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.
Hey buddy, what do you think of these two photos? Do the Flanker series, which served in the Soviet Union or Russia, have any photos of them being equipped with more ETs
As was answered earlier, this is only for transporting missiles.
May I ask if you have any information or evidence?
No, it’s a transportation version of the suspension
R-27T/ET is used only with APU-470, only AKU-470 can be suspended between the air intakes, under the air intakes also
The J11 from China has an additional fuel tank compared to the original SU27, resulting in a slightly heavier body, which is also reflected in the game. So we can’t rule out the possibility that J11, especially those produced by China, may have modifications on the hanging rack. After all, China has basically mastered the full set of technology of Su-27, so theoretically providing more APU470 for ET like Su-34 should not be difficult, right?
It was obviously only transport use. The missiles cannot be cooled from the ejection pylons. Their FoV is also obstructed.
so how su34 solve this problem? and we know No fov is not a problem to advanced fox1 such as aim9x or even r73