GGTharos

HoJ is not actually 'Homing' on the ECM emitter. It might, but the idea behind HOJ is to allow you to attack a target that's trying to completely remove your ability to do so. These AAMs are tuned to your radar for launch and they're not just going to pick up 'whatever' to attack. They are looking for your specific radar signal. When the ECM is used against you, it is repeating that particular signal and HoJ is just a very catch-all name for ECCM trying to allow you fire on that target. You might never burn through, and the ECM can also be so good that you won't even know it's operating unless you double check some things (eg. an ECM suite might jam your Vc by providing a false value...you radar won't know any better, your missile will use that Vc and fly somewhere where your target isn't). Understanding why HoJ isn't just 'home on some radio signal' has a lot to do with understanding how these missiles operate. You'll notice there are SAMs that can attack SoJs, but those are aircraft that will transmit constantly, trying to jam the SAMs. And here we're talking about the high altitude SAMs like S300, PATRIOT etc. You're no doubt aware that a HARM hit a B-52 by homing in on its tail gun radar...but that was a non-maneuvering aircraft, and you'll find that any passive ARMs that are designed to be thrown at aircraft are thrown at big and not very maneuverable things, like AWACS. Even so, those theoretical designs pretty much always give way to an active radar seeker. ECM in DCS is very simplified, and so is HoJ. Let's just say that the level at which we play the basic idea of ECM is to reduce Pk, and nothing else. For the weapons used, the ECM needs to be jamming that weapon system specifically. This isn't represented in DCS< thus why you have this fake passive guidance thing.

There's a bit more to HoJ than this but let's say that's hat it would look like.

As in without the shooter illuminating it? IMHO no, at least not in DCS. Not for the 7, 27, 120, 77, etc. etc. The SARH missile is tuned to the shooter's radar, and it will HoJ (which is by far the simplest interpretation of HoJ and it's not a good one) by attacking the jammer because it reproduces that same signal. ARH have a slightly different operating philosophy, they'll run their own radar.

Right, this is a DCSism. Passive attacks on ECM emitters are a DCSism and shouldn't exist for the classes of weapons we're using. The track is dead (but not deleted), because the target is lost - the 'x' on it tells you so, but just in case the track and its relevant data continue to be displayed and transmitted to the missile and so is the active signal. I agree that if it cannot be correlated anymore it should act exactly like the lost target track above. Depending on the emitted jamming signal the missile seeker could continue tracking the target, possible with more ease than tracking the reflections from the tomcat's radar in TWS (but then again if that target maneuvers, the AWG-9 is still telling the missile to look on the wrong place). Same for STT.

There should be no passive tracking if you drop the lock. There's nothing for the jammer to jam, therefore the RWR ringing is incorrect (you dropped the lock) and the missile tracking is also incorrect (jammer should shut down or at least stop jamming that channel - and no, the missile shouldn't just pick up and track any willy nilly ECM emission) Incorrect functioning in all respects. If you're not locking that target the jammer has no reason to operate. May or may not be correct. If your contact maneuvers after enaging ECM, the track may be considered 'dead' and will not be correlated again. The missile should fly to that track and attempt to track its target, but exactly how all of this would be mechanized in-flight for the missile with respect to its own seeker trying to track an ECM contact is unknown. P-STT is for older sparrows, don't quote me on this but I believe the radar in P-STT doesn't generate data-link signals for the phoenix, and the phoenix seeker cannot use P-STT so it'll just go active off the rail.

Thanks for the graph, that's how you help make a change.

Then show that against an F-14 acceleration graph. The F-18 is irrelevant.

That is incorrect. And you'd know and understand that if you took the time to understand how these work, where the information comes from, etc. It is hard to relate because you're just being a complete gamer about it, and your self-awareness here is zero. Look at the things you've written, basically: 1) You were so good in the F-14 when it had completely unreal capabilities (27DPS sustained turns with the flaps down? Hello Raptor!) 2) Same for the F-18 You rely entirely on one single aspect of the airframe capability to win, which is sustained turn rate. The issue lies with your skillset, and it is painfully obvious to everyone but you. You literally refuse to draw a logical conclusion here, preferring instead to blame it all on airframe changes. I have bad news for you, while some airframes are superior to others in some aspects, the teen fighters effectively exchange superiority in various regimes and generally are fairly close to each other. If the only thing you're thinking of is best sustained, you're not doing BFM, you're just flying best sustained. You asked for advice. You haven't asked anything specific at all, you haven't attempted to research BFM deeper, you haven't described any detailed combat or provided a tacview or anything at all. All you've done is whine and literally the only thing you've mentioned which is grabbing an F-14 on some public server will have a specific fuel load, well, guess what ... there's a fuel dump switch but in any case those engines will drink the fuel so fast you won't know what happened. So if you're heavy for a while, why not merge with an advantage? Don't know how? You can learn. There's nothing here for you with the attitude you've taken. Yes, you're wrong, and everyone else is right. Tacview is perfectly fine for the vast majority of BFM and BVR analyses.

I'm not suggesting cashing everything for a snapshot. The BFM world is not an all or nothing proposition - can you out-accelerate your bandit? Up high? Down low? Does y our wing perform better at certain speeds wrt turning or climbing? Can you slowly bleed him down? Can you maintain an offensive position in the fight? Bleed your speed as needed, accelerate again and eat away angles. Bleed his energy and start stacking higher than him - if you're slow, he might be too so don't dive for speed. Everything you do is informed by your jet's performance but only as it relates to the bandit's position and performance at that point in time. Some bandits will be harder to BFM than others straight up from a performance perspective. That's where BFM skill comes in, the ability to judge what the bandit is doing and the knowledge of what you're going to do about it (and what you are going to force him to do). Merge faster? What for? It just opens up the turning room - unless you want that. Want to go one circle? You don't need to be fast. Is he faster than you? One circle at the merge, but do it right. Flying aircraft is about finesse, not about applying the simple stuff you read here. There's literally not a single thing I can tell you that will help you win. BFM requires a lot of things to come together on your part. If you can only get better by picking up a better air-frame, the problem is skill related.

