More units coming to CAP

The missiles are smoky. It is a missile launch warning?

I have a question for Deka. As the HQ-7 SHORAD is a tracking radar only (or kind of radar for distance only), then as mentioned before we will get a Search radar unit separated from the launcher.

Can we drive this Search radar unit separate from launcher as Tor and OSA do with the new radar menu?

It is a radar guided or Radio Command guided missiles?

HQ-7 STR

can the HQ-7 engage air weapons like HARMS and JSOWs?

Awesome new assets, but I have to agree with Galwran, the 100mm doesn't seem right. I fired a shot from ~2500 meters and it took 11 seconds to hit the target, can be seen in track file. Could someone from Deka or ED take a look into this? Thanks.

 

 

Edit, nevermind, I suppose 2500 meters IS pretty far away.

zbd04 uses imported weapon system from Russia which seems to be also mounted on bmp-3.

it's a low chamber pressure cannon, so i think the trajectory is reasonable.

can the HQ-7 engage air weapons like HARMS and JSOWs?

good question.

in reality? i don't know :)

but in game? will have a try

any feedback or suggestions for HQ-7 LN and STR? :)

About the SR unit:

Tested. I like the single radar scope view. Good job. About LN datalink. I think we should keep the radar scope in LN units assuming is a datalink on board.

Also, taking account those units have datalink. We should have the option to show the position of our LN team units in our SR radar screen for further tactics response we should know where are the LN team in our radar scope.

Edit: every unit have GPS, so that’s why.

any feedback or suggestions for HQ-7 LN and STR? :)

How to defeat the missile? What kind of guidance does it use? :)

any feedback or suggestions for HQ-7 LN and STR? :)

Why are some planes getting a launch warning from the HQ-7, and some aren't?

Tried in the Harrier, Hornet, Tomcat, and Flanker.

Harrier: Launch warning

Hornet: Launch warning

Tomcat: None

Flanker: None

With this in mind what type of guidance does the HQ-7 (in DCS) use? What are some strategies to defeat this SAM (besides kinematically)?

What is the name of the MAWS sensor in Harrier and Hornet?

HQ-7 is basically a reverse engineered version of the Crotale. It uses EO CLOS guidance IIRC, so in theory you should only get a launch warning when equipped with a M(A)WS.

BUT. The HQ-7 does have a tracking radar as well, in some cases an RWR should pick that warning up - and it should be consistent for in-game airframes (in RL, it's hard to say ... we know older RWRs wouldn't warn about AMRAAM for example).

Why are some planes getting a launch warning from the HQ-7, and some aren't?

Tried in the Harrier, Hornet, Tomcat, and Flanker.

 

Harrier: Launch warning

Hornet: Launch warning

Tomcat: None

Flanker: None

 

With this in mind what type of guidance does the HQ-7 (in DCS) use? What are some strategies to defeat this SAM (besides kinematically)?

This LN radar is used for few seconds to verify target range only. It is not worth it simulate this short painted time.

There are more important issues to fix, like the unrealistic wider emissions for some Russians tracking radar. That only help western RWR to increase situation awareness to destroy easily Russian SAMs. Yesterday I did a test and I was painted by a tracking radar 40 degrees left to the pointed target. Kind of help for western aircraft.

This LN radar is used for few seconds to verify target range only. It is not worth it simulate this short painted time.

It is already simulated for SA-13, so there's no reason not to ... especially since RWR can ID it. They also have a search radar and a tracking radar, both of which should be picked up by the RWR. Unfortunately DCS doesn't yet have the depth to simulate more complex multi-sensor simulation.

There are more important issues to fix, like the unrealistic wider emissions for some Russians tracking radar. That only help western RWR to increase situation awareness to destroy easily Russian SAMs. Yesterday I did a test and I was painted by a tracking radar 40 degrees left to the pointed target. Kind help for western aircraft.

I don't know what you mean exactly, but I agree that SAMs overall aren't very smart in the game. They need to stay silent more. It has nothing to do with western/eastern.

If main developer implemented this short time radar paint. Must be a very short paint as IRL behave the SAM operator. Also I am talking about the exaggerated wide angle signal that ED set for some tracking radar. Tracking radars signals are narrow and in lock mode even more narrow. How come the western RWR detect a tracking signal that point 40 degrees different than my bearing position. This is unrealistic and this simulation play against Russian tracking radar been easily detected and destroyed. That’s why I am telling you if you want simulate this tiny short time paint time, then they should go ahead and do a well done homework with Russian SAMs. As for example the wrong wide angle for tracking signal.

