DCS FIGHTER PILOT

While not as bad or prevalent as before, the AI is still defending poorly against ARH missiles and is getting hit with (in my opinion) very low Pk shots. Sometimes the AI will split s and turn away (which is ideal) while other times it will try to beam/notch it, or (as in track 2) recommit too early and fly straight into the missile. I suppose this kind of behavior might be expected for AI at a low difficulty setting but not for veteran or ace AI. BadDefense1.trk BadDefense2.trk

Well regardless of what is actually going on with respect to this, it would be nice (given certain upcoming “advanced” modules) to get more modern versions of the AMRAAM.

Undoubtedly the cases where the pilots were able to land their damaged planes was not the result of a direct hit. I would venture to guess this is also true for most of the pilots that survived the impact. This does however highlight another important issue and it’s that an AMRAAM (or any other missile) encounter in game is practically 100% fatal. Clearly this contradicts the real world accounts you provided. Still, even if the pilot is not killed, destroying or damaging the opponents aircraft can certainly be enough to win the engagement. By increasing the 120’s PF, not only would this mitigate the barrel roll problem, it would also likely result in a higher survival rate (given that the missiles could detonate farther away from the target) more in line with real world data.

Oh I have little doubt of that. I would imagine that even with the best EW suite, your best defense against an incoming missiles is still the good old split s and burn away play.

As the If ECM modeling in DCS becomes more mature, eventually we will arrive at a point where it can go no further due to the shroud of secrecy surrounding the topic. Undoubtedly, it will be nearly impossible to know just how effective ECM is against ECCM at any given moment in time. As most of you know, both ECM and ECCM techniques are evolving constantly and what might work one day, could very well not the next. One can think of this as a game of electronic warfare leapfrog. Perhaps one solution to simulate this is to have a mission editor ECM Effectiveness Option. Perhaps have three different options. Low, which would correspond to ECCM techniques having a maximum impact on ECM, Medium, a setting that would likely correspond closely to what we have now in game, and High which would make ECM highly effective against radars and missiles. I appreciate any feedback and further ideas on this subject.

Over three years later, still seems to be an issue. Anyone else agree?

Lets just say, I should absolutely hope so given what my graduate degree is in.

It seems to me that this problem is the result of two major issues. The first one is fairly obvious and has been the subject of much talk in the past. The Proximity Fuze. It is my understanding that the current proxy fuze trigger radius of the 120's warhead in game is set to around 9m. However, according to sources linked in the discussion provided here, the kill radius is in the neighborhood of 15m. So if this is correct, why on earth would the trigger radius be set less than the kill radius? As one can see in the track I provided, had the warhead from the first missile detonated at its closet point to me (approximately 43ft or 13.1m according to Tacview) , undoubtedly I would have suffered serious damage and quite possibly lost the airframe. The second major issue contributing to this problem is one I have rarely seen brought up and impacts many other areas of gameplay besides this. That is issue of the lack of overstressing consequences for many aircraft in game. As one can see in the track, in order to evade the incoming AMRAAM, I had to execute a high G barrel roll in my F-16 pulling a whopping 10.8 g's at one point. My question is, why is my airframe the same as it was before? Would I have not at least bent it to the point where it does not handle the same anymore if not wrecked it completely? Keep in mind this maneuver is more than just a simple high G turn. Now granted, I have not done a full blown stress-strain analysis on what these types of loads would do, but my gut is telling me that the vertical stabilizer(s) would be itching to outright separate from aircraft during such a maneuver. As @Маэстро mentioned above, yes, a high G barrel roll is one of the worst types of maneuvers to for a missile to intercept, but is it also not one of the worst maneuvers for an airframe to endure? Also keep in mind I had no payload while executing this maneuver. In game when people do this, it is almost always done while carrying a payload (sometimes a massive one). How is it that they just get to keep flying the same as before as if nothing had happened after executing this? At the very least, I would suspect that such maneuvers would cause payloads to simply rip off the airframe, possible damaging the airframe itself during the separation process. This is however an issue worthy of a separate post but is certainly relevant to the problem we are dealing with here. In regards to the AMRAAMs Kalman filter and guidance control algorithm(s) as modeled by ED, I would be very interested to dive deep into the mathematics of that to see if there is a more optimal intercept solution than to what we currently have in game now. However, I highly doubt I will be given that privilege. AOA_Roll.trk

As someone comically put it the other day, “Who needs stealth, electronic warfare, and countermeasures?! Just roll!”

Still seems to be a problem as of a year later. Given the current state of things however, I don't expect this to get fixed anytime soon (if ever).

Track One: ACE AI Tries to notch (at least that's what I am guessing its trying to do) at high altitude when it could dive and "outrun it" incoming missile and gets hit. Track Two: ACE AI recommits to the fight too early and gets hit. Track Three: ACE AI executes a rather poor defense and again tries to recommit to the fight too early. Gets hit. Track Four: I demonstrate an aggressive defense and kinematically defeat an incoming missile even though all seems lost. Also notice I use every tool at my disposal. Jettison tanks, deploy chaff, turn on ECM, rapidly drop altitude, and "zigzag". When a missile is fired at you, unless you have a death wish, you would do everything in your power to ensure that it misses. However, what even the best AI does currently seems perfunctory. I would expect such a defense from rookies and novices but never from an ace. Also note this type of behavior seems to hold for any AI aircraft defending against any ARH missile. I have yet to test in depth the AI's behavior with SARH missiles. Perhaps could somebody could take a look at that? Poor_AI_Defense.trk Too_Early_Recommit_I.trk Poor_Defense_And_Too_Early_Recommit_II.trk Good_Defense.trk

I would say let them focus on getting RADAR jamming to a decent point first. While it is currently present in game, it’s at a horrifically basic level.

Yep, that's the report I reference. Reference 4 in there is good as well.

Alright so it looks like the C5 and the B do indeed have the same length. The larger rocket motor on the C5 still fits in the original AMRAAM frame. The question remains though, why is the the thrust on a supposed "upgraded and lengthened rocket motor" so mediocre? To be more specific, our current 120C has a burn time of 6.5 seconds and an ISP of 234s. A lot of detailed research has been done in the past and suggests we should have an ISP in the neighborhood of 260s and a burn time around 8s.

As I mentioned in another topic, I think we say this with confidence at this point. That is, the 120C we have in game is definitely not the C5. In regards to simulating the more advanced AMRAAMS (the C5, C6, and C7) in DCS, I think the first step should be to just model the C5. This will give the missile (in my opinion) a much needed boost in speed as the C5 has a longer rocket motor. The C6 and C7’s on the other hand might be a bit trickier to model because of all the upgraded electronics.