Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
All true - but most radars can track the energy from another radar if it shines in their direction (generally to get angles only).
? … Do you have any documentation or articles about it?
To my knowledge, only passive detectors are able to detect radar energy. Not a radar itself (?) … And I do not talk about IFF of secondary radar. I talk about primary radar.
Will have to dig that. … If it is confirmed, then … maybe … if we have coders in a good mood … but this will be AFTER the other prio which I was talking about in previous posts.
-
Bingo. But that doesn’t preclude a radar having a secondary detector either built into it, or co-located with it.
…if you can afford, consult Jane’s Defence publications. The ones you have to purchase -
https://www.ihs.com/products/janes-artillery-air-defence.html
That’s a start for information on whole systems.
But I also found this site, which has some very good information on surface radars in general…could take you year(s) to digest, though -
http://www.radartutorial.eu/index.en.html
http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/13.labs/karte001.en.html
…but it’s very interesting. Not systems, but individual radars - parts of the puzzle. You can look up about any radar you like from the drops in the second link.
OTOH, I may not even need no steenking FCR at all to launch at you…
-
dee jay i got a minor bug… if the ENG CONDITION is accidentaly swiched to SEC with engine off (ie during Ramp Start) it can’t be set to PRImary UNLESS the JFS has Spooled the engine to 20%(the point you press idle detent)
-
dee jay i got a minor bug… if the ENG CONDITION is accidentaly swiched to SEC with engine off (ie during Ramp Start) it can’t be set to PRImary UNLESS the JFS has Spooled the engine to 20%(the point you press idle detent)
Known.
-
OTOH, I may not even need no steenking FCR at all to launch at you…
You still need FCR for optical launches.
Electro optical systems may track targets (Tunguska, SA-2,3,4,8 ), sometimes they may even track missile too (Tunguska) but you still need RPK (the missile command transmitter) to transmit guidance commands to the missile, even whhen using optical tracking. RPK is a part of FCR. HARM can home on RPK too, so it can nail those systems even when they use optical tracking. RWR can also detect optical launches, because it can detect RPK signals being sent. Soviets were aware of this and they have added a switch to make RPK transmit without actual launch, this was to scare enemies and make their RWR scream ML.Second problem is detection range, it is lower for optical systems. This is the reason why long range systems like SA-5 had no optical channel.
-
…yeah…you need the command guidance for such a missile. No…you don’t need the FCR to track the target. “Degraded” shot (angles only, angle rate generated range), but still a shot.
-
Right.
Its similar to tracking jamming target where you have no range information, just angles.
In both cases (tracking jamming target with FCR and also when you track target optically) you guide missile in 3 points mode. When you got full information (FCR tracking in angles and range) you can use half lead mode which is more effective against targets with big angular velocities. -
You can generate range from angles only - the best example I can think of is the ARBS on the Harrier, which does so very nicely. It’s mostly a factor of the accuracy your gimbals/tracking mount, but you can generate very suitable range estimation from angles/rates alone. Here’s a half-decent treatise -
The site could also track manually and do the same…another degradation, but same principle(s).
-
All true - but most radars can track the energy from another radar if it shines in their direction (generally to get angles only), similar to tracking a jam strobe…but if they do get a whiff of your own ship radar they can own you…that decreases if you use a jammer and keep your nose off them. So I don’t consider tracking the aircraft FCR to be a “bug”.
I would be curious though to know that the simulator SAM programmer would have a subject about it.
Monlibalage may ask him. I think they know each other (?)
-
I would be curious though to know that the simulator SAM programmer would have a subject about it.
Monlibalage may ask him. I think they know each other (?)
Coolness. There should be some effect…I have no idea how you all code this stuff, but I tend to think in terms of probabilities and such tables; in this case the effect is on probability of detection.
BTW, in the subject of modeling an IADS…you might also want to point him at this thesis -
https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/26640
Again, stumbled on this looking for the definition of “LOBO” I saw on the radar site I referenced. This guy’s even coded his IADS model for ya. One step at a time…the info is out there if you look for it.
