Suggestion for database, data supply
-
Updated with all division, army and front level air defense units. I call still WIP but in fact the core Soviet AD units are now in the doc fully. Weaker NSWP units can be created by playing with qty. of SAM defeneded fighting battalions or lass qty. of SAM / AAA can be used in case team wish to use more battalion type. Considering campaign and DB update the first is easier but needs campaign editing insted DB editing.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/nxrj4nsn428i991/Falcon-BMS4-database-WIP-13-07-2016.pdf
If the team or anybody have question you can find me.
I discovered an error what I sent. The S-6 (2K12 Kub) battery should have only 4x launchers per battery not 6x.
-
Any feedback?
I agree , but aim54 is supposed to be quite long range. in the right conditions , very long shots were made by me in other falcon.
Phoenix needs an upgrade, I think. I thought when I first used it in BMS, that maybe it was close to reality than free falcon or whatever I was used to, but as time went on, I even wound up using all my phoenix missiles that very slowly missed evading enemy fighters and had to chase them down and use my side winders.
Gianni is right, I wasted all those expensive aim54, to get success with 3 dollar sidewinder.
I am no expert on phoenix, but ATM, I would rather carry almost any other missil e instead,
There is a missile in Nordic db that seems closer to the Phoenix of my past experience. It almost seems like a cheat compared to the rest.
I just tried to find the name in forum, but no joy , its European, and ef2000ge carries it , and 40 mile shots are a sure thing, most times.
This is the kind of fire and forget that I was used to with aim54. -
I There is a missile in Nordic db that seems closer to the Phoenix of my past experience. It almost seems like a cheat compared to the rest.
I just tried to find the name in forum, but no joy , its European, and ef2000ge carries it , and 40 mile shots are a sure thing, most times.
This is the kind of fire and forget that I was used to with aim54.BVRAAM, meteor.
-
Thatās it! the meteor is the closest to long range, Phoenix, I almost want to use this information in a phoenix, although meteor seems very fast compared to old phoenix.
-
you are misunderstanding me
First : AHR are ECM immune because they are (most of them) HOJ (or should be) , so stating the AHR should be jammed by ECM is non sense
as far as Chaffs or beam is concerned, this is not coming from F4 heritage, this is done on pupose. yes AHR are chaff immune because we think they should be , thatās it !
why do you think Land based systems are different ?
have you tried to beam or chaff a SA10 or SA11 ?
All of this is on purpose, not from our inability to model
Just for information : NOTHING from F4 heritage is a burden to BMS, we can do what we want.
Can you explain the cause?
If you fly F-15 you have onboard radar which has velocity the velocity of the Eagle. If an AC is beaming, uses jammer and chaff breaking the radar lock is not so hard even close to 10 nm distance.
If you consider an AMRAAM which has weaker radar, (less HW in RL) against the same target with same radial speed is 100% immune to any of the effects above lock is cannot be broken. Only difference the speed the length of velocity vector which does not have any effect on beaming as well as ground clutter and chaff.Can you explain to me this diference? How could be this a good modeling? A large very powerful radar lock can be broken quite well while ARHs are holy weapons sensorwise. I never was able to understood thisā¦
-
Can you explain the cause?
If you fly F-15 you have onboard radar which has velocity the velocity of the Eagle. If an AC is beaming, uses jammer and chaff breaking the radar lock is not so hard even close to 10 nm distance.
If you consider an AMRAAM which has weaker radar, (less HW in RL) against the same target with same radial speed is 100% immune to any of the effects above lock is cannot be broken. Only difference the speed the length of velocity vector which does not have any effect on beaming as well as ground clutter and chaff.Can you explain to me this diference? How could be this a good modeling? A large very powerful radar lock can be broken quite well while ARHs are holy weapons sensorwise. I never was able to understood thisā¦
If AC radar drops the lock, canāt it be reacquired? Sure it can, we all do that, so letās assume the AMRAAM drop lock by beam/chaff/whatever, who said the target wonāt be reacquired microseconds after the drop? We all know that the AMRAAM can acquire targets in Maddog mode, so why it wonāt be able to pick it a target that was dropped for a microsecond? I believe it even has enough info to know to acquire the EXACT same target if there is a mass of those around, because of properties and estimation.
