Search the Community

The manual says that two things are filtered out. Things with no ground speed, such as mountains and a notching aircraft, and things with no relative speed, such as an aircraft moving away from you at the same speed as you. My question, is why is it like this? Do these both create no doppler shift? If so, why? Since a mountain is not moving, it should create no doppler shift, so it is filtered, then why is an aircraft moving away from you at your same speed filtered out? It is moving away; shouldn't it create a doppler shift? Otherwise, why does a mountain not create a doppler shift? The mountain is still moving towards you. My question is, why do these both create no doppler shift? I would thing one would create no doppler shift and the other would create a doppler shift.

I made a diagram which shows all available transitions between radar modes in search and designated-target modes. I arranged the modes in how they are related by auto-aqc switch direction, so it's more of a map than just a table of state transitions like the manual provides. Inop modes are colored yellow. I also made a plot showing the azimuth-elevation profile of all radar modes. These should be accurate to the degree, with the exception of maybe the boresight mode where I had to interpret "4 degrees circle" as an azimuth/elevation rectangle. Source diagrams.net files are available upon request. Note: Plot azimuth scale is 2.5 degrees per grid cell, and elevation scale is 1 degree per grid cell. This skews the representation of angular area (solid angle) subtended by each of these modes. Supersearch (SS) and Boresight (BS) should be square in shape.

