apocom

Hi, if #1,#2 and #3 are simply not implemented there is no need to talk about it anymore. If features are missing it's no wonder that the missile behaves worse. For #4 I'm pretty sure that the SU27 handbook states it. I don't know if I should copy out there, but an additional source is The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons. It states

Hi, I tried to provide some sources in my first post. I understand that you want to have sources, because the amount of misinformation is quite high (the topics fault). I've learned something here: If something behaves strange, it's ground clutter. The problem is, for many things, we can say how they work IRL. But we simply don't know how far they are implemented. FC3 crafts are missing many features, and nearly every feature the russians use to hit with their missiles. From my POV it seems like the overall bad performance is realistic, but with the missing features they are worse than IRL. So, you guys have to decide if something is a bug or is working as intended, for example: - Why does the missile doesn't regain lock if it's lost? - Why does my aircraft radar never looses lock, no matter how much chaff is in the air? - Why does the missile chase chaff even if the radar doesn't illuminate that chaff? - Why is it not possible to fire a R27(E)R without activating the radar, using IRST and M-LINK and only activating the radar for the last few hundred meters? I think I provided sources for every point, but if you guys think something is missing, I would be happy to provide more detailed information.

I'm pretty sure the F15C lost lock on you in this situation. I would be really surprised if the F15C could lock 63° down. But you are right, the values I posted are for the scan area in BVR mode.

Could you explain plz, I was always super curious why its 70*. The normal FOV is +-30* if I'm not mistaken, and you can move the radar 30* to the left/right. In the config it says also +-60*. scan_volume = { azimuth = {-60.0, 60.0}, elevation = {-30.0, 30.0} },So why 70*?

You cannot radarlock onto someone with the same airspeed.

Care to explain? Like I said it's the best way to make sure the enemy radar can pick you up again. Any source for this? The main effects that chaff has are not implemented, but GC? Besides everytime I'm reading something about unrealistic behaviour it's groundclutter. So by this logic it would be ok that if the enemy chaffs, my missile will start to go 90° up into the sky, because the result is the same. I miss.

You mean this? Aspect? So my target is on a 3-9 line. It moves away from its chaff the fastest way possible relative to my postion. It's impossible that he will generate a higher angle for me. Ground clutter? 5000m above the sea? Number of chaff bundles? Thats why my R27 starts chasing the very first chaff? Of course that are reasons, but all the stuff seems not to be implemented. EDIT: We are talking a lot about side effects (groud clutter, the radar beam is diffuse etc.) but the main effects of chaff are not implemented, mainly that the attackers radar will loose the target and is uable to track or find it anywhere near a chaff cloud.

It's important to know why a missile misses, so I can find away around this. If my missiles just show a complete unrealistic behaviour, I have problems to use them. And it's not only unrealistic, it just makes no sense (Problem: far away chaff) On a side note: I've read other sources and it seems to be possible that old radars (not lookdown/shootdown capable radars) can actually lock on a chaff. I've stated this different. And no, my missile will not chase this chaff if I illuminate a target kilometers away.

Awesome post :thumbup: But I really doubt that this happens in the most cases I encounter that problem. Just make an example with light, just another electromagnetic wave, so the physic is the same. If I point with a lasberpointer on a plane, how can an object a noteable distance away emit a stronger light in my direction, based on the reflection of the laserpointer? There might exist scenarios where this behaviour might occur, but I really doubt that this is not negligible. I try to do some calculations, just because it's a great example.

I agree, but this is not my point. Of course there is a difference between a mountain and chaff. I've never stated otherwise. Ok, here is another great document, that also explains the math behind the chaffs radar cross section http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a133967.pdf I seriously don't know what to add. That's simply how it works, and again, for me the whole thing how the missile behave in DCS makes no sense.

This depends on the distance between chaff and target. If you look at my picture there is a really big distance inbetween. And the illuminated area is not that big, because it is impossible for the missile to distinguish targets in that area. If you read my original post, you will see that I use dtic.MIL as a source. And yes, the end result is the same, I completly agree with you, the missle will very likely miss the aircraft and I'm surprised about the effectivness of chaff in that regard. But if you read my original post, that is not my problem.

Could you plz provide a source for that, because I can't find anything that chaff acts like flare in A2A combat. There exist chaff systems that acts like that, for example intercontinental missiles can release baloons that act as additional targets. Of course the missiles a differente FOV, but they can't see the chaff if the chaff is not illuminated by my radar. Either I illuminate a target in their FOV or not.

No, the radar does not pick up the chaff. I say it again, its not a decoy. Your radar will also not pick up a mountain, even if the mountain will interfere with your radar. Chaff blinds your radar so you can't have a lock on the target anymore. It's a little bit like a target flying behind a mountain (this example is not really true, because your radar will still reach your target, but you can't distinguish the reflected waves. Basicly your target is invisible for your radar, like behind a mountain). EDIT: Like I said, I have the feeling that chaff is implemented like flare, and the R27(E)R like they have an active seeker that chases it.

Thanks for the replies. I'm aware that I might be mistaken, thats why I try to use as many sources as possible to support my points. If anybody find something different, plz let me know. The first thing I say is, that it's not even possible to be baited by chaff, because that's not how it works. But even if someone would think so, it's not possbile to be having different targets. The russians have a lot of interesting ideas how to hit with their missiles. Unfortunatly none of them seems to be implemented in this game. But to answer your second part, the way I understand this, is that the radar is slaved to the IRST, so it illuminates simply the target the IRST is locking. Yeah, but my point is, that chaff is not a target like flare. Just assume it would work like that. Every radar with simple logic could identify the real target (its the fastest object and its always the first object along the moving vector). The next problem is, that the distance to the aircraft is fast too huge for getting cought in the radar beam. I added a picture to show that point. Look how far away the target is from the chaff. My radar will not illuminate it, so it is invisible for my missiles. But for some reason they chase it. The fourth missile however, kills the target. I can't see any logic in this behaviour.

