Bushmanni

There's another "notch" or blind speed that causes the radar to lose lock besides notching which is zero closure. I haven't seen this phenomenon myself for ages but it was modeled at least in some point or it could be issue only in Su-27 (I fly mostly F-15). So it could simply be that the bandit kept losing lock on you as you both are flying pretty much at the same speed. Your speeds change due to maneuvers which enables the bandit to lock you again and fox another missile just to lose the lock right afterwards again. 2nd edit: What I wrote might be the correct explanation. This blind speed is due to sidelobe clutter having it's peak amplitude just at the zero closure speed ie. clutter from the sidelobe pointed straight down. This sidelobe has shortest travel distance to ground and 90 degree angle to minimize scattering. This is an issue only at low altitude. Side lobe clutter is also reason why you cant see cold targets as far away as hot ones. Main lobe pointing straight forward has the highest doppler shift from ground echoes and all sidelobes have less doppler shift as they point more or less away from the flying direction, ie. the side lobe clutter has same frequencies as echoes from receding targets. The reason I'm suspecting this theory is that I'm uncertain if this effect is as strong as is presented in DCS, ie. it should only reduce the detection distance against co-speed cold targets vs. cold targets flying at different speed, not make it pretty much impossible to keep lock on them even at close distances.

SF_Bushmanni & SF_Ocelot SF Squadron Finland F-15C I assume squadron buddies not ranked high enough have to fly on the challenger side?

You need to know when to be defensive and how much while putting pressure on the other guy to force him defensive. Missile fired at you from max range is only threat if you keep flying straight. Only go defensive (turn nose away from the bandit so much that you break radar lock) when you actually need to in order to avoid getting hit. When you have trashed the bandits missile go offensive right away and shoot a missile at him. He may shoot a missile also but you should have enough time to get a missile off before going defensive again. AI is easily scared defensive if you know what you are doing. You are right about the Russian missiles and the AMRAAM but that situation won't always be true. If the Flanker fires at you first from high altitude and speed, you might not have time to wait to pitbull until his missile impacts. Especially if he cranks while you fly straight at him. But then again these kind of shots are taken from so far away that you should be able to dodge the missile by making a weave by changing the crank to opposite sides. At closer range (less than 8nm) you can go defensive right away after shooting your missile while the Flanker has to keep guiding if he wants his missiles to hit and takes a hit from your missile. If the Flanker goes defensive you should immediately turn at him and keep firing missiles until one hits or you get in gun range. The basic principle is to know the capabilities of all the missiles, your own and the bandits and then getting as close to the bandit as you can to shoot you own missiles while staying far enough so you can dodge the ones the bandit shoots. Force the other guy defensive by defeating his missile faster and shooting your next shot before the bandit. You might need to have several rounds of shoot-evade cycles before the bandit takes a hit or goes defensive (or you merge). AI will usually take a hit from the first or second missile though.

Actually it's called SLAM (Stand-off Land Attack Missile), not Harpoon. It's a Harpoon with an optical seeker. When it get's close to the target it will send TV picture back to the fighter and the pilot can use that to re-target the missile more accurately.

I'm in on the new date.

Squadron slots seem to me a historical feature from Summer Rain and maybe previous campaigns where each squad was operating from their own base. As this campaign was flown only on certain dates with all participants present and with finite airframes available for each squad it was a necessary system. It has been ported to the Blue Flag with the addition of squad spawn lock script. As the gameplay is fundamentally different in Blue Flag due to way more squads, 24/7 server and more dynamic strategic situation that can't be adapted to between mission like in Summer Rain the squad slot system is more of a hindrance than an asset. I never really needed my SF squadron slots to fly but used them when I had to spawn on my home airfield anyway. I don't mind 373 and IAF having slots for themselves (but not whole airbases) as it's their server and campaign but for the rest of us it would be probably better to just have general slots open for everyone.

It is in it but the the table is maybe a bit hard to decode.

You can fly from the rear seat currently in L-39. I have been the passenger in a front seat while backseater landed the plane. Personally I'm not a fan of L-39 as it flies and fights like a WW2 plane so it's not much use as a modern combat jet trainer. For just flying around it's good trainer though. There's no reason to be afraid of complex systems on A-10 or any other plane. You can gradually learn more systems as you go. You are better of thinking what is your desired end goal ie. what kind of things you would like to do with the plane once you learn how to use it. Learning the systems of the plane is much smaller piece of the cake than learning to use the plane for general flying and for combat. Hawk is still WIP and not a great plane to fly due to the simple flight model. As this gets fixed things will change but right now it's better to wait. M-2000 is also very simple plane to use but is also a fully fledged fighter with nice flight model (although still WIP but already much fun to use).

Small addition, AIM-120 has DI of 2.3 when loaded on the wing station and 1.3 when loaded on conformal fuselage station.

