F-15C avionics wishlist

[Wags]

Regarding the ID, I'm afraid that's all the information I have in open-source channels. Actual tactics usage of this feature would be classified. Hopefully Eagle can use their imagination with this someday. :)

 

As for the the term "designated", yes, it means a PDT track was started.

 

 

So if you enter the same ID, you could guide someone's missiles if they fired them? Ie. the datalink would be to your aircraft if they kept their radar off?

 

Also, I don't really understand the difference between the TWS modes ... does Designated eman that a target has been bugged?

[Wags]

Thanks olaleier, the new job is going great. Oh, I've been around; just lurking and giving my friends at Eagle a hand with 1.1 and other matters.

 

 

 

Now THAT is a wishlist Wags. :shock:

 

Btw, nice to see you on Lock On forums again, hope the new projects are treating you nicely. :D

[GGTharos]

Heh, alright Wags, thanks. I'd imagine that htis is what it means, given the things I heard people say, like F-22's being able to guide each other's missiles.

 

I also heard that you could allow an AWACS to do the MCU's....

[Wags]

Re: F-15C avionics wishlist

 

Hi Andrew,

 

Regarding item 7: at least as far as the APG-70 goes, the Sort Mode simply places it in a 30-degree azimuth scam that is heading stabalized. There does not appear to be any "zoom" function.

 

There is the RAM function, but I hear this is being, or has already, been phases out in current tapes (it was a joke).

 

Please check your e-mail.

 

-Matt

 

Hello all,

 

I am doing some research of real-world and Lock On F-15C avionics.

 

While I don't work for ED and there can be no specific promises or commitments, the Russian avionics improvements in v1.1 "Flaming Cliffs" for Su-27 and MiG-29 aircraft shows that sometimes it's possible for new features to be implemented.

 

As such, I am interested to know your suggestions and thoughts, how the F-15C avionics can be improved. I will try to organize the suggestions into an ordered list for ED to consider, and also to provide feedback based on my research of the real-world systems accumulated so far.

 

Since this has the potential to become a long and involved discussion, I decided to separate it from the main "v1.1 features" discussion into its own thread.

 

Here is the list as I have arranged it myself so far. I will be editing this list directly in the first message of this thread to keep it up to date as new ideas and suggestions come up.

 

Ideas to date (13/11/2004):

1. To fix the code and separate the HSI nav system from the combat modes on all aircraft (not just F-15), so that the HSI continues to show the NAV information about the next waypoint even when the radar or other systems are being used against a target.

2. To implement a finite angular and range resolution for all radars, so that closely spaced targets at a distance appear on the display as a single target.

3. To use time-limited "legacy" tracks, so that targets leaving the TWS scan zone, or returning from STT to TWS, not all tracks are immediately lost.

4. To review the operation of the TWS mode, and ensure that it is not going into STT incorrectly when a target is designated (needs further discussion, especially regarding ECM targets).

5. To ensure RWR is working correctly (needs further investigation, especially regarding accurate symbology).

6. To allow the AIM-120 Rmax zone to expand if the F-15C pitches upwards at the moment of launch, to represent pilot-assisted "lofted" launch trajectory.

7. To implement the "Sort" submode, which zooms in the radar display to help "break-out" closely spaced targets.

8. To replace the existing "burn-through" model with a "kinematic ranging" AOJ submode, for estimating the range to an ECM target.

9. To introduce a fighter datalink display on the MPCD (needs further investigation, which F-15Cs actually have such feature).

10. To introduce an air-to-ground radar mode.

11. To let chaff be more effective when rearwards-facing ECM is used.

12. To introduce the "passive Sniff" mode.

13. To let the pilot manually "interrogate" IFF.

14. To review the close-combat auto-acquisition modes (include SuperSearch and ensure correct lock-on range).

15. To introduce the Python and other Israeli weapons.

16. To add color to MPCD display.

17. To introduce night vision goggles (NVGs).

 

Thanks for your interest,

 

-SK

 

Lock On v1.1 "Flaming Cliffs" beta tester

[SwingKid]

Great.

 

Four months collecting research from different places, and Wags sums it all up in one message.