If main developer implemented this short time radar paint. Must be a very short paint as IRL behave the SAM operator. Also I am talking about the exaggerated wide angle signal that ED set for some tracking radar. Tracking radars signals are narrow and in lock mode even more narrow. How come the western RWR detect a tracking signal that point 40 degrees different than my bearing position. This is unrealistic and this simulation play against Russian tracking radar been easily detected and destroyed. That’s why I am telling you if you want simulate this tiny short time paint time, then they should go ahead and do a well done homework with Russian SAMs. As for example the wrong wide angle for tracking signal.

Sidelobes?

I see what you mean - you're not correct. While most of the power resides in what we call the main-lobe, and it is defined by some mathematical function, the reality is that no signal is that narrow - as mentioned above, the side-lobes can contain a lot of power.

Depending on the antenna design, you can even have this energy spilling behind the radar.

Of course, this is all theory and in practice, it will all depend on the antenna design and actual power of the radar, and the sensitivity of the RWR.

If main developer implemented this short time radar paint. Must be a very short paint as IRL behave the SAM operator. Also I am talking about the exaggerated wide angle signal that ED set for some tracking radar. Tracking radars signals are narrow and in lock mode even more narrow. How come the western RWR detect a tracking signal that point 40 degrees different than my bearing position. This is unrealistic and this simulation play against Russian tracking radar been easily detected and destroyed. That’s why I am telling you if you want simulate this tiny short time paint time, then they should go ahead and do a well done homework with Russian SAMs. As for example the wrong wide angle for tracking signal.

Then if depende of the antenna design. I guess you assume all antenna design should be modeled the same...? So how come you tell me I am not correct? That’s why I am telling you rather than ask for features (as you do in this thread asking for radar paint from LN HQ7) that improve even more the current unrealistic situation awareness for western RWR in DCS. Then let’s talk about some issues are not addressed by main developers in the very important realistic feature that go against Russian SAMs, as the tracking radar signal all spread in a big area instead of been a narrow cone in lock mode or search mode. I am talking about real practice result. Leave theories for sales, rather than simulation.

Then if depende of the antenna design. I guess you assume all antenna design should be modeled the same...?

In the game, they are all modeled the same. Or, I guess more accurately, they're not modeled at all.

So how come you tell me I am not correct? That’s why I am telling you rather than ask for features (as you do in this thread asking for radar paint from LN HQ7) that improve even more the current unrealistic situation awareness for western RWR in DCS.

It has a tracking radar. Check the data on it. Tracking radar is quite fair to show up on RWR.

Then let’s talk about some issues are not addressed by main developers in the very important realistic feature that go against Russian SAMs, as the tracking radar signal all spread in a big area instead of been a narrow cone in lock mode or search mode. I am talking about real practice result. Leave theories for sales, rather than simulation.

RWRs are very sensitive but I agree, I think what's happening right now is excessive.

Then if depende of the antenna design. I guess you assume all antenna design should be modeled the same...? So how come you tell me I am not correct? That’s why I am telling you rather than ask for features (as you do in this thread asking for radar paint from LN HQ7) that improve even more the current unrealistic situation awareness for western RWR in DCS. Then let’s talk about some issues are not addressed by main developers in the very important realistic feature that go against Russian SAMs, as the tracking radar signal all spread in a big area instead of been a narrow cone in lock mode or search mode. I am talking about real practice result. Leave theories for sales, rather than simulation.

Sidelobes and multipath are not just "theories", they exist in real life and they are everywhere.

Its not a laser-like beam. the defined "beamwidth" of an antenna is just references the 50% (3dB) below the peak energy of the beam center. Beyond that much more energy exists. Some of which is still upwards of 45% of the peak field strength.

Since you have no concept of how much RF energy leaks, scatters, reflects, diffracts, here is a real life example of multi-path influencing a 4 antenna direction finding unit.

In this case you could "pretend" that the transmitter wasn't looking at the SDR receiver and still much energy from other angles did in fact reflect into his receiver. You can bet that his setup is nowhere as sensitive as an multi-million $ RWR.

