nighthawk2174

I have a book purely dedicated to monopulse radars and there is a section on the ability to distinguish between multiple targets in the beam. I don’t remember the specifics but I do remember it being possible to a certain extent.

Not to mention range gating, edge tracking, the monopulses ability to discern between multiple target in its res cell, and the fact that chaff will slow down very very very quickly. Kalman filtering would be nice to see for sure, so would a lot of the stuff were talking about.

The missile should be able to reacquire so long as the target is still in its fov once the chaff is dropped out due to doppler. Assuming it beat all the other methods of filtering it would still eventually fall below the doppler speed. As such once this happens if the target is detected in a search pattern (could the amraam reacquire from the radars sidelobes if close enough?) I see no reason it wouldn't start tracking again. For the amraam if its getting datalink updates it should continue tracking on the datalinked target so long as it gets updates. From what's out there the missile will drop contacts in favor of what the datalink is pointing too.

Yeah but it's unlikely that the current drag values are accurate to rlf, for example I did my own CFD stuff for the R24 and saw much bigger differences than that. Hec even in the sidewinder chart the differences between the radar nose cone and the sidewinder cone are bigger than that.

Concerning the R73 I don't think people fully appreciate how much extra drag a blunt nose like the R73's adds. It is significant amounts, not to mention it is a large missile with a larger cross section. Something like the R73 would be the top solid line and the sidewinder is more like the third-fourth line down.

Maybe @NineLine could be of some help I know ED had in the past been looking to integrate user made stuff into the game if it met ED's standards and based on what i'm seeing here it seems too. The F5 tone seems to be quite accurate to what radars sound like in PRF audio based off of F16/A10 hud tapes and if you could generate that stuff for a bunch of aircraft that'd be quite sweet.

Hmm odd this happen in both SP and MP?

Yeah it takes time but its been like this in DCS from the start and no to very little progress has been made since. Meaning to get a WT level of DM will take years at the pace ED works. Just being realistic here updating the ground unit DM isn't a big money maker and as such isn't top priority. Frontally all modern MBT's should be immune (there are exceptions leclerc has a large weakpoint susceptible to 30mm if at close range) to the 30mm fire there just isn't enough penetration. Even at point blank range. The missile themselves have no more than a few kg of explosive in a frag warhead. this could potentially damage components but killing a tank? No its not enough explosive especially from the front.

Its a bug ED has said its going to be a while till its fixed. Not sure if its the exact same issue here but I wouldn't be surprised if their playing off each other. When switching modes it cuts datalink/switches the datalink target to the new target. Causing one of the missiles (or both) to miss.

In general ground units could use some love but it's unlikely to happen for a few years.

What is the size of the AWG-9's resolution cell?

Насколько мне известно, сбитый f16 оказался неправдой.

What is the notch for active missiles? And is the notch simulated for SARH missiles with PD filters?

I thought it was the case that this radar equipped the majority of the su27's even up to recently?

I mean chaff isn't a wall you will still get returns through it, will they be reduced in strength. Take into consideration that the amount of chaff for chaff corridors in Vietnam, with much lower tech search radars, was on the order of 20-25lbs per-NMi to hide a 40m^2 sized target for a short while from search radars. The metaphor I used in the other thread is its like a cloud and the radar is like the sun. Even on a cloudy day you can still see some light coming through. Which lines up with various sources that liken the effect to either weather or noise jamming.

It was my understanding that angular resolution is frequency dependent no? Even then if the resolution is similar to the size of the main lobe the chaff wouldn't stay in the res cell for long anyway especially if the target is moving really quickly. Its probably also part of the reason chaff's stated maximum effectiveness is near the notch, its where the res cell is the largest. Plus on the separation of targets inside the resolution cell it is my current understanding that monopulse systems are quite capable of doing this due to the way they work.

If you feel the performance if off the issue probably lies in the motor data, drag wise its fine. But well we don't exactly have much on the motor. I promise you i've looked hard for data on the HARM's motor and have found nothing. So for now I'd say wait for stuff like the POS modes and then see how it performs then.

