Jump to content

Mad_Shell

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mad_Shell

  1. Yes if they manage to break the lock with maneuvers the missiles will self destruct.
  2. It is probably because the aircraft that are being targeted begin to jam the S300 when they get the RWR launch warning. The S300 loses the lock and the missiles self destruct. Set the AI ECM option to "never use" and see if it fixes the issue.
  3. @currenthill Hi! I see that for the Storm Shadow and the Taurus missiles you use very high RCS values (0.21 for Storm Shadow, 0.9 for Taurus). Open source estimates for these missiles are around 0.02 square meters for X and K bands frequencies. These estimates are coherent wth the observations in Ukraine, where a Pantsir only detected a Storm Shadow at 5 km with its radar, and failed to intercept it.
  4. Problem seems to be mostly solved, except for the Mi8TV2 which seems to have really good sensors Haven't tested every single AI helo though... helicopters_rear_detection.trk
  5. Your F-16 is equipped with a jamming pod, which explains why the launch distance is reduced for the SA-10. However, it seems that there are serious inconsistencies with jamming effects on SAMs. The Patriot and SA-10 versions we have in DCS have pretty similar radar and guidance technologies, and it seems weird that the Patriot is so much more resistant to jamming in DCS. Also, I've tested jamming against the SA-2, and it manages to launch at around 27 km... So yes, very unrealistic that the SA-2 has better resistance to jamming than the SA-10. I hope things will get more fleshed out in this regard since ED announced they want to better model electronic warfare in DCS. Currently there are many problems with it across the board.
  6. I don't know when it was fixed, but problem not present anymore in the latest version (2.9.3.51704)
  7. When I said that the AI reaction was more realistic, I was talking about the RWR only, which seems to only indicate a launch warning in the terminal phase for them. Of course any semi competent pilot would anticipate a launch as you said. But that also supposes to have perfect ELINT. The SA-10 radar can switch between thousands of different frequencies, many only used in war time so that the enemy has never encountered them. I suspect quite a few radars show as "U" on RWR in real life...
  8. What we observe in DCS: A player engaged by a Patriot / SA-10B will see a lock alert on the RWR, and a launch alert as soon as a missile is launched. An AI engaged by a Patriot / SA-10B will not react until the incoming missile is around 20 km away. What open sources say: The FM-44-15-1 manual (Distribution statement A: approved for public release, distribution is unlimited) for the Patriot indicates that: "The missile is command-guided by radar to a point just prior to intecept. It is at this point that the unique TVM guidance mode begins. In the TVM mode, the radar set sends out a special waveform that illuminates the target. The radar sends an encoded uplink message to the missile that commands the missile to open its receiver for detection of the TVM waveform energy reflected from the target. The missile then encodes and sends boresight errors via downlink message back to the radar. Guidance computations are then made by the WCC and sent back through the radar to the missile via uplink message. This process continues until intercept." It is very clear that the target should not have any launch warning until a few seconds before impact when the target is illuminated. Since the AN/MPQ-53 radar used by the Patriot to guide the missile is a PESA radar capable of track-while-scan, it is most probable that the target has no lock alert on its RWR at any moment, even when the missile is being command guided toward the target before the final illumination phase. For the SA-10B we have in DCS (using the 5V55R missile), a very similar system is used, as described in the book "Невский бастион - Зенитная ракетная система С-300" (page 17) "The missile 5V55R employs an improved radio-command guidance method for targeting. This method combines radio-command guidance in the initial and middle stages of the trajectory with the "target tracking through the missile" method in the final stage. Guidance commands for the 5V55R missile are generated based on the coordinates of the target and the missile measured by RP, and the target tracking data from the onboard radar sight of the SAM – a method similar to that used in the American "Patriot" system." The book "THE RUSSIAN S-300 AND S-400 MISSILE SYSTEMS" also mentions midcourse commands and a final TVM guidance for the 5V55R missile. We can see that it's actually the reaction of the AI units (only reacting when the missile is about 20 km away) that is more realistic than the players having a lock warning then a launch warning as soon as the missile is fired. Now that we know that the target illumination begins at a predetermined range for these systems, do we have any clue about what this range could be? Yes, but only an indirect one! In the "'Review of Defence Annual Report 2002-03: Analysis of Department of Defence Responses" document, it is written about the 9M82 and 9M83 missiles used in the SA-12 (developped at the same time period as the SA-10B): "During