No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft

Stabilisers I should imagine.

Tail fins.

In this case he is referring to the rudders (vertical stabilizers). You have to consider context, because he could also mean the horizontal stabilizers (your pitch control surfaces) in some cases - like Frostie said, almost any fin with aerodynamic purpose might be called a 'stab'.

I may not understand the terminology, whether they thought the "stabs", what is "stabs"?

 

On 26th March 1999, Captain Jeff 'Claw' Hwang says: "Took a quick look back to see if my stabs were still intact, rolled my elevation coverage looking from about 5K’ to 21K’ and — no kidding — stay in search for at least one full frame (believe me, I wanted to go back to single-target track"

ahh I thought that this volume scanning :(

here is full text for context

Kosovo Mig Kills lite.doc

The other one is LBST (long range boresight, 40nm range IIRC but don't quote me on that number, I'll have to re-check the -34)

And right now guns is using the VSS pattern. As well, almost all of these modes should be slewable.

lbst is 30nm.

But yet, guns mode should be slewable. So guns is using VSS, to me it seems to be a little bit more wider in search and less elevation but it might just be me..

Still, if I have visual and can point the nose straight at my target ill use borescope for AAQ. I'd rather have SS as at times BS requires a bit more finess and also means I have to fly directly at it which can put me in an "unfavorable" position

@Ragnarok

The first sentence refers to him checking the integrity of his plane (Are my rudders still there?) :)

The second refers to the elevation coverage: On the real F-15 there is a 'roller' sort of like your mouse wheel to control the radar elevation.

At the end, he says he had to wait for a full frame - this means the complete scan, eg all 4 bars (or however many bars he set the radar to scan), which can be quite slow if you are using 120AZ - depending on the VSD range, the antenna may be moving at 70dps, so it takes almost 2 seconds to scan a full bar, and it will take about 7 seconds to scan all 4 bars.

ahh I thought that this volume scanning :(

 

here is full text for context

That is a very interesting story.

@Ragnarok

 

The first sentence refers to him checking the integrity of his plane (Are my rudders still there?) :)

 

The second refers to the elevation coverage: On the real F-15 there is a 'roller' sort of like your mouse wheel to control the radar elevation.

At the end, he says he had to wait for a full frame - this means the complete scan, eg all 4 bars (or however many bars he set the radar to scan), which can be quite slow if you are using 120AZ - depending on the VSD range, the antenna may be moving at 70dps, so it takes almost 2 seconds to scan a full bar, and it will take about 7 seconds to scan all 4 bars.

I understand. There are a lot of simple fact, although all must be taken with caution. But otherwise, the story from the yugoslav side coincides entirely!

Great story, really puts it into context how easy the simming world is.

The thing to point out about its poor placement is that IRL, you'd be stuck having to pan your head to look down at it. Sure in game you have the benefit of being able to play with the zoom/FOV, but you give up readability on the instruments/HUD if you aren't on a very large screen.

IRL nobody needs to pan their head to see down to their right knee, you just move your eyes instantly to focus on it. This is a limitation of a simulation running on a 20 something inch monitor that offers no peripheral vision and can't be applied to real life as you're doing. It appears to literally, be no more work than in an F15 when it comes to reality. Both require you to take half a second to look at the information.

No arguments that the RWR is obviously secondary to the datalink, but to me, they clearly got that the right way around. Calling it poorly placed because there is a more useful tool they prioritized is something i've always found funny.

There is no instant focus. But that would affect everyone, not just the Russian stuff; this is why HuDs are focused to infinity.

We'll they could have put it on the left but that would mean losing the g-meter which incidently is nicely placed on western HUDs. :)

I don't think you can argue against the F-15s ergonomics and sa building.

its beautiful to others.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

ahh I thought that this volume scanning :(

 

here is full text for context

Nice read man. What i find interesting about this text is this "Finally I turned the GMTR setting on my trusty APG-70 to low and immediately saw the targets. Locked them up and show 80 kts ground speed! I wanted to reach through the mic and strangle the shit out the controller!"

So you can see ground targets like cars and stuff on the radar. And even lock them. Why is that not in DCS?

I know sometimes you can lock parked planes in the SU-27.

GMTR is the notch filter and it's adjustable in real F-15 and F-16, and most likely in any other modern plane. We don't have it because of low fidelity systems modeling in FC3 planes. To have it properly modeled we would also need a proper modeling of ground clutter like wind moving vegetation, waves, birds, moving clouds, cars, etc. that give false moving target indications. Also smooth ground (like still water surfaces that reflect the wave away from the receiver) or smooth surfaced very dry sand (absorbs the radar wave) gives very little ground clutter making it possible to see notching targets against the ground.

????

 

Based on WHAT? There's nothing wrong with the atmosphere, the issue is in the drag coefficient curve for the missile.

Well respectfully I disagree: the maximum attainable speed in the sim for the Su-27 (and I think the F-15C) is significantly higher than Sukhoi's own published figures.

Sukhoi quotes a maximum mach number of 2.35 for the Su-27SK, which must be at altitude though in fairness the site doesn't specify the conditions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130920044646/http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/about/knaapo_aircraft/su-27sk.wbp

Whereas in the sim I've personally taken the Su-27 to Mach 2.60 for sustained periods of time.

