Su-27, Su-33 or MiG-29?

[GGTharos]

Nope, it's just the biggest reason. The other was dissapoitnment with certain behavior.

 

According to the manuals a non-afterburning target can be detected by the EOS at less than 20km in the forward hemisphere. Rear-hemisphere afterburning contact at 50km+.

 

I imagine bombers can be picked up farther away than fighters - and of course it's all subject to weather.

[Sov13t]

Does anyone know how far the EOS can pick up a signature?

 

Дальность обнаружения воздушных целей типа Су-15 на максимальном режиме работы двигателей на фоне чистого неба в ЗПС под ракурсом 0/4-2/4 составляет около 50 км, на фоне облачности, земли и водной поверхности 20-35 км. Дальность обнаружения целей типа МиГ-25 на форсажном режиме работы двигателей в ППС под ракурсом 1/4 составляет 90-100 км. Дальность захвата цели составляет около 70 % от дальности обнаружения. Дальность захвата целей на максимальном режиме работы двигателей в ППС под ракурсом 5-15° составляет около 10 км.

 

Distance of acquisition on a non-afterburning fighter SU-15 on the backdrop of clear sky in Rear Hemisphere (0/4 - 2/4) [six to eight/four o'clock] is about 50km, on cloudy/ground/water backdrop is about 20-35km. Distance of acquisition of targets such as MiG-25 on afterburners in Front Hemisphere with aspect of 1/4 (one/eleven o'clock) is about 90-100km. Distance of Lock is about 70% of the distance of acquisition. Lock distance on non-afterburning targets in Front Hemisphere with aspect of about 5-15 degrees is about 10km.

 

Pardon the rushed translation... but this should give you an idea.

 

Now, the SU-35 EOS is where it really gets interesting... some distances can rival that of radar... depending on conditions of course.

[Pilotasso]

Those are different planes than the ones we got in LOMAC. Different sizes and engines signature (turbojets).

[FLANKERATOR]

I think the engagement would be jeopardized anyway if the target is lost all together and SA goes down. There is little point attempting them too far away, rather the atempt should be donne inside efective range.

 

It's not related to how far the target is. You can EOS track someone close, put him in ET range, then as he slightly changes aspect, radar turns on ("I" pops up on HUD), sometimes the EOS does not even loose lock ("T" does not vanish), he gets the warning, accelerates, puts the threat at 6 and extends out of range.

 

Anyway, you can get around this by turning EOS off just before radar pops up. at least you stay unnoticed.

[Sov13t]

Those are different planes than the ones we got in LOMAC. Different sizes and engines signature (turbojets).

 

Of course... the above should give only a general idea... thermal signatures of engines differ greatly. As well as the manual that this is quoted from is quite dated.

[Cali]

Interesting Soviet about the lock at 10km, thx for that info. I'm sure they made some changes from those jets compared to what we fly in fc.

[RIPTIDE]

Does anyone know how far the EOS can pick up a signature? Come on GG.....that is the only reason? Maybe the 104th will add ERI on their server and hopefully a R-77 carrying Su-33.

IRL? All depends. But since my last post I found out that beyond laser rangefinding range (which was only a few km's for the MiG-29 OLS-29 ), you could still have a contact 'locked', and if you needed range, you tap a button that pulses out a radar signal for the range find, and it would update in the HUD at that instant. When you needed to know the range again, you tapped again. So you can imagine you could do this a few times to make sure you were closing or whatever until close to visual range. What I read didn't make any reference to the speed, aspect, etc of the target contact, just the range. Now, this could be all horsesh1t... but it sounded plausible.

[GGTharos]

Yep, they would use the radar for rangefinding as necessary. It was hoped that the quick emission would escape RWRs buuut ... probably no longer valid in view of the 90's stuff.

[RIPTIDE]

Yep, they would use the radar for rangefinding as necessary. It was hoped that the quick emission would escape RWRs buuut ... probably no longer valid in view of the 90's stuff.

It depends on how strong the emission is also. Getting a range would need a lot less power than a lock (more power = less ambiguity on all parameters). So a quick pulse at low power might let you think there was a MiG ~40 miles on your 6, if the RWR picked it up, when he could be a lot closer.

[RIPTIDE]

Interesting Soviet about the lock at 10km, thx for that info. I'm sure they made some changes from those jets compared to what we fly in fc.

Not too far out in FC2.0 world either..

[GGTharos]

I don't think these radars bother varying emission power. That's mostly an AESA feature - not that you can't do it with MSA's, it just wasn't normal. Regardless, to get that pulse back you need to overcome a certain threshold and the RWR will hear it anyway.

 

What you don't get in FC2 is spurious/false contacts. You might reject such a blip as a spurious contact.

 

It depends on how strong the emission is also. Getting a range would need a lot less power than a lock (more power = less ambiguity on all parameters). So a quick pulse at low power might let you think there was a MiG ~40 miles on your 6, if the RWR picked it up, when he could be a lot closer.

[Cali]

Not too far out in FC2.0 world either..

