GGTharos

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.

HoJ is simply not represented correctly, and neither are the jammers. There's no 'over/under' performing here, it's just incorrect in concept and operation.

In DCS it's 4 seconds.

Looks like you got a lot of replies. So it has to do with what the jammer is programmed to do, and why it is programmed that way. For the why you could consider a couple of things: Self-defensive jammers have limited resources and would be picky about what they'll jam, likely they wouldn't jam anything that isn't attacking them. Of course, there's a large variety of jammers with different capabilities so this isn't true for everything. In any case, just consider the DCS SPJ as a made up jammer, the behavior has some realistic components and some not so realistic. But regarding actual IRL fighting, you could probably expect dedicated ECM assets to be used against enemy surveillance, which is something that isn't available in DCS.

Yes. If you're in a weapons employment zone of your enemy (those WEZ's can be very dynamic) assume a weapon is being employed against you.

Thanks for this, it's better than what we have now and with a little enhancement it could be much better.

The law simply becomes a tool to persecute anyone they deem worthy of persecuting. The reasons are largely irrelevant and don't need to be rational.

^^^^ Correct. They (the Russian government) are not a rational actor and ED is acting accordingly.

The old processor on those radars cannot handle ECM while being in TWS so yes, it is correct.

Because there's no filter, you said it. My partial ideal, to begin with: Give a BRAASIT for the given contact if seen for the first time or beyond a certain range: Bearing Range Altitude Aspect Speed Identification (type of aircraft if known, making this realistic would require some work but the AWACS can be assumed to know the type) Track (ie. bandit's heading in degrees) When the contact gets closer, BRAA will suffice Bonus stuff: Multiple frequencies for awacs, assigning controllers to various flights and responsibility zones Responsibility zones Tunable and automatic recognition of bandit entry into an AOR - ie. a 3 minute vector. If the far end of the vector remains in the AOR for some amount of time, announce the bandit. This immediately takes of reaction time for high vs low speed bandits as well, though it can be improved. AWACS and other HVAA should have a default 'run away' behavior that can be tuned - ie. run to nearest fighters or SAM, as long as it is away from the bandits. As well they could shut down the radar and drop into the notch. Aircraft in DCS have TWS tracks - give them to the AWACS also so they don't have to constantly 'pop up' a new target if someone is popping in and out of radar contact before the track expires. Make AWACS capable of classifying that some aircraft are in a group without having to resort to 'knowing' that they're in the same editor group - ie. learn to actually declare real groups. Make AWACS capable of classifying things like CAPs by matching the track pattern to 'what looks like' a CAP, including knowledge of the aircraft type.

It isn't schizophrenia (paranoia at worst) and I'm not convinced that you're qualified to judge people's fears for their safety in a situation that you aren't experiencing.

Seems like you want to minimize the severity of over-g ... you're in a heavyweight aircraft and over-g is easy to accomplish. The amount of time at over-g needed to bend the airframe depends on the severity of the over-g, and that in turn depends on weight and speed (the aircraft is more vulnerable in the transonic region). This sort of event would not lead to just 'replacing the wing', the entire fuselage would have been bent so you're writing off the aircraft after landing. The wings are just the most visible problem.

Yes we can, because they're on the same level. This myth that FC3 FMs are somehow worse needs to die - FC3 FMs were brought well up to snuff years ago.