For the F-15C, this site specifies a maximum speed of Mach 2.50 at 36,000 feet:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f15/

Whereas in the sim it can apparently reach M2.606.

With much more caution, and I may be entirely wrong, but it also appears as though at low level neither aircraft is capable of reaching it's published maximum speed. Both appear to be too fast at altitude and too slow at low level. The only difference between the two conditions is atmospheric, hence my position that the atmospheric model may need tweaking slightly.

Well respectfully I disagree: the maximum attainable speed in the sim for the Su-27 (and I think the F-15C) is significantly higher than Sukhoi's own published figures.

 

Sukhoi quotes a maximum mach number of 2.35 for the Su-27SK, which must be at altitude though in fairness the site doesn't specify the conditions:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20130920044646/http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/about/knaapo_aircraft/su-27sk.wbp

 

Whereas in the sim I've personally taken the Su-27 to Mach 2.60 for sustained periods of time.

 

For the F-15C, this site specifies a maximum speed of Mach 2.50 at 36,000 feet:

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f15/

 

Whereas in the sim it can apparently reach M2.606.

 

With much more caution, and I may be entirely wrong, but it also appears as though at low level neither aircraft is capable of reaching it's published maximum speed. Both appear to be too fast at altitude and too slow at low level. The only difference between the two conditions is atmospheric, hence my position that the atmospheric model may need tweaking slightly.

I suspect that the reason for being able to achieve such speed is that damage from drag is not modeled. IRL, the engine would flame out or the intake would melt.

Low down it is not possible to reach max speed, IRL or in DCS, because drag force is greater than available thrust. In aircraft that have enough thrust to reach mach 2 low down (mig 25 is a good example) doing so destroys the compressor stage of the engine fairly quickly.

Well respectfully I disagree: the maximum attainable speed in the sim for the Su-27 (and I think the F-15C) is significantly higher than Sukhoi's own published figures.

NASA has flown their F-15 significant'y higher and faster than published figures: They're gone up to M2.7 and that is a published result. The USAF has unofficially gone faster.

The issue with missiles is the drag curve. Disagree all you like, but I'm respectfully informing you that we know for a fact that it's the drag coefficient.

With much more caution, and I may be entirely wrong, but it also appears as though at low level neither aircraft is capable of reaching it's published maximum speed. Both appear to be too fast at altitude and too slow at low level. The only difference between the two conditions is atmospheric, hence my position that the atmospheric model may need tweaking slightly.

Lets not get too OT guys....

NASA has flown their F-15 significant'y higher and faster than published figures: They're gone up to M2.7 and that is a published result. The USAF has unofficially gone faster.

 

The issue with missiles is the drag curve. Disagree all you like, but I'm respectfully informing you that we know for a fact that it's the drag coefficient.

 

You are entirely wrong. If there's an issue it may be with the drag or thrust curves, but the results are well within tolerance anyway.

Fair enough, I'll accept that :beer: Hopefully then the Cd issue will receive a fix.

No worries. I'm not an expert in missiles so I don't know what sources are reliable or not yet.

 

just getting into the subject after I got the Mirage (for obvious reasons) and because I happen to use a certain other Sim that renders the BVR things differently. Wondering why things are so different.

 

In the process of educating myself

Carlo Kopp's education is in electrical engineering with a heavy emphasis on the radio and radar side of things. He's more reliable when talking about communications, electronic warfare, radars, missile guidance, and stealth (insofar as it's possible to reliably talk about such things when everything is classified). Even there though he often says incredibly stupid things:

In the SDD design, the beam/side aspect radar signature is especially problematic, due to the presence of multiple specular reflecting shapes, specifically due to singly and doubly curved lower fuselage surface feature shaping. The Joint Strike Fighter has a complex lower fuselage shape as well as a wing and fuselage lower join shape, unlike any other aircraft designed with stealth in mind, refer preceding images. The result of this design choice is that the beam/side aspect Radar Cross Section will be closer in magnitude to a conventional fighter flown clean than a “classical” stealth aircraft. This is an inevitable result of clustering no less than nine unique convex specular scattering shapes in the lower hemisphere of the aircraft. Diagram 3 illustrates this.

 

The second major departure from established stealth conventions is that the Joint Strike Fighter is designed to perform in the X-band, and upper portions of the S-band, with little effort expended in optimizing for the lower L-band, UHF-band and VHF-band. This design strategy is consistent with defeating mobile battlefield short range point defence SAM and AAA systems such as the SA-8 Gecko, SA-9 Gaskin, Chapparel, Crotale, Roland, SA-15 Gauntlet, SA-19 Grison and SA-22 “Greyhound”, where limited radar antenna size forces all acquisition and engagement functions into the X-band and upper S-band. Joint Strike Fighter literature refers to this optimization in terms of “breaking the kill chain”, the intent being to deny the effective use of X-band engagement radars and X/Ku-Band missile seekers, but not acquisition radars in lower bands.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId142087

This is obviously a man who knows how a pulse-doppler radar works. And yet he's worried about the lack of RCS reduction against a tracking radar in the notch. It's just so patently absurd.

This is because the side aspect is not JUST the notch. What´s the point of a stealth fighter, that is frontally invisible, but can be tracked much easier then a conventional plane the more you cross the 45° line?

Sheepherder's point is that Kopp is chasing paper tigers.