Suggestion for database, data supply
-
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 this…
When the slammer goes active it’s at very close distance , that’s the whole point why the ahr needs to be guided by main radar to a point where it’s 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 , don’t forget most ahr are HoJ so this is like a bénédiction 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 didn’t have a Monopulse seeker / antenna……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 didn’t 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 didn’t have a Monopulse seeker / antenna……
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 didn’t 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 '70s…
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 don’t 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 version’s 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 unit…… 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 BetAB…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 BetAB…I also will check their dispensers.
Even BLUEFOR jets have very poor loadout choices…
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).
-
We are lacking of dev to make everything. Anyway : too much dev is also difficult to manage
-
It all code. And VERY painfull to work. For now priority is somewhere else (for me at least).
@Bad:
We are lacking of dev to make everything. Anyway : too much dev is also difficult to manage
RGR
Regardless of these I can make some examples and check how use them the ATO.
-
Regardless of these I can make some examples and check how use them the ATO.
Sure … but unfortunately … dealing this is now more or less behind me as we are 100% on other aspects. But someday I will be back on it.
One solution we’ve discussed in the past is data text defining for each a/c and each mission what should be the best configuration … It would allow more relevant and real life load-out depending on target and task … etc …I let you imagine how many different configurations we should define (and keep up to date with data and code changes) along the time … and by considering all the possibilities in stock and available weapons, and weather, and day vs night …
So for the time being, we still rely on a code routine which is … no perfect (can’t be).
-
Sure … but unfortunately … dealing this is now more or less behind me as we are 100% on other aspects. But someday I will be back on it.
I’m still somewhat focused on that.
One solution we’ve discussed in the past is data text defining for each a/c and each mission what should be the best configuration … It would allow more relevant and real life load-out depending on target and task … etc …
Yeah but that would not take into account all what’s going on in the campaign.
And if so, choosing between the different “static” loadouts (I mean defined in some text files) in code will lead to the same maybe sometimes even worse situations like we have them now.Basically that’s what you get if you have a dynamic campaign engine running in the background.
But still we can improve that code, just what we need is some input on “bad” loadouts, so we can work on that.E.g. report like that:
- Mission type (maybe with an additional screenshot of the mission planning on the camp map)
- Current loadout (screenshot) with a description what is wrong
- Expected loadout (screenshot of manual adjusted) with a description why that weapons are chosen
So for the time being, we still rely on a code routine which is … no perfect (can’t be).
But maybe the coder can be educated to improve it.
-
-
Considering what I experienced so far with 4.34 the main issue if you allow too many types and qty of loadouts and AI cannot use them in one pass for ex. against an airbase strike.
This can be handled in many ways.For ex. it can be allowed many different weapons but in campaign availability of some weapons are denied. For example to F-111E which is only low level bomber BSU bombs should get the priority and Mk-84. The Mk-82 should not be allowed.
The M117 also can be allowed because of historical accuracy but in campaign also should be denied. In reality the plane can carry 24x500 lb bombs but in RL because of drag they carry 4xMk-84 or or only 8-12 smaller bombs. Because the 2000 lb bombs are allowed to any HPs restriction for 500 lb to be carried only inner HPs the in not an issue to me.F-111F was THE PGM platfrom –-> Only LGBs, GBU-15 and 1-2 types of CBU just in case. Lots of Mk-20 and fewer CBU-87 or any realistic CBU.
Su-24 also can be similar to this. There is no need more than 2-3 1500 kg bomb and carry besides them more smaller. For TE can be allowed any but in campaign also should be denied many of the AG weapons and only 250-500 kg bombs are important and only some of them.
UB rockets also should not be allowed only for very light and small planes.
Allowing only some HP for lots and heavy bombs for A-10 + Su-25.
Using this rule of thumb I could get quite a good results in my MODs.
-
Hi Molni,
Considering what I experienced so far with 4.34 the main issue if you allow too many types and qty of loadouts and AI cannot use them in one pass for ex. against an airbase strike.
This can be handled in many ways.For ex. it can be allowed many different weapons but in campaign availability of some weapons are denied. For example to F-111E which is only low level bomber BSU bombs should get the priority and Mk-84. The Mk-82 should not be allowed.
The M117 also can be allowed because of historical accuracy but in campaign also should be denied. In reality the plane can carry 24x500 lb bombs but in RL because of drag they carry 4xMk-84 or or only 8-12 smaller bombs. Because the 2000 lb bombs are allowed to any HPs restriction for 500 lb to be carried only inner HPs the in not an issue to me.F-111F was THE PGM platfrom –-> Only LGBs, GBU-15 and 1-2 types of CBU just in case. Lots of Mk-20 and fewer CBU-87 or any realistic CBU.
Su-24 also can be similar to this. There is no need more than 2-3 1500 kg bomb and carry besides them more smaller. For TE can be allowed any but in campaign also should be denied many of the AG weapons and only 250-500 kg bombs are important and only some of them.
UB rockets also should not be allowed only for very light and small planes.
Allowing only some HP for lots and heavy bombs for A-10 + Su-25.
Using this rule of thumb I could get quite a good results in my MODs.
what you describe is already possible to do, you can overwrite default database values with campaign specific data, just have a look into “/Data/Add-On Korea TvT/TerrData/Objects/SSD”.
Cheers
Biker -
Hi Molni,
what you describe is already possible to do, you can overwrite default database values with campaign specific data, just have a look into “/Data/Add-On Korea TvT/TerrData/Objects/SSD”.
Cheers
BikerI know the Editor can handle this as in old time the F4Browse.
Whoa, that was long time ago. -
I know the Editor can handle this as in old time the F4Browse.
Whoa, that was long time ago.But that’s not what I mean…
You can adjust the values of some specific squadrons without touching the database files in your base install.
BMS Edit -> adjust the values you want for your theater -> right click -> Export …
To get it override the default values in DB, you need to add a directory structure like in TvT and place the exported file(s) there.