The radar and weapons of the F1 are something that has been keeping me busy for the past six months. This post isn’t necessarily to prove any capabilities of the plane, I mostly want to get some other people's opinion and maybe a response from the devs themselves on this. I will post links to the sources where I got my information from and add translations to English if needed at the end of the post. Part 1 - The Radar I love the Mirage F1 and I think that Aerges has done an amazing job so far. I very much enjoy the way the Mirage planes have been designed internally; thus, I also enjoy flying the Mirage 2000. Both Mirages we have in DCS have been concepted as interceptors/fighters and both excel when used accordingly. Still, they are not limited to only carrying air to air weaponry. For Example: Low drag bombs, high drag bombs, rockets, runway bombs and laser guided bombs with no self lasing capabilities. Whilst it is more of an art dropping bombs in the F1, the Mirage 2000 is quite a modern plane with the ability of dropping bombs via the radar in CCIP and CCRP modes. From what I could gather the F1M with the upgraded HUD and radar should also be able to drop bombs in CCIP and CCRP mode as well. Now, this pretty much brings me to my first point of discussion. I have been reading into all the different versions of the Cyrano IV radar to get an idea about what to expect from the F1M once we get our hands on it and tried to compile it into an infographic describing the different versions. The functions we currently have with the F1EE are pretty much equal to the Cyrano IV-3 with limited look down ability and ground mapping. It probably comes down to the radar not being finished yet. The manual by Aerges shows all the settings on the function indicator (Page 104) with an inoperable blind penetration mode and air-ground telemetry mode. This makes it seems more like the Cyrano IVM. The description on the Steam page says the module comes with the Cyrano IVM as well. On a Spanish forum I found this description of the different versions of the Cyrano IV and it says this about the Cyrano IVM (translated): This would correlate to the description of the manual except for the air to sea mode. Air to ground telemetry seems to be a different name for air to ground ranging, which should be what is used for CCIP and CCRP (Taken from Chucks guide for the Mirage 2000, chapter 4.1 explaining “Télémétrie Air-Sol” translated as “Air-to-Ground Ranging Mode”). I don’t know weather an air to ground ranging mode automatically enables CCIP/CCRP capabilities though or if some sort of designation ability is needed. Also the F1CE seems to have the same radar in-game. Maybe someone can clear this up for me, also which version exactly we have or are getting. I sadly couldn’t find any information specifically on the Spanish versions of the F1. I could imagine that the F1M would either include all the abilities of all previous versions since it pretty much was the last time the Cyrano IV was used in an upgrade, or a combination of the Cyrano IVM and IVMR which also was used by France in the Mirage F1CT upgrades. Part 2 - The Weapons Now before I get into all the information I’ve gathered about armament the Mirage F1 could carry, I want to say the following: I know that some of the weapons I will talk about have not been used by the versions of the F1 we are getting for DCS. Now, except Aerges decides to do more playable versions of the F1 in the future, this definitely will be the only time we get a thoroughly simulated Mirage F1 in an environment that also simulates usable weaponry in the next years, maybe even for the next decade. There simply will not be a second developer developing a Mirage F1 for DCS. This probably is a whole other discussion about how far you can go into adding weapons not carried by the real plane. Whilst I fully agree that one should not add a targeting pod if there wasn’t one in real life, because you would have to make up a whole page for the MFD, I think that if the capability of a weapon is based on hardpoint wiring (not talking about being a smart hardpoint or not) it simply is so far under the hood that it should not matter for DCS. Obviously, one should not argue about adding weapons that weren’t used by any version of the airplane. But if it isn’t too farfetched technically, I don’t see why one should not add a weapon. I personally would be somewhat disappointed in not being able to enjoy some of the weapons that were used by other F1 versions because of absolute “realism”. For the people interested in absolute realism the DCS mission editor allows to disable certain weapons from use. At the end of the day this is also about me being interested in having a capable, non-American, true multirole aircraft (besides the JF-17) in DCS. I already love the F1 though, this is not about having it as capable as possible. Now I would like to state some information I’ve found online about a few weapons. Again, I don’t necessarily try to prove certain capability for those weapons. I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source for these kind of things, but I used it anyway to underline a claim if there is another source claiming similar/the same facts. Martel / ARMAT I want to start off with the MARTEL and ARMAT anti-radiation missiles. It is somewhat complicated to find something about which air forces used these weapons on which plane. The Iraqis have definitely used them on their F1EQs. A small Danish website about plane facts claims that the Kuwaiti have used the ARMAT on their F1CKs. A stat page about the Mirage F1CK-2 on CMANO-DB also lists the ARMAT as a used weapon. Wikipedia also suggests that the ARMAT was in use with the Kuwaiti air force. The German Wikipedia article of the MARTEL claims that 25 ARMAT were delivered to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti F1CK-1 are equal to the general F1C model, and the later F1CK-2 are equal to the F1E. This would suggest that the version the F1 we already have in game probably are capable to launch the MARTEL/ARMAT ARM. If I find more information on this, I will add it here later. AS-30 Next, I want to talk about the AS-30 and AS-30L missile. F1EQs of the Iraqi air force used AS-30L during the Iran-Iraq war. The Wikipedia page of the AS-30 links to an external image of a French F1 firing an AS-30L. The F1 in the picture is one of the later F1CR or F1CT as it has a laser spot tracker below the cockpit. I would think that the AS-30L does not have any special launch constraints and will simply track a laser after launch with a pre-set code as most laser guided weapons. From what I could gather, only the South African F1AZ/CZ used the regular AS-30 with MCLOS guidance. I don’t know how farfetched (probably a lot) this one would be, as especially the F1AZ were specifically made for ground attack with heavy modifications to the ground attack suite compared to all other F1 versions. The laser guided version seems to be technically possible though. AM39 Exocet This last one has been discussed a lot. The AM39 Exocet. I found this to be a rather complex one. Only the Iraqi F1EQ have fired Exocets and these have a version of the Cyrano IV with a special designation, namely the Cyrano IVM3. On a Spanish forum there was a post made by someone about the Cyrano radar in the Venezuelan Mirage 5 and he said the following about the Iraqi F1EQs and the Cyrano IVM3 (translated): Interestingly the late upgrade of the Mirage 5 of Venezuela, the Mirage 50EV, was upgraded with the Cyrano IVM3 radar as well and was fully capable of launching Exocets as stated on Wikipedia. Though, not only did the radar get replaced, but the inertial navigation system (INS) as well. It was replaced by one made by SAGEM. Coincidentally SAGEM is the company producing the Uliss INS. This makes it likely that in the case of the Mirage 50EV there also was a link between the INS and radar. Coming to the F1M upgrade made for Spain. The Wikipedia page mentions that part of the upgrade was “…added anti shipping capability with a modernised Cyrano IVM radar…” suggesting again that this last version of the Cyrano IV does incorporate all functions of previous versions (Cyrano IVM, IVMR, IVM3). Besides, right afterwards Exocet compatibility gets mentioned. Here the full paragraph: To double down on this, I found an article from 2011 in the “Archivo Mirage” about the Cyrano IV radars history and it states the radar of the F1M being “…digitised, as its readings can be displayed on a colour multifunction display … replacing the old monochrome display”. Further the following is said: This should basically be it. The “digitised” Cyrano IVM can communicate with other systems and thus probably also with the INS. This possibly brings it down to being a wiring issue first and foremost. Because of all this I don’t think it would be that farfetched to add the Exocet to the F1M. Again, this could be disabled in the mission editor by the people that don’t like it. Also, this probably is out of the scope for the DCS Mirage F1, but another article on “Archivo Mirage” about the Mirage F1 MF2000 by ASTRAC mentions Exocet capability. Yes, it has a different radar and a "GPS-upgraded SIGMA 95 laser gyro intertial navigator" but also uses the 1553 data bus for the systems. This also somewhat reinforces the claim that Exocet capability is dependent on a link between radar and INS. Again, I am first and foremost interested in opinions on all this and maybe a response from the devs. I may or may not have missed something as I am finishing this with a headache. Source as links and translations as PDF files: Archivo Mirage Cyrano Article: https://archivomirage.blogspot.com/2011/01/radar-thomson-csf-cyrano-iv.html Archivo Mirage on MF2000: https://archivomirage.blogspot.com/2009/07/le-bourget-2009-astrac-presenta-el.html Zona Militare about Cyrano IV: https://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/caracteristicas-tecnicas-del-cyrano-iv.3313/ ARMAT Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMAT MARTEL German Wikipedia page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS.37_Martel Mirage F1 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1 Mirage 5 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_5 Kampfly.dk on Kuwait F1: http://www.kampfly.dk/Flysiden/Fly/Dassault/MirageF1KW.htm GermanMARTELWikipage.pdf ArchivoMirageCyranoArticle.pdf ArchivoMirageMirageF1ASTRACArticle.pdf ZonaMilitareCyranoPost.pdf Kampflydk.pdf