-
I would be curious though to know that the simulator SAM programmer would have a subject about it.
Monlibalage may ask him. I think they know each other (?)
As I general comment I have doubts but I can ask him.
Effect of a P-12 close to another P-12 in case they are too close to each other.
Can anybody say the relative direction of another P-12 from these images?
I forwarded the question. Yes, I know him well he helped me houndres of hours in my works as I also shared info and knowledege to him. -
All true - but most radars can track the energy from another radar if it shines in their direction (generally to get angles only), similar to tracking a jam strobe…
This is true and radar can receive not only the direct waves from a source (on the same WL) but the reflected signals from the ground. This is why you can seen the posted images. (They wee P-12 not P-18.)
Hpasp replied. He does not understand the
“but if they do get a whiff of your own ship radar they can own you”
and
“that decreases if you use a jammer and keep your nose off them”
parts.
Me neither. Can you say in different and easier understandable way?
-
Yes - your own ship radar antenna is not only a great antenna, is is also a very efficient reflector. That’s why you keep your nose off the site.
-
This is true and radar can receive not only the direct waves from a source (on the same WL) but the reflected signals from the ground. This is why you can seen the posted images. (They wee P-12 not P-18.)
Hpasp replied. He does not understand the
and
parts.
Me neither. Can you say in different and easier understandable way?
Again we are talking about GCI (ground control intercept). Other radars (with the same WL) can all combine to use as a track for the SAM. If one goes down the others can supplement for the tracking. That was the point I was referencing to before but “macieksoft” stated that SAM’s don’t need GCI. Which is true if you are relying on 1 radar system to guide the weapon. Modern systems (US) use multiple tracking systems for there SAM’s. (Patriot 2, THAADS, ect.) and GCI is a collective radar/communication system. Modern SAM’s utilize this as most modern countries do.
-
Yes - your own ship radar antenna is not only a great antenna, is is also a very efficient reflector. That’s why you keep your nose off the site.
This is correct. SEAD strikes set angles of 15 to 30 degrees off bore sight during HARM launches. Also, it is easier to go “defensive” if a SAM does launch there way.
-
Lately I’ve been doing some DPRK flights.
Low altitude flight improvement would be great. AI below 900-1000 AGL as well as a deliberate “low altitude mission” profile from AI-ATO would be neato.
Weapons delivery from more than one height per weapon would add a lot of variety.
“Bogey dope” more info like aspect, heading, velocity would really help those radar off MiG intercepts… oh and type. I’d much rather intercept a B-1 or F-4 than another darn F-18!
Selective jettison AI commands for external tanks and/or AG ordnance.
-
Why would you want AI to jettission ordnance selectively? For fuel tanks i belive they actually drop them as soon as they are empty.
I would rather prefeer option to tell AI what type of ordenance to use against enemy and also a type of target to engage (like in DCS where you say “engage armor with maverick ingress east”). This would make engagements much more flexible. AI would stop launching their valuable MAVericks against stationary APCs if there are moving tanks in area. -
Another one: missiles in BMS currently only damage the target aircraft and the missile will just fuse inside lethal range. Large warheads such as SA-2 should be able to knock out a whole formation if stupid enough to be flying fingertip, or even fuse on the wrong target. This is something that DCS actually simulates to my surprise.
-
Another one: missiles in BMS currently only damage the target aircraft and the missile will just fuse inside lethal range. Large warheads such as SA-2 should be able to knock out a whole formation if stupid enough to be flying fingertip, or even fuse on the wrong target. This is something that DCS actually simulates to my surprise.
Considering the 1 chance in 1 million that this case happen in game (that would mean completely undetected missile incoming !!?) and the extensive CPU cost (all aircraft in game to be distance tested ) this is unlikely to be done
on the other hand, it happens only at missile explosion …
-
Do AI ever fly that close? Do the test client side when a missile is doing detonation and only check aircraft in that same flight…