GGTharos

Vertical scan is not instantaneous (at least it shouldn't be), the antenna is moving up and down to complete this scan and rolling around could easily have the aircraft not fall into the antenna beam for the moment that it cross the VS pattern. Same goes for EOS. No heater has a 20-30deg FoV. The gimbals are larger than this but the FoV is anywhere from 2 to 4 degrees. The way the sun or other distractions affect this type of seeker it through reflections inside the dome itself; if there are any imperfections that would cause a bright spot when shone on by the sun this would make things even worse.

Seeker size isn't that different between those two. However, that means also you shouldn't get LA if the seeker can't lock on, so we're onto a different problem with these missiles (it could also be that you're being given LA before the seeker locks, but that would be a new and wrong behavior if you also don't get the seeker lock tone). Regarding the sun: It's close enough to be a factor IMHO especially for the 73 shot but eeeeh. Yes, vertical scan is limited like say an eagle's vertical scan is limited in distance also. Could it be extended? Yes, it's all software, it's made to reject targets that are at longer ranges deliberately - this is done probably based on pilot input alone. The purpose of these close combat modes is WVR acquisition, you don't want to accidentally pick up the tanker 100km away, but rather the thing you are looking at. Maybe the IRL limitation is not 10km, that I wouldn't know.

You could also call it the Pope. So what? Yep. What appears to be happening is that they are being shot with so much lead that the target exits the seeker gimbal at launch.

Maybe if you weren't rolling around so much the missiles wouldn't get so dizzy ... Anyway, head-on IR shots are not reliable due to the relatively weak IR signature. The missile should definitely guide but distractions are not your friend in that case (sun, flares). Are you using LA override? If so you might be shooting that missile blind.

What exactly are you trying to justify? It should be as impossible as AMRAAMs tracking through mountains. I mean if the cloud was really thin, maybe, you could even sort of see through it visually but a proper cloud would be its own IR source, completely masking a target from IRH missiles past a certain point.

The chart could be from a wind tunnel bench test, so not installed. But it would be good to know if this is the case or not.

^^^ Ok perfect! Thanks Edit: I see it was reported and locked a long time ago.

^^^^ Thank you for the detailed reply. As I have no experience with such systems IRL it's great to get this type of answer, it is instructive and useful. I don't know if I'll have time but I'll try to put together a track or two for ED along with suggested solution (constrain the drift - not sure if they even model tumbling in this case) and add self-righting ability. I am assuming self-righting is due to gravity when flying straight and level.

Would you be able to comment on how much more accurate the indicator should be? My specific question is, if it was to be suggested as a fix for ED (it has been suggested in fact, I'm sure) - by what factor should precession be reduced? Unrealistic ways of 'fixing the issue in flight' aside. BTW totally agree on where you're going with spatial disorientation here for the suggested solution, I think most people don't realize this.

The game makes it 'easy' to identify MANPADS because they always hold their tube and they're never in hiding. Consider this an AI limitation. Your target isn't the MANPADS, it's whatever you want to destroy and your priority would be to find, identify and destroy that while assuming there are MANPADS everywhere looking for you.

So you're not entirely wrong, but FYI: With three missiles launched one of them should have probably guided and hit. Older TV/Heat seeking SAMs were capable but not that capable. Now, regarding your particular experience here, I don't see the speed of the F-18. It technically shouldn't matter much but what appears to be happening is that the launcher shoots the missile with lead and it shoots it outside of the missile's gimbal so it won't track at all. You should be able to check this in tacview, and if this is the case, it's a bug that you can report as such.

No, it adds a tracking pulse, or rather a pulse designed to help the missile track in between the other STT pulse trains. The missile datalink could take the same position instead of the tracking pulse and that is what happens with AMRAAM shooters, it's also what happens with the Su-27/MiG-29 (DL is emitted for a given time, then switches to tracking pulse).

You can write as many paragraphs as you want; helis have fared quite poorly against fighters in general. Fighter radars won't be bothered by trees, they won't be in the LOS.

Helis had no missiles for J-CATCH IIRC, the kills were made with guns and reported as kills just because the helis would call guns If you're facing F-15/16/18 modeled in DCS, it should be able to track you in any case that isn't terrain masking. DCS doesn't do that, it lets you notch those radars. Not sure about the 14 due to how the blades present needing a bit more modern processing (similarly for the MiG-29 and Su-27), but given that the eagles were shooting 7Fs at that time and were working with the older version of the APG-63 at that point, you'd be SOL without air cover unless for some convoluted, inexplicable reason these fighters were forced to fly into your WEZ. In DCS people just do this voluntarily so ... YMMV. BTW, radar clutter doesn't absorb radar ... you can't hide those blades from the doppler filter even if you're sitting on the ground. If they're spinning, the radar knows where you are (proven in real combat!) and ... again ... not applicable to DCS, it gives you a free pass - the rotor's not part of the radar game. But to repeat and make it perfectly clear: 4th gen PD radar do not care how low you are. The radar clutter reduces detection range (still very comfortably BVR), it doesn't hide you. DCS also gives you a pretty unrealistic IR signature reduction so aircraft have to come in a lot closer with their heaters than they should have to.

