Ok, that's a total non-issue. You're not even in the same era, never mind trying to NCTR a stealth fighter with radar.



I just don't believe it has anything to do with ISAR, at least not against airborne targets. That's all. All the research I've read indicates that ISAR images are not clear enough for this purpose - there are proposed methods of cleaning them up, but it's all based on lab data. But again, that could still be out-dated. It still won't help you vs F-22's and 35's (in the 'too late' sense).




Yes, I know. What I don't know is what was implemented to deal with the BlackHawk incident. This wasn't exactly a technology failure IIRC.



There's nothing essential about a declare when your IFF is perfect and the mission contains only friends and foes. You could sort of construct an environment in DCS where you need to check more (And it is represented for the fighters that lack an interrogator as well) but for those that have it, there are no issues whatsoever.

To illustrate a simple case, take the MiG-21's IFF. This is old-school stuff. If you have a bandit between you and your buddy (or your buddy is generally inside the IFF radio beam, and close enough in range), that bandit may light up as a friend. But not in-game. So I come back to 'when you have the IFF device in game, it functions perfectly'. I don't recall what they did with this in BMS any more - I know that F-16's didn't always have an interrogator ... but even in BMS, knowledge is perfect.

Irrelevant semantics If it wasn't ignored, he'd just have launched - that you want to differentiate because he followed a verification process doesn't make the wording inaccurate. Unfortunately all the information that used to be out there, no longer is. There used to be a wealth of information on various sites, including dtic.mil, but it has been getting whittled down for a while now. So much is gone that it isn't even funny - so all we're left with is a 'dogfights' video. I won't be spending time to dig this stuff up for a forum tiff. When/if this stuff somehow becomes of importance, I'll look into it again




Are you suggesting that people shouldn't use what works? Because you'll tell them they're doing it wrong?



Yes, fine, discuss all you all like. You've got no grounds to tell people they're 'doing it wrong' though. That's like me telling people that not landing their eagle with a 21uAoA approach and using aerobraking and all the other fun real-world techniques means they're doing it wrong ... and maybe they are, but so what? You don't get hot brakes in game and if the aircraft isn't broken (or even if it is) no one's yelling at you.

A bit of a weird reply if you ask me. Why shouldn't you accommodate for such feature in a sim? Specially in a sim like DCS which is supposed to be a MODULAR (and thus upgradable) sim?
If I recall correctly someone tried to make a F-35 for DCS in the past. And if I'm also not mistaken someone is making one (or at least someone was making one) for BMS.

I'm also sure that's a matter of time until someone decides to make for example a Rafale for DCS (this if DCS "lives" enough, that is)?





Oh yes it does. Just read here:
https://cddis.nasa.gov/metsovo/docs/Karakassiliotis_ISAR_Part_I_Introduction_31_8_09.pdf

The document above is about NCTR techniques (3 techniques) and you'll find that one of them is precisely ISAR.

I do agree with you at 100% that "this won't help vs F-22's and 35's (in the 'too late' sense)".
However it could be interesting against other "non-stealth" aircraft equipped with DSIs such as and again the Rafale.

Ah, ok - sorry, I misunderstood the context. For DCS that's easy - you simply don't add the aircraft to the NCTR list or add it as 'UNK'. The end result is that NCTR will not provide a classification. The NCTR method itself is not relevant (nor are various methods represented, AFAIK)



Ok - I have read the paper but what it's telling me is that ISAR NCTR is very expensive in many ways. It's one thing to say it's been researched (or is being researched) and another to claim that it is actively being used for NCTR. There is a lot going in favor of combined JEM/HRR or HRR based NCTR alone, based on that very paper.

Quite interesting how you cherry pick which parts to reply to. Twice now you've claimed something, I ask for a time reference in the video, then you start talking about something else. How about you try proving the points you've started claiming?



Maybe if you stopped your selective reading, you'll realize what exactly I'm suggesting. After all, I've only said it twice.



Hahahahahaha!!! That's really rich coming from you, GG!! Hahahahahaha!!



What was that about irrelevant semantics again? If some people would just grow a pair....

I've gotten a hostile/bandit response from BMS AWACS that turned out to be a friendly. I got a spidey sense bad feeling about it and closed for VID.

Also bandit doesn't imply permission to kill it. Hostile does. And outlaw isn't the same as the other two "bad guy" IDs. BMS has at least 5 different categories of contact while DCS has 2.