 

Why, why didn't I ask Wags first?? Here I am chasing fighter pilots for tidbit scraps of info... :roll:

 

Can you comment also on "Highlight Search" and "DTT"? Rumor has it these modes are also being deleted for similar reasons as RAM.

 

-SK

[Wags]

Happy to help Andrew. :)

 

Not sure about HS and DTT, but from what I read in the Roost board, sounds like those features are on the way out.

 

One more feature I'd like to see is the expanded azimuth function for maximizng f-pole shots.

 

-Matt

 

 

Great.

 

Four months collecting research from different places, and Wags sums it all up in one message.

 

Why, why didn't I ask Wags first?? Here I am chasing fighter pilots for tidbit scraps of info... :roll:

 

Can you comment also on "Highlight Search" and "DTT"? Rumor has it these modes are also being deleted for similar reasons as RAM.

 

-SK

[SUBS17]

I think the IFF button is a good one, but if its for the F-15 then all the other aircraft that use this feature should have it. One thing I'd like to see added is a working arrester hook along with an AFM for the Eagle. Not only that but maybe some day a couple of NATO airfields with fixed arrester kit. Don't need it for the current flight model but if it got AFM it would be handy for emergency landings. Also a Master Arm switch that is default setting to off just like RL.

cheers

Subs

PS The Israeli weapons, great idea!

[355th_Xantris]

Have a question about ECM: in a real life situation when there isn't a burn through when bandit is using self protection jammers, will you have to keep the bandit locked until impact after firing your amraam or is there a moment where amraam goes active too?

[SwingKid]

Have a question about ECM: in a real life situation when there isn't a burn through when bandit is using self protection jammers, will you have to keep the bandit locked until impact after firing your amraam or is there a moment where amraam goes active too?

 

Not necessarily, it should probably depend on the type of jamming. Against a noise jammer the AMRAAM might be fire-and-forget, when launched in the Home-On-Jam mode.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

In this case it can operate its radar adn as the noise jammer tries to jam the same frequency it just makes the target a bigger target on radar. Using this is apparently standard tactics against SARH SAMs.

[355th_Xantris]

Thanks, but what are the other kinds of jamming and how do you know what kind of jamming is used so you can know you can fire and forget?

[SwingKid]

Some kinds of deception jammer (e.g. repeaters, gate-stealers) will stop trasmitting if they are not illuminated by a threat radar. Whether or not the AIM-120 transmissions can trigger such ECM on their own, or whether the missile seeker will be in range to see the target by going active even when the ECM is off, AFAIK has not been thoroughly confirmed in real life.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

You're probably looking at a combination of things in that case - a TWS launch won't give you any warning, and the datalink to the missile is probably mostly one way with burst-updates to the missile itself when needed, meaning it would be ahrd to pick up (and of course if it -was- picked up it would light up -everyone's- RWRs, not just the targetted craft, and that might be interesting to model in LOMAC)

 

Anyway, with a TWS launch, the only point at which you know the missile's coming at you is when it's 'too late' ... we're talking 10-15 seconds from impact, which isn't very much.

 

I think the missile logic software is probably quite complicated, and the missile goes active either when a) parent aircraft informs it of loss of contact b) when it thinks it's close enough to pick up the target which is the most lethal mode, I think, since with the proper radar setup, you can send it a 'wake up' signal when it's just 5km away from the target.

 

Jamming at this point may or may not be effective, since the missile's ECCM facilities can presumably detect the problem and correct for it to some degree (but obviously, jamemrs shouldn't be useless, but ED only models one sort of jammer: noise jammer - as far as I know)

 

Would be neat if ED incresed missile logic complexity some more, but there are very many things to be done so...

[355th_Xantris]

Thanks again.

Last questions: for lomac: do I always see if amraam goes active, even in HOJ mode and if not, how do I know it goes active and does it even go active? And when it goes active ( in the case of firing amraam at ecm target), is it able to home in then or is it just a lost shot when you loose lock after amraam goes active?

[GGTharos]

The AMRAAM should go active off the rail if you fire on an HoJ target, so watch out not to have friendlies in the way. Once you fire it, you can forget it.

[355th_Xantris]

Sorry for all the questions but it's important for me to know. Does it immediately go active after burn through or also before that?

[GGTharos]

Then make another thread please, this one is for asking the devs what to include for the F-15.