Flying at best corner/ideal turnrate is the most benign BFM you can do to another pilot. So the short answer to all your questions is, learn BFM, not just corner/best rate speeds. It isn't easy and I don't know that there are a whole lot of actual resources for this out there. You're already familiar with the tip-of-the-iceberg basics, it's time to go beyond them and consider bleeding your speed, pointing to be more threatening, doing real-time bandit relative speed/energy position, lift vector placement analysis and acting on all that. Flying in relation to your bandit is reactive initially, until you figure out how to judge at least those things, and figuring out what to do about them. Just holding best rate is nothing but flying a simple circle. 'Going vertical' as meant by gamers isn't really energy fighting, it's just a small part of it.

ARMs lack accuracy for a bunch of reasons. The CEP likely accounts for some minor ECM things the radar crew can do to try and prevent the missile from hitting them.

There were not any, it was baked in. I learned of it a long time ago in a conversation with Chizh, where he had mentioned that there was a thrust increase of about 7% between SL and whatever altitude. Mind you this was the old missile FM, who knows how/when it was translated to the new one.

The results of AIMVAL/ACEVAL and their inclusion in training, as well as quantity and quality of training and the fact that there was 'no pound for air to ground' are the defining factors. Like I said, the eagles had plenty of opportunities to get shot down and they came close more than once. The factors leading to this are pretty much the same as they were in older times: Need to get closer to positively ID or otherwise compressed timelines for a number of reasons. Everyone wants to point to numbers and traitors and technology ... all of these are factors, but numbers weren't 'a thing' in individual engagements, nor are traitors where electronics aren't 'saving the day' (or are they? we're not told). If anything, the technology was on the side of MiG-29 wielders inside certain ranges because eagles had no HOBS capability at that time. In the end it all comes down to having specialized air to air fighter pilots with robust and plentiful training. And no it doesn't depend on what's defined as loss. No light greys have been lost in combat so far.

It used to since I don't know, a decade ago? Maybe half a decade. Has it been removed?

So are you. There's a reason why F-15s smashed through the opposition without losses, and it isn't numbers or support assets. Those help, but in the end they had ample opportunities to get shot down and survived several merges, and that reason is training as @henshao and @F-2 correctly identified. The lessons of AIMVAL/ACEVAL were not in vain, and it was made very clear that 'low threat' aircraft can be 'high threat' as long as they can equip all-aspect missiles and get themselves into WVR, which happened in real combat. And what does any of this have to do with DCS eagle radar changes anyway?

What is your expectation? The Phoenix accelerates at around 4g, which means at the top end of the speed it is harder for it to accelerate compared to say a sparrow which accelerates at 10-11g (but doesn't have enough fuel in its booster to reach a high speed). The sustainer on the sparrow actually can't overcome the drag at low altitudes (it's acceleration would be around 2-3g in vacuum) ... not sure why anyone would expect the fat Phoenix to do anything useful in this case, which is why Phoenixes are meant to be 'death from above' and even then they will hit the brakes. Burn time depends on temperature and altitude. The texts you're reading don't tell you if the number is average burn time, cold/hot burn time, and at which altitude. DCS also doesn't really model this anyway AFAIK. The impulse of these rocket motors is nearly the same, so you'll get nearly the same performance.

Also if the AIM-7 was accidentally launched in TWS, the radar should immediately switch to FLOOD mode. As well, it would be nice for the radar to automatically select appropriate PRF depending on the VSD range setting. MPRF up to 40, ILV for 80 and HPRF for 160. Overridable by the pilot of course. And naturally, put in the correct guns scan pattern even if it ends up being fixed (IRL you can move it around)

If the scenario is set up right, you can work with it ... if it's set up with you as the 'hero', well, yeah

Bring more planes. Against certain types of SAMs you can make them look one way and have weapons come in from a different direction.

It was capable. The point is really, "Not a pound for air to ground".

That's 'time to active' and 'time to impact', not value of M/F Pole, although they are related. If your clock has run out and the target hasn't exploded, the missile has missed. That is the value. These clocks aren't terribly accurate in DCS (typically, the missile will hit after it runs down to zero, especially if the target maneuvers) but it gives you an indication as to when you can expect your target to do something other than defend - because your missile is no longer doing anything useful.

In DCS there is no 'seeker feedback' from the missile on the rail to the weapons system. As far as the WCS goes, that weapon doesn't even exist except for an 'on rail' indicator showing that the rail is occupied. The WCS' 'LA' is always based on an educated guess regarding the missile's known capabilities instead of feedback from the missile itself, so if the missile wasn't going to track because it now models more complex behavior than the aircraft, that won't be reflected in your aircraft (this is an example, not necessarily that this is what's going on). Corollary, 'long range shots with heaters' is sort of LOL and you're only able to do it because there is a lack of more complex seeker simulation.

Thank You for your service

Hi, I was not - this is knowledge for publicly accessible (but in some cases not easily findable) data. For example, there was testimony from a trial which revealed a lot of details about PATRIOT, as well as statistics and of course some redacted stuff like ranges and names of cruise and anti-radar missiles it could launch against.

I would suggest something like Apache 2.0 or similar. MIT/BSD would be nice but then someone could just grab it and make a closed source fork.