Besides, do you know the exact properties of the radar? Iām not an expert to radars, but after all itās all about Electromagnetics, and I know that properties do matter. Also, the AMRAAM pitbull mode usually starts at less than 10NM right? have you checked the beaming chances? You canāt really do that without Analyzing many factors, including the exact radar properties, the HW in use and its capabilitiesā¦
Itās like saying that itās not real for last generation heaters to be totally immune to flares, but itās a fact that some of them are, so why that is OK and not for ARH?
-
We all know that the AMRAAM can acquire targets in Maddog mode, so why it wonāt be able to pick it a target that was dropped for a microsecond? I believe it even has enough info to know to acquire the EXACT same target if there is a mass of those around, because of properties and estimation.
Besides, do you know the exact properties of the radar? Iām not an expert to radars, but after all itās all about Electromagnetics, and I know that properties do matter. Also, the AMRAAM pitbull mode usually starts at less than 10NM right? have you checked the beaming chances? You canāt really do that without Analyzing many factors, including the exact radar properties, the HW in use and its capabilitiesā¦
Itās like saying that itās not real for last generation heaters to be totally immune to flares, but itās a fact that some of them are, so why that is OK and not for ARH?
If AC radar drops the lock, canāt it be reacquired? Sure it can, we all do that, so letās assume the AMRAAM drop lock by beam/chaff/whatever, who said the target wonāt be reacquired microseconds after the drop?
Wonderful. Then why is not able to do the radar on fighters which has more narrower and poweful beam and better hardware supportā¦? Why SARH missiles miss targets and does not able to relock the radarā¦? In RL even stone age S-75M can do relock the problem the kinematics of the missile. The relock process is slow is really only use what I explained in the History of S-75 family doc.
And AIM-9M and R-73 are not the latest generation IR AAMs not even close. In fact both is still just a boosted '70s technology their prinicples are the good old FM from '70s with cooling and InSb detector instead PbS and some digital āgadgetā. The imaging IR missiles are totally differentā¦
ā¦but somehow AIM-9X missed a stonge age Su-22. Yes 1 size sample is useless but it happened. And also happened many cases on larger sample where ODS era AIM-9s were defeated by flares. Easilyā¦ -
Wonderful. Then why is not able to do the same the radar on fightersā¦? Why SARH missiles miss targets and does not able to relockā¦?
Seriously you are asking this??? Iām far from being an expert to missiles or radars, but just using common sense here. ARH missile HAS THE ABILITY to lock a target INDEPENDENTLY because it has an onboard radar, so I assume it also has the HW to guesstimate a loss of target momentarily and reacquire. Why SARH canāt?? because SARH are older (Means probably older HW/Processor), SARH TOTALLY DEPEND on lock from the launching/guiding platform to ālightā the target with its radar, and since SARH DONāT HAVE onboard radar, it CANāT reacquire a target in microseconds like I assume ARH can do, because it depend on pilot action to reacquire, and pilot is much slower than processor, so here is another possible reason.
Also, I donāt know if newer SARH missiles or SAMs canāt reacquire target if there is a momentary loss of targetā¦
-
Also, I donāt know if newer SARH missiles or SAMs canāt reacquire target if there is a momentary loss of targetā¦
Depends on the āmomentarilyā and the missile generation, I suppose. For older SARH missiles, needing continuous wave radar illumination, the antenna did a little pattern and depending on return strength the antenna knew how to move next. For those, if the radar loses track, the algorithm would screw up big time.
Newer SARH missiles have monopulse antenna, so the radar can remain in STT without going continuous wave. For those, they can determine where the beam came from with a single return pulse. But the antenna still has an angle-limited main lobe. So if the radar loses track then reacquire, the missile antenna has to point in the right direction for.
