Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Posts

    32905
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by GGTharos

  1. GGTharos

    AIM-7F/P/M

    What is the question? Is it 'can I launch this SARH missile without causing an RWR warning?' then I would say no. Not for the R-27, and very likely not for the 7P. There are things that must happen in the WCS and the missile that require STT. While these things are subject to change (tm), there's no indication that such a change has occurred. The data-link allows launching the sparrow beyond the dynamic radar cue estimate among other things; it's not a means to achieve stealth.
  2. No. RWS doesn't build tracks. TWS builds tracks and it requires certain assumptions to be made that RWS does not, and therefore you have this result. Maybe you should do your own research at this point or write a TWS algorithm instead of repeating questions to which correct answers have been given Anything less and I'll have to assume that you're trying to be deliberately obnoxious.
  3. You're confusing incoming data with algorithms. RWS is fairly raw, it produces a hit with a specific position which can be sent to TWS. TWS receives the positions and figured out how to build a track from that. If two hits fall inside the same track oval one may be rejected or they can be merged for TWS, whatever the TWS algorithm is programmed to do in that case.
  4. There is no algorithm for RWS. TWS is all algorithm, the radar hit is an input to it. And the reason is because the oval (not cells) that's put around a hit has to be of a certain size to guarantee track maintenance.
  5. Quite possibly the track building algorithm is unable to distinguish them correctly as both contacts fall into the track prediction model (basically an oval superimposed on top of the last radar hit, and the last position of the track thereafter), so the contacts are merged into a single track. There's also the matter of DCS natively lacking a radar cell representation, which at that distance might have been showing you a merged contact in RWS as well.
  6. Sorry, getting back to this piecemeal - I'm travelling a lot lately. So, another thing that might help is that in the game, the drop from boost to sustain is instantaneous, but in actuality you'd have a 0.2-0.3sec gradient that would ensure you're getting trust above that of the sustainer, even if for a very short time.
  7. It is clearly stated that once the missile is autonomous, what the launching aircraft does has no effect on Pk. Like I said, it's a -34 and details in the classified -34 supplements or other documents may give a more nuanced picture.
  8. Good work. Glint should have an effect when the aircraft (or missile) maneuvers - the glint effect becomes more intense as the distance to target decreases (as opposed to other miss-distance factors!) and there are filters and other methods to deal with it. My position is this: AMRAAM has demonstrated the ability to repeatedly directly impact low-flying cruise missiles. Physically, that is a small target. If the missile had maneuvered, there would be a chance for a miss (but within fuze limits) due to glint. We don't know the real numbers behind all of this beyond your AIM-7 report, but the point here is, that the effect of glint in DCS IMHO should be this: 1) If the target performs a maneuver (this to include a prop-powered aircraft potentially changing rotor RPM) like even a simple roll 2) If the target is flying near clutter In both cases: * Immediately increase miss distance from the minimum. This can be proportional or random, and the MAXIMUM (and minimum) would be based on knowledge about the missile era/technology capability * Once the target is stable again (including any form of steady acceleration) the miss distance penalty will begin to decrease, down to its minimum based on current conditions. How fast it decreases would depend on the missile's technology. Note, this is called seeker settling, though glint is not the only factor that affects it. * IN case 2, after a certain technology is introduced to a missile (probably digital filtering?) this should only raise the minimum miss distance and probably not too much. * ECM and Chaff. You make your counter-measure money here
  9. So for a brief period of time the 120 had the ability to counter the notch by searching the target's known flight path, waiting for it to come out of the notch. People complained that it was too hard to evade and that shall we say ... more advanced behavior is no longer part of the missile's repertoire or at least, on the same level. Re-coding the clutter effect would certainly make the missile deadlier.
  10. Maestro only said that the missile does what they coded it to do, and works an intended ie. there is no bug. So while I agree that things move slowly in this area (For us users anyway), I don't think ED are opposed to reviewing how their overall concept for a specific feature (in this case, the look-down clutter and therefore notch) works. Unfortunately everything is a victim to time constraints in the software business, most of all things that have been coded to completion but where their change is desired.
  11. No need to be dramatic. Developers can't just magically code up something new. This takes preparation and care, assuming it even gets green-lighted by any business decision making which may be prioritizing something else. We all want improvements and it's not fair to say that ED is not making them.
