Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Does it actually take up to 30 seconds for an Su-27 or F-15 radar to achieve STT on a target?

 

I was reading about BVR combat here: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/, which analyses how effective BVR combat has been in the last 50 years or so.

 

If you read down near the bottom, a post by P.N. Sinha (post 8 in the comments under the article), he/she quotes how radar systems take time to achieve lock - up to 15 or so seconds and an IR missile takes 1-3 seconds. It even goes as far as to make an example using an F-22 in a hypothetical ECM-ridden situation taking 30+ seconds to lock a target.

 

Is this true? If so, I would assume it should be commonly known, but in DCS, lock ons are instantaneous with any type of missile.

Posted

Doesn't seem consistent with tactics like gliding a SAM onto a target, or even using a ARH missile without launching fighting support.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Posted (edited)
Does it actually take up to 30 seconds for an Su-27 or F-15 radar to achieve STT on a target?

 

No, not even in vietnam era was this true in general - the old radar would take 4 seconds for a 'valid system lock' and this was considered an eternity.

 

There are certainly situations where the Su-27/MiG-29 radar might take up to 10 sec or so, but this is against very distant targets IIRC.

 

For modern western (non-ESA) radars, I've heard from pilots maybe up to half a second delay, if at all, given that lock-on requires a 3x3 raster which takes almost no time to execute.

 

If you read down near the bottom, a post by P.N. Sinha (post 8 in the comments under the article), he/she quotes how radar systems take time to achieve lock - up to 15 or so seconds and an IR missile takes 1-3 seconds.
Who is that guy anyway? :) (Edit: Ah, Picard. You can stop reading his stuff, he's completely clueless about this stuff)

 

That site is pretty full of it anyway - heavy slant against BVR, and yet, the guys who actually do the fighting on both sides are heavily investing in BVR :)

Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted

 

Who is that guy anyway? :) (Edit: Ah, Picard. You can stop reading his stuff, he's completely clueless about this stuff)

 

That site is pretty full of it anyway - heavy slant against BVR, and yet, the guys who actually do the fighting on both sides are heavily investing in BVR :)

 

 

 

Jeez my eyes!! - sadly too many take things without questioning the author or where the info came from.

Posted
Doesn't seem consistent with tactics like gliding a SAM onto a target, or even using a ARH missile without launching fighting support.

 

That's what I figured. It seemed inconsistent with everything else I've read. I mean if the AIM-9B could lock on a signature almost instantly, then I don't see missiles having that much trouble locking a target especially WVR.

 

No, not even in vietnam era was this true in general - the old radar would take 4 seconds for a 'valid system lock' and this was considered an eternity.

 

There are certainly situations where the Su-27/MiG-29 radar might take up to 10 sec or so, but this is against very distant targets IIRC.

 

For modern western (non-ESA) radars, I've heard from pilots maybe up to half a second delay, if at all, given that lock-on requires a 3x3 raster which takes almost no time to execute.

 

Who is that guy anyway? :) (Edit: Ah, Picard. You can stop reading his stuff, he's completely clueless about this stuff)

 

That site is pretty full of it anyway - heavy slant against BVR, and yet, the guys who actually do the fighting on both sides are heavily investing in BVR :)

 

Where do you think the guy got these figures from? Sounds like you know the guy, Tharos :P. And I also thought that. If BVR (or at least pre-merge) weapon employment was so useless, why would air forces invest so much time and money into building the weapons

Posted
That's what I figured. It seemed inconsistent with everything else I've read. I mean if the AIM-9B could lock on a signature almost instantly, then I don't see missiles having that much trouble locking a target especially WVR.

 

Radar guided missiles to require some employment time to facilitate data transfer from the launching platform, and probably so will any modern IRH that has data-link equipment ... but other than that ... :)

 

Where do you think the guy got these figures from? Sounds like you know the guy, Tharos :P.

 

I've read the site before. His figures probably come from APA, as well as a whole bunch of huge misinterpretation of articles that are out there - he's picking and choosing what he wants to believe in and he basically chose one extreme.

 

And I also thought that. If BVR (or at least pre-merge) weapon employment was so useless, why would air forces invest so much time and money into building the weapons

 

Exactly. Same thing with stealth ... if it was so useless and instantly defeat-able by QWIP IRSTs and long-wave radars, why is everyone doing it?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

  • 1 month later...
Posted

A simple stretch of logic dictates that if an aircraft can't get lock before 30s, there's no good reason why it would suddenly succeed after 30s.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...