Ok, I think here are numerous bugs or implementation problems. 1. Chaff is not like flare You can't simply say flare is an IR and chaff a radar decoy. Flare is an IR decoy, but chaff is not a radar decoy. There are so many sources how chaff works, here is an example: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a135928.pdf Basicly: Chaff consists of many small particles that should reflect as much energy back to the radar as possible. What happens, is that the radar can no longer track the target, because the energy reflected back by the target is too small in comparision, and can't be distinguished from the chaff cloud. Therefore the radar looses lock of the target (not implemented in DCS or bug). 2. SARH missiles are just following the radar As long as the missile "sees" the illuminated target, it follows it. https://web.archive.org/web/20070109230625/http://www.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/royalartillery/units/royal_school_of_artillery/bst_handout_f02.pdf http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Radar-AAMs.html So, in order to hit a target, the missiles sensor has to lock on onto the radar beam reflected by the target. Two conditions must be fullfilled, the target must be illuminated and the sensor has to be able to see the target. So if a SARH can't see the illumination anymore, it goes ballistic. In conclusion, chaff is not only very effective against the missile itself, but also against the hostile fighters radar. 3. SU27 IRL features To overcome the problems with chaff the russians have at least two ways to increase the missiles hit chance."(I dont understand russian and I hope I've copied the correct parts ;)) a) "расчет условий пуска ракет, формирование и выдачу разовых команд в СУО-27Э2, а также подсвет атакуемой цели и передачу команд управления на пущенную ракету в РГС по линии радиокоррекции;" So a link to the missile for controlling it b) "выдачу угловых координат визуально видимой цели в РЛПК и в управляемые ракеты с ТГС при прицеливании с помощью кнюпеля в режиме ОПТ и от НСЦ в режиме ШЛЕМ; So giving the radar the IRST target information. So, as long as IRST has a stable lock, the radar illuminates the target and the missile is homing it. Because IRST is immune to chaff, the whole process makes the missile more or less (proximity fuse may cause problems) immune to chaff. Source: САМОЛЕТ СУ-27СК РУКОВОДСТВО ПО ЛЕТНОЙ ЭКСПЛУАТАЦИИ Книга 1 4. BUG So, but what happens really often, is that my missiles are chasing chaff. This cannot happen because chaff is not a decoy, but by no means it is possible that 2 missiles are chasing 2 different chaff-decoys. My radar can only lock 1 thing. Ok, I'm rewatching some of my tacview files because I wanted to add some screenshots, but there is so much unlogic behaviour, that I don't think a screenshot can transport all the problems. 5. Conclusion Overall I think that chaff is implemented like flare, as a decoy, and that my passive missiles behave, like they have an active radar that locks on chaff. EDIT: Some spelling, shouln't make such topics that late.

TIL, thanks for the clarification.

When you are at 50000ft and he is below you, he should really be able to see your contrail, even without setting the model visibility to large.

Yeah, I don't think so, but I'm not an expert in this. I was trained on a very specific radar and radio, thats where I have all my knowledge about electromagnetic waves. I don't have studied that topic. I just wanted to say, from my limited experience, that distance is a really important value, and you have to put a lot of energy into a system, to overcome this. So, the reason why I mentioned the frequenzies, is, that your results my vary, depending on the frequenz you use. For example weather has a huge impact, depending on your used frequenz. But now I'm completly off topic.

I can backup these statements a little bit. During my military service I've worked with G2A/G radar. This may differ widely from A2A radar in fighters, but for our radar, powering the system with 10x more energy, leads to 2-3 times more range. But plz keep in mind that there are many many other factors that effect the picture you get. For example the frequenz the radar is using.

Ofc pK is meaningless, but it's often the best information we have. This is the best paragraph I've read in this thread. Deploying actual combat tactics should be define the outcome of a fight. http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09-sprey-w-covers.pdf

Thanks a lot for that explanation. Unfortunatly we have even less information about the tracking aspect than the PK.

Hi, if you don't like this source, maybe read this for general BVR combat: http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf I don't know, I'm reading a lot how bad missiles perform in BVR (every missile not espacially the russians). If someone can submit a link that reads like something has a good BVR capability I would be really happy. You guys often state that this is not realistic and I really wonder why. Maybe care to elaborate? I don't see a big difference in this game, where a successful (maneuvering the missile in deadly range) tracked target results in a kill.

The highest PK I have found was a drone target practice, and the PK was stated with ~1/3. I'm pretty sure that using the missile against real pilots performing high G defensive maneuver and spamming chaff will lower this number significant. As far as I know, the R27 in all its implementations was never used against a F15 in a real fight, and thats the only way to tell the PK for that. Maybe ED shouln't go the ultra realistic path for a Standard Systems Modeling aircraft.

I agree, the problem is, that is not possible. I'm not even sure if the russian millitary knows the PK of an R27ER. And of course the PK depends on many many factors. The german army did some tests after they got their MiG29s, but ofc never in a real conflict. Bottom line seems that these missles have a really low PK in reality, espacially if the enemy performs defensive maneuvers. Thats why there are many other possibilities in reality to deploy this weapon. Another example (besides someone else illuminating your target), is to fire the missle ballistic, without turning your radar on, at the point where it will intercept an enemy aircraft. Shortly before impact the SU27 turns the radar on (for final guidance) leaving the enemy with less time to react. (Source: "The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems" by Norman Friedman)

The missle-class radar is way closer. But more important an ARH missle knows the targets movement relative to its own postion and can predict the enemy position and therefor adjust its own.