Should the F-15C Get JHMCS - Page 20 - ED Forums
 


Notices

View Poll Results: Shold the F-15C get JHMCS due to F/A-18C getting JHMCS?
Yes 60 42.25%
No 82 57.75%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-22-2017, 06:28 PM   #191
red_coreSix
Member
 
red_coreSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 431
Default

The R-73 seeker is tricky.



Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...200600001/full

Here it is stated as CAT seeker with either mono- or dual-colour detector. All I know is that the R-73 sparked the development of the IRIS-T, ASRAAM and AIM-9X and had some progressive features for its time like shifted aim-point to hit more vulnerable parts like the pilot etc.

For flare rejection, it is a pointless topic to discuss, really. There are so many variables that go into it. The most important being flare detection, most con and spin scan seeker have a "switch-response" logic, meaning when the flare detection goes off the response is initiated. There are many detection and response methods, some may work for one flare but not at all for another.

Good example for non FPA-seeker rejecting quite a lot of flares:

https://youtu.be/X0svKJVTSF0?t=195
red_coreSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 06:48 PM   #192
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 30,266
Default

Ah, I see - I'm onboard with what. I mean multiple targets in seeker fov. Different scenario. Some with someone who has deep knowledge of the 73 and apparently it has an 8 target memory. Give it more and it's liable to delete the aircraft from the target list. This was corroborated indirectly by other sources including a fairly serious study that's available publically. I believe bushmanni cited that same paper.

Regarding the 73 seeker, it appears that the two color option OR FPA is slated for a 2010's or 20's variant, but I'm not confident of the source.

Likewise it appears that papers describing a lot of two color techniques are recent, and describe countermeasures as being highly effective against heat seekers in general.

As for 9x hitting the pilot, I don't buy that and you shouldn't either ... Just based on algos that are in use and image processing knowledge
It might be a coincidence based on trying to hit one end of the blob vs another.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Last edited by GGTharos; 04-22-2017 at 06:53 PM.
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 07:48 PM   #193
red_coreSix
Member
 
red_coreSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 431
Default

Well, some IRCCM techniques are designed to specifically reduce the number of flares in the seekers FOV or reduce the time the seeker is exposed to them by moving the seeker forward along the vector of the target. This would be done as soon as the flare detection is triggered, so consequential flares wouldn't have any effect on the seeker until the flare detection is timed out.

I'm far away from saying those older seeker design are immune to flare, they absolutely aren't, but it's more complicated than "x number of flares=seeker deceived every time"

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
As for 9x hitting the pilot, I don't buy that and you shouldn't either
Really? I was talking about the R-73 by the way, which just shifts the DMPI to avoid hitting the exhaust plume and hit more critical parts of the airplane (i.e. canopy).

I've seen telemetry of the IRIS-T in endgame against a MiG-29 (If I can dig it out, I'll post it here) and there was enough detail visible to target specific parts (especially because the canopy is much colder than the rest of the aircraft).
red_coreSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2019, 09:19 PM   #194
USA_Recon
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 316
Default

I'd gladly pay ED price of new module for the F-15C to get JHMCS and Aim-9x ...
USA_Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 12:58 AM   #195
markriley
Member
 
markriley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 197
Default

I would definitely buy the high fidelity C or E model 15. the version with the 9X and JHMCS. Seems inevitable as DCS World evolves.
__________________

system specs:
AMD 1100T X6, Asus Crosshair 4 Formula Mobo, 16 Gigs GSkill DDR3, XFX R9-290X 4GB 512-Bit, X-52 flight stick set, Samsung 2560x1440, Win7 64
markriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 10:07 AM   #196
ResonantCard1
Junior Member
 
ResonantCard1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 53
Default

I think the F-15C is in a good place now as it is. People here is comparing it to the Hornet while it should be compared to the Flanker. And yes, the Flanker gets HOBS missiles and HMCS, but it doesn't get Spamraams, while the F-15C does. Ideally "You shouldn't be getting into the merge, because that's making too many errors". I don't know exactly, but I think the F-15C we have now is not an improved one prepared to carry HMCS, just like the Flanker we have is still an old SK variant and not the new SM ones with R-77 capability. In my opinion, having these 2 aircraft be inside the same timeframe is pretty nice, because it lets the mission creators who wish to do so create somewhat balanced PVP Red Vs. Blue scenarios. Now I'm not an F-15 expert, so I may be wrong and the F-15C that we have is much more modern than the Su-27SK that we have, in that case I think it should be upgraded to its actual, IRL standard, because this is a simulator after all. But if we happen to have a contemporary F-15C, we should stick to it. An option would be leaving the FC3 C version as the 1980s one, then making a clicky F-15C from 2007 like the Hornet and the Viper, that would satisfy both worlds.

Of course I mostly see this from a Red perspective and I got to say, having to fight planes that are much more modern, and mostly more capable, than yours in PVP matches sometimes gets frustating. I blame myself for not being up to par, but there's also a big gap in capabilities between the competing aircraft. Thus, I'd like to have a plane that I can actually compete against. It would be very cool to have a modern F-15C, but I fear we would be starting to go way past the "Red is just a piñata at this point" line
__________________
Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
ResonantCard1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 01:26 PM   #197
Oceandar
Senior Member
 
Oceandar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Probably would make you smirking
Posts: 1,177
Default

Personally I'd prefer DL above all else for the Eagle. Knowing is a power.
__________________
Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze
Oceandar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 01:56 PM   #198
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 30,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ResonantCard1 View Post
Ideally "You shouldn't be getting into the merge, because that's making too many errors".
That's certainly optimistic. F-15s have been getting into merges often.

Quote:
Now I'm not an F-15 expert, so I may be wrong and the F-15C that we have is much more modern than the Su-27SK that we have,
It's a couple of decades ahead in technology, yep. There's no 1980s F-15C simulation, rather the stated radar capability is quite undermodeled. Evern for an 80's radar.

Quote:
It would be very cool to have a modern F-15C, but I fear we would be starting to go way past the "Red is just a piñata at this point" line
Nothing is stopping the mission maker from removing 120C/9X from the inventory.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 02:44 PM   #199
ResonantCard1
Junior Member
 
ResonantCard1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
Nothing is stopping the mission maker from removing 120C/9X from the inventory.
That's certainly a solution, but if we are going to have JHMCS and 9X I'd rather have just a clicky module rather than an FC3 one, properly modelled and all.

About the block, if it's a 90s one then it surely didn't have JHMCS, then I say it shouldn't have it. But if it's just a frankenmodel then I don't know.
__________________
Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
ResonantCard1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2019, 10:54 AM   #200
Top Jockey
Member
 
Top Jockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Portugal
Posts: 773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ResonantCard1 View Post

...

Now I'm not an F-15 expert, so I may be wrong and the F-15C that we have is much more modern than the Su-27SK that we have, in that case I think it should be upgraded to its actual, IRL standard, because this is a simulator after all. But if we happen to have a contemporary F-15C, we should stick to it. An option would be leaving the FC3 C version as the 1980s one, then making a clicky F-15C from 2007 like the Hornet and the Viper, that would satisfy both worlds.

...
I would like it.
__________________
CPU: Intel i7 4790K
GPU: GeForce GTX 1660 Ti - 6 GB
RAM: 16 GB DDR 3
SSD: Samsung 860 QVO
O.S: Win 7, 64 bit

FC 3 , MiG-21 Bis , F/A-18 C , F-14 B
Caucasus , Nevada
Top Jockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
eagle, f-15c, f/a-18c, hornet, jhmcs

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:26 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.