so Prowler said the 2000-5 will happen ?

[cmbaviator]

What i fear is that 2000-5 and the rafale will be on DCS but only for DCS professionnal, I hope not for the 2000-5, no way we are getting a rafale on DCS maybe in 30+ years

[jojo]

Let's not talk about Rafale for now.

Mirage 2000-5F is already unexpected...and it isn't done yet :thumbup:

[ZHeN]

The only way would be to have Missile Approach Warning System, based on millimetric wave radar. AFAIK only Typhoon has such system built in. (tell me if you know others).

Some helicopters have similar systems.

I only heard of MWS based on electro-optical sensors

you sure there are some that use millimeter wave ?

- very short but very high engine impulse to lower missile spotting. So for BVR shot, let’s say 20Nm, I doubt an IR/ UV would spot the engine.

short impulse hasn't ever been a good thing tbh, I haven't heard of missile developers intentionally shortening burst time in order to make the missile sneakier ... in fact, they're developing quite the opposite - two-stage propulsion

and smokeless solid propellant, of course

 

from the videos above it looks like there's still a lot of smoke even below contrail level (there's 5000kft launch), I guess they didn't bother with smokeless propellant at all :(

 

if it is a high mach/alt BVR shot (say, Mach2, 55000ft) even a short plume would be quite visible at great range, since there's literally nothing in the sky at this altitude

 

Drawback is lower maximum range than AMRAAM.

which amraam ? C5 ?

[jojo]

I only heard of MWS based on electro-optical sensors

you sure there are some that use millimeter wave ?

 

short impulse hasn't ever been a good thing tbh, I haven't heard of missile developers intentionally shortening burst time in order to make the missile sneakier ... in fact, they're developing quite the opposite - two-stage propulsion

and smokeless solid propellant, of course

 

from the videos above it looks like there's still a lot of smoke even below contrail level (there's 5000kft launch), I guess they didn't bother with smokeless propellant at all :(

 

if it is a high mach/alt BVR shot (say, Mach2, 55000ft) even a short plume would be quite visible at great range, since there's literally nothing in the sky at this altitude

 

 

which amraam ? C5 ?

 

Now you have :smilewink:

 

MAW on Typhoon, Ka band:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_DASS

[Boogieman]

Yes, Mica IR is very dangerous. I posted previously in this thread pictures of Mirage 2000-5 war load.

There are 2 Mica IR on wingtips, 1 on fuselage plage + 3 x Mica EM on fuselage.

 

Wingtips missiles are rail launched. They can be launched almost in the full flight envelope, at high AoA and high G.

Pylon missiles are ejected, they do have G, AoA and roll rate limitations.

 

The fact that a Mica IR is mounted on pylon clearly show that BVR use is planned.

A Mica IR launched in TWS mode from BVR range will give no warning at all.

The only way would be to have Missile Approach Warning System, based on millimetric wave radar. AFAIK only Typhoon has such system built in. (tell me if you know others).

Some helicopters have similar systems.

 

Yes and IIRC your video from earlier in the thread showed a MICA being fired over the shoulder at a target behind the launch aircraft (LOAL shot presumably). Scary stuff.

 

Passive IR/UV based MAWS seem to be a standard feature in 5th gen aircraft. F22, F35, Su57 and J20 all seem to have them in one form or another. Better than an RF based system to preserve EMCON/low observability.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Boogieman

[jojo]

Yes and IIRC the video from earlier in the thread showed a MICA being fired over the shoulder at a target behind the launch aircraft (LOAL shot). Scary stuff.

 

Passive IR/UV based MAWS seem to be a standard feature in 5th gen aircraft. F22, F35, Su57 and J20 all seem to have them in one form or another. Better than an RF based system to preserve EMCON/low observability.

 

 

There are pros and cons:

- passive: more stealthy but won't be able to track missile once engine off.

- active: maybe less stealthy, but will detect incoming missiles engine off.

 

 

And being very high frequency (32-38Ghz) I'm not sure how far you can detect it ?

[Boogieman]

There are pros and cons:

- passive: more stealthy but won't be able to track missile once engine off.

- active: maybe less stealthy, but will detect incoming missiles engine off.

 

 

And being very high frequency (32-38Ghz) I'm not sure how far you can detect it ?

 

Depends on the sophistication/sensitivity of the ESM system listening for it I guess, but the trend has definitely been towards passive MAWS (at least in 5th gen). I know that the L/MWIR based AN/AAQ37 on F35 is supposed to be capable of missile tracking (ie. even after motor burnout) presumably by looking for frictional heating of the missile body itself. All classified stuff in the end though.

 

Anyway, I won't go too far off topic. I hope this and the rest of the RAZBAM modules continue to go from strength to strength!

