102 km/h
Okay that’s fine.
5 Likes
Nope. That 10-20GHz figure is just a brochure figure. 9-10 GHz must be towarda it. Why? Because receivers work at certain frequencies. The have a certain resonant wavelength where the impedance is low, several dB lower(in the order of 10s and remember that -3dB is 50% loss)
This is a physical characteristic, not digital/electronic where you can just say " I’ll now put the frequency at x and later at y and I’ll still have the same return strength". It doesn’t work like that.
Look at a simple dipole antenna. The resonant frequency is at half wavelength. If you change the incoming signal frequency, the signal recovered will be much of much lower strength. Claiming 10-20GHz is just not right, the wavelength at 20GHz is 50% of 10GHz. Soviets went for radio correction as the missile didn’t see the target(poor manufacturing, electronics etc) at longer ranges unlike sparrows (20 - 40 nautical miles for small targets), I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t allow further acquiring range loses.
You’ll not change the receiver antenna size everytime. Plus that information not only comes from SIGINT, but information from spies aswell like the one the guy in the other r27 thread has been yapping around. For what is worth, that document is accurate. I tried to find , indepenedently from it the frequency of the mig 31s radar knowing the diameter and amount of elements, assuming a half wavelength separation between the radiating elements, you can have an idea of the frequecy it operates( I was 0.5GHz if I remember correctly).
2 Likes
Its a shame we couldn’t have found this out like… a year ago when any of these potential inaccuracies would’ve made a difference in the SARH meta Lol
Maybe we’ll have to try to get a head start on the R-77s when they’re added instead of when R-77-1 comes out :P
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VDBP74enEx2e
and the roll limit report.
Yeah, even if it gets reported on the while its on the dev it’ll go ignored like my previous reports. And then just wait several months till for literally a fix that requires a single value change. Even flight performance issues get dealt/ fixed faster and I’m pretty sure they require far far far more complex testing to identify the issue and fixing it without performance drops in other areas.
2 Likes
And the classic to make stuff artificially overperform but ofc the phoenix cannot reconnect even if you relock…
1 Like
I should bug report the Phoenix SARH mode not having datalink reconnect lol
2 Likes
This should be introduced to all aircraft.And not only the Su-27, so it was rejected
Yep, though not all.
There are several exceptions
F15s try to relock the target thus keep illuminating. If it fails, it keeps illuminating till the expected time to hit gets to 0+5s. Or it switches to flood mode. Same with f14s when launched in PD(CW probably though the flood antenna?)
F16s, no idea but I expect a similar thing to the F-15 as it goes to MEM to reacquire the lock. And CW keeps illuminated.
MIRAGEs with their 530s up to the 530F they lock on the main tracking signal like the F15. Dunno what happens with the 530D which uses a CW transmitter.
Mig 23s, no idea. I haven’t read a single manual of them.
Tornado F3 no idea as it works like the su27/mig 29 with CW interleaved with the tracking signal.
Su27/mig 29 don’t have MEM to to try to reacquire and just terminate DNP mode
1 Like
Don’t many US Radar sets have the FLOOD mode too, which does the same thing as the MEM but locked forward like a boresight
Iirc it goes back to the F-4E possibly earlier
Sort of like a flood mode yes. On the phantom you can just light the CW, give speeds to look at and launch it. Though there’s no mention at all of what happens when lock is dropped.
Antenna No. The F15 is the only one with a flood horn antenna behind the main antenna for this specific scenario. The apg 65 has a guard horn( for mprf and RGH and nulfilling(for a wider illumination) horn like the F15. Unless the flat thing is the antenna which I don’t think. The AWG-9 only has the nullfilling horn( for CW or wider PD illumination). You can look at the pictures, no other antenna is visible
F-4’s with the APQ-120 variants have a is a 5 second memory(rate) relock attempt window (unless jamming is detected, in which case the radar will delay turning off the illuminator until five seconds after jamming is removed, or the radar is returned manually to search though this can be prevented by switching to BST or the RIO utilizing their hand control to take charge of the antenna).
BST mode appears to energize the illuminator regardless of lock on state, and the Doppler info can be simulated via the Aspect knob.
1 Like
Actually, there is
1 Like
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IA1wypLIZtPl
@MaMoran20 what value would this be in game? Reference Doppler width?
no. Its this
"dopplerSpeedGateSearchRange": 150.0
in m/s. This is for the Sparrow E2/E/F. 75m/s up and below. Which should correspond to~±145 knots and ~ in line with the manuals.
This is from the R27ER/R
"dopplerSpeedGateSearchRange": 100.0
±50 m/s while the manual states ±150m/s
This just begs the question of how Speed gates are even modeled in game if the parameter supposedly don’t exist? Its obvious that whatever is going on doesn’t align with the provided documentation.
Let alone the fact that it was denied, seemingly out of hand.
Can we potentially get some clarification? @Smin1080p
If that parameter doesn’t exist then what is
controlling?
Its only present on doppler SARH seekers and ARH seekers, and the ARH ones are up to 300m/s while the SARH ones don’t seem to go above 150m/s.
1 Like
Why does everyone think Russia uses same specs/components for export?
This is beyond illogical. This is absurd.
Making export equipment exactly same as your domestic equipment is the easiest way to get your military secrets exposed, allowing any potential enemy to easily learn everything about your equipment.
Especially since it is a known fact, that ever since Soviet Union, there is a standard practice of export equipment being different, and this continues in Russia.
1.People should PROVE that export equipment is the same.
-
It shouldn’t have to be proven that export equipment is different.
-
The burden of proof should be on people who say that export equipment is copy paste in real life.