Hi everyone, A fairly simple request, the trailer mounted ST-68U should be able to be used as both an early-warning radar and as an acquisition radar for the SA-10B (specifically, the S-300PMU, which is just an export version of what we currently have). IRL this radar is frequently seen as an EWR and can be seen operating as such IRL on the Syria, Kola, Caucasus and the upcoming Germany map. The NVA did briefly operate the S-300PMU, for which our current system is a perfectly workable stand-in (with basically the same battery components, fire-control and low-altitude acquisition radar), the ST-68U is what was used to provide acquisition for the system. The changes required should be fairly single line changes to RLS_19J6.lua, S-300PS 40B6M tr.lua and S-300PS 5H63C 30H6_tr.lua

Hi everyone, The E-2D Hawkeye is defined with the wrong radar which has far less range than it should have (even for the radar being depicted). The E-2D is currently defined with the AN/APS-138 (see line 292). This radar actually belongs to the E-2C Hawkeye Group 0 from the mid 1980s. In DCS this radar is defined with a detection range of 330 km (or ~178 nmi). The radar actually appropriate to the E-2D (which despite the name of the .lua, is what's depicted in DCS) is the AN/APY-9, which has an instrumented range of 350 nmi (or 648.2 km), almost double of what the -138 is currently defined with and very nearly 250 km greater than the maximum detection distance (see line 371 of the first link). IRL, the AN/APS-138 has an instrumented range of 300 nmi (or 555.6 km), so already we're over 200 km short (we're significantly short, even the 250 nmi range for the AN/APS-125).