The problem with our ARH is that when a radar drops lock, it instantaneously āknowsā it as soon as the chaff is deployed.So the 120 radar can enter a mini-scan right away, and the radar antenna is still pointing right at the target, so the missile reacquire right away. A mini-scan which is too fast on our missile anyway
If we had the following :- chaff lures the radar beam a bit away from the target (not lock transfer, just ācenter of massā between target and chaff, if you will"
- the radar does not detect right away that it is being lured
- then once it sees nothing it enters a mini scan which takes a few seconds
There the ARH would have a chance to be lured away.
-
Newer SARH missiles have monopulse antenna, so the radar can remain in STT without going continuous wave. For those, they can determine where the beam came from with a single return pulse. But the antenna still has an angle-limited main lobe. So if the radar loses track then reacquire, the missile antenna has to point in the right direction for.
The STT without CW illumuination is not linked with monopulse antenna. Even AIM-7F and R-23R had monopulse antenna but both required CW illumination. AIM-7M introduced the guidance capability without CW. If you read the air combat reports / stories from Peace for G. (1982) and ODS (1991) you can see none of IAF pilots performed F-pole while USAF pilots everytime if they could do it.
-
Can you explain the cause?
If you fly F-15 you have onboard radar which has velocity the velocity of the Eagle. If an AC is beaming, uses jammer and chaff breaking the radar lock is not so hard even close to 10 nm distance.
If you consider an AMRAAM which has weaker radar, (less HW in RL) against the same target with same radial speed is 100% immune to any of the effects above lock is cannot be broken. Only difference the speed the length of velocity vector which does not have any effect on beaming as well as ground clutter and chaff.Can you explain to me this diference? How could be this a good modeling? A large very powerful radar lock can be broken quite well while ARHs are holy weapons sensorwise. I never was able to understood thisā¦
When the slammer goes active itās at very close distance , thatās the whole point why the ahr needs to be guided by main radar to a point where itās own seeker can efficiently relay and track without loosing target
This is different for aim54 which obviously has to depend on a much bigger array and which should be jammable at larger distances
As for ECM , donāt forget most ahr are HoJ so this is like a bĆ©nĆ©diction to have a target turning on ECM
If f15 radar can be lost at 10nm with chaffs then the f15 radar should be adjusted
-
The STT without CW illumuination is not linked with monopulse antenna. Even AIM-7F and R-23R had monopulse antenna but both required CW illumination. AIM-7M introduced the guidance capability without CW. If you read the air combat reports / stories from Peace for G. (1982) and ODS (1991) you can see none of IAF pilots performed F-pole while USAF pilots everytime if they could do it.
AIM-7F was solid state but pretty certain it didnāt have a Monopulse seeker / antennaā¦ā¦Skyflash (or Aspide?) was the first Sparrow with that I think and then later AIM-7M.
Peace for Galilee was AIM-7F only for sure but Hughes didnāt use CW modules on their radars, instead they used what seems to be a different method using a HPRF doppler waveform to guide it.
-
AIM-7F was solid state but pretty certain it didnāt have a Monopulse seeker / antennaā¦ā¦
Can I ask why it would not have it? The first monopulse antenna in USA was used by HAWK and even Nike Herclues in late '50s.
Skyflash (or Aspide?) was the first Sparrow with that I think and then later AIM-7M.
Skylash was a slightly upgaded variant of AIM-7E-2.
Peace for Galilee was AIM-7F only for sure but Hughes didnāt use CW modules on their radars, instead they used what seems to be a different method using a HPRF doppler waveform to guide it.
CW illuminators were still in '90s in USAF F-15s pictures I guess because of backward compatibility. During 1982 F-15A were used for '70sā¦
Source for CW.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_CS_-January_1976.pdf
AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC-_January_1977.pdf -
Not really a case of why, more a case of having no specific information to say the production AIM-7 had any kind of monopulse seeker until M came along - those SAC docs you linked to donāt mention any seeker change which would probably mean it was still what conscan?.