 

As for your question, in-game the 120 will go active when it eaches 10nm from the target if you do have burn-through. FOr the missile itself, how can it posisbly KNOW it's got burn-through /unless/ it goes active? ;)

[355th_Xantris]

Very sorry :oops: http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?p=27441#27441

[catseyes00]

I'm going to 'teleport' my own original post from the 1.1 thread, as follows:

 

"SwingKid wrote:

AMVI_Bad Boy wrote:

I'm interesting to know if in future there will be a patch, or an addon that will improve the faction of NATO, in particular the F-15.

 

The F-15 is not completed, in both navigation system and radar...and it is the only aircraft that can match the role of AA.

 

Is there some project for NATO's aircraft?

 

 

During the original Lock On development, many people kept asking "will the Russian avionics from Flanker 2.51a be improved?" - the answer was always, "if there is time". Some of the Russian avionics improvements that were hoped for in Lock On are only appearing now, in v1.1, and even so, there is still room for more work to be done on them.

 

Now people are asking if more attention will be given to the Western avionics. Well, you see why it needed to get all the attention of 1.0!

 

The answer is the same as always, "as there is time, so it will be done." In the meantime though if there is a specific feature you think is missing and would like to see, I am researching some F-15 avionics these days. Please tell, it would be interesting to know your wishes!

 

-SK

 

Lock On v1.1 "Flaming Cliffs" beta tester

 

 

Great to hear, SwingKid. Like a lot of people, I've never really been convinced by the F-15 in LockOn. Too heavy on the controls, and far too hard to get a lock-on under any but the best circumstances.

 

This was discussed at great length on the Ubi forum soon after LockOn came out. There was a strong view that the Russian countermeasures were too effective, and that this was the main cause of the difficulty in getting a lockon in the F-15.

 

There was also a view that the F-15's radar was under-modelled in terms of its ability to get lock-on at distance.

 

Finally, in the broader picture, I think there was a view that the US planes were at an urealistic environment in relation to countermeasures overall. Because there's no modelling in the game of the US jammer planes that are usually present in the combat environment. This benefits the Russian side, who have their superior on-board jammers, but don't have to face the effects of the specialist US jamming planes.

 

Not sure how the last problem can be fixed within the current LockOn engine. But since it's related to the other problems, I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

Hope this is helpful."

 

Thanks for the response to this in the other thread, Swingkid. But I still think the last point is worth considering, at least as part of a 'wish-list' for LockOn.

 

In other words, there needs to be some account in the sim of the 'background' jamming that would be coming from the specilaist US jamming planes. Which would 'balance up' for the superior on-board jammers on the Russian planes.

 

Just a thought.

[SwingKid]

In other words, there needs to be some account in the sim of the 'background' jamming that would be coming from the specilaist US jamming planes. Which would 'balance up' for the superior on-board jammers on the Russian planes.

 

Hmm...

 

I tried to include something like this with,

 

"To let a single ECM aircraft cover other targets near the same bearing,"

 

but AFAIK off-axis third-party jamming like EA-6B should have little effect on monopulse fighter radars. They are most effective against SAMs SA-6 and earlier, which can't differentiate a sidelobe signal from a mainlobe signal.

 

The USAF scrapped the EF-111, and the Soviets decided not to develop the Su-24MP, because this technology was rapidly becoming obsolete against the expected adversary. Still, there are a lot of countries like Yugoslavia and Iraq that use SA-6 and below, and the EA-6B also shoots HARMs, keeping it in useful service for a while to come.

 

-SK

[S77th-GOYA]

The Prowler is now the Growler. There are probably a few interesting gizmos involved.

[Olgerd]

Is this E/A-18G?

[S77th-GOYA]

Yep

[169th_Jaws]

Swingkid, just thought of another thing while at work today. When in guns mode in the F-15, I'll often find that the cannon pipper will flicker when flying in the vertical. If I'm 90 degrees nose up or down it seems that the pipper seems to have trouble tracking. Is this something to do with the doppler shift radar or is it a bug? Cheers.

[Kula66]

pipper seems to have trouble tracking

Yes I've noticed this and it seems to be caused by co-speed target ... very neat modelling!

 

James