  12. Hi Maestro, I hope you are willing to consider re-coding the notch mechanics. I sent the math to ED via BIGNEWY almost a year ago, so I imagine you have it - it is a document from a research/physics piece directly related to detectability of aircraft in clutter and gives formulas for computing the clutter and extracting the radar return of the target IIRC - the basic idea is exactly what is being discussed in this thread: The notch does not properly exist if you can eliminate clutter in other ways, ie. range binning. It's possible that some radars would never be able to ignore this filter, but I expect those would be an exception. As far as missile go, there is a description of the Sparrow's anti-split-S protection in one of the F-15C -34's. (NOTE: You can of course introduce your own clutter to force more filtering etc, thus reducing Pk). To further expand on the topic a bit, this treatment is needed for every radar in DCS (missile OR aircraft... or boat/SAM etc). The look-down code is far too simple, and the 'look down effect' is certainly more complex IRL; antenna depression does not truly imply look down into clutter, but this is how DCS models the situation. It would be good to see this change. Naturally, this should probably be followed up by coding in other effects like an aircraft's variable RCS, and correcting how the 'miss distance' works with respect to low altitude and aircraft maneuver. PS: I will be away from any of the above materials for a long time, so I am unable to share. However, these are all materials that ED also posesses. PPS: I think quite importantly, using the math I shared for computing the ground clutter instead of antenna elevation will capture a tactical use of clutter that does not exist in DCS - consider that a SAM can be 'looking up' at a mountain in certain situations. An aircraft can fly close to the mountain and create a look-down clutter situation for that radar even though it is technically 'looking up' if we consider the antenna angle
  13. The manuals say that supporting the 120 beyond pitbull has no effect on Pk. Of course, that's probably not entirely true.
  14. Do your warm-up before you enter the expected combat zone. Do a full 360 or if you prefer, 90 one direction then 90 in the other; you can do this at 4g or if you prefer, at 5g 5g. No need to go nuts. If you're at high altitude, don't bother - you'll get your opportunity to warm up as the fight descends, and you're not going to pull a whole lot of g for any significant amount of time up there. To answer your question about how it works: Unfortunately I don't have solid numbers for you except that you must perform the warm-up at a minimum of 4g. The best I remember is this: 4g for ~20 sec. Lasts for about 10min if you do nothing.
  15. ^^^^ Yes, Yoda's ERI (Eagle Radar Improvement). He was maligned by certain members of the community for this and the RWR/Datalink enhancements.
  16. Just need to update FC3 F-15C radar range according to the documents that were provided to ED, then you can squeeze out AIM-120C performance. A few small issues like correcting TWS representation and adding a little information on the VSD (waypoints and cursor-to-selected WP distance on VSD like IRL aircraft) and you'd immediately have a more effective air superiority fighter taking as much advantage of 120C as TWS can (for more, you need AESA radar).
  17. Thanks for looking into this deeper. Yep, I would expect that this dome change would increase drag, but in exchange the radar image is probably less refracted and possibly increases sensor accuracy.
  18. The 4.5 sec figure is an issue mathematically vs the weight of propellant they list - it blows up the ISP. The only way to fix this is to adjust the propelland mass for boost/sustain and also cut the sustainer time down.
  19. Hi Maestro, normally I like to run tests before I present anything but ... I don't have access to anything until August - certainly I failed to do at least my back-of-the-envelope calculations this time, but also I'm not concerned with Mach 4 in practice , it's just a reference point Thanks for responding. I have seen the same sources then. I don't know that Fleeman has the right numbers for the motor, I'm inclined to trust that source but on the other hand there are no guarantees. Pilots do know, they have resources for this sort of thing ... but they may not be able to talk about it: Vault documents and also debriefs from real and simulated combat make a lot of data available, data from instrumented shots is likely available. I have no doubt with respect to your skills and knowledge, just FYI - I am bringing this to your attention as IMHO the missile is running a little slower than I believe it should; not my much, mach 0.2 or so. It's also possible that this is caused by guidance issues, wasting speed in unnecessary maneuvers in the boost stage.
  20. Sorry Maestro but my opinion is that: It is most certainly under-performing. It is a mach 4 missile (you can see this 'up to mach 4' in a lot of literature) and you cannot get it there even if you launch it at mach 2 in DCS. You also cannot easily get that speed by altering the aerodynamics, so working with the motor arrangement is the only thing that's left. You circled mach 2.9 but if I had sent you this document you'd be asking the same questions I'll ask now 'At what launch speed and altitude'? And I also have a very strong suspicion that if you asked the SMEs and they were willing to comment on this at all, they might not be averse to adding 0.2-0.3M to that missile's top speed in game. I'm fairly certain that I've seen almost all the same sources that you have for this motor, and there is always something that does not add up.
  21. Thanks NineLine Also Hobel for checking this out
  22. Yes, they are. I mean if you think about +/- 1 meter who cares, but a missile that has a 7-8 meter detection range but passes 4m away without exploding I would suspect is not functioning as desired. Now there are some complications with fuze geometry but I don't know if they apply to DCS. Agreed, this is an old issue, if from pilot's head instead of aircraft surface then perhaps we have a regression (at least I vaguely recall that ED had changed how this worked)
  23. The SMCs are full or 'errors' and there's not reason to regard the boost/sustain weights are correct. Put for 4.5s for the boost, 6.5 for sustain, give boost 105lbs and susain 30, you get something really reasonable and that matches up really well to other qualitative information.
  24. The Russians didn't really copy western designs ... yes, they copied the 9B and learned something new about how to arrange the missile internally, but the rest is all them. The PL-10 probably started with Aspide (a foreign AIM-7 modification) but it's hard to tell what of it is in there. The Russians likely contributed ARH seeker technology or knowledge. The SD-10/PL-10 isn't exactly a great missile, but it's not a missile that should be ignored either.
×
×
  • Create New...