D-Scythe

I'm gonna raise the bovine fecal matter flag on this one - there is no way FOUR F-16s couldn't acquire a MIG-29 before getting into the 35 km range of its R-27R missiles. Unfortunately, there was nothing "real life" about your example. Next time, check to make sure your sources are correct please. Saves my time and yours. How do you improve Lock On without making it more realistic - i.e. more like real life? How can you make a simulation better without applying real life concepts? ED doesn't have the money, time, or the resources to model every ECM technique and every ECCM counter-technique. Thus, they "approximated" ECM vs. ECCM warfare with a very basic model that wasn't designed to handle actual ECM/ECCM techniques. Like in real life, the pilot in LOMAC is only supposed to switch the ECM "on" - from that point, the computers take over, employing the various ECM techniques, such as strobing, to confuse enemy radars. The only control the pilot has over his ECM is flipping it "On." Then everything else is automatic. In LOMAC, this is all approximated. The sim, however, doesn't model ACTUAL ECM/ECCM techniques - it would take way too much time and money to do so - but this is made up for because enemy radars are still "confused" - you get an AOJ lock instead of a SST lock, for example. By hitting the "E" key, you are basically flipping the "ECM" switch on as the Lock On pilot. You're not supposed to manually strobe your jammers, because IRL, the pilot doesn't manually flip his ECM switch on and off. In fact, if he did, chances are he'll screw up the pre-programmed jamming techniques his F-15 or MiG is trying to employ, and dramatically DECREASE the effectiveness of his ECM. But since ED obviously don't have infinite time or money, this issue of manually strobing your ECM was overlooked, and players can use this as an exploit (hopefully it'll be patched). And since it was overlooked, there is no ECCM to your "manual" ECM - there is no ECCM/HOJ/AOJ counter, which is again unrealistic. So fine, whatever, it's your money and your game, but don't expect not to take some flak for it when you hop onto multiplayer and start pissing other people off. IMO, if you don't want to be shot at beyond the 13-mile magic burn-through range, you shouldn't be playing LOMAC. Realistically, I'm pretty sure the ONLY aircraft that can deny their enemy a radar lock from this range are the F-117, B-2 and F-22. Last time I checked, none of these planes were flyable.

Real life has nothing to do with this? Last time I checked, Lock On is a SIMULATION of REAL LIFE. What happens in REAL LIFE should happen in the game, because simulations try to be REAListic. Do I have to be any more clear? Again, Ace Combat 6 is around the corner. It has no relation to REAL air combat either, nor does it try to - sounds like it'll be right up your valley.

On the other hand, it can be argued that if you have to resort to strobing in order to avoid getting shot at until burn-through, you really shouldn't be playing Lock On. Do you really think IRL a MiG or Eagle pilot would have the luxury denying a lock on until 13 miles? Ace Combat 6 is right around the corner. Just FYI.

The F-15E rocks.

Why do you want to find out more about it?

9 inches. Oh, you were talking about the announcement. Nevermind.

Not hammer - slammer. Hit them with a slammer. Who on earth are you responding to? Me? I never said Russian aircraft lose control - that was another guy in this thread. I never even mention a "loss of control" once. The only statement I made about Russian aircraft is I basically said that some of the most entertaining solo performances in an airshow were given by the Russian Flanker family. The only thing I explicitly stated is how ridiculous the logic that you can judge an aircraft's FBW system judging by how much the control surfaces deflect during an airshow. Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I don't even know why people start F-22 threads - it always degenerates into a pissing contest even when nobody's looking for a fight.

You're basing your conclusion, that the computer "doesn't know what to do," based on the deflection of some control surfaces? Right.

I dunno, some of the craziest displays have been put up by the Flanker family IMO. Anyway, BFM (or more appropriately ACM) nowadays basically amounts to who shoots the other guy first with an X-ray or Archer. A simple matter of looking and shooting - so it's not like somebody would have trouble working anyone else over. Just for the record.

