KenobiOrder

To be fair it was absurdly easy to notch before this patch. It does seem like its even easier now, and at the very least it has not been improved. Which is what many of us were expecting from this patch, that the ability to notch would be significantly reduced, and it clearly has not been. The only things I have noticed in testing are the following: -Notching is the same as before, if not somewhat worse. All you have to do is turn mildly into the beam and under virtually all conditions the missile will fail to guide. -There does now seem to be some ability to reacquire after being notched that was not there before, but it almost never happens. -INS works -Datalink might work? Its hard to tell but sometimes it seems like I can get missiles to track beaming targets if I maintain radar lock until missile impact. But I have had inconsistent results. -There is now a problem where missiles miss non-beaming targets for no apparent reason. No chaff, no notch, and missile has plenty of energy.

Except this is a major component of how an MPRF radar reduces the sidelobe clutter so that it is not an issue. The returns are filtered into range bins and this significantly suppresses the clutter. But there is more than just that to range gating. It can also be used, especially with the extremely high angular resolution of monpulse, to distinguish targets from clutter by creating range profiles or simply ignoring returns that come from the same range as the MLC. And moreover there appears to be zero evidence of SNR being implemented. Many targets manage to notch in situations where the targets signal would likely be above the clutter, such as a high/medium altitude target with a missile coming at moderate angles from above.

Yeah there is also an issue now where missiles just fly by targets for no reason, in addition to being easy to notch

SD-10 doesnt have it yet

Its mainly because the new missile is absurdly vulnerable to being notched. If you turn vaguely to the beam the missile goes stupid. It is complete rubbish.

Nevermind. It is definitely way too easy to notch even with the supposed improvements in this patch. Supporting with the data link seems to work, which is what I am doing in the shots that dont miss. But a simple turn to the beam seems to work almost every time, making it childs play to defeat the missile. You dont even need chaff. Very occasionally, the missile will re-aquire but its extremely rare. Tacview-20211020-233647-DCS-17.zip.acmi

Actually I am not so sure now, need to do more testing. My first tests were vs ace ai and they may have been doing some humanly impossible notch maneauver. Doing tests now where I try to notch ai fired amraam and I have not been successful once yet, even with an ass load of chaff. So maybe we jumped to conclusions too quickly. Not sure how your tests were done Tacview-20211020-214303-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20211020-214706-DCS.zip.acmi

As an inertial guided missile, the SD-10 should also have INS should the datalink be lost before pitbull. When is this coming to JF-17?

Yeah its ridiculous. I had hoped this patch would fix this but now it seems even easier to notch and chaff is now super effective again. I see no evidence of Range gating or SNR being used to prevent notching. Missile are being notched even in the most mild look down situations at 40,000ft.

The problem is the modeling of the APG-73 and 68, not the KLJ-7. Especially the 73. It has the same range as the 68 right now which seems just as silly assuming the dish size argument

Any feedback on this?

will this be implemented soon?

Most likely not. It states greater than or equal to 105km, ranges over that probably being VS. If your going to assume that publically listed max ranges are for vs, you have to do that for the 68 as well. It's not the jf17 that's overmodeled, it the hornet and viper that are under modeled. You can't lock on in VS

If you read his first post, you will note that this bug report is in response to the fix ED put in some time ago no longer working.

Yes that part is wrong. There is scant information available around for the ranges of these radars, but whats available for the JF-17 is pretty much identical to what they have in game, ignoring whatever PRF does it right now.

Because that is what the publicly available data says it should be.

because it says "IT" switches its own on. The emphasis is on the text referring to the missile doing it, with no mention of anything else. This is the last bit ill say in this thread because its off topic. But from my point of view you are presupposing 54C needs a command simply because the A did. While the 54C did share some functional similarities, I am not sure why we would assume any particular function was carried over unless there is explicit evidence because the bulk of the 54C was entirely new electronics. There appears to be no explicit evidence that it needed a command to to active. But there is very strong implicit evidence, that it probably was able to go active on its own.

@Naquaii Not a new document but: IT switches on its own radar transmitter and guides.

But why do you need 100% proof? There isn't any particular reason to assume it needs a command to go active either, and there is tons of implicit evidence to the contrary. But for some reason the burden proof it being put on the ability of the missile to go active on its own.

There are literally several examples of notching missiles where the ground isnt even close to the target and it's barely look down in those tacviews he posted. Notching right now is effortless and absurdly effective.

To add to the range discrimination aspect, monopulse seekers can have exceptionally high range resolution. This would allow the radar to discriminate the target based on the nature of the range returns from the individual reflectors of the target. The ground return would be relatively uniform in range across its range of angles.