According to old industry information (FCI) several monopulse seekers were tested in the AIM-7F from Raytheon, General Dynamics and the Skyflash seeker (Marconi) as part of a fly off for what was known as the improved AIM-7F, whether this was the M is unclear but it looks like they might have put in the M seeker in the F in the 80s at some point:
The AIM-7F was introduced in 1977, and has a solid-state guidance and a more powerful motor. This versionās rocket motor has a more powerful boost-sustain capability, with a combination of high speed and terminal energy. Through 1980, Raytheon/General Dynamics delivered some 9,140 guidance and control packages for Sparrow missiles. Although Raytheon was the original manufacturer, General Dynamics was brought in as a second source in 1977. Production of AIM-7F stopped in 1981. A total of 4,000 of the missiles would be retrofit with the advanced monopulse seeker developed for the AIM-7M.
Skyflash - they replaced the old conscan seeker for one thing:
Sky Flash is based on the Raytheon AIM-7E Sparrow - It retains the US-manufactured airframe, motor and warhead. These are combined with UK-designed seeker, autopilot, fuzes and power supply unitā¦ā¦ The semi-active radar seeker, which has high subclutter visibility, was developed by Marconi Defence Systems. It is of the inverse-monopulse type, with an antenna steerable in elevation and azimuth, providing an allaround look-angle of more than 40 degrees, a receiver and a signal processor. The seeker is a self-contained unit which can be easily removed for maintenance and testing, and simplified further by the use of printed circuit boards for specific functions.Taken from an APG-65 case study:
Did they really need to use CW - you can see in the guidance section of the AIM-7F SAC docs you have linked to that it could use CW or pulse Doppler. So are Hughes emulating CW with this method or can they just use HPRF instead?
-
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=35478&d=1527770962
Did they really need to use CW - you can see in the guidance section of the AIM-7F SAC docs you have linked to that it could use CW or pulse Doppler. So are Hughes emulating CW with this method or can they just use HPRF instead?
As I know CW illumination was required only the F variant but M also retained this feature as an additional mode even it used the natural reflection of the imp-doppler radar.
-
The Su-24 has some issues.
For the 250 kg size bombs in case two is put on a HP they are in line as should be. The 4x or 6x250 kg is correct.
But 500 kg bombs are on pair racks which never existed as I know.On outer HP AG weapon in RL are possible but it has 0 sense. I suggest to disable them to make easier the work of the ATO.
For loadout setting.
Loadout of the Su-17 is also inaccurate for the the Kh-58 (AS-11) cannot be carried on the outer HP.
-
The dispensers for Su-17 are not active. This is a very serious issue. It should be fixed ASAP.
As long as the game models the M3 or M4 variant this is quite a strange setting to me. All of Su-17 had dispensers from 0 just their qty. was increased during their service.
The loadout setting of the Su-17 is very inaccurate.As linguine I recommend this combined with the image above. I created this for my old MOD when AI was not able to use unguided rockets well, just ignore the sq. stores. The point of the image is the bomb-HP clo
You can add if you wish but IHMO because of campaign it should be considered to set only 1-2 type for them. The UB-32-57 has enough firepower to make a real effect at least for less armored units. -
I checked some red jets which still have strange loadout.
If I make a loadout suggestion will be applied for them?I would make it that I consider also the ATO.
It is not worth and wise to model every possible loadout option because it just make the work of the ATO AI harder.For ex the FAB-100 has so little firepower and 6x of them have so large drag which makes it unpractical.
The n+1 different RBK (CBU) is also not worth. The type against tanks/vehicles and the anti runway is important which is even has overlapping in role with the BetABā¦I also will check their dispensers.
-
I checked some red jets which still have strange loadout.
If I make a loadout suggestion will be applied for them?I would make it that I consider also the ATO.
It is not worth and wise to model every possible loadout option because it just make the work of the ATO AI harder.For ex the FAB-100 has so little firepower and 6x of them have so large drag which makes it unpractical.
The n+1 different RBK (CBU) is also not worth. The type against tanks/vehicles and the anti runway is important which is even has overlapping in role with the BetABā¦I also will check their dispensers.
Even BLUEFOR jets have very poor loadout choicesā¦
No 6x bomb for F-111F.
No CBU for F-111F.IMHO the loadouts needs some updates.
It would be great to know a little bit more about the ATO AI to set the best options while we still keep valuable choices both to the AI and players. -
It all code. And VERY painfull to work. For now priority is somewhere else (for me at least).