Slightly off axis is absolutely right. Swingkid (tried to) explain things to me, and from what I understand....The hypothesis is - given the premise that cassegrain antennas use amplitude monopulse which project two beams (one offset slightly to one side and the other offset to the opposite side of where the antenna is pointing) - when you lock a target with the N001/019 radars, you're putting the target between these 2 radar beams: By doing this, the radar is not directing the most sensitive portion of either radar beam (the yellow ones) onto the target, which would explain a decrease in lock range relative to detection range. Planar antennas used in Western radars do not generate radar beams that are offset - all the radar beams generated point in the same direction the antenna is pointing, with all beams being equal in strength (but different in phase). Therefore, when a target flies inside your radar cone and painted by your radar beams, there's no problem with "insensitivity," cause the target is within the "sensitive" portion of all the non-offset beams.

The missile technically can use any RF return for guidance. It's not a matter of directing enough power onto the target, but rather lighting up the target continuously so the missile can see it continuously. There really isn't as much of a difference in how the radar functions between "detecting" and "locking" as you think. Basically, the radar operates in the same fashion when detecting and locking a target - cept in locking, the beam generated by the radar is directed entirely and continuously onto the target. Again, it's not a matter of absolute power, but rather how the radar's power can be directed continuously onto the target.

Locking is more like continuous tracking. Let's focus on this bit here - you said you need to "concentrate" more energy for lock and missile guidance. You're right in that relatively speaking, the further away a target is, the weaker the RF return is (by virtue of the R^4 rule). But, this doesn't apply: we're not talking about lock vs. lock here, we're talking lock range vs. detection range. The radar's power is actually less concentrated when doing wide scans to search/detect targets, compared to locking a target, where the radar directs all its energy into a much smaller space. Therefore, if a signal coming off a target is strong enough to be detected/tracked with wide search patterns, why can that same signal coming off the target not be tracked when all the RF energy is directed onto it? I mean, does locking a target not cause the radar to concentrate more RF energy on the target in the first place? Like, if you're radar is doing broadsweeps to detect targets, and you decide to lock a target, wouldn't the radar (at this point) go from broadsweeping to finer beams? And would this not effectively "concentrate" more RF energy on the target? Therefore, if the slotted planar array radar, just doing general scanning of an area, is already able to detect/bug a target with broad sweeps, what's to stop it from locking a target, where it generates a much finer, more "concentrated" beam directed entirely onto a target? All this obviously doesn't apply to amplitude-monopulse radars (i.e. the cassegrain N001/019), which splits its power into separate beams to detect/track/lock a target. And it's not the good splitting either - like AESA.

How would the width of the radar beam factor into the tracking of the target through its doppler return? "Max range" of what? With which weapon? "Engage" as in he commits his fighter to attack or "engage" as in the point in which weapons are employed/fired?

After doing a bit of background reading, I feel incredibly...dumb, for not linking cassegrain to amplitude-monopulse. The Russian radars have to make use of amplitude-monopulse, because it uses cassegrain antennas which, from my understanding, are not as well suited to BVR combat as mechanically scanned slotted arrays (i.e. the APG-70). Since the N001/N019 radars do use an antenna of a cassegrain-type (I think the term might have been "twist cassegrain"), they're stuck with amplitude monopulse instead of phase monopulse, which would explain the shorter tracking range relative to detection range. (Also, it would mean a bunch of other things, none of which are favorable in BVR - such as a bigger notch for targets to hide in) It would also mean that the APG-63/70 in LOMAC and the APG-68 in Falcon 4.0 are modelled as having cassegrain-antennas rather than planar.

The compromise is, the more you make the tiles look better, the less performance gain you're gonna get.

Comparing any missile to the Vietnam-era AIM-7 is not fair! I have one source that says the AIM-7C/E was just so deadly they had to retire it because if they didn't, the missile companies would run out of money because nobody would ever need to make a new radar missile ever :D

I have a source that says all kills made by the F-15 during Desert Storm were made with AIM-120A prototypes, and that no AIM-7s were actually fired during that conflict. Furthermore, the APG-63V2 AESA radar was operational by then with the 58th FS, which explained why that F-15 squadron accounted for half the kills scored during the entire conflict. Unfortunately, I can't show you my source. And all other sources that say my source is wrong is intentionally lying because they are all part of some Anti-Eastern conspiracy :D