And this can be used to discriminate against unwanted targets. At 25miles the return from a missile (if a get one at all) is going to be weaker than he return from a Mig-25 head on. If you combine the weak return at the given range with the other information, you have everything you need to eliminate most targets. And regarding mach 4 AShms, I dont know of any, stuff like the P700/800 dont move anywhere near that fast. But if there are systems like this thats completely fine, Radars are optimized across their entire design for certain kinds of targets. There are other systems that can engage cruise missiles. This happens in tracking loops all the time to discriminate against chaff, and unless DCS is wrong, the Flankers radar shows this in search. I am even fairly certain that you yourself pointed out that AIM-120s going pitbull could use RCS as part of their gate to find the right target. In any case, RCS discrimination is quite doable I know of at least one example, Mig-29A that has velocity limits for closing targets. Fairly certain this sort of thing is built into the choice of operating frequencies and the PRF of the radar. For a given PRF and given frequency spectrum being emitted, only a certain range of velocities is going to remain suitable. For example a high PRF may no longer be a high prf if the shift is so dramatic that the phase shift is ambiguous. Sure, but the hits can be turned off, at least in the hornet. And that is why i was referring to the TWS tracks not the hits. Sure, but this creates problems for the accuracy of the TWS tracking gates if you expect to be able to detect both of these kinds of targets across their entire practical performance envelope. Missiles do things fighters cant do, so if you widen your correlation gates to include missile type maneauvers and performance, you are going to degrade your ability to reject false alarms and make accurate correlations between various tracks from frame to frame. Which is part of why I doubt this is done, especially on fighters who main design target was not a cruise missile. Also I know you said you agree it should not be as fast, but I want to reiterate that is my main point about it. If the hits setting is on, sudden missile tracks would be hits and not new track files, which provides and measure of discrimination by itself. And if hits was off, you wouldnt see them, at least not at that moment shortly after coming off the rail. Yes and tracking loops can reject this. A sudden jump in SNR above a threshold is an indication of a countermeasure. Sure Jamming could do that. So dont apply that set of discrimination parameters in the presence of a jammer. But what A2A missile Jams? Ok what example would you give? An SR71? That still would not explain a mach 4 target however. Also there are ways you could allow for such a target without over saturating other modes, like letting some other submode such as VS have different parameters.

Most super sonic Ashm dont move at mach 3-4, and they are significantly larger. Given that they have a similar shape to air to air missiles, they almost certainly have a larger RCS. So there are multiple ways you can discriminate these targets. Unless you think a PL-12 has the same RCS as a Mig-25. You dont say? But its not material in any case. The way TWS is picking them up is clearly plain wrong for example. As you know, TWS systems dont just display every hit they get. They take at least two (and as I know you are aware, many real systems we have info on take more than that) frames before they upgrade a target to a track and display in on the radar screen. Yet in DCS the radar immediately displays AAMs such that you can basically see them coming of the launch rail. And there is a issue of acceleration too boot. No jet accelerates like a AAM, so if the TWS system would very likely continue to see many such missiles as False Alarms because their statistical distance from the first detection (if its coming of the rail for example) would be wildy beyond any reasonable maneuver gate. What jet other than a SR-71 does mach 3-4? A mig-31 doesn't quite get there, and again you could just discriminate by RCS. Off the top of my head and cant think of a single valid target that is going to have around a -10db RCS and also is flying at those speeds. How is that a different issue. Its directly related to the excessive detection of air to air missiles. If the RCS were reduced to more reasonable levels, this issue would be greatly reduced.

On top of everything that has been said so far I seriously doubt that modern fighter radars would generally allow missiles to show up at all. As it does in DCS, it clutters the radar screen and makes it vastly more difficult to achieve adequate SA. Because of the way this is implemented at the moment the second everyone starts shooting the radar turns into nightmare where its hard to tell if the new targets suddenly appearing on the screen are missile or just new contacts you didnt see before etc. -Right now missiles can be detected throughout their flight path. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that anyone would want a fighter radar displaying mach 3-4 targets with closure speeds impossible from any valid target, such as a enemy plane. In fact IIRC Ive seen radar manuals where the max target speed is far below this. -The RCS of the missiles seems excessive, especially rear aspect. Why is my radar capable of detected a AIM-54 or Aim-120 as it closes in on the target 20-40nm away? Its difficult for the DCS radars to detect aircraft that are nose cold at those ranges...much less missiles.

so in 3 second the target movied 833m, then another 833m in the later 3 during M, for 1666m. As your said. Then in another 6 seconds it moves another 1600m. Total is about 3300, so our 4100 meter scan is more than big enough to see the target. Moreover, the target must be moving in angle between the targets extrapolated position and the range of angles that would stay within the Doppler gate for a range of speeds. If the target continues its turn and goes nose cold, it will be rapidly required probably just by memory alone. To stay in the notch, the target must fly a close to a perfect circle because it has to keep a radial velocity that is within the doppler gate. It it turned 90 degrees to the radar and stayed there, it would simply fly out of the notch on its own, it has to keep adjusting its turn to stay in the beam. On top of that, the faster it goes the harder it is to stay in the notch, because this will increase the radial velocity for a given angle to the radar. The point of the raster scan after 6 seconds is that the target might have moved in altitude or in range outside of the target tracking gate. Regarding the range gate @GGTharos I dont think there would be much of one if at all, since at this stage a target might come out the beam (say at 9 seconds) but be further in range than the original tracking loop but still within the line of sight of the raster. There is a risk you might lock onto the wrong target, but its a fairly slim one and worth the risk in this situation.