 

We might be thinking of 2 different things here, Lock or firing the missile. I'm wondering if Soviet is talking about locking a target up at 10km not being able to fire until 10km.

[GGTharos]

The missile should almost always have a shorter lock range (esp. since we're dealing with LOBL missiles exclusively here) than the EOS, which has a larger sensor.

[Alfa]

Does anyone know how far the EOS can pick up a signature?

 

It depends on many things - the target's thermal emission(number and size of engines, throttle setting), aspect angle(looking at the target from front or rear, from below toward the sky or above toward the ground), time of day(day or night), environmental conditions(temperature, humitity etc).

 

But it also depends on the aircraft in question - the EOS of the MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-33 are all different :) . The EOS of the Su-33 is the most potent.

[Sov13t]

We might be thinking of 2 different things here, Lock or firing the missile. I'm wondering if Soviet is talking about locking a target up at 10km not being able to fire until 10km.

 

Gentlemen, at that range it doesn't matter whether it is the missile or the EOS sensor. The reason there is such a limitation is due to the target aspect being 5-15 degrees which means that the heat source is obscured by the airframe thus no lock for either missile or EOS. The moment you are 15+ degrees the range shoots up almost exponentially.

 

Now, this is 3 dimensional 5-15 degrees... ROE for 27T(E) state to always have +/- 1.5km altitude than the target. And of course, at such short ranges 27R(E) will do the job should the target prove to be stubborn.

[Cali]

 

But it also depends on the aircraft in question - the EOS of the MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-33 are all different :) . The EOS of the Su-33 is the most potent.

 

Ok, here is a question, which I'm sure I know the answer to.....are they like this in FC2? If not, could this ever be fixed to represent this real world info.

[Sov13t]

Ok, here is a question, which I'm sure I know the answer to.....are they like this in FC2? If not, could this ever be fixed to represent this real world info.

 

Nope... they are all the same...

 

Having a realistic thermal model for each type of aircraft and engine... would be something out of this world... but ED has bigger things to work on... such as realistic missile physics etc. Plus, they have no interest in Russian craft at this moment.

[Cali]

I figured that it wasn't modeled in game, since I have been able to pick up targets at the same distance in all 3 jets. Hopefully in DCS, within the upcoming years we will have much better features like this.

[Alfa]

Ok, here is a question, which I'm sure I know the answer to.....are they like this in FC2?

 

No I think the game's EOS is a single device assigned to all applicaple aircraft entries.

 

If not, could this ever be fixed to represent this real world info.

 

Well in terms of sophistication - i.e. the full range of factors that affect a real world IR acquisition system, I doubt it would be feasible.

 

But AFAIK Lock-on's aircraft radars are all based on a generic routine, which is diversified via a few key parameters to represent differences(power) of the varies RL sets - it should be possible to do something similar with the existing EOS code.

[Cali]

No I think the game's EOS is a single device assigned to all applicaple aircraft entries.

 

 

 

Well in terms of sophistication - i.e. the full range of factors that affect a real world IR acquisition system, I doubt it would be feasible.

 

But AFAIK Lock-on's aircraft radars are all based on a generic routine, which is diversified via a few key parameters to represent differences(power) of the varies RL sets - it should be possible to do something similar with the existing EOS code.

 

I understand that we will never get the full use of radar or EOS. Clouds, sun, day and night all effect that. We still don't have contrails that change, they always start at 26k and end above 40k. That could be a pain in the butt to try to model after real world.

[Vekkinho]

I understand that we will never get the full use of radar or EOS. Clouds, sun, day and night all effect that. We still don't have contrails that change, they always start at 26k and end above 40k. That could be a pain in the butt to try to model after real world.

 

Why would you ever need real life behaviour?

 

It would take ages to develop all of the mentioned effects and believe me, after a day or two of MP play you'd be sick of it...

[Cali]

Why would you ever need real life behaviour?

 

It would take ages to develop all of the mentioned effects and believe me, after a day or two of MP play you'd be sick of it...

Maybe you would get sick of it, hey you can always play hawx. Like I said we can't model that stuff anyway.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Cali

[GGTharos]

This stuff can be modeled with a best guess approach if we know the size of the aperture (for detection range). Without a manual though, we won't know specific device features.

[Vekkinho]

What I was trying to say is that it would cause another billion of "why" threads and doubts it's really like that. On the other hand how 'bout the more weathered the skin - less powerful sensors option to simulate wear and tear of older units...

 

Manuals, IMHO following the manual would only generate data from perfect condition tests not something that happens from time to time based on atmospheric conditions.

 

It is pretty similar to birds slider which is something that may and may not happen you cannot predict it so some already nag bird strikes happen too often and that birdstrikes IRL are less dramatic and frequent...

[GGTharos]

Atmospheric conditions are easy enough to simulate in terms of knowledge. We know how much a given IR or radar signal of particular frequency is attenuated depending on vapor content etc. We already have a dynamic weather engine and there's no reason that it could not simulate other atmospheric parameters (ie. humidity) along with wind.

Knowing what the actual sensors are doing is the missing part.