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but did you even read this post that you just quoted? Cause it doesn't do anything to explain why they modelled things WRONGLY in Falcon 4.0, but rather HOW things are modelled in Falcon 4.0. Unfortunately, I don't care HOW things are modelled in Falcon 4.0. BTW, you would note that Swingkid subsequently "beats" ED-1 from LP, by making an undeniable case that a 20nm burn-through cannot exist, and is impossible with the APG-68. Where did anyone say anything about AESA radars vs. ECM/jamming? Seriously, it seems like you're having a one-sided conversation with yourself. There is no evidence that you are reading over my replies, and if that is the case, I really don't see the point of continuing this. So far, you basically repeated one thing over and over - the Falcon 4.0 is like "this," so "this" must be right.

Why are you referencing sims? Are you honestly going to use one simulation as a "source" for another? Since when does Lock On have to "be" like Falcon 4.0 to be realistic? ECM in Falcon 4.0 is a joke too, with its 20 nm burn-through. Should we implement that too? http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=65 And if you don't have a subscription, try this frugal's thread, because you love Falcon 4.0 so much: http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=94591 I'll sum it for you: Swingkid: "An Eagle pilot once told me his experience was that the detection range and bug/lock range were practically identical." Mirv (RL EWO): "SwingKid, keep in mind, the way Falcon models the radar in this respect may not be correct in real life. The Eagle pilot does have good words of wisdom though." Note that just because ECM burn-through and flat-plate antennae radar performance have been modelled consistently throughout the history of the Falcon sims (consistently wrong, mind you), nobody is able to defend this modelling or explain why it's modelled as such in the first place. And the people who actually do this kind of thing for a living have all but explicitly said that Falcon 4.0 and Lock On is wrong. And the logic behind this reasoning is....what?

I already said I have no idea why this happens - GG mentioned it might be an issue of lagging in MP, but you said you can reproduce it with the AI. I tried with the F-15 so far and couldn't reproduce this - might go for the Crane and Fulcrum next. Okay, though I don't see why this is so unbelievable, or the fact why you keep referencing the APG-68 (and not even the real APG-68, but the one in Falcon 4.0).

And you base this on...what? Falcon 4.0? The math is actually quite simple, don't know why you're so against it - consider the following situation - your radar is using X amount of power scanning 60 cubic km of sky and detects a target at 120 miles. The pilot decides to "lock" this target. The radar "focuses" on the target, thus, it's generating a fine, 1 km^3 beam and diverting all its power into it. Therefore, if the radar, with X amount of power can detect something in 60 cubic km of airspace, why can't it lock something with the same amount of power in 1 km^3 of airspace? Unfortunately, Russian radars are, again, of a different type. Therefore, unlike Western radars, they can't lock whatever they can see. But hey, keep using Falcon 4.0 as a source. I mean, I've seen AH-64s shooting Mavericks in that sim - damn most realistic thing I've ever seen.

Hint: Not everything about Falcon 4.0 is right. So again, why are we referencing Falcon 4.0? Just because it doesn't model a flat-plate radar antennae correctly Lock On has to fudge it too?

Since when did we start referencing Falcon 4.0? :P

Are the IR missiles falling for flares? Or just being out-maneuvered/out-ran? Is this the part I'm supposed to come up with a witty comeback? That makes you more grumpy than usual? No thanks, I'll pass. Radar return strength increases to the power of 4 as distance decreases. Therefore, a signal at 40 km is just over 39 times (2.5^4) stronger than a signal from 100km. For a target at 40 km to reduce its radar return enough to be comparable to a signal return from a 100 km target, it needs to find a way to reduce the signal strength by 39 times. I really can't think of anything the target can do to reduce the signal strength by 39 times. BTW, there's a reason why sometimes in Russian aircraft you can see a target (at long range) but can't lock it. It's been mentioned before in this thread - Russian radars use amplitude-monopulse antennaes. On the other hand, Western radars don't - they use flat-plate array antennaes with phase monopulse. They should be able to lock anything they can detect/see on the scope.

Pretty sure the contact would've already started to fade away and disappear by then, so you can place your TDC over the fading target, but won't be able to lock him.