Hi everyone, As I understand it, FlyingIron are utilising ED's ground radar API - while understandable as this is FlyingIron's first attempt in DCS, it does lead to some unfortunate drawbacks, many of which have a significant impact on gameplay. ED's ground radar API is currently the lowest fidelity model present in DCS (surpassed even by the Viggen, released nearly 8 years ago and was the first true air-to-ground radar) and radar models subsequently (and even one prior) developed by 3rd parties significantly raise the bar in terms of fidelity, offering raycasted models that more accurately depict radars. This all results in ED's radar model having inaccurate limitations, both in terms of not modelling limitations that should be present and introducing limitations that shouldn't exist. ED's radar model: Doesn't account for beam-geometry at all, meaning: They can unrealistically map from basically 0 out to the instrumented range of the radar, regardless of antenna elevation or aircraft altitude (see here and here). Antenna elevation or different beam settings (for instance, the pencil/fan beam setting in the Hornet) are functionless/broken. To compound this, if you take the picture seen at default elevation and gain, then elevate the radar to its maximum above the horizon and increase the gain, you see very little difference in what's displayed. Conversely, if you depress the radar to its maximum below the horizon, the brightness falls off to 0, despite the fact that the radar should still be illuminating a portion of the ground. In vertical/near vertical climbs the radar can see behind itself, something that's obviously impossible. Will not detect aircraft (even low-speed, low-flying ones). While obviously surface-directed radars/modes are obviously not optimised for detecting aircraft - aircraft that are caught in a lobe of the radar producing a skin return powerful enough to be detected should be displayed, espeically when the A-7E's APQ-126 is a pulse-only radar and has no motion filtering (like the F-4E). Is completely immune to jamming. While ships don't feature anything EW related (apart from radars), low-flying bombers can currently be used as semi-functional approximates (though their jammers aren't powerful enough to completely hide ships). The RDI's ground-mapping mode (Mirage 2000C), the PS-37/A (AJS 37 Viggen) are all affected by jamming and produce jamming returns. Is completely immune to sea clutter (Heatblur's F-4E even takes polarisation into account here). Doesn't model sidelobe returns.

If this has already been reported please ignore the following rant. Firstly I love the F16 and the work undertaken by ED. I have enjoyed countless hours in the Viper and fly it almost exclusively. However, since the last couple of updates the radar and DL do not function correctly. For example no targets visible at all on the radar or the target I am fighting disappears for prolonged periods even over the sea ( ie terrain is not the issue). Data Link is also indicating the target is in one direction when in effect it is in a totally different direction. The highlighted DL target (octagon) jumping about all over the place. Additionally even when a target is in visual range the 9X either cannot get a lock or provide a tone. I know I am not alone with these issues as friends who also fly the Viper are experiencing the same sorts of problems. Any F16 drivers also experiencing these issues, can I please ask you to like this post so the breadth and depth of this problem can be indicated to ED. Given I have thousands of hours in the Viper with many thousands of kills it is NOT an operator error, I know the basics. I am delighted to provide a track file but it is likely to be a very large file as I fly in VR on busy MP servers. Please advise how to attach large track files. Without wishing to be rude I am seeking a response beyond “Correct as is” as the levels of frustration and exacerbation are off the scale. Many thanks in anticipation.

Video of bug. Summary: Aligning the HMD while AMRAAM is selected and L&S in TWS causes AMRAAM to no longer show LAR symbology. Sparrow and sidewinder are not affected. Steps to reproduce: 1. Select AMRAAM (AIM120B used here - unsure if applies to 120C) 2. Lock L&S target in TWS (unsure if this step necessary, or if bug reproduced in other radar modes) 3. Align HMD AMRAAM will no longer show LAR symbology in the HUD or B-scope. This cannot be undone by power cycling the radar, cycling weapons, cycling master mode or master arm. Cannot attach .track file due to file size but this was repeated multiple times on the PVP 90's contention server.

