F-15C avionics wishlist

[Ice]

Well yes and no. admittedly i didnt go through all the posts but I tended to run into a lot of replies about missile avionics and such (both us and russian).

 

was just trying to be helpful :cool:

 

My other reasoning is that we cant affors any more stickies and maybe there should be a focus on the russian radar model and physics as well.

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

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 (07/12/2004 - need to be re-ordered):

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" ("Expand"?) 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).

18. To let a single ECM aircraft cover other targets near the same bearing

19. To expand TWS mode with (N)DTWS and HD(ND)TWS

20. To include low-altitude, Med-PRF clutter on the radar display

21. To include Vector and Range Gated High (RGH) search modes

22. To include the "miniraster" function while locking a target

23. To make the arrestor hook functional

24. To ensure the "automatic trimmer" is working correctly

25. Default Master Arm switch to off during ramp start.

26. Add ADI and VI master modes

27. Research the Israeli helmet-mounted sight

28. Collimated HUD display that moves with pilot head, as in Il-2

29. Correctly scaled HUD wrt other instruments

30. "Data fusion" model for use with datalink - AWACS has limited detection range

31. Check for any radar gimbal limits in roll during scan and TWS mode, as on Su-27

32. Check to ensure gunsight radar lock is not being lost at close ranges or in vertical flight without reason

33. Check to see if lock is lost in co-speed tailchases in real life

 

Thanks for your interest,

 

-SK

 

Lock On v1.1 "Flaming Cliffs" beta tester

 

The 1.1 F-15 is reminiscent of the 1.00 F-15.

 

I converted a pack of F-15 missions made for 1.02 to 1.1, now I will replace the F-15 with the MiG-29S and Su-27 and fly them over the weekend.

 

The sharply reduced effectiveness of the F-15 means that, my 1.02 missions are now almost un playable in 1.1. Who, in his sane mind would like to go in a 1.1 F-15 against a pair of 1.1 Su-27?

[tflash]

The 1.1 F-15 is reminiscent of the 1.00 F-15.

 

I converted a pack of F-15 missions made for 1.02 to 1.1, now I will replace the F-15 with the MiG-29S and Su-27 and fly them over the weekend.

 

The sharply reduced effectiveness of the F-15 means that, my 1.02 missions are now almost un playable in 1.1. Who, in his sane mind would like to go in a 1.1 F-15 against a pair of 1.1 Su-27?

 

Strange, but at least in Single Player, against AI, this is not at all my impression. I find it now much more easy to fight in the F-15: I do not really have problems with AIM-120 missile effectiveness and on all planes, I find that using chaff helps to avoid AI-fired missiles better than before.

 

I agree that with the somewhat improved avionics, I rediscovered the Flanker and I am flying this one much more often now, but I do not have the impression the F-15 got worse. We did discuss in this thread a lot about e.g. flight path of the Amraam, but in my opinion this doesn't mean there are issues with playability. In fact, I find FC 1.1 more fun to play than 1.02 by many counts.

 

What about Multiplayer, is it really so people now more often loose in the F-15?

[Kula66]

What about Multiplayer, is it really so people now more often loose in the F-15?

 

Strange, my experience is the opposite ... on-line in 1.1, I still find the 15 deadly ... shot at 3 27/33s simultaneously the other night using TWS and downed them all!! Got 8 kills in 2 flights ... but fewer people seem to fly 15s, perhaps thats due to FC being more popular in Rus - and the things that are broken on it.

 

Off-line, 1v1 with an expert 27 I usually end up using a 'winder after all the 120s were foxed using chaff (you can see the chaff cloud if you look closely!!) ... seems totally pants!

[Guest kt82]

More:

ALQ-135 can granted avoid hit by AIM-54 because AIM-54 head used con-scan pelengation with opene scan freq (while its homing in active mode at last stage of flight). "Reverse con-scan jamming signal" redirect missile on wrong way

if power of jamming signal is enought to do it (depends on distance).

 

Like this, ALQ-135 can break target tracking by radar of MIG-23 and MIG-25.

[GGTharos]

More:

ALQ-135 can granted avoid hit by AIM-54 because AIM-54 head used con-scan pelengation with opene scan freq (while its homing in active mode at last stage of flight). "Reverse con-scan jamming signal" redirect missile on wrong way

if power of jamming signal is enought to do it (depends on distance).

 

Like this, ALQ-135 can break target tracking by radar of MIG-23 and MIG-25.

 

 

You mean the one from the 60's right? ... because the C/SEALED has a much more advanced seeker.

[Guest kt82]

AIM-54C have advanced seeker? What's new it has?

Mono-pulse pelengator?

Different antenna for receive and transmitt?

 

I don't think that this enhancement is so significant.

