Target aspect switch

[sLYFa]

So the target aspect switch is now affecting radar tracking.I wonder though if the current implementation is really correct. Even in "nose", the fastest closure rate you can get is 1800kts. This can easily be exceeded when intercepting fast targets (e.g. ASM) and/or going fast yourself. Is that really how it worked? Stay below 1800kts closure or you loose your radar contacts. 

Also, the switch does affect PDSTT, meaning lock will break of you dont stay within the respective closure gate. From how I understand the manual that should not be the case. 

[G.J.S]

Fighters aren’t really meant for intercepting high speed munitions. The 1800kt closure should more than suffice in a battle zone, as manoeuvre ability for either aircraft going beak to beak is severely limited at v high speeds.

[sLYFa]

But wasnt the F-14 specifically designed to also intercept supersonic ASM? 

[G.J.S]

I thought the design philosophy was centred around intercepting threats to the carrier at very long range, for instance TU-22 with ASM.

If the TU launches, then the fighter in essence has failed. Easier to nullify the bomber, than try and spear the missile.

[sLYFa]

Its true that eliminating the launch platform is the primary goal but IIRC the capability to target the missiles themselves was also there. I've read somewhere that one of the benefits of the 54C was improved fusing which greatly improved pk against missiles. 

Anyway, a Jester command for the target aspect switch would be much appreciated. 

[Kula66]

2 hours ago, sLYFa said:

So the target aspect switch is now affecting radar tracking.

How recent is that change?

[sLYFa]

last patch (16.06), its in the changelog

[Kula66]

Interesting ... What's the default position? Could it filter out a front aspect target?

 

PS> I never sit in the back seat

Edited June 19, 2021 by Kula66

[sLYFa]

Default setting is 1200kts closure. Jester never changes that

[Kula66]

Thanks. So, pardon my ignorance, but would that filter out targets with relative closing speed at greater than 1200kts?

Edited June 19, 2021 by Kula66

[sLYFa]

yes, if yours and your targets groundspeed add up to above 1200kts (flying straight towards each other), you wont see the contact with the aspect switch set to BEAM, which is the default settinflg. 

[Kula66]

So, if I'm in a 14 with Jester at 650kts GS and a 16 is flying head on towards me at GS 650kts ... I won't see it! And how do I change that switch setting with Jester in a MP setting? ie. I can't hop in the back.

 

So all I need to do to kill a 14 in a 16, is fly head on fast and he can't see me!! Awesome!

Edited June 19, 2021 by Kula66

[G.J.S]

29 minutes ago, Kula66 said:

So, if I'm in a 14 with Jester at 650kts GS and a 16 is flying head on towards me at GS 650kts ... I won't see it! And how do I change that switch setting with Jester in a MP setting? ie. I can't hop in the back.

 

So all I need to do to kill a 14 in a 16, is fly head on fast and he can't see me!! Awesome!

 

Ha ha, it sure isn’t that simple. But try it anyway . . . . 

[Kula66]

See my post in the Bugs section  

[IronMike]

your IAS should be around 350 kts, even more so if your opponent is at 650 kts. He is dumb, be clever yourself. Why haste into his missiles? Slow down, take the long range stick first, go into a crank, or even go to the beam, re-acquire nose on on shoot cue, reverse your crank, fly away, enjoy the salt flowing from your enemies

 

We'll take a look to add the target aspect switch to Jester Commands.

Edited June 19, 2021 by IronMike

[Kula66]

If I'm trying to give my shot a good start energy wise, I'll generally try and be high and fast, certainly around M1.0 ... and if he turns towards me, he'll disappear from my radar. 

 

Can you please make it a bindable command for the pilot like TWS or RWS? 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Kula66

[IronMike]

19 minutes ago, Kula66 said:

If I'm trying to give my shot a good start energy wise, I'll generally try and be high and fast, certainly around M1.0 ... and if he turns towards me, he'll disappear from my radar. 

 

Can you please make it a bindable command for the pilot like TWS or RWS? 

 

 

No need to, he is giving your missile enough energy. Also, accelerate on the shot, decelerate again. Else, all you do is help his missiles, too. There is zero need for that. I crank at 350, shoot around 450 and go into the split S on pitbull accelerating through the 450 to as fast as I need in the dive to defend his missiles. But before pitbull, I stay as slow as I can, which is 350kts if you have to accelerate out of it again in case of a defensive maneuver.

Noted for the bindable.

[Kula66]

Thanks IM.

 

But if I accelerate, I risk the target disappearing just as I shoot IF our closure goes above 1200kts ... considering a high fast 16 can be at M1.5 already.

 

Ideally, I need to flip the switch to NOSE, accelerate, shoot, then ... switch to BEAM and crank?  Would that drop the contact? And if I lose him for a few seconds, it is highly likely the missile is trashed when he reappears and a second separate track is identified and the first one X's out. 

 

In my limited experience, slow against multiple competent opponents is not really a good place to be in a heavily loaded cat.

 

I guess we'll come up with something!

Edited June 19, 2021 by Kula66

[IronMike]

Yes, that is why we will see to implement that asap, and if not possible to do fast, we will set the aspect switch (most likely) to nose as default for Jester.

[Kula66]

Thanks again IM, much appreciated.

[Kula66]

This maybe a stupid question, given the level of knowledge and research you guys do, but I'll ask it anyway: is this definitely how it works in RL? 

I can understand it impacting the raw processing on the DDD, but if it also applies to the TID, it will effect all tracks shown on the TID as the RIO switches from NOSE to BEAM to TAIL aspect of only one of those targets?? So, if I have 6 targets, some hot, some beaming, some cold, some may disappear as the RIO switches through the different ASPECT modes - seems very odd.

[IronMike]

26 minutes ago, Kula66 said:

This maybe a stupid question, given the level of knowledge and research you guys do, but I'll ask it anyway: is this definitely how it works in RL? 

I can understand it impacting the raw processing on the DDD, but if it also applies to the TID, it will effect all tracks shown on the TID as the RIO switches from NOSE to BEAM to TAIL aspect of only one of those targets?? So, if I have 6 targets, some hot, some beaming, some cold, some may disappear as the RIO switches through the different ASPECT modes - seems very odd.

 

Perfectly normal. And similar to what happens if you change PRFs in more modern radars, where medium will let you see cold targets more likely and high hot aspect bandits etc. Think of it: if it isnt on the DDD, it cannot be on the TID. And ofc, all tracks will always be affected by this, which is why a good RIO will know when to use which.

[Grater Tovakia]

5 hours ago, G.J.S said:

I thought the design philosophy was centred around intercepting threats to the carrier at very long range, for instance TU-22 with ASM.

If the TU launches, then the fighter in essence has failed. Easier to nullify the bomber, than try and spear the missile.

while Outer Air Battle put the priority focus on killing the bombers, killing the missiles was a tested (and practiced) means of employment for the Tomcats and their AIM-54s.

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Grater Tovakia said:

while Outer Air Battle put the priority focus on killing the bombers, killing the missiles was a tested (and practiced) means of employment for the Tomcats and their AIM-54s.

Interesting. . . It just seems a little “last ditch”, when the easier way to deal with a lobbed kitchen for instance, is to take out the platform before it gets lobbed.

Why make it harder for yourself?

[TLTeo]

I vaguely remember reading that the worry/idea was simply that Soviet naval aviation would have been able to have such large bomber groups that a fair number of them were almost guaranteed to get a missile launch off (even assuming they would go up against every Tomcat on the boat, each carrying 6 AIM-54s), hence the need to shoot down both bombers and ASMs.

 

I don't have a source so I could easily be completely wrong though