Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TaxDollarsAtWork

  1. What do you base this claim on? The meteor is renowned for its superior kinematics and there are even talks of mounting a similar AESA seeker to it like the AAM4 has. I must remind you Chizh that you are very far from a rocket scientist to be making such claims.
  2. My deepest apologies for not being a literal old person, if only I could have made LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs/Flanker 2.0 bug reports while I was still on a diet of Gerber carrot purees and baby formula. Maybe then we could have had these bugs fixed by now. Give me a break, regardless of when we joined the community continually raising these issues to the devs is never a bad thing.
  3. Most players don't know every little minute detail about planes, thats why they come with a manual. That's where the fun is, playing the study sim to study and learn about it. So the point is mute.
  4. I keep getting this issue every time I launch the game now I did not ask for a 14 day rental I use steam The only potential issue was that I had a crash installing the last update and after I restarted the update became significantly longer I've checked mods folder and I don't find anything Mi-24 related
  5. Then why did one of your sources say this " Покупатели российских самолетов могут в ближайшее время остаться без ракет ближнего боя Р-73, которые «догоняют» самолет противника за счет инфракрасной головки самонаведения. Эти ракеты работают по принципу «пустил и забыл» и остаются одним из самых грозных средств поражения авиатехники. Самые свежие модификации ракеты (РМД-2) имеют всеракурсную многоплощадочную головку самонаведения с двухдиапазонным охлаждаемым фотоприемником, чувствительность которого вдвое выше базовой версии. Эти устройства, которые называются МК-80 «Маяк», еще с советских времен производит киевский завод «Арсенал»."
  6. Tovarish Palkovkins findings and insights point to ED not having all the facts on the missile, the preliminary CFD helped with drag but they still had their issues by a good bit leading me to believe their model might be wrong (like the uncertainty around how much and how it's motor burned). ED still fails to take into consideration the provisions that go along with the graphs provided and similarities and parallels with other similar Russian missile studies. They could be making a more accurate CFD is what he is saying.
  7. I do not understand, the Ukrainian source gives conflicting information with your other poster, and your Gazette source says it is a dual band seeker since the USSR era. How does this prove me wrong if anything it proves me right. It was purchased, a RuAF pilot says that in his entry to service he hardly ever saw the RMD-1 and worked almost exclusively with the -2 The dates I've also seen are that it was put into RuAF service in 1995 and brought to the export market in 1997 This post and like 3 pages prior and after talk a bit about it
  8. If you will not substantiate your claims with evidence how do we know you are striving to create a realistic simulator? Are we supposed to just 'take your word for it' when you probably don't even have the right credentials to speak authoritatively on the subject? Might I remind you, until recently you were completely unaware of the existence of the RMD-2 until it was pointed out to you. For this reason I'm highly skeptical of anything you say unless you have a source to back it up on these matters
  9. I am questioning your source, do you have a more reputable one you can show me? Sources like the one you post tended to be the source of much confusion and disinformation Something like a manual would be far more authoritative if it is so well known this shouldn't be a problem
  10. I've seen this thrown around but I find these posters like this one tend not to be all that reliable sources Like talking about things like R-27AEs or radar upgrades not purchased by anyone Do you have something like a mention in the manual? These war colleges tend to not use murzilka
  11. Out of curiosity what is your source on that I've only seen one Ukrainian source say this but countless war colleges say otherwise
  12. Yes it is one of those aspects of DCS where the current system in some ways is good enough
  13. While what you said is correct, its a more apt description of how IRCCM works in single colour Con Scan Frequency Modulated detectors. Take for example the AIM-9M/L (And broadly all late Sidewinders sans 9X) would use things such as flare deceleration (through LOS Rate change) to discriminate between the target and counter measures in the IFOV. More processing and software obviously goes a long way with IRCCM in nutating seekers since its just as important to be able to accurately process what it sees. But the R-73 family takes a slightly different approach, it is commonly described as a two colour pulse position seeker. I like to draw parallels between signal processing and power in radars (in this case a better missile 'front end' or seeker set up), one solution isn't nearly as good pound for pound but still does provided results. Academically it has many different names, dual band seeker and Spectral Distribution Discrimination among other technical sobriquets. I found that this paper "Expendable Countermeasure Effectiveness against Imaging Infrared Guided Threats C. R. Viau Tactical Technologies Inc., 356 Woodroffe Ave., Ottawa, ON Canada" Explained it best simply as "Spectral distribution discrimination is commonly referred to as two-color discrimination. Seekers equipped with dual mode detectors can view a scene in two separate bands of the spectrum. The seeker compares the spectral distribution ratio of the various targets in the field of view to a predefined threshold. If a target does not meet the two-color ratio criteria, it is classified as a flare and rejected as the true target. Early generations of flares produced a much different signature ratio than aircraft plumes and as a result were susceptible to two-color discrimination." So while a wholly non digital IRCCM set up in the RMD-1 & 2 it was wholly adequate, actually beyond that for the flares of the time and era and Tek isn't exactly wrong to say in some ways it was a better seeker for the time. The paper on its own is interesting as well as it covers the effectiveness of different types of flares working on slightly different principles to pull off seekers