I have to say that you can get a pretty good sense of how hard you are pulling after some training (You do need to know how fast you started though). It might be different for different people but I know it's possible. You can feel it by the turn rate (from the speed of horizon zipping by), from G (OWS beeps and tunnel vision), from sound cues, from cockpit vibration and from how hard you are actually pulling your stick (muscle sense). You can also sense your turn from observing the bandit although this might be more relative turn performance than absolute, depending on the geometry. Eagle starts to tighten the turn on it's own when speed is reduced too low and this is pretty easy to spot and ease off the pull when you know the cues although you have usually bled more speed than is desired at this point. If you have lots of smoothing in TIR or not enough it will screw up with your sense of direction and hence your sense of turning speed. If you have curve on your stick it will make it harder to predict how much you are actually pulling through muscle sense. If your cockpit sounds are too low you can't hear the roaring air at high AOA. All of these cues are highly situation dependent but as you mostly need only either sustained, or max performance turn you don't have too many options to learn (ie. only the sustained turn as max performance is just pulling as hard as you can). After some practicing you get to feel it pretty nicely if you have all the cues available. Non max performance energy bleeding turns are made in relation to the bandit and there you have the bandit as a cue to tell how hard you need to pull (just enough to deny sensor nose). It helps to practice basics on a set of canned scenarios so that you don't get the whole cake in your mouth at once. The perch BFM setup is great for this. For me it took less than a year with training about 3 hours a week. It was probably lot less but I can't really remember anymore.

I'm in. I'll make a squadron sign up later when I get enough names.

Regarding RGH mode: Does the pilot give the radar the expected range of target in this mode hence resolving the range ambiguity?

PRF isn't just about unambiguous range measurement. The actual details how MPRF and HPRF works in particular radar set seems to be a secret to some degree but there's info for some of the tricks the radars use in these modes to resolve range. Unambiguous range can be increased with some signal processing tricks like using slightly different PRF for consecutive pulses. After getting multiple returns from the target using different PRF's the true range can be deducted with high degree of probability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_ambiguity_resolution Or the radar can momentarily use LPRF to measure the range of detected target and then continue search using HPRF. The radar can also use some other means to detect the range of target than pulse time of flight. Radar can shift the frequency of each pulse slightly so that the frequency of the target echo gives you the range. It's essentially FM ranging. This method possibly reduces range resolution but it's better than nothing. This of course still has ambiguity in it because of target movement causing Doppler shift so you need additional processing to resolve that. I haven't found info on which radar uses what tricks to resolve the ambiguities as there's several known methods and probably publicly unknown methods for resolving ambiguous range. PRF setting doesn't just change the PRF but also the signal processing involved with it. MPRF and HPRF modes without additional processing are essentially VS (Velocity Search) modes that can't measure the range to target unless it's relatively close. HPRF puts more energy on target and hence has longer detection range but requires additional processing to resolve the range and range resolution is possibly reduced (depends on the method used and the processing power and hardware available). MPRF has similar problem with range ambiguity but to a lesser degree and hence requires less processing and suffers less additional problems. I haven't found good info about why the HPRF has problems detecting opening range targets other than that their echo is lost in sidelobe clutter which is a problem for detection relying mostly on doppler shift. The answer is in the signal processing details and antenna sidelobe levels and side lobe suppression techniques but haven't found good info about those. So yeah, the PRF modeling currently is highly simplistic but the visible result does work somewhat like in the real world.

F-15E flight manual, p625 http://aviationarchives.blogspot.fi/2016/01/f-15e-flight-manuals.html

I have put the scripts and missions using those scripts in the zip. You should be able to use the missions as is to make measurements. Instructions are in the mission briefing. If you want to inspect or modify the scripts I have included them besides the missions so you don't need to extract them from the mission file. Sustained turn script uses sound files included in the mission file to indicate when plane is is a sustained turn. I can also provide my sound effect files if necessary for some reason. TurnRateMissions.zip

I'll make versions of my scripts that someone else besides me can use. Stay tuned.

There was a F-15E -1 floating around somewhere where you can get it. Don't have that myself unfortunately.

I have made scripts to get instantaneous and sustained turn-rate values from DCS test flights relatively easily. Turn performance is also important for BVR as time it takes to make quick or sustained 180 turns is important factor. You could make the drag value slider match the drag index of the real life F-15C -1 charts. Don't know how hard it would be but that would be the most logical choice.

1) You need to spawn the hostile using F10 radio menu.

I can help you with DCS turn performance data but it will take some time. One thing I'd like to see is adjustable drag index as it will have noticeable effect at higher speeds. For what kind of loadout the current drag index is set up in your model?

CH Ministick is pretty good apart from not centering reliably but it still works better than any of the competitors (meaning that I can slew Shkval or TDC faster and more accurately than other people with other joysticks). This makes me think that the CH Hall effect version the OP posted would be the best option for a flight simmer budget as I think it would be pretty similar but without the centering issue. But of course you can't fix Warthog with this.

Squadron: SF Squadron Side: Blufor Callsign: SF_sykloni Preferred aircraft: F-15C

That's the effect of persistence of vision I think. You can have even quicker flashes registering as long as they are bright enough. It's the same thing that enables you to see even the quickest of camera flashes. But if you show continually moving scene it's different. I doubt you can spot one skipped frame on a 1000fps screen. And your internal framerate isn't just about seeing frames consciously but also feeling them unconsciously. You might not see difference between 60fps and 90fps but you can still feel it, 90fps giving much robust sense of the game following your inputs. It's like the difference if you wave a stiff carbon composite rod in your hand instead of one made of ABS plastic.

TWS lag isn't modeled currently. Information on primary TWS target is presented in real time like in STT and all missiles will track their respective targets in real time even before pitbull.

STT has wider vertical scan limit. In TWS you can only track targets +-35 degrees above or below horizon but in STT it's +-60 degrees.