GGTharos

Store pylons jamming I think won't show up on FC3 any time soon, but over-g and over-speed can be relatively easy to implement across all modules as the damage types caused by these are already modeled in some way.

What's missing now is overspeed damage. I see plenty of examples of people exceeding Vne and to my knowledge this condition is far less forgiving than over-g.

Given that they don't pull 10g+ in a dogfight ... no? These dogfights in DCS are done at 500-600kts, for whatever reason. IRL a merge might indeed happen that way but the fighters are usually prepared and have chosen a speed to merge at which is typically much lower. Your chances of breaking wings or other things diminish rapidly when this happens.

Because the APG-73 is a small radar with limited power.

You shouldn't expect to see a fighter on radar much past 40nm in either the hornet or the viper. As for Su-27's and Su-33 locks from afar - they may in fact not even be locking you, but that's a DCS AI thing.

That's definitely correct. They can describe whatever they want. The fact is that this F-15E that bombed a heli did so while tracking it in A2A from 50nm away, including when it was sitting on the ground with rotors spinning. The never took the radar off AA mode. When close enough they switched to bombs when the pod showed the heli sitting on the ground. Helicopter's 'immunity' to IR in game is another well known issue. They shouldn't be harder to detect than a cold jet from the front, but they are.

No it isn't. That isn't what it means at all ... it means the wavelength is measured in millimeters. Ie. the frequency is relatively high compared to say X-Band. Not even close ... LIDAR is nanometers. That radar image doesn't look like what you're describing. Like using a frequency window where vapor/water/atmosphere is transparent to it? The main range problem is one of power and antenna size. Guess what's limited on the heli.

Likely more than just that. G limitations for transonic flight are usually even lower than the supersonic one.

Why? At 800KIAS you're risking speed alone destroying control surfaces or tipping stabs off. Add a little load (after all it is loads, not g, and loads are different when transonic/supersonic) and you ensure that things will start coming apart.

First off, let's not confuse IRL and DCS. There is no question that DCS has a very simplistic simulation of ECM and Chaff. I'll say this: 1) ECM should decrease Pk, with exceptions 2) If you're facing new weapons with old ECM, it might increase Pk instead, but inlikely. 3) JAFF is not a thing. Chaff + ECM use together yes, but not in the sense of 'bouncing ECM off chaff'. 4) Chaff is used 'as briefed' against specific threats IRL. The reasons for this do not exist in DCS. There are things chaff just doesn't really work against.

No, 'JAFF' is not a thing. I used to think so but I received better information. Targets that do not maneuver should receive direct hits from these missiles with almost not exceptions. Not passing within fuze range, direct hits. What does it do during those two seconds? I mean the way radar memory is implemented in the game is very generally cheaty and has little to do with the 120 specifically.

The nose is probably dropping. You'd need 260km altitude to experience 0.5g IIRC.

They were planning to, the A-12 was to be the original carrier of the system but then only the blackbird remained. There's similar research for shooting AIM-120As from a blackbird with a range of 80nm.

The messages are embedded in the radar signal, so the missile is picking them up over sidelobes. So 1) the missile's DL antennas are picking up the DL from the radar sidelobes, and it tells the missile where to look for the target 2) Yes. It continues to transmit 'look there' messaging to the missile and if you get lucky the target will be there and the missile might see it. You could conceivably still guide onto a missile notching the F-14 that way but obviously this a major reduction in Pk.

The acceleration tables are also important. Having the time to get up to ludicrous speed is probably not a common thing unless the mission is designed specifically around achieving this and the environment is permissible.

Yeah I didn't say anything different. The missile ignores it once homing.

^^^^ There is a strong suspicion that ECM was involved.

No one's really going to die on it though.

I couldn't tell you which of the two it is, but either way it needs to be handled.

It literally says so in the manual. Maybe? I mean there are ways to deal with this by using at least say a doppler gate. These are details and potential limitations that we don't know about. Well yes, the manual literally says that the missile uses the reflections to adjust trajectory. The missile - any missile - will always guide by itself. There's no guidance coming the radar, but rather some form of position updates. The AWG-9 still has to transmit data to tell the missile where to look for the target, and that's what it does IIRC, it says 'point the seeker there'. But it doesn't command the missile ie. 'steer this way' so ... the radar is not doing any guiding, the missile is. The 7F is 22nm vs a 2msq target. It's over 30nm for 5msq.

The Tomcat had it's ECM on. So they need to work our how the missile deals with ECM.

I'll post it when I get the opportunity to visit my PC. SA/D mid-course is applied to TWS and STT - the missile is told 'look there' and it adjusts its trajectory based on seeing the reflections. It does it in mid-course as well. And it makes plenty of sense, in fact it is probably the main reason why you are expected to have more successful long range shots in STT than in TWS (Note, not TWS vs STT for accuracy, but for range). The dish on the 54 is quite a bit larger than the sparrow, and the sparrow can see a sqm target over 30nm away (almost 40) with PD illumination. The Phoenix has the added benefit of the datalink, so it might be able to fly its initial commanded portion without seeing its target; but, like a missile with INS guidance, it needs something to help it guide onto the target in mid-course. That's SA/D.

1. Any reference. It doesn't matter if it's a cloud, ground, the point is that you have something to look at and 'roll around'. Really it's more like 'pick a reference', you don't need it to be 45 deg off. 2. I don't recall off hand. You don't need to pitch up, but if you don't you'll end up losing altitude. Start with 5 degrees, see if you need more later. 3. Yeah seems simple enough, but great job on the instructions missing the full thing - here you're blending aileron and pitch input together. You blend 'as required' so that you're not in an aileron roll (so you need back-stick here) while at the same time not pulling insane g's (unless you need to). Adjust roll and pitch to maintain your reference in #1 in the same relative place. They're describing some sort of perfect 1g-ish barrel roll here. It's nice to learn because it teaches you how to fly precisely, but that's about it. You can do a 1g barrel roll, you can do a 9g barrel roll too ... it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Once the missile is homing it ignores the DL data. The statement is that the Pk is not affected by loss of DL at that time. They aren't. Receiving target position is not 'command'. Command is a specific type of guidance used by a bunch of SAMs. The closest that we know AAMs have come to it is the Phoenix missile where the sensor is commanded to look in a certain direction - but actual command guidance literally steers the missile, and the missile itself needs no sensor beside the fuze.

Passively means seeing reflections. Unless you don't care about hitting targets. I have the weapons manual. SD/A, the missile receives 'look here' commands and looks for reflections throughout mid-course.