Edited August 21, 2019 by Boogieman

[jojo]

100 years of EC 1/2 in 2017: Mirage 2000-5F #43 "Vieux Charles"

 

 

 

 

Georges Guynemer Spad XIII

 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by jojo

[ZHeN]

Now you have :smilewink:

 

MAW on Typhoon, Ka band:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_DASS

Thanks

Also found out one of modern Belarus ECM suites (Talisman) is equipped with a "barrier radar" for same purpose (8-18GHz range)

 

Syrian Mig-29S have been flying with those recently

 

What about my other comments about mica? Really no evidence of smokeless propellant. And 5sec engine burn time is quite disappointing tbh, even less than R-77

[Matchstick]

Yes and IIRC your video from earlier in the thread showed a MICA being fired over the shoulder at a target behind the launch aircraft (LOAL shot presumably). Scary stuff.

 

From what I've read the over the shoulder launch was at a target designated by a wingman via Link 16. Whether that strictly counts as LOAL or LOBL I'm not qualified to judge :)

[cmbaviator]

From what I've read the over the shoulder launch was at a target designated by a wingman via Link 16. Whether that strictly counts as LOAL or LOBL I'm not qualified to judge :)

 

that's correct

 

I fear guys that he -5 wont be available for us sundays simmers, or if we are lucky, it will be with FM,Radar and weapon degraded.

 

We might get the -5 but with a more simplified and degraded radar and no MICA missile

[Steph21]

that's correct

 

I fear guys that he -5 wont be available for us sundays simmers, or if we are lucky, it will be with FM,Radar and weapon degraded.

 

We might get the -5 but with a more simplified and degraded radar and no MICA missile

 

I don't think so, if a public release is done (which is what AdA strives for) it will be similar to what was done for the M2000C IMO in term of systems accuracy.

Also DCS don't simulate real behaviour of several systems (IFF, RWR, Jamming...).

 

Remember that M2000-5F is not a newly built M2000-5 like the M2000-5 Mk2 for example. They took M2000C RDI and they have upgraded them with some M2000-5 systems (like RDY radar, new displays in the cockpit, new SNA...), but it still have a lot of the M2000C systems, like same engine/Hydraulics/FBW/Engine/Fuel...and even the same Counter Measure system (Serval/Sabre/Spirale/Eclair), and not the new ICMS Mk2 or Mk3 systems.

 

Sure we won't have a true to life RDY radar, but we don't have a RDI true to life radar neither.

 

Regarding the MICA, it's the only Fox3 missile carried by the -5, so....If AdA want to simulate tactics, they need a Fox 3 missile included for the -5

Like every missile in DCS, it won't simulated true to life, but with similar overall performance.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Steph21

[jojo]

What about my other comments about mica? Really no evidence of smokeless propellant. And 5sec engine burn time is quite disappointing tbh, even less than R-77

 

Despite short burn time, the missile is said to reach M4.5, and it's small and very streamlined.

I clearly remember to have read what I said about the short burn time giving little spotting cue.

But you may consider this as marketing BS :D

 

Technically, the missile is very small (112kg), so I don't see how they would fit a 10s burn time engine ?

The high impulse + thrust vectoring gives good off bore sight performance in close combat and is enough for better BVR range than Super 530D.

It's a compromise.

[jojo]

From what I've read the over the shoulder launch was at a target designated by a wingman via Link 16. Whether that strictly counts as LOAL or LOBL I'm not qualified to judge :)

 

It's easy: if the missile seeker isn't locked on target when leaving the launch aircraft this is LOAL.

This is common for Fox 3, but the capacity came only after years 2000 for IR guides missiles.

[ZHeN]

Despite short burn time, the missile is said to reach M4.5, and it's small and very streamlined.

I clearly remember to have read what I said about the short burn time giving little spotting cue.

But you may consider this as marketing BS :D

 

Technically, the missile is very small (112kg), so I don't see how they would fit a 10s burn time engine ?

The high impulse + thrust vectoring gives good off bore sight performance in close combat and is enough for better BVR range than Super 530D.

It's a compromise.

I just hope razbam won't make another mistral-like smokeless 15sec burning time undefeatable monster that will sustain M4.5 for 50nm

[cmbaviator]

I don't think so, if a public release is done (which is what AdA strives for) it will be similar to what was done for the M2000C IMO in term of systems accuracy.

Also DCS don't simulate real behaviour of several systems (IFF, RWR, Jamming...).

 

Remember that M2000-5F is not a newly built M2000-5 like the M2000-5 Mk2 for example. They took M2000C RDI and they have upgraded them with some M2000-5 systems (like RDY radar, new displays in the cockpit, new SNA...), but it still have a lot of the M2000C systems, like same engine/Hydraulics/FBW/Engine/Fuel...and even the same Counter Measure system (Serval/Sabre/Spirale/Eclair), and not the new ICMS Mk2 or Mk3 systems.