Hello there fine ladies and gentlemen! My here account is 10 years old, and I never noticed the Tutorial section. Shame on me! Through the last couple of years I put together some studies and tutorial I hope you may find them useful. The ratio was me, knowing nothing, trying to correct the status quo by learning as much as possible about fixed-wing stuff, in primis air-to-air combat. The point of view is mostly from the F-14 RIO. Since there is little documentation about the role, I figured I could adapt the declassified docs focused on other modern aircraft to this 50 years old amazing bird. Nevertheless, the bedrock concepts are the same, no matter the module you are flying. Some studies and tutorials I wrote are unfortunately outdated (for example the study about the AIM-54, where I launched a few thousands Phoenixes and collected data), others cover procedures and techniques, so changes in the module will not affect them. I plan to open two topics. One introductory with the basic concepts, a second with the advanced stuff. This is the former, and here is the latter. Basic Concepts ("Back to Basics" series plus other introductory articles) These short articles cover some basic topics. Latitude and Longitude (DMS, DD, DDM); Brevity Codes; Radar Elevation Bars and Scan Azimuth; Barometric Altimeter (Q Codes, TA/TL); Heading, Bearing, Track and Course; RIO Training in Single Player; Target Aspect and Missile Performance; Rate of Closure (Vc); The “Plus 2 Minus 2” Rule; Back to Basics: Radar Displays: B-Scope vs PPI; INS, Drift, and Navigation. AWG-9 WCS Advanced Part I (overview of concepts slightly more advanced such as PRF and Zero Doppler Filter); AWG-9 WCS Advanced Part II (same as above, but covering clutter and notching). Basic Radio Comms Very basic radio comms, aimed for newbie-friendly servers such as Georgia At War (GAW). Part I: Introduction – Frequencies, ATC, ATIS, Runways; Part II: Taxiing and Take off; Part III: Tasking and Landing. Antenna Elevation model One of the first issues I had as noob FW player was understanding the antenna elevation. Here is where Maths came to the rescue! Antenna Elevation Study Part I; Antenna Elevation Study Part II Antenna Elevation Angle Quick Formula. Various Other articles covering various topics. Bullseye in any module - A simple Spider Card Resources The following are lessons held by former or active military personnel (e.g. JTAC, Mi-17 Pilot) about different topics: FLIP and Instrument Approach; - this is useful for new clouds I guess! Introduction to CAS control – Extract from a training session; Close Air Support Theory Lesson by 132nd.AssafB; DCS Syria Map: Historical and Geographical Introduction by 132nd.AssafB. DCS Missiles Visualised - YouTube Modules-specific guides Although more focused on specific modules, the following articles can often be applied to different airframes: DCS: Black Shark This is one of the oldest guides I wrote, it has probably 6-7 years now. It dates back to when the Ka-50 and the A-10 where the only modules in DCS, and I was playing FAC/A with the Shark. Ka-50 / A-10C: Sharing Data. Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV DCS: F-14 Tomcat In the link below you will find most of the articles about the F-14. They are simply too many to be listed here, and they would be better listed in the F-14's dedicated area. F-14 RIO DCS: F-4E-45MC Phantom II Phantom Phamiliriarisation series (pre DCS release) F-4E Articles: tactics, avionics, operations, and more. Training / Presentations I do not organize training sessions as often as I used to any more, but when I do, I record them. They can include different topics, so take what interests you and skip the rest, 31/03/2021: NAVGRID, ZDF & Notching, Timeline, Geometry 29/10/2022: 3h livestreaming session split in 6 parts (Part I, the others are on the YT channel) Note that rather than spamming new topics on the forum, I will update this thread.

Hello, this has already been requested and discussed to death in various threads. This post only exists as a wishlist item for you to upvote in the hope to sway ED's decision makers to make the remaster the upgrade we deserve. Here we go then: Please consider upgrading the radar to make it more realistic If a logic rewrite is not economically feasible, consider a simple, purely graphical overhaul An art pass alone could already improve the aesthetics and visual realism without an expensive logic rewrite Thanks!

Hello ladies and gents! There are lot of stories going around regarding Fulcrums interceptions of cruise missiles / drones. I understand that there should be no problem in the infrared spectrum, but how about radar? Is Fulcrum radar capable to detect small targets such as a drone or cruise missile? With Hornet we can easily intercept Silkworm missile and R-77 even (not checked if still possible). Should we expect the new Fulcrum being able to detect and lock on with it's radar on things such as cruise missiles and drones (available in DCS) ?

This is an issue on the PVP side of things, but I didn't see a mention of it in the bug tracker so I thought I'd give it a post! The Fishbed's radar doesn't produce a lock warning on the RWR if any human piloted aircraft in DCS. It does produce a nail when searching, and It even provides a launch warning when firing in R3R. But never a lock warning. The sequence when piloting an F5 or other aircraft in a PVP environment is: MiG flips radar on -> 21 nails appear. MiG locks you -> nails disappear MiG fires an R3R -> Still no nails, launch warning sounds. This may be related to the Fishbed's radar acting like a laser, though this is something I've just heard through the grapevine of discord.

I'm learning about the different radar modes of the F-14 and analyzing the capabilities and numbers of each mode I just realized that RWS has a range of 90nm, but the radar doesn't create any tracks of the targets to shoot the AIM-54. TWS also has the range of 90nm and it does create profile targets to shoot the AIM-54. So my question is, why would you use RWS, when you have TWS with the same range and even more capabilities? Edit: I just realized that RWS allows you to have any config of Bars and Azimuth, while TWS forces you to some configuration of less bars and less azimuth. Is that the only difference between the two?

