Jump to content

Mad_Shell

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Mad_Shell

  1. 17 hours ago, animeweebman said:

    That has helped and a lot more missiles are no longer self-destructing, but I'm still noticing that some are. I do also see that some of the aircraft start maneuvering when the missile launches start, so could it be the case that those aircraft are breaking the radar lock? If that is the case, then you're solution was exactly what I was looking for. 

    Yes if they manage to break the lock with maneuvers the missiles will self destruct.

  2. @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.

  3. 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.

    • Like 1
  4. 7 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

    Neither SA-10 nor Patriot should set off launch warnings on RWR, but in both cases the search mode of the FCR is not very good, and in any case, the FCR is not turned on until the battery is ready to engage (otherwise you risk eating a HARM). What I've heard is, if you see a "10" on RWR, assume you've been launched at. That is your launch warning, and while the RWR won't raise hell about it, you'll live longer if you start defending right when the FCR goes on. 

    So it's the AI behavior that is unrealistic, but the player getting RWR launch warning when the battery actually launches is wrong, too. Those SAMs seem to have been extrapolated from older systems such as SA-2, but a modern SAM like the SA-10 or Patriot can be a lot more sneaky. Another thing is, AI probably shouldn't react to the missile at all, since if it gets you, it'll be coming too fast for you to get tally on it. I suspect it's a leftover from the A-10, which assumed an MWS (which could pick up the missile a moment before impact).

    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...

    • Like 1
  5. 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

    • Like 1
  6. 2 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

    No, this is not an aircraft specific "feature" ....In SRS, you have volume sliders with a centre, left and right position for each channel. so you put slider to the left so channel 1 comes out the left ear in your headphones and vice versa for channel 2 & the right ear........its incredibly useful when flying multiplayer or multicrew so you can easily tell which radio the voice you are hearing is on....

    What ShuRugal means is that splitting radios is not realistic for any aircraft we have, even if SRS allows it.

    • Like 2
  7. 10 hours ago, Chaffee said:

    Personally I trim the Flight Path Vector to center when flying straight and fly the ball to center when cornering. This keeps me out of the trees.

    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.

  8. On 12/29/2023 at 3:04 PM, Usagi said:

    Civilian traffic is great for immersion but when they drive thru active battle field, that's not good.

    Could it be changed in the future so that there's no civ traffic within certain radius of active battle units? Like 5 km?

    I don't know, irl civilian traffic seems quite oblivious sometimes 😅

     

    • Like 1
  9. 1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

    It would be worth replicating how it works IRL. Some of the DLC campaigns have good implementations of this procedure which I assume are realistic. For example I think it’s always the pilots discretion on which weapon to use. The Maple Flag A-10 course makes a point of this. If the JTAC asks for a certain weapon that’s not appropriate or presents a risk to friendlies, it’s up to the pilot.

    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.

    • Like 3
  10. 8 minutes ago, wjmzwx said:

    FCR may lock targets which have already been destroyed. Is that a normal behavior? 

    I killed wreckages  over and over again today. 

     

    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.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 3
  11. 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.

     

    • Like 1
  12. 21 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

    Or defeat it kinematically. Unless launched from rear aspect, deep within the WEZ, the AIM-9X is subject to the same constraints as other missiles. A high aspect launch will be more likely to miss simply by virtue of being high aspect, thus requiring the missile to make large maneuvers in response to target's attempts to evade. High off-boresight shots are even worse, with the initial turn to target wasting a lot of speed. It's a great missile, but not a magic wand.

    As for smokeless, well, this only helps you at altitudes where contrails don't happen. Also, it doesn't mean there's absolutely zero smoke, you can still see a launch in most conditions. If you have tally in heater range, you probably have a good idea when the other guy shoots.

    I wouldn't discount flares, either, although against something like AIM-9X you ideally want more modern decoys. The "imaging seeker" is not the same as an infrared camera, and a flare can disrupt the image in various ways. Combined with maneuvering, they might change the image enough for the seeker to get confused. It was effective in tests, but everything is effective in tests, things that aren't don't pass the tests. In the real world, things usually aren't that simple. Recall the AIM-9M, which rejected high tech American flares no problem, but was fooled by dirty burning Iraqi flares due to their crappy rise time.

    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. 

    • Like 1
  13. @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...

  14. On 11/15/2023 at 5:16 AM, NineLine said:

    This vid should show you as well that the hits do not necessarily light up with the shots. As well the poor pilot is injured and slips off into the great virtual unknown. 

    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.

  15. 4 hours ago, Nealius said:

    2017 shootdown over Syria, didn't the 9X get decoyed by the Su's flares, requiring a follow-up shot with an AMRAAM?

    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.

  16. 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

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...