Yes, I agree with this.
Although it's somehow an "oversimplification", it's one that I like and in the end it does what it's supposed to do - To model how things should work IRL. However I have my doubts that ED is capable of accepting such as nice, simple and interesting solution. Something tells me that in this case ED would overcomplicate





Don't forget that many things what were research, expensive and overcomplicated yesterday are now and today reality, feasible and even affordable.
And also such, also don't forget that paper is from 2009 (8 years ago or almost a decade and many things have evolved ever since)

If you still aren't convinced here's another source:
http://www.airdominance.nl/index.php/aircraft-f35.html

Where you can read the following:


I hope this helps.

I thought "bandit" meant "bad guy, but leave him alone for now" while "hostile" meant "he's actively doing bad things now so get rid of him!".... So when you ask AWACS to declare and he says "bandit," that means he's the enemy and do what you will with that info...

I'm not impressed until the tech can differentiate between "scoundrel" and "ruffian".

Ooooo, flippant, charming.

I'm not fully versed in bandit/hostile. I assume an enemy cargo or recon plane would be "bandit" while something with the means or intention to do harm is "hostile." While the two words don't-carry/carry the engagement permission built in I don't think they're used exclusively to carry that meaning. "Bandit 360 40 miles 1000. Cleared to engage" and "Hostile, 180 70 miles 20,000 do not engage" both sound plausible.

Looks like sense of humor is in short supply in this sub-forum.

That wasn't even aimed at you.

Don't worry, Jayhawk... I found it funny!

If 'Striker' is still around, can I ask that he alters the title of this thread? The .....To Be Released Soon indicates that ED will release this in the next 5-10 years.

(Based on the definitions held within ED's exclusive thesaurus/dictionary)


On a serious note, have ED ever indicated that 2.5 will be released before the F/A18C?...............because if it isn't I'm going to start warming both barrels up right now. It would make approximately minus 14000% sense for 2.5 not to be highest priority.

IRL, 'Bogey' is used when air traffic is sighted and it's unknown whether it is friendly, or enemy. 'Bandit' is used when it has been identified as enemy.

"Bogey" is "unknown," I think you are referring to "Tally"... so you can have Tally bogey or Tally bandit.

What's the reference? According to the current Army Aircrew Coordination program's standard terminology 'Tally' is only for enemy (bandit, or ground vehicle). You would say 'Contact' for a bogey (unknown) , or any neutral object (wires, towers, etc). 'Visual' is for known friendly objects. This standard terminology is in the back of Army aircraft Aircrew Training Manuals.

I've worked with Airfirce before, and they seem to speak the same language.

But yes, as I said, 'Bogey' is unknown.

Reference wikipedia (see Jayhawk's post above) and a few BMS documents (AFTTP3-1.1 and APP-07E)

TALLY - Sighting of a target, bandit, bogey, landmark or enemy position; opposite of NO JOY.
CONTACT - 1) Sensor contact at the stated position. 2) Acknowledges sighting of a specific reference point. 3) Individual radar returns within a "GROUP or ARM".

So it seems like TALLY is when you see the target with the MK 1 eyeball, CONTACT is when it's just a blip on the radar.

Not sure I would go with Wikipedia as my first choice of reference...

Are the BMS documents actual AF docs, or derived?

This is a better reference: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

If you look at page 145 you will see the reference I'm using: CONTACT Acknowledges sighting of a specified reference point (either visually or via sensor).

Either way, in the sim world, I think someone would know what you're talking about. The radios aren't nearly as congested, so plain language doesn't hurt either.

Sorry if this hijacked this thread.

Edit: The reason I said it's a better reference, is because nothing is done unilaterally (single service) anymore.

Edit2: A bit dated, and not as concise, but there is a similar definition in this manual (.pdf page 50, manual page 38): http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/t0302060.pdf

LOL... it's just first on the list since Jayhawk posted it earlier.

Take a look at this APP_7(D) document and it basically says the same for TALLY and CONTACT. As far as the BMS docs, well, I don't have the knowledge to determine if a document is "actual" or "derived," so I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want to.

As for your reference (jp3_09 doc), do you have a page ref? What I found in p.145 says more or less the same as above.



True... the sim allows for a more relaxed approach for brevity..... but once you get used to brevity, wow... plain language just...... takes....... so........... long! With brevity, 3-5 seconds of listening, then back to building SA. Plain language can easily double that time, then SA drops to your knees...