Cross posting from the F5 forum for additional help: Having a weird issue, I have my RWR working just fine, but my radar does not seem to want to go onto my 2nd screen (see screenshot. I have attached my Lua files and I am hoping that I am just missing something dumb. Helios.lua AN_APQ159_init.lua

When OSB 19 and 20 are pressed and the scale changing option is currently automatic the radar should change to manual scale changing option and perform the scale change associated with the pressed OSB. Currently presses of OSB 19/20 in automatic scale option causes the radar to remain in automatic scale option and the range change to be rejected. F16 scale OSB press in AUTO.trk

Currently GM range is automatically changing based on cursor position while slewing. Automatic scale change should only occur when slewing stops. F16 scale changes cursor deflected.trk

In freeze mode the radar is currently automatically changing display range scale. For auto scale the range does not automatically change until freeze mode is deselected. F16 freeze scale changes.trk

With freeze mode radar display in which the ownship marker is displayed, the marker position is not displayed relative to the expanded radar imagery accurately. In the attached track the marker indicates ownship is directly over the bridge/steerpoint on the FCR display but the actual ownship position is a few miles away. This occurs using freeze in all EXP/DBS1/DBS2 modes. F16 ownship marker expand.trk

We all know jester attempts to switch to P-STT when closing into 10 mile ACM range. And we all know the most common follow-up call is i've lost lock. Annoying if you dont have a missile in the air but not terrible, However if you have a missile in the air and you lose lock... Is there any chance that a) Jester losing lock can be checked to ensure its realistic (a human rio seams to be heaps better at maintaining lock, and b) Jester not changing STT modes while a missile is in the air? Thanks

Starting in the air, pressing the AG-button nothing happens. No ground radar, no change of stores in SMS. Only AA works. HUH?! DCS version 2.7.7.15038 Open Beta What I do: 1. Start a mission in air. AA radar default to on. 2. Payload: 2x AGM-88C HARM, 2x external tanks, 4x AMI-120C 3. Set Master Arm to ON 4. Press the AG button. (nothing happens) What did I do wrong? Why no AG rarar, and why no AG mode? My setup: - HOTAS Warthog throttle & stick - Saitek rudder paddels - HP Reverb G1 VR. See attached my test mission: Syria. Syiria grondaanval F-16C 20211029 .miz

Currently pressing "CZ" exits snowplow mode. From reading this is not one of the ways to exit snowplow. Being able to zero snowplow slews without exiting SP would allow a return to initial SP designation. Possibly related, designating in SP causes the "SP" to dehighlight (indicating the mode is exited) despite remaining in the snowplow mode. F16 SP CZ.trk

F16 BLK50 Radar is still so weak. now we only have around 40NM heavy fighters scan range. According to 90s USAF official clip it shows F16c early vision that possibly Blk30/35 APG68 radar have at least 58NM heavy fighter scan range. I will leave link here. I think this is strong reference for prove Apg68 not only have such weak scan range. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq5HXTGUHGI

Hello, Will the F-16 be getting the ability to Home on a Jamming target similar to the F15'sability to lock onto a Jamming Source with the 120 and fire on the jamming target?

Sometimes, when trying to lock with LHAQ mode, HACQ mode or AACQ mode in the F-18, the radar won't lock to the plane you're looking at/the plane the cursor is placed over, it will instead lock a target which doesn't exist a few degrees to either side, after a few seconds it will unlock him, it doesn't follow any pattern, it happens randomly, sometimes it happens the first time you lock a target, sometimes it happens the 7th, but it can reduce BVR performance. The easiest way to recreate it is to try to lock a target using any of these previously mentioned modes in Hornet's radar, the bug is completely reproducible and I've had it happen a few times already. I'm attaching the track where I reproduce the bug, in this case I'm only able to make it happen with AACQ and LHAQ modes, but in another mission it happened in HACQ too. You can see that in one of the attempts it locks a target around 90nm away, then I zoom in and you can clearly see the enemy degrees away from the lock. As a note I checked the MiG-23 wasn't using chaff, and I've had the same happen with other planes like a Fulcrum. Also I'm attaching the .miz file so you can try and recreate it in the same environment as I did. F-18 LHAQ bug.trk BVR for track file.miz

A short track showing the SAM mode switching to the missile i just fired instead of the target that was locked. SAM tracking own missiles.trk