Sidelobes dont just exist at one angle on the antenna.. Many sidelobes/backlobes exist, for which the RWR can detect.

You're right that DCS RWR simulation is lacking, but not because you can sometimes detect signals not looking exactly at you, but because it doesn't happen enough. We dont get enough detections from side-lobes, multi-path reflections, diffraction, etc.

Here is an example of a more accurate simulation of RF propagation and an RWR's ability to continue signal detection.

If you want every single detail playing in your favor because theory tell this and that, then you are requesting a custom simulator based on theories rather than real factors. There are many factors that play against what western RWR show right now in our simulators. That’s why HQ7 LN should not be implemented with Radar emissions, because the SAMs operator behavior is not even 30% implemented as IRL. This will bring a high difficulty for SEAD missions. You only request things that make easier every move in your favor but never have been simulated a single detail that simulate advanced SAMs simulation. Including many factors that have to do with western RWR. So in my opinion HQ7 LN should not be shown in your RWR taking account that will be simplified in your favor as always. Main developers should improve the SAMs implementation instead that make it all look as simple as IRL is not. Not when SAMs commander is playing his roll.

If you want every single detail playing in your favor because theory tell this and that, then you are requesting a custom simulator based on theories rather than real factors. There are many factors that play against what western RWR show right now in our simulators.

You know, you REALLY need to stop. The simulation works the same way for all RWRs. Why don't you stop whining and start thinking a little?

That’s why HQ7 LN should not be implemented with Radar emissions,

Which part of 'it has a tracking radar' is difficult here? This problem is really the same for ALL SAMs, regardless of whether it is HQ-7, PATRIOT, SA-15 or rapier. Or anything else.

Also:

1) A lot of people already program SAMs so they're not just sitting ducks out there ... you can do it with triggers, although it sucks/is difficult

2) Grimes has written an IADS script that can automate this behavior to some degree, and you can find it on the hoggit page.

because the SAMs operator behavior is not even 30% implemented as IRL. This will bring a high difficulty for SEAD missions.

You are barking way up the wrong tree. The correct request is to change SAM behavior, not to model things without RF emissions because it would make it harder for the other side.

You only request things that make easier every move in your favor

And what do you request? That's right, things that make it harder for the other side, very specifically :) You're not any better, and further, you don't understand the arguments that are put to you.

Including many factors that have to do with western RWR.

Why don't you start talking about factors that affect eastern RWR? Why is it that it provides the 'perfect timing to dodge ARH missiles' when it should not?

So in my opinion HQ7 LN should not be shown in your RWR taking account that will be simplified in your favor as always. Main developers should improve the SAMs implementation instead that make it all look as simple as IRL is not. Not when SAMs commander is playing his roll.

Use triggers in your own missions to suppress the radar until some conditions are met. Quit making ridiculous requests that have no basis in reality.

Well said Tharos.

Pepin you really need to drop this Western-bias conspiracy schtick - for a start the manner you do so is highly hypocritical and detracts from any legitimacy your argument might have. Ultimately you will stymy yourself because soon all/any of your posts will be dismissed due to this attitude of yours, whether there is credibility in the topic you bring up or otherwise.

And regards your legitimacy: some of the limitations or over-simplifications you address are not the result of some Machiavellian plot to dirty the name of Russia and all its labours; they simply reflect that as good as a simulation DCS can be at times, there are limits as to what can be simulated in a free-to-play software designed to run on mid-high end commercial PCs.

Add to this as ED explore and add new features content with higher levels of fidelity, it can expose or highlight the simplifications in counter systems that were in the past good-enough to make a passable reproduction of reality. When these occur it's natural that it takes some time and energy to both figure out how you are going to re-engineer that deficiency and then more time fixing it -only to discover that that fix has had a similar effect on some other previous simplification.

There are trade offs on all sides currently - given the amount of times I see competent NATO pilots downed by good users in Sukhois/MiGs, it's not anywhere near as one sided as you present.

HQ7 LN missile are not radar guided missiles. The radar on board LN unit is only for range verification in a short lapse of time. So as told you before. Your RWR already have many unrealistic behavior. There is no reason to show HQ7 radar paint for long time in western RWR. Because is not real, and because you should not detect so easy this LN unit. That’s why they separate SR radar from LN.

How long does it show in 'eastern' RWR?

There is no reason to show HQ7 radar paint for long time in western RWR.