Yeah, maybe it’s because the frequency of R-73’s auto pilot failures is too subtle for me to notice. I only use the R73 regularly when the MIG29G is deployed, so perhaps my avoidance of excessive use of the thrust vector on the R73 helps prevent them from encountering errors more often.
I’m think that the R-73’s auto pilot is affected by the thrust vector, leading to occasional failures.
Maybe some people here really know the actual reason.
That is the main factor i believe.
It can be taken in the opposite way: AN/APG-63 operating in HPRF track mode is interpreted by RWR and the pilot as Sparrow launch. Before the launch AN/APG-63 normally uses MPRF for target tracking up to 50-60 km. Nothing will change in the gameplay actually if we implement what you wrote above.
No, because the apg 63 doesn’t work like that. Nor all RWRs, nor radars that guide in HPRF.
Yes it uses MPRF for target tracking under 30N.M, but as soon as you select MRM(sparrow selection, not firing) it constantly tries to switch to HPRF, NOT JUST WHEN YOU LAUNCH but WHEN YOU SELECT the sparrow. Meaning that when you just select the sparrow with weapon selection, the FCS switches to HPRF. So RWRs like in the tornado F3 would get launch warning as long as the F15 is in HPRF/ or in the game’s case, the big red circle(or just sparrow weapon selection).
Not all radars have MPRF, like the F-14. It constantly tracks in HPRF, meaning launch warning should be nonstop in RWRs like the tornado F3 as long as the f14 is tracking in HPRF.
Not all RWRs work or are food like the tornado F3s. Which would scream missile launch if it detects the F15 in HPRF as close range. Some wouldn’t be able to tell as they only do basis of CW or not. Some like the SPO 15 show MPRF/HPRF together, would it just light uo with launch as long as the F15 is close There’s a reason it has 2 lighta for them, X (for long range MPRF/HPRF) and Г(MPRF/HPRF/phoenix short range/very strong signal/warning).
Nothing will change in the gameplay actually if we implement what you wrote above.
So yes, it’ll be different. Nonstop warning if the RWR is as good as the Tornados F3’s.
You get a warning (only certain RWRs)as soon as you do THIS (which should be the case) because the radar would switch to HPRF automatically.
Or if the F14 is sparrow shooter, in your logic, nonstop warning when it’s tracking you in PD under certain range.
And when this fix?
we know the F15 HPRF has X times more range than the MPRF of the F16 for the same target. And we know the F16 has Y detection range for Z target RCS. Therefore APG63 HPRF has X*Y range against target with Z RCS…
F15 are one of those vehicles which pro players perform much better in it while abysmal to new comers who don’t understand the air combat mechanics too much, i. e., not noob-friendly. F14B being another example, I don’t see too many people complaining about it but it’s really insane with the Phoenix buff, its just that most people only running with SARH missiles and in that case F14B is just a more manuverable F4S.
The fact is, most people are just casual players, don’t care too much to learn the physics of air combat and radar control. In that case SU27 and JAS39 are certainly the meta vehicle, having simply superior missiles and manuverability, and F15 & F14 are just bad with most of the player base.
Id argue the F-14’s are the top tier planes with the highest difference between skill floor and skill ceiling tbh. Between being both a tremendous AOA fighter and a fantastic rate fighter, its dependence on radar guided missiles, large size, older but high performance radar, and lower TWR, they have incredible potential, but are extremely punishing to any mistakes. The F-15’s are basicly much more forgiving versions of the F-14B ingame atm imo
In the game illumination for SARH missiles activates only after missile launch and remains active during the missile maximal flight time. It is resumed after target is re-acquired again after track lose.
IRL different radars manage illumination (as well as waveform switching, signal processing e.t.c.) in different ways, so this logic may be very complex and very specific. Don’t forget that it is just a game and such deep implementation is not possible and even not desired.
I mean, sure, but we know you guys can make auto-mode switching code, and the source provided details exactly what kind of mode switching the radar does in this specific scenario…
Not giving the AIM-7M the ability for PD launch in HPRF despite having all info for it, and most of the code for it required in-game seems a bit like avoiding modelling a feature thats advantageous to the 7M because other missiles do do what it does?
You could simply make it so that the current MPRF → HPRF → CW priority list turns into HPRF → CW (omitting MPRF entirely) when thr selected weapon is the AIM-7M for example?
Also important to note, its a bit late at this point as the ER has been in-game for a long time and brutally unbalanced ever since its addition, but the AIM-7M being able to be launchdd in HPRF with no launch warning would be a fantastic way to balance it vs the ER. One get vastly superior kinematics, the other is launched with no warning.