 

Sure we won't have a true to life RDY radar, but we don't have a RDI true to life radar neither.

 

Regarding the MICA, it's the only Fox3 missile carried by the -5, so....If AdA want to simulate tactics, they need a Fox 3 missile included for the -5

Like every missile in DCS, it won't simulated true to life, but with similar overall performance.

 

yes. MICA are both IR and EM

[cmbaviator]

I just hope razbam won't make another mistral-like smokeless 15sec burning time undefeatable monster that will sustain M4.5 for 50nm

 

i understood that missile wise, their are modeled by ED

[Ramsay]

I just hope razbam won't make another mistral-like smokeless 15sec burning time undefeatable monster that will sustain M4.5 for 50nm

The Mistral in DCS has a burn time of 5 seconds reaching a top speed 900 m/s and a 'life time' of 15 seconds.

 

Please post a track in the correct forum or "M4.5 for 50nm" never happen.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3978395#post3978395

[Ramsay]

i understood that missile wise, their are modeled by ED

 

The flight model, guidance and missile parameters (mass, burn time, etc.) for ED's own missiles are part of DCS's core system.

 

AFAIK, if a third party adds a new missile i.e. the Mistral, AIM-54, Super 530D, etc.

 

They have control of

 

• initial "lock-on" while still attached to the weapon platform

• missile parameters i.e. mass, burn time, type of guidance, etc.

 

once launched, they uses the same flight model as ED's own missiles.

[jojo]

The flight model, guidance and missile parameters (mass, burn time, etc.) for ED's own missiles are part of DCS's core system.

 

AFAIK, if a third party adds a new missile i.e. the Mistral, AIM-54, Super 530D, etc.

 

They have control of

 

• initial "lock-on" while still attached to the weapon platform

• missile parameters i.e. mass, burn time, type of guidance, etc.

 

once launched, they uses the same flight model as ED's own missiles.

 

No, this is incorrect. Razbam and HB coded the FM of their own missile (engine thrust, burn time, drag, left...).

These parameters are parts of each missile definition and can be modified (but you would loose integrity check).

[TLTeo]

If I recall correctly, HB had to get around ED's code to get the AIM-54 to loft properly and also not pull too hard and bleed all of its energy immediately after launch.

[ZHeN]

The Mistral in DCS has a burn time of 5 seconds reaching a top speed 900 m/s and a 'life time' of 15 seconds.

 

Please post a track in the correct forum or "M4.5 for 50nm" never happen.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3978395#post3978395

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3713861#post3713861

[Ramsay]

Razbam and HB coded the FM of their own missile (engine thrust, burn time, drag, lift...).

These parameters are parts of each missile definition and can be modified (but you would loose integrity check).

Perhaps I didn't explain myself particularly well (I think we are in agreement ? )

 

They have control of ...

 

• missile parameters i.e. mass, burn time, type of guidance, etc.

 

once launched, they uses the same flight modelling* as ED's own missiles.

The parameters for each are unique i.e. mass, drag, burn time, etc. but AFAIK they use and are limited by ED's missile flight modelling and the parameters/functions it supports.

 

Obviously the flight profile of a AIM-9 is different from a AIM-120C, 530D, AIM-54, Mistral, etc. as they have differing masses, guidance, thrust, etc. but AFAIK they use the same underling code for most things.

 

To say Polychop's Mistral flight model is off would IMHO be wrong, one might argue that a burn time was too long, drag is too much/too little, etc. but it's underling FM code is the same as DCS's other IR missiles.

 

* "same Flight Modelling" is probably better wording than "same Flight Model"

[jojo]

You can define:

- type of seeker

- decoy susceptibility

- engine parameter (burn time, thrust, propelant weight)

- max G

- drag profile & lift coefficient (big impact on performance)

- dynamic launch zone

...I'm probably forgeting a few things.

Off course, you are using ED parameters defined for missile behavior.

 

 

But overall, if not done properly, you can make an overpowerful missile.

I think everyone is doing his best, missile performances are difficult to find because very secret.

[Ramsay]

The Mistral in DCS has a burn time of 5 seconds reaching a top speed 900 m/s and a 'life time' of 15 seconds.

 

Please post a track in the correct forum or "M4.5 for 50nm" never happen.[/url]

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3713861#post3713861

 

Your Tacview video shows

 

• a M2.6, 20,000 ft (20,000 - 2,400 = 17,600 ft = 5.4 km) shot

• that starts to decelerate after 5 seconds burn time

 

Like you, I'd like to see a burn time closer to 3 seconds but Polychop have already set a 3 second burn time in "Mistral.lua" and I don't see what more they could do.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree and move on, as this is OT for the exciting prospect of seeing a 2000-5 in DCS