GGTharos

I agree it should be corrected, this has been mentioned a long while ago. Also because rocket motor thrust is 'instant', the rocket motor isn't ignited when the cable separates during missile ejection.

All BFM is done in relation to the bandit, so that's your answer. You need to read up on some BFM exercises; the speeds etc. that you need to use are guidelines to help you form a game plan before the merge and for every move your bandit makes thereafter. You're going to be looking at the bandit, so 'hitting your numbers' is more of a cross-check to make sure you're in the right speed range that you need to be, the rest is all about how and when to point the nose at the bandit. Analyze tacview and see why you're losing 2c (are you really losing it, or are you just sitting there hoping that sustaining at 400 will win you the fight? 'cause that's silly)

Some really nice info in it though, including how ECCM was mechanized for that radar.

First, wrong missile (the sequence you've posted here is for an E of some sort, not F/M/P). Second, in DCS the motor doesn't ignite on ejection anyway, so that needs to be taken care of as well, and third 'english bias' has no bearing on things in-game since the missile does not behave in a way that requires it (ie. seeker is locked at launch). Unlocking maneuvering at 0.5 seconds would be the thing to do, vs. keeping it locked up for the amount of time you've mentioned, but the F/M/P may be doing this dynamically based on distance to target or FLOOD (dogfight and FLOOD are the same thing and the missile would launch unconstrained, an MRM launch defined as exceeding a certain flight time to target would be more restricted)

I think @Smyth point was quite clear - the missile seeker must lock on while on the wing for certain missiles, which means the signal, if there, must already be injected. So in some cases you would expect it to be always present, in others you could expect it to be injected when you pull the trigger.

Yes, it isn't quite on topic but it is relevant - it has to do with implementing half of the realism of a thing, which then leads to predictably eyerolling results, typically much better performance in gameplay than what should be possible.

Sure, as long they're made to fail often in look-down and eat chaff like no one's business, because that's the only way you get realism since that is what we're seeking. Shouldn't really stand a chance against modern ECM either, but then again the state of ECM is what it is. @Smyth good info - while not 100% conclusive, I'd say 99.99%.

This is a non-sequitur. Injecting a guidance signal has nothing to do with the missile's range, the AIM-7 can easily be used within sidewinder parameters and in some cases was the weapon of choice in those parameters - it still had to be tuned to its guidance channel like every SARH seeker out there. If you're aware of an exception, I'd like to know about it. I'm not sure why you believe you can determine that the additional signal would be wasteful, since you don't know why it's there. I don't really know either - I know some reasons but not everything - just that it's very typical for that to be there. The only possible method, huh? You and a few others are really happy to grasp at straws here. The technical evidence is that a signal is injected, or we switch to CW or whatever. While this particular weapon system could be an exception, you'd have to find something to show that this is the case and so far you haven't. Realistically speaking this has nothing to do with the discussion, since we're not discussing 'the best way' to detect an R-3R launch.

You would basically have to fly a specific profile with very specific timing and launch the ASAT. You wouldn't have any weapon systems interaction or anything like that - no radar lock and whatnot. ASAT was a test against a known target, nothing like today's air to space weapons.

No, you don't need 'radio guidance' aka a missile datalink here. The specific signal the missile is tuned to detect with its seeker is injected into whatever the radar's doing - for simplicity we'll say it is in STT. There are may reasons for this system to exist, not the least of which is deconfliction with other aircraft guiding their own missiles, or the same aircraft guiding multiple SARH missiles to the same target.

That is just plain wrong, with a side of wrong and wrong on top. But you did say 'If'. However you want to frame it, guidance tends to inject a signal into whatever existing waveform, and if not, then you likely have an older system that can be easily decoyed.

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2015/05/more-f-15-with-conformal-tanks.html

I stand by what I said.

If only reality was that simple and easy

Yep, the last two are what I would be interested in

It would be nice to analyze AIM-7 motor.

You know that you're told not to launch if there are within x degrees of the seeker's FoV, which is IRL doctrine. The first missile always missing and second 90% hit is indeed strange and should be looked into, but everything else you said does not reflect reality.

The seeker framerate is out there somewhere (I forget the document now) and it is on the order of 100FPS with full multi-target processing...probably before the upgrade. There's no point in talking about the seeker, it could have easily been a power failure, a fin failure, out of parameter shot or really anything else.

How much should it miss under these circumstances? 95%? 90%? The pilot does a thing for a reason.

IRL flaring before the missile is launched will typically have the pilot inhibit the launch because it is expected that the missile will go for a flare instead. Flaring after the missile is launched is less effective since the missile has additional ways of discriminating the target. So there's certainly 'poor performance' just not in the way you describe it - the second missile should be as vulnerable as the first if there are decoys in the FoV (or the sun) rather than having a 'good hit ratio'. If flares before launch make you not want to shoot the missile because you'll waste it, then this is 'correct performance'.

No, the Su did not user flares. The missile likely suffered a fin failure or some other issue (possible launch out of parameters, though seems unlikely) that caused it to fail to steer. The 9X has been demonstrated to be next to immune to flares IRL. In other words if it's launched at you within parameters, hope for a very rare failure or eject.

In fact demonstrated in clutter/treetop IRL, but good luck finding the video now. Besides the size, a target like this is 'easy'.

Were you having dreams of dogfighting at 400-600kts with flaps down?

The guidance channel (specific radio signal/waveform assigned to THAT missile to lock onto) is alive until the track is deleted on the mothership. So you can 'relock' as much as you like as long as the target is in the seeker's FoV and the track has not timed out. There is always a track of some sort, it's not just a TWS thing. Not sure what's been done to the game mechanics right now, but here's the thing: Like with sparrow, the radar will assign an MCU/Guidance channel to the missile. That is available until the track times out for whatever reason. This isn't really represented in DCS, it's more along the likes of 'the radar will attempt to regain lock for x seconds' which last I checked was still 4 seconds. If contact is actually dropped, locking again should not be possible at all since as far as the radar is concerned, you're locking a 'new' trarget and not guiding a missile at that time (that is, the MCU/Guidance channel is no longer present in the signal). The next missile would be assigned the next guidance channel, so you shouldn't really be able to 're-lock' by launching another missile. In DCS, the ability to re-lock might be on a timer and certainly (and appropriately) require the target to the in the missile seeker's FoV. FC3 doesn't have any radio simulation so there's no channels etc.

No, it's not even close. This is a different type of problem. It isn't impossible at all. ANd before you even get into 'efficiency vs missiles', it just needs to be represented correctly in a big picture/operational way to begin with. The only thing you have now is a stop-gap which I certainly hope ED will attempt to replace with a very robust a realistic system. Effectiveness vs. enemy hardware is for the mission maker; give him some switches/sliders and he can make things as fair or unfair as desired for a given scenario.