I know that all studies have assumptions and limitations, good luck to you

You won't 'make me' do anything. I don't necessarily need to descend much, and I certainly don't need to be slow. The one who's going nowhere fast is you - you're literally not moving compared to fixed wing and it can pick and choose how and when to attack. Granted, most people in DCS just mow the lawn and wouldn't be caught dead employing any tactic all, let alone anti-RW tactics. At best an R-60 on the hind. Nice missile but easy to stay out of its WEZ. And since you'll likely be caught in transit to a friendly (to the fixed wing) location, there's not that much worry for SHORAD either. J-CATCH was interesting and simultaneously flawed, not to mention it doesn't really apply to the modern scenario where fighters can rain actives from above and they'll guide as long as those rotors are spinning. Imagine what happens one day when AI gains half a brain and is able to be mobile and actually cover approaches with SHORAD, as well as pop in and out of cover and use smoke effectively, maybe even get some arty support - you'll be worrying about things coming in from above and from below. You simply have it good in DCS right now, it gives you a completely free ride by not simulating problems that RW should be facing.

As JB3DG said; everything that affects acceleration affects cycle time. This includes weight. This may not be a huge deal when you're facing low threat opponents, but anything with competitive weapons that can move better will out-BVR it, so other tactics will be needed.

Oh yeah? Which ones? Go ahead point'em out

It's just you posting your own propaganda and falsified record ... you know, exactly the type of explanation you love to give The advantage granted by the R-73 is undeniable, but the existence of IRCM and counter-HOBS/rmin tactics are also undeniable. Also, instantaneous turn rates don't necessarily win fights as this is a very transient capability. The MiG-29 would have had an advantage over F-16s because it could clean up BVR to begin with, have superior numbers at the merge and the HOBS advantage. This ended when F-16s were equipped with AIM-120.

@BIGNEWY I will check my docs (because I know I have seen this, details below), but I would argue that you don't need such evidence, and the reasoning is this: The Harpoon is a digital missile whose various flight stages are defined by software. I think it's clear why I emphasized this. The 'average' ship this missile would have been aimed at could not shoot missiles beyond 10nm. Therefore, this missile should be sea-skimming by the time it's 10nm from target, perhaps closer - the point here being that missile retains its range but also maximized its ability to do damage. In this case, fuel will be saved by the missile throttling down in the dive to sea skimming altitude. Now, for the information that I have seen - it may have been B-52 delivered Harpoon manual or something else, I forget which. 1) The missile is launched with pre-loaded data for its flight and activation. 2) The cruise phase is executed. 3) If the missile is sea-skimming, it will climb to 5000'-6000' (don't quote me on this, it may have been 1500') to acquire target position at long range. 4) After this update, the missile will descend to sea-skimming altitude and initiate search for terminal homing 5) Terminal homing is performed and the selected terminal maneuver is executed. Note #3 and #4. This phase is not at all modeled, and in all cases it ends with the missile sea-skimming. Anyway, I'll go look for the docs.

So how many Gs are being applied to break those wings?

They don't reject anything at low altitude. The reason is doppler filtering; all demonstrated in real combat. There's no practical difference in the SNR of a target at 150' vs one at 5' ... or even an aircraft on the ground that's exceeded the notch speed. I's procedure to sort and then lock STT at given distances though so ... not exactly a huge deal? It's easier than tracking a fighter maneuvering in 3D.

There were no reliable ways to count kills by helis. It's not that the exercise wasn't valuable, it was. But flawed methodology is flawed and there are a lot of questions to be asked and answered. Personally, I can't find the report and I'd love to read it.

All of that is rendered false by real combat. There were some cases where helis nailed some jets in the Iran-Iraq war, IIRC. In all other cases helis have been missiled, gunned and bombed without so much as a chance to respond. DCS is special in terms of making it easy for the helo peeps. Of course, the DCS AI helps since it follows no tactics whatsoever in terms of specific target engagement.

They exit the FoV too quickly to be of use. Out of plane maneuvers while dumping flares should give you a better chance of escape. In-plane turns are just the easiest thing in the world to track aside from straight and level flight.