  14. The R-73 RMD-1 Does have CCM, it just does not benefit from digital IRCCM techniques like introduced in the AIM-9M Introduction to Modern EW Systems, Second Edition By Andrea De Martino mentions this on page 324 This link also explains the mechanics of non digital IRCCM in a reticle seeker missile https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/10981/Modelling_ultraviolet_threats-2016.pdf;jsessionid=B6D4D03ACE8ED17A9B57F792EDE4767E?sequence=3 the RMD-1 being around the AIM-9L / AIM-9M-2 CCM wise is a rather reasonable assumption From what has been said from Russian SME's the 1995 RMD-2 did have better IRCCM capabilities and other sources say the only differences aside from improved gimbal limits are greater seeker lock range and slightly increased weight (I assume this picture is from NASIC) I don't believe this to have been as a result of a bigger motor, more CCM Circuits seem most likely
  15. These Links were garbage compared to JTIDS and TKS-2M For example the F-14's Link 4 was limited to 4 planes sharing F2F info Compare that to Spectre DL where you have 16 planes on the same net sharing contacts and position with way points from AWACS with a more intuitive SA page And kick it up a notch to the earliest form of operational Link 16, it really makes all the other links before it look like some cave man junk Apples to oranges comparison guys Or more like moldy rotten apples vs ripe and juicy apples
  16. TADIL C predates it, not ground breaking tech. Different DL system as well he's talking about a functionality somewhere between Link 4C and TADIL - J in scope Something like a MiG-29K (and other assorted Indian Chinese and Egyptian assets) would be appreciated in DCS People's focus on redfor seems to be too russocentric but maybe because most of the community was raised in the cold war. There are other more likely hotspots & potential confrontations that would be very interesting to sim and the lack of Su-30MKI A-4 Skyhawks, Kfirs/Mirage III/V clones, JAS-39A/C VT-4 tanks J-7s Type 69s etc makes this hard Even for historical confrontations in the Levant and Central Asia a lot of stuff is missing Merkavas were recently added so that is nice
  17. With what we've seen and not seen I'd be inclined to believe there is a lot of uncertainty on dimensions of the missile as well but also about the motor @tavarish palkovnik Has been helpful in pointing out issues with the boost sustain distribution and how the motor exactly burns
  18. I've given some thought to the possibility of a Mach 1.5 cut off at all given alts not working given how mach is different given alt and air density Possibly a humble more realistic estimate would be 150m/s + target speed at the cut off roughly both head on and tail chase Would possibly manifest itself as overshooting the cut off at different speeds based on alt Mach 1.5 at some higher alts 1.3 or 1.2 at others possibly lower It would also be inline with the additional speed needed at higher alt to pull said terminal 3g. Regarding new information, while I agree with you the terminal 3g and 150m/s are important pieces of information that can't be disregarded.
  19. Sure, but if we remember that Russian AMRAAM chart I do recall some saying the termination parameters were something like Mach 1.5 or 1.6 on the 120A estimate. Which is why we saw the 120B balistically out fly said numbers with the CFD data. Now there is error in both in the case of the CFD probably minor and academic in nature. Meanwhile the Russian 120 chart probably more so (as a result of wrong assumptions maybe). But it could still tell us something as Russian AIM-7E/F graphs weren't too terribly off the money in many ways. (I'd also like to point out the AIM-7M is still underperforming in terms of stern WEZ) Not the worst thing to work with. Which is a similar issue to what I think we're seeing with the R-27ER range interpretation. What if we flip that question on its head and assume the R-27ER range table as also having a similar cut off at 1.5~1.6 mach allowing it to overshoot said figures balistically? I'd also like to say 3g for a few seconds seems in line with other CFD missiles and the available G terminally they tend to have at about mach 1.5 Sure but this educated guess is based on what SMEs have said and the manuals as well as other observations. The purpose of this thread is also for discourse and debate right? The burden of proof is on you Chizh I would like to see what you base your theories on I already elaborated on mine.
  20. The only issue is Chizh believes these figures to have no built in safety margin or cushion of extra energy. SME's and other parts of the MiG-29/Su-27 point to there being such a provision meaning, it should ballistically, out fly numbers stated by some margin, doesn't it? Like slightly overshoot in stern WEZ shots for example
  21. Could you share these graphs, I could probably do some test for you
  22. that was part of it wasn't it? And the next part?
  23. When does the new patch with the CFD ER drop?
  24. No because other cleaner official graphs say the same thing
  • Create New...