, warhead and guidance modules are otherwise identical IIRC. Don't waste your time dreaming up of some sort of super secret super-superior soviet configuration.

It is an argument but it also doesn't matter in this case - AFAIK the fins would be folded until the missile is launched. It's hard to say what the drag should be (eg. on some stations a sidewinder might have more drag than a 120) but it certainly seems odd that the R-77's would be that draggy on the pylons. I suspect it's a case of drag factor copy-paste OR maybe for FC3 aircraft, there's no real distinction for weapons on pylons.

This is a bad assumption, and is counter-indicated by what's written in the weapons manual (it reads, keeping lock of the target after MPRF has no effect on Pk) . Also, the 120A is in no way some miniaturized form on the 54C. Sure the development may have come from there but the degree of commonality is both completely unknown and what is known is that these two missiles operated on different principles.

It does not matter, neither can dominate the other. Both give you the ability to get in the other's OODA loop.

If you don't know the failure modes and statistics of said failures, where's the realism? It's nothing but another annoying 'feature'.

It isn't. Make the should a could and remove no problem, and you're good. Why did the USAF not implement something like this? 'Because they didn't have the technology' is out of the question ... in fact they did a whole series of testing to determine if they should do this. So why?

The most likely answer is 'yes and you can't have it'.

Image recognition yes, it just might not mean exactly what you think it means. It can classify a thing as a target (not this is an airplane, or whatever, just target) and 'these are parts of the target' in some respect and then classify other things as 'not my target' or 'false target'. Generally without very modern countermeasures a 9X should not be getting decoyed if the decoy isn't making the target IMHO.

It is good to ask questions, but not good to accuse of errors in many cases - the R-27 range, engine, and other issues have been discussed for over a decade and the data for this are good. If you want to discuss strange rocketry, the SD-10 in DCS is a good candidate with a rocket set up with a 6s boost and 4s sustain resulting in a missile that is far faster than it ought to be. ED stated that they will be working on what remains to be worked on for the R-27 family which is guidance. I hope they will significantly enhance ECM behavior and the 'RF environment' in addition to other things (for example sparrow and AIM-120 have brought new guidance mechanics in terms of the physical motion of the missile)

F-18Cs were getting delivered with the EPE since lot 15 IIRC, so I don't see the unicorn thing.

MPRF does 3/8 and going of very distant memory it is required due to multiple doppler bands being eclipsed as well as resolving other ambiguity, but again ... don't quote me on that.

I would personally prefer QOL improvements to the radar and navigation.

Yep, so that's the closure component which allows you to easily be in the notch compared to going faster, basically the angle off 90 degrees to the radar opens up significantly.

At that speed falling into the notch is very easy.

~21, as in 20 to 22 ...this is important because above 22 you get into heavy AoA-induced drag used for aerobraking (And this is a type of approach you can use for minimum ground run but there is more to it than just AoA). Throttle probably shouldn't be cut because you're made of inertia and makes a touch-and-go harder in case you need it. Reduce yes, but cut only when you touch down. If you have to apply full brakes before 60kts, ideally 40-50 if heavy, the runway you have chosen is too short and you'll have a hot brakes problem (N/A DCS).