GGTharos

I don't know the antipode effect, at least not by that name. I'm aware of multi-path problems and scintillation/clutter issues increasing miss distance (in different ways, but still) and of course problems with fuzing at low altitudes (I imagine premature fuzing). The AIM-54A is an analog or at least non-solid-state missile which had problems identified and rectified in production. There's probably AIM54 'Mod x' but unlike say the sidewinder, we don't have such a list for the 54 except for very broad descriptions. I don't believe that you can compare two missiles in much detail without knowing the specifics of them deeply, but I agree that knowledge of one could arouse suspicion for another. Yep but basically without knowing what they're talking about, if you have enough SNR you have a track in either TWS or STT - these are PD radars so problems applicable to non-PD radars when looking down into clutter don't necessarily apply here. I don't know, I think the FCS handled that and wouldn't give you a DLZ if it believed the RCS was too small, but I'm going off of memory so don't quote me on this. Because of this there is a practical limit for launching the AIM-54 vs say a fighter, like 50nm TWS and probably around 60 in STT, same with bombers but obviously at longer ranges. None of this stuff is modeled in DCS, so I don't think HB can make this happen until ED upgrades the radar simulation in general.

There is a reference to practical measurements of the missile in the X-band in the same paper. I understood what you were saying.

This is a generic DCS radar problem though.

I know that the information exists (I have seen it before) - I'll look for it again if I don't forget. As to what it solved exactly, there's almost never any technical information available in public documents. Clutter rejection over water and land (different types of surface even) isn't the same. The point here is that the missile was intended to intercept low flying weapons - AIM-54C took over that with better capability. There's no locking involved in TWS, as well, 'some issues' doesn't mean anything. You could generically say there are 'some issues' with any radar. It is, but not for terminal homing. The AIM-54A (don't know what the C does, we speculate it's much more like the AMRAAM due to the solid state INU and other components) will receive instructions from the AWG-9 to look in a certain direction and set up its range and doppler gates. The missile uses this information to work is mid-course by seeing the reflections from the target. So, the AWG-9 says 'look there, you're looking for this kind of thing', the missile looks, determines all of the parameters it needs to shape the trajectory and acts accordingly.

It might also have accelerated to a speed where it's falling out of the radar's doppler gates completely. And yep, it could be rejected as a spurious contact.

They can only be correctly calculated based on time of flight data for the missile...so every missile needs a TOF table. You can probably automate collection of this data since you could run the missile flight simulation independently from DCS.

https://www.scielo.br/j/jatm/a/tPfhf4dMWzC6Bj7rzGsJvMy/?format=pdf&lang=en

AIM-54A received an upgrade in production to deal with low altitude threats, called the 'Reject Image Device', AIM-54C was build with much better capabilities. Not sure where you're going with TWS, if you have the SNR for a track, you have the SNR for a track, end of story.

Or your ECM was on. R-27Rs can guide on ECM passively. It's not ideal but it can work.

I will say again ... the mission maker can remove METEOR from inventory.

Then you should not be taking any of this up with me but with HB

Yes it is weather dependent, it's water vapor.

A MESA can generate the required signals just as well. I think we can get pretty close. There are no DRFM jammers in game, no one's implementing DRFM capability or capability against that in AMRAAM or other modern missiles, including SAMs in DCS. In DCS, ECM is generic. That's all there is. I don't have a problem with that. Sometimes that's how the mission is. Splitting hairs here. I'm not concerned with any type of balance. If the missile gets in the game, I'd like to see it modeled as close to IRL that we can get as possible. For online gaming the mission maker can remove the METEOR from inventory.

None. Guess why. Does it? Can it? But anyway it's a MESA that we'll get, AFAIK. And what do you think happens anyway? Same thing that happens with any other missile ... it speeds up. The gimbals can be reasonably guessed at to be 50-60 degrees, seeker range can be the same as the 120 and I'm not sure what your obsession with DRFM jammers is, because you're not in danger of being equipped with one.

Yes it is. Yes, that's what FM stands for. And the F-15C was built up from SME input too ... on top of the aircraft's basic performance charts, the NASA study papers on it, etc.

Less agility compared to what? I don't think the target will care in the least if the missile can pull 1-2 aoa and 1-2g less in this case, it would make no difference compared to losing a lot more performance without the second pulse.

No, but as long as certain data and science is available it can be based on a well educated estimate. One of he first page google results: https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/xtr9/p516901.pdf

Unless you find evidence to the contrary, the answer is 'it has the power to do whatever it needs to do'.

Unfortunately I don't have such a document As for what I think, this missile is new enough where lofting would be a 'standard feature' for most AAMs (It had already been a feature of SAMs). It was a surprise to me to hear that it does not loft.

Pretty sure the SD-10 has a boost-sustain grain, not a dual pulse motor. The dual pulse is more off a PL-15 thing. The easiest missile to look at here would be the sparrow - it has an open loop hydraulic actuation for its control surfaces, meaning the amount of hydraulic fluid onboard is drained to perform maneuvers. But in any case, unless we're talking about very old missiles, you can expect control surfaces to be operational as long as the missile operation time - they could be active for longer in theory, but they won't be active for less time than that.

The DCS F-16 sports the v5. That's what was planned and that's how it will be.

Why? I mean it could but it quite just as well not - if you're in the notch, so is the chaff. This aren't this cut and dry IRL but what is cut and dry is that you're going in one direction and the chaff in another - in fact, from the missile's POV it's more like you're stationary (this is what PN does) and the chaff is shooting off at high speed behind you - all of the filters used to smooth target track would have a good chance of rejecting the chaff. Perhaps if you were to successfully stay in the notch for long enough, the missile would decide that it needs to throw open the search gates and then there might be a chance that it would pick up chaff. As well, at certain distances where the target SNR is so much more prominent compared to any noise source (clutter for example) it's possible that the clutter notch is removed or maybe even overcome by target scintillation and then chaff would just be useless against anything but a really dumb missile. It's hard to know what all happens for real of course, and chaff isn't going to be entirely useless either - it can be used in combination with ECM which is something that is not at all modeled in DCS.

The DL on the F-15C is transmitted until 'drop dead time' which is ~100sec. Don't quote me on it, going by memory.

That particular documentation has nothing at all to do with the missile's flight physics, it is fire/explosion safety documentation. The one for the R-77, I don't know but I assume it doesn't say much. It's the weapons employment manuals for the F-15 and F-16 which specify that the AIM-120 will loft (as well as AIM-7MH and later, although the loft is different from that of the AIM-120 AFAIK).

Sidelobes are fairly weak (-20db) and RWRs aren't that stupid. They'll have a threshold to trip a lock warning, if you're sitting 100nm away it isn't going to pretend that you're being attacked if you're nowhere near the beam. As for DCS, it simulates none of this (except HB has put some effort into simulating this sort of thing for the F-14). In DCS, if you're in the radar detection zone of the AI and the AI locks onto anything, you get spiked. That radar coule be tracking something on the opposite gimbal from you, and you would still be getting spiked. So, RWR warnigs in DCS are not 'shared', they're just not simulated well.