[SwingKid]

"Reverse con-scan jamming signal" redirect missile on wrong way

if power of jamming signal is enought to do it (depends on distance).

 

Like this, ALQ-135 can break target tracking by radar of MIG-23 and MIG-25.

 

It did not say, in the "Cassegrain.rar" document that Vadifon sent to you, that MiG-23/25 radar uses monopulse tracking? From where, "con-scan"?

 

:confused:

 

-SK

[DayGlow]

SwingKid, any idea if ED is monitoring this thread and the chances of implimenting any improvements are?

[SwingKid]

SwingKid, any idea if ED is monitoring this thread and the chances of implimenting any improvements are?

 

Right now work is focusing on the Ka-50 and "v1.2", but all kinds of avionics ideas are actively collected, discussed and considered in a "planning stage". Which ones actually get implemented, and when, will probably depend on how well they fit into the grand scheme of things. ED has recently shown ever more willingness to limit the scope of their products.

 

-SK

[tflash]

About the F-15 avionics; if I recollect what I have read about the factors contributing to the success of the Eagle in the 1991 Gulf war, I'd say:

 

- the AIM-7F/M was no longer the unreliable missile from the Vietnam war (AIM-7D/E)

- TEWS was probably the best available RWR

- probably most important: the Eagle had NCTR for identifying hostile aircraft in BVR, which was necessary since there was far more "blue" in the air than "red".

 

The fact that F-14's did not have NCTR kept them out of deep fighter sweep in Iraq and confined them to fleet defense CAP missions away from the hot action.

 

Now, I feel the AIM-7M is very well modelled in Lockon and also the TEWS is a superb achievement. And yes, NCTR is modelled, but it is nowhere the advantage that it really meant in the Gulf war, since radars on Russian aircraft (Flanker/Mig-29) seem to have miraculous IFF identification and make seemless distinction between Friend and Foe.

 

So my guess is, that one way to really model the F-15 to its real capabilities is by changing nothing to the F-15 but to correctly model classic IFF interrogation procedures on the other aircraft? But maybe i'm ill informed on the systems that Mig-29 and Su-27 have in this field.

-

[D-Scythe]

The fact that F-14's did not have NCTR kept them out of deep fighter sweep in Iraq and confined them to fleet defense CAP missions away from the hot action.

 

Absolutely not. While it was true that F-14s didn't have NCTR, they did have IRST. The reason why it wasn't as successful as the F-15C was mainly the *chance* factor. Furthermore, it didn't help that when they used IRST, the AWG-9/APG-71 had to lock up the target in SST, which alerted the bandit's RWR. This caused them to flee rather than fight, as they learned the hard way in Iran not to mess with Tomcats.

 

Now, I feel the AIM-7M is very well modelled in Lockon and also the TEWS is a superb achievement.

 

No. Just....no. Sure, the Sparrow was effective in the Gulf War, but anything would be effective if used against targets making a beeline to Iran. Furthermore, I don't think the AIM-7M gave off a warning (like AMRAAMs in TWS) until the end-game, where the F-15 would then have to go STT, but I could be wrong about that. I think I recall the R-27 having this capability at least.

 

In any case, the AIM-120 should be a superior missile in almost every respect, but right now, I'd rather have an AIM-7 on its way to my target than an AIM-120. So either the AIM-7 is overmodelled or the AIM-120 is undermodelled. From my experience in Lock On, the only real purpose to bring along AIM-120s is when you're sure I'm facing multiple threats (or MiG-31s) and you need something to keep the enemy defensive while you close in for a Sparrow/Sidewinder kill.

 

And yes, NCTR is modelled, but it is nowhere the advantage that it really meant in the Gulf war, since radars on Russian aircraft (Flanker/Mig-29) seem to have miraculous IFF identification and make seemless distinction between Friend and Foe.

 

The problem is mostly with the uber-link found in Russian fighters.

 

So my guess is, that one way to really model the F-15 to its real capabilities is by changing nothing to the F-15 but to correctly model classic IFF interrogation procedures on the other aircraft? But maybe i'm ill informed on the systems that Mig-29 and Su-27 have in this field.

 

The correct way to model an F-15 would be through its radar, because that's where the F-15's strengths lies. But currently, the radar is not where it should be, in terms of ECCM, NCTR/IFF or CAC modes, so that's one of the main reasons why the F-15C is so much less effective in BVR than it was in V1.02.

[Kula66]

Anyone ever find out if the real 15 HUD has a friendly target indicator ... its been discussed/asked for at length ... has anyone asked a real 15C pilot? Will it be implemented in 1.2? Please.

[GGTharos]

I heard that the F-15C manual states that there is an IFF indicator - wether on the HUD or on the VSD I don't recall, but it's there. The problem is that ED needs to implement it one way or another.

[Prophet_169th]

It is in the HUD. The box that is over the target you select.