midcourse flight the missile employs inertial navigation with the option of command link updates. In the former mode it transitions to its semi-active homing seeker during the final 10 seconds of flight, in the latter three seconds before impact – a technique preferred for heavy jamming environments." Even if the guidance method is slightly different, it gives a good insight at where the technology stands at this period: with midcourse updates from the radar (as it is the case with the 5V55R missile), the missile only needs the target to be illuminated for 3 seconds before impact! If you've read unitil there, you definitely seem to be interested into this subject, and I hope you'll enjoy the documents I cite or join FM44-15-1Pt1(87).pdf Review of Defence Annual Report 2002-03 Analysis of Department of Defence Responses.pdf
  9. What ShuRugal means is that splitting radios is not realistic for any aircraft we have, even if SRS allows it.
  10. Funny because you should be doing the exact opposite Ball centered = aerodynamic trim, the aircraft flies in the most efficient manner, so you should use it when flying straight during en route. Nose to tail trim (centered flight path) should be used when maneuvering low around obstacles, to make sure you keep your tail clear of obstacles.
  11. ED said it would take some time, but 5 months and still counting to answer a Q&A is kind of crazy...
  12. I don't know, irl civilian traffic seems quite oblivious sometimes
  13. No, in the NATO procedure the JTAC has full responsibility of what weapons to use. Of course there is a discussion with the pilot(s), but final decision is made by the JTAC.
  14. Yes it's normal. The FCR basically searches for big chunks of metal, and tries to classify them based on the radar return. A destroyed tank is still a big chunk of metal that has about the same shape as a non destroyed one, the radar has no way to know if it's destroyed or not. Pretty happy that ED included that.
  15. This guy (Tutu) just released a video showing that the ballistic calculators for the F-15, F-16 and F-18 show very different ranges (Raero, Rmax, time before activation, etc...) for the AIM-120, while flying at the same speed and altitude. The video is in French, but with the automatic subtitles translation I think it's understandable. I can translates the bits you don't understand too.
  16. It's modelled on the new seeker model. Now I don't want to sound rude, but I would like this thread to remain on the specific initial topic here, which is the effect of the ccm_k0 parameter for the new seeker model.
  17. It's true that imaging seekers don't equal total flare immunity, and some specific tactics combined with some types of flares (different models of flares are not modelled in DCS sadly), have a chance to defeat them. However, what we witness in DCS is that flares can quite easily defeat even an AIM-9X, without any particular maneuver, if the target is a few kilometers away.
  18. @Маэстро I redid a few tests, and I don't know what's going on with the coding behind the scenes, but for the IR missiles using the new infrared seeker model (Mistral, Igla, FIM-92C) the ccm_k0 parameters is defined two times. And in my tests, the 2 values had an effect on the flare resistance! I don't know if the code takes the mean value of the 2 values, or if it's something else, but for example defining ccm_k0 = 0.5 and ccm_k0 (the second one) = 0.5, had different results than ccm_k0 = 0.5 and ccm_k0=0.00001, which also had different results than ccm_k0 = 0.00001 and ccm_k0=0.00001. And I don't know what's going on with the RIM 116A missile, this one has 2 different seeker sections ("seeker" and "IR-seeker"), and ccm_k0 is defined only once...
  19. Uh, to me it seems to demonstrate that there is a problem with the pilot damage model. Several of your shots were directly on the pilot, at point blank range with a 12.7mm. He should have been dead on the spot with the first direct hit. My own test show that pilots are way too resistant to damage. For example with 25mm HE rounds aimed directly at the pilot, I need at least 2 shots to kill him. He should be dead at the 1st one.
  20. We don't know what happened there. Maybe the missile had a malfunction, maybe it was the flares. Not enough info to conclude anything. That's why I refer to the video of the trials, because we have a better understanding of the various parameters.
  21. It is impossible to put infantry in buildings in DCS, so the "armed building" AI is sometimes useful for some missions scenarios. Unfortunately, the AI immediately identify the building as an enemy. This shouldn't happen, as the building hasn't opened fire yet, no way to identify this building as hostile. 2 tracks attached, demonstrating the problem with both air and ground units. I also want to point out that a single shell from the T-90 was enough to destroy the building. The Mi-24P needed 3 ATGM to do the same thing. Seems something isn't quite right with the damage. armed building spotting.trk tank_armed building spotting_and damage.trk
  22. thanks Flappie. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't going unnoticed in the depths of the forum. I know you're doing some heavy lifting for reporting and testing bugs, thx again for that.
×
×
  • Create New...