Yup this exactly, lets be clear the PK of the amraam in game now is trash compared to what it is currently irl. The INS/Datalink bug, the chaff bug, the ECM bug, weirdness with terminal guidance sometimes causing the missile to miss for no reason at all even on a non-maneuvering target, and a lack of proximity fuzzes all contribute. Plus I've never really liked using missile PK as a metric to say if a missile is good or not. For example in Vietnam a later study found that of the missiles that missed something like 60-70%, or more (going from memory here could be a bit off), of misses could be attributed to human error rather. Poor maintenance, poor loading crews, pilots/wzo's not clearly knowing missile launch limitations are what's meant by human error. Which is beyond the capabilities of the missile itself but had a massive impact on its pk. And it didn't help that if you shoot 2 missiles at a target and the first one hits that's technically a 50% pk. And for the amraam how many missed irl because the bandit split-s'd and ran away at full speed back to base, which works against every missile that's not fired within RNE. Or had 2 missiles fired at one target? Essentially the tldr in rlf PK is a bad tool to say a missile is over or under performing. you'd need to analyze every single employment to get an accurate understanding of that number.

Do you have this document (or at leas the name of it) I'd love to read it.

The fuze I don't know much about so i can't really say much. But even from directly behind the chaff will still fall out of the res cell of the radar very quickly. But most importantly it won't stay in a position to be directly in between you and the missile for very long at all making its impact in all probability still rather minimal. And even while it is chaff isn't 100% opaque to radar. As was posted earlier the effect here can be likened to a noise jammer. And as such you can still get returns through it.

Right and search radars are a bit of a different ball game than the amraam's TR. I mean the pilots i've talked too have all said that the chance of decoying an amraam with chaff is laughably low. Plus SME's can be wrong too so its best to have a multitude of sources. Just outright disregarding all the sources i've posted, some even formerly classified, is not the way to go these people making these sources aren't idiots and should be listened too. RIght and the point i'm trying to make is the combination of bloom time, aircraft speed, and the rate that chaff slows down makes it so that in the time it has to make an effect (the res cell of the radar) its not going to be able to do much if really anything at all. More effect against lower res and less effect against higher res radars. We're talking much less than half a second for missiles like the amraam. The amraam being monopulse is even able to solve for multiple targets in the res cell with moderate accuracy with only two pulses.

RCS wise you could get a decent approximation with simulations but obviously the actual RCS profile is hella classified. But honestly with how simple DCS's RCS model is its irrelevant anyway until it gets modeled in the core game. From my understanding the biggest limitation documentation wise is related to some specifics of the weapon systems and i'd imagine the FLCS. For the rest however a -1 manual is out there I have a copy.

Not really they are comparable they work of the exact same principles. Also It was not a specific radar but a generic con-scan FCR with MTI. That the radar was dragged onto the chaff and has lost lock of the aircraft. Language barrier? not sure what your trying to say here. Well I mean first off if the chaff is not in the resolution cell of the target then it's not going to really do anything. And it won't stay in the resolution cell for very long at all. Not to mention it takes time for the chaff to bloom which will negatively impact its effect while it's in the res cell. Plus with monopulse it has the ability to tell there are multiple targets in its resolution cell to the point it can compensate for this and track on the original target. Sure but is that effect even enough to make a difference? Based on what i've read I don't really think it has much noticeable impact especially with modern radars. No all of these features are there to reject clutter and keep the target locked. Hence why its an integrative (not sure if that's the correct word) proces, it aggregates a bunch of returns over a short time. And also how would this problem cause an immediate break lock? I don't think that doppler processing is at all overrated plus it doesn't work alone either there are other mechanisms that support each other. I completely disagree how it was before was far more representative imho based on all of the various papers that i've linked in this thread.

@BIGNEWY @GGTharos Couldn't find much more than this about chaff effectiveness but well its in the .01-.02% range for an older con-scan pulse tracking radar with MTI. Considering stuff like the amraam is going to have much better resolution, is monopulse, will be closer meaning an even smaller res cell, and is PD. And that based on other sources the bloom rate for the chaff in the simulation is highly optimistic well... An additional factor to also consider is that the RCS of the target aircraft is 10, which is reasonable but for the off axis test the rcs of the aircraft was not varied where it would irl where it'd grow significantly as you approached the beam. And even more so with an increase in look down or up angle on an aircraft.

The issue is their going for chaff when they should not be. The chaff is causing the missile to pull maximum g's away from the target towards bundles that are already significant distances behind the target and would already have dropped well below the Doppler gate. And if not the Doppler gate then the range gate (target in/near notch and missile opening gates as a countermeasure). Not even mentioning the techniques that monopulses can employ to counteract chaff as well. ED can easily give us a temporary solution by just returning the chaff resistance values back to what they were at when the new missile FM first dropped or just turning off chaff till its fixed. Its just stupid how good it is and its having a really bad negative effect on gameplay and I would not mind it going away until its fixed and work properly.