The Iron dome meta

[LanceLynxx]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[FeetPics]

Sorry man I don’t have the time to argue in circles about an arcade game.

[LanceLynxx]

I agree, you could use that time to read up on basic radar principles before you post.

[FeetPics]

That’s not really the issue here but okay bud.
Notch gate velocity that Gaijin pulled out of their ass is obviously accurate.

[LanceLynxx]

@FeetPics

That’s not really the issue here but okay bud.

Are you sure about that?

This you?

@FeetPics

It’s an arcade game and the notching mechanic is one that is made for gameplay reasoning

@FeetPics

Do you think modern doppler radars are not able to track a target that is flying 30 degrees away from it?

@FeetPics

I can notch missile at point blank because notch gate is very wide.

@FeetPics

The fact that we see absolutely no mention of it in any kind of public domain and no mention of its utility against even older radar missiles does suggest the mechanic is not realistic.

You still believe notching is a psyop, and is related to angle and not radial velocity

You get called out and double down, then shift goalposts

Then say you aren’t going to “argue in circles” when the only one stuck in a loop is you?

bro? hello? earth calling, get your head out of the clouds.

@FeetPics

Notch gate velocity that Gaijin pulled out of their ass is obviously accurate.

Well, OBVIOUSLY you must have the data to make a bug report, right? I mean, you know they’re wrong, because you have a source stating the right values… right???

[kizvy]

I know it’s not a direct comparison cause the su-27 radar is a lot worse in terms of the tech used (twisted cassegrain antenna and not a planar antenna) and it’s a lot bigger

But nonetheless let’s take a look at the su-27 radar notch gates/speed gates.

It has a hard notch filter (no matter what) even when hardlocking that corresponds to around 80 degrees when locking onto a target below 3 degrees.

however, when looking more than 3 degrees above the horizon, it will always be able to track a target even if it has little to no radial velocity.

Now if you applied this to missiles, just at a much, much smaller range, it would essentially mean that against the back ground of the sky, missiles would be essentially impossible to notch. And when below the horizon, missiles are still notchable, albeit with smaller, tighter notch gates than they have currently.

Target tracking is possible for targets below the ±75 kph notch gates, it’s just that it might be “unstable”.
Note VERTICAL LINE mode is sub 10km

[kizvy]

150 kph roughly corresponds to a notch gate of ±20m/s
also regardless, no matter what if angle is less than 70 degrees, tracking is ensured

[kizvy]

good explanation on it from a dev. for mig-29 but works similarly

F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion

IRL N-019 radar in HPRF search mode rejects targets with closing velocity smaller than figher ground speed + 150 km/h. Head-on targets only. No separate Look-up and look-down modes. in MPRF search mode rejects targets with closing velocity ±150-190 km/h around main beam clutter centerline. Notching targets can’t be detected. No separate Look-up and look-down modes. in HPRF and MPRF track mode there is NO ground clutter filtering at all. Target is tracked by unambiguous (HPRF) or ambiguous (MP…

[LanceLynxx]

@kizvy

It has a hard notch filter (no matter what) even when hardlocking that corresponds to around 80 degrees when locking onto a target below 3 degrees.

It says that the velocity gate is ±150 kph closure speed. Which it approximates to 80 degrees at subsonic speeds considering the radial velocity component.

@kizvy

however, when looking more than 3 degrees above the horizon, it will always be able to track a target even if it has little to no radial velocity.

“free space” means unfiltered pulse. it switches to pulse, which can be chaffed… which forces the radar back into pulse-doppler, which is then notched.

@kizvy

Now if you applied this to missiles, just at a much, much smaller range, it would essentially mean that against the back ground of the sky, missiles would be essentially impossible to notch.

That is

1. an extrapolation
2. would mean they would be chaffed because they would be in unfiltered pulse. Which is exactly what happens in game.

@kizvy

And when below the horizon, missiles are still notchable, albeit with smaller, tighter notch gates than they have currently.

Documentation required for factual statement

@kizvy

Target tracking is possible for targets below the ±75 kph notch gates, it’s just that it might be “unstable”.

Only at below 2km range, and unstable due to ambiguity

@kizvy

150 kph roughly corresponds to a notch gate of ±20m/s
also regardless, no matter what if angle is less than 70 degrees, tracking is ensured

It literally states that the detection is constrained by the radial speed, not angle

[kizvy]

@LanceLynxx

It says that the velocity gate is ±150 kph closure speed.

you have to remember that’s for detection not tracking and that’s only for ranges above 15/30km. below that its only 50kph. And that’s a much tighter notch gate than what we currently have in game.

and at a short enough distance it literally doesn’t matter what the targets radial velocity is, radar will be able to track target

@LanceLynxx

would mean they would be chaffed because they would be in unfiltered pulse. Which is exactly what happens in game.

Again, it would depend on range. Close enough to target, radar will be able to track even at equalized radial speeds. after radar starts tracking it would be essentially impossible to avoid

[LanceLynxx]

@kizvy FYI i did a scuffed OCR on the entire manual if you want to peruse it
Su-27SK Flight Manual.blk (1.0 MB)

(just change the .blk to .txt)

[kizvy]

i usually just use this version for easy english viewing

Su-27SK Flight Manual

[LanceLynxx]

It’s the same document, but directly ripped into OCR from the original

i find that one has a lot of bad translations (probably used yandex)

granted, my scuffed OCR is probably… well… scuffed… but easier to infer the original text (which can be contextually translated better elsewhere)

EDIT: I think I also have a few other books/annexes but I have to check my archives, I’ll see about OCR’ing them as well, hopefully something on the armament/OEPS-27/SUV-27/RLS-27

[LanceLynxx]

You are one of the few people who actually bring useful and meaningful points with actual data so I salute you

I’ll have to hold off on making a more in depth analysis later, IRL stuff beckons, but I’ll get back to you

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

Fun game mechanic am I right?

[kizvy]

i was playing j-10c earlier to get pl-12as and got all my shit shot down by both f-15cs and fa18es that were just heading straight towards me the entire time like this

ts game mode so ass

[LanceLynxx]

I want to correct my earlier point about the pulse mode in lookup, the manual doesn’t support that specific mechanism. The all-aspect tracking in free space may be due to adaptive clutter filtering, not a mode switch

I’ll investigate further later

[FeetPics]

He’s gonna jam the manual through AI program and then say “no well actually you are wrong” and then deflect to “well this doesn’t prove that WESTERN radars can track targets under similar circumstances.”

[LanceLynxx]

No, I’m going to make a claim without a source, get called out, move the goalposts to another continent, try to shift burden of proof, then finish with “I don’t have time for this”

And return the next day because I did, in fact, have time for this.

You know what I didn’t have?

A source to back up my fantasy opinions

:)

Whatever is proven or not by the Su-27 radar won’t prove or disprove anything about anything else btw.

Let the adults do the talking.

[FeetPics]

The last time we spoke about the Su-27 manual you insisted that the turn rate diagram contained in it was for a plane with 50% internal fuel and not 25% internal fuel. And this was after running it through ChatGPT.

So I do not have high hopes for you.