 

If its an enemy, it will have a star below the box.

[D-Scythe]

It is in the HUD. The box that is over the target you select.

 

If its an enemy, it will have a star below the box.

 

I thought that start below the TD box was the AMRAAM shoot cue? I was always under the impression that the IFF indicator worked by crossing out the target with a big X across the TD box, but that may be my Janes F-15 days talking.

[tflash]

To my mind, the problem is not how IFF info is displayed, but how it is obtained. If I'm not wrong, in an eighties/nineties fighter, you have to actively do an IFF request sequence on a selected target to get IFF info. This is mostly done by special secure radio signals. Once you identify a target as a foe, you can then safely engage in BVR.

 

This IFF procedure is not without problems and often gives way to misinterpretation and false ID's, as has been proven in the Gulf war and again in Iraqi freedom.

 

Therefore, often visual ID is required in ROE.

 

The big advantage of F-15C radar is that through NCTR (i.e. target ID without IFF procedures, that's the meaning of 'non-cooperative'), you can already know, on the basis of a threat database with radar signatures, which aircraft the target is. When the enemy uses different aircraft than your own, it is then safe to engage BVR.

 

This is all modelled in Lockon. But on the other hand, radars of Soviet planes themselves IMMEDIATELY discriminate at max range between Friendly contact (two lines) and enemy contacts (single lines).

 

In my view, this is technology which is NOT nineties. There is no doubt in my mind that in a nineties fighter, you just get a target, and then have to start manually an IFF procedure using secure radio. This whole procedure can take many seconds and is in my view not free of error.

 

Since IFF procedures are NOT modelled in Lockon, this gives an unrealistic representation of nineties BVR. (In fact, in my opinion there was no true BVR simply because of this: most ROE would require visual ID).

 

In this sense, the real advantage of NCTR is lost in Lockon.

 

Of course, the whole idea of today's sensor fusion is that your display will automatically integrate IFF info with radar info and even optronics info; which is the case in Eurofighter, Rafale and F/A-22.

 

... And in Lockon's Russian nineties fighters!

[Inferno]

Will we ever get any of this?

[SwingKid]

Will we ever get any of this?

 

Which part you don't understand?

 

-SK

[Inferno]

Which part you don't understand?

 

-SK

Sorry, didn't read the thread :D

[GGTharos]

Here are some F-15 HUD images ...

 

The pipper 1 and 2 seem to be newer HUD software, whereas the 3 and 4 appear to be older ... and the one we have in LOMAC.

 

The BVR picture shows some symbology which I have't seen before - namely the range reticle around the W (but its' mobile, I think, it doesn't stay over the W) ... and of course, note that pipper 1 and 2 have Vc displayed, and the aiming error from the target rather than the line like in pipper 3 and 4 ...

[Kula66]

GGT,

What do you think the large cross means in the HUD picture? Friendly? I know in a missile mode it means too close, but in guns mode?

[GGTharos]

GGT,

What do you think the large cross means in the HUD picture? Friendly? I know in a missile mode it means too close, but in guns mode?

 

 

I would also think too close - butmaybe it's some sort of combine symbology for guns/sidewinder?

 

Also check the cross in the target designator - that might be the EID.

[Cobra360]

I'd like to know what radar version the F-15C in LOMAC has. The manual states both the APG-63 in one part and the APG-70 in the other.

 

From memory of what i know about the F-15,

The origional F-15A/Bs started with the APG-63V0. Then when the F-15C/Ds appeared in 1980 they had improved APG-63PSP radars. The F-15E came along in 1988 with the APG-70 and from 1989 the APG-70 was fitted as standard to newly built F-15C/Ds but the A2G features were locked out on the USAF models.

 

At this time in 1989 some F-15A/Bs and C/Ds went through a MSIP program which improved the avonics. These were the first F-15s to be able to launch the AIM-120. Then from arond 1994/5 the APG-70 in the F-15C/Ds were replaced with the APG-63V1. The main advantage of this radar is it has a grearter mean time between failures.

 

So today the entire F-15E fleet has the -70 radar and the majority of the F-15C/Ds have the -63V1. Some ANG units with the MSIP F-15A/Bs still have the -70 also.

 

From 2006 the F-15Es will start being upgraded with the APG-63V3 AESA. It is then planned around 2008/10 that the surviving F-15C/Ds still flying will get the APG-63V3 with the A2G functions locked out as it is cheaper than the -63V2 radar.

 

Just wondering what radar version is LOMAC modeling. I think its the APG-63V1, what are your thoughts?

[D-Scythe]

The devs stated that LOMAC's F-15 was supposed to be an early MSIP F-15C, and since they can't get some of the more sensitive information on the APG-70, they threw in what they knew of the -63v0 instead. So it's a mix of the the APG-70 and the baseline APG-63.