You expend all your sidewinders and now only have AIM-7M left as your selected weapons, you’re now effectively locked out of MPRF. For which you now need to use the binding for exiting selection mode and then select them again once you want to use them again, then off, on, off, on, off etc etc etc.
This would be a massive pain to manage, especially for the average player.
Ok, maybe just make it so it changes to omitting MPRF when you initially activate thr 7M seeker then instead?
You could alternatively allow players to still have manual radar control so the radar attempts to lock in the preferred mode (HPRF/CW) with the sparrow selected but still can be changed to a different mode if the player uses the key to change radar modes, which would give them access to MPRF for gun leads, but would lock them out of an HPRF launch and would only use CW for the sparrow in that circumstance.
I feel like theres a lot of options for how this could be implemented. This kind of reminds me of the situation where the devs said they couldnt make the Puma IFV’s MUSS react in a 360° arc because there wasnt any other systems in-game that worked that way, completing ignoring the fact iron fist reacts in the exact same way MUSS would, but the end effector is different. It sounds more like “I dont wanna let the 7M fire with HPRF and no launch warnings”
Player has a side aspect MPRF lock, they select and warm up a AIM-7M, radar switches to HPRF and loses the target. Player comes to the forum/CBR to complain. We then have to explain to every upset player the mechanics of the various PRF’s and how they relate to AIM-7M usage. Repeat ad infinitum until the heat death of a universe.
Wouldn’t it revert to Memory tracks to support the Antenna train angle at that point? Which should be good enough for the 5~20 seconds of flight that it supports as keeping the nose on the target converts to to a Rear Aspect track restoring target tracking.
Also the lack of a launch warning effectively already happens with the MiG-23 as most contemporary US derived RWRs (ALR-25 / -26, (early) -46) do not detect into the J band which the FCR uses to provide tracking and missile guidance, so practically already occurs in many match ups.
To a point sure, but you’re at the mercy of how good that memory track is, as I’m sure you’ve seen sometimes the memory track inertia sends the lock off in the other direction.
If the target is incidentally abeam / notching without a Launch warning there is no specific reason for the target to remain within the Notch ellipsoid that maintains the Notch, also there isn’t really a reason for the rates to diverge sufficiently to drop the track either as a 3.5 degree cone at (5.5, 11, 22km) still subtends hundreds of meters(+/- 330, 670, 1345).
And its not as if it couldn’t be improved with more advanced predictive modeling, but then we are running into novel solutions (at least in game terms).
If we’re talking about a completely unaware target sure. But I doubt anyone is going to fly nose hot to and F-15 in a straight line that has them locked up. And if they are a lack of launch warning isn’t going to have changed much.
Also the F.3 tactics manual states “with current software” or something to that affect. I’m guessing there is some difference with the HPRF guidance wave as apposed to a normal HPRF lock? If that’s the case its only a software update away to detect it.
Shouldn’t be complex to do.
Remove the CW thingy on the APG65/ 63 and Awg9(except if launched while in pulse) and while sparrow is inflight or selected, force HPRF waveform.
for RWR (if as advanced as the tornado) set: if APG 63/65/AWG9 ->HPRF Track → under certain distance → trigger warning
There isn’t a difference between the waveform for guidance and track, that’s part of the point for moving to PD-ILL methods
If it was something basic they would have done the same thing for the TWS / LPIR warning by looking at duty cycle and average received energy once it rises above some comparison level, trigger the warning regardless, which trips up AESA radars which can dedicate the full duty cycle of sets of T/R module zones to specific targets and so can telegraph their status since the phase of the transmission can probably be derived as well(depends on the antenna type and layout), and tends to be automatically managed for optimal performance and number of concurrent tracks.
The way to deal with it is probably set up a WEZ warning based of a number of known constraints for the launch (its not as if the UK lacks info on the Sparrow / AMRAAM guidance methods, and launch constraints), and so trigger the warning when a number of them are fulfilled, similar to the way the SPO-15 does (practically nothing useful, but is conservative).
A simple solution then, when the sparrow is getting warmed up. Just give a warning here then as its “selected and ready to fire” then for advanced RWR under certain distance. You know, the grey/red circle
Thats a how things are issue. Correct modeling was done, its on user error/understanding beyond that. Its an issue similar to energy management, it gets abstract and you need to understand it to properly use it.
Set up a guide and voila.
By memory, if a missile is inflight it goes to MEM and if it cant relock the antenna drops down and the flood horn gets used TILL the expected missile flight timer goes to 0s +5s. Giving guidance for the complete flight tme plus couple seconds for error
