GGTharos

ECCM is one easy answer for this.

ED doesn't get everything right. No one has proof of anything, just strong indications from other weapons and how the system works over all. So no, I will not 'go away', my argument is solid.

No. Channel separation was implemented specifically to prevent this, and the poor Pk it brings due to EMI.

Possibly for ECCM reasons.

@BIGNEWY is there any news on this? Documentation has been supplied, no changes have been made and nothing has been said about this. Again this is a very easy change but it appears to be getting forgotten.

The correction should be missile launch warning on the modules that do not produce it when launching ARH in STT, not the other way around. That would make no sense IMHO. The datalink signal is injected into the STT waveform much like a guidance signal would be. If you have the two signals together you pretty much know what's up. There's no such thing happening; this is a justification and not actual code AFAIK. In code it's simply produce a warning or not for said type of missile and radar mode combination, where the mode is pretty strictly TWS (or a submode thereof) or STT. And as far as IRL goes, it really doesn't matter wether the R-77 needs it or not, only wether the weapon system produces it or not. This signal is already injected for R-27Rs, and it would exist in the same space for R-77s ... so I fail to see any logic for not having a missile launch warning; there's no need to even consider PDI or CW here.

Trial and error is a well known, accepted and useful part of science and engineering. Basically to avoid doing what you did you'd need to be able to run the same (or similar, but prefer the same) algorithm for PN as DCS does, and run the graphs on it. Since we're not going to be getting our hands on that algorithm, trial and error it is

^^^^ And there is plenty of actual research into the sensitivity of PN coefficients out there to back IM up.

PDF page 8 or 15 depending on what you use to determine the page number. Not the most appropriate thing but close enough. Edit: Forgot to paste the link in. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1128253.pdf

@NineLine I think this is an issue of simplification. There is geometry involved, where eg. look-down may not actually be look-down due to the curvature of the earth, as well as the type of background clutter present. Similarly, there exist look-up that would give you 'look-down' results, ie. a SAM (or low flying aircraft) looking up at the side of a mountain. DCS does not cover these scenarios because instead of attempting to compute SNR and other actionable attributes (all knowledge which is readily available to anyone and known by ED, including various equations to calculate these things), it attempts to simplify them into antenna slew down vs antenna slew up. That is the impression that the current situation gives, I figure Maestro should be able to clear this up.

The F,M require lock right after launch. The P may not. The F was indeed limited to ~20nm, for a 2m^2 target. Don't count on it not seeing your fighter armed with 50 of everything

They didn't really say but, I have my suspicions as those were IIRC full terminals and they're now getting less than. I think miniaturization played a huge role, as well as processing capability.

You can (and I suggest you should, there are online calculators) do the math for this yourself, or just make a few turns and write down the timing ... a 360 at 4 g will be enough, it will be more than 20 seconds if you perform it at 400KIAS (assuming you can, this depends on gross weight and altitude). You can also do a couple of hook turns (180s) one at 4g, check your plane, radar, whatever else you want to check, then another at 5g to put you back on track.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks!

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

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.

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.

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.