DCS FIGHTER PILOT

They are not and this is a major part of the problem.

Hello All, It has been awhile since I have poked around in the files and when I recently did, I could no longer find values for missile x's fuel mass, burn time(s), Isp, etc.. My question is, where did they go? The reason I ask is because I am hoping to run a few back of the napkin calculations to see if things make truly add up and make sense.

Not going to lie, it took me a few tries to successfully doge both (so maybe something was recently improved) but in this track, both miss. As mentioned before, this seems to mainly be an issue related to the proximity fuse or more specifically, that's its too low. Try this with another missile cough, cough the SD-10 cough, cough, or in another..... unnamed combat simulator, and you will get smacked in the face darn near every time. This track also highlights another problem. As of now there are ZERO consequences to over speeding and or over loading your jet. In this track, the maneuvers that I had to do to pull this off would have potentially caused serious damage and or destroyed the aircraft. 120_Exploit.trk

If it were to happen once every so often it really is not a big deal. The problem is, anyone (given a little bit of practice) can notch well over half (probably in the 8/10-9/10 range) of all missiles fired at them either individually or at at once. If notching was this effective against even the most modern missiles why is stealth, jamming, and heck, even chaff a thing? Why even bother to use radar for guidance?

Until ED fixes this (which may never happen) it’s unfortunately up to us to be the police and report this stuff to the server admins. Long bans then need to be issued. That’s the only way this issue is going to get fixed at this point.

Oh no doubt. The only way things will change is by more separate analyses being done that contradicts them and even then.

I for one would like to see a more detailed report on said research. We know ED did quite well determining the aerodynamic coefficients as verified by separate CFD analyses done by other members. However what is not so clear, and leaves a big question mark for many of us, is why they did what they did to the rocket motor. For a much more detailed explanation and thorough analysis on this topic see, Personally, it seems awfully suspicious to me that with the release of the new AIM-120 back in 2020, a rocket motor “nerf” was coupled to it. Until we get more insight into why this was done, my suspicion will remain.

This is simply not practical for most jets. Just read about what happens to a clean F-16 when it gets to around Mach 1.6. https://www.sandboxx.us/news/approaching-mach-2-in-an-f-16-the-jet-started-to-shake/ Anyway the reason I bring this up is yes, while I think rayon89 is very much overstating the capabilities of the AIM-120, the fact that you have to launch it from that energy state for it to be effective is shall we say, questionable.

Just out of curiosity, what do you know that I don’t? Sure there are multiple ECM jamming techniques out there but there are also many ECCM techniques as well. Do you perhaps know of some “all powerful” ECM jamming method that negates all ECCM methods and makes a missile near useless? If so, DCS is nowhere near realistic as most missiles (given enough energy) will intercept their target even if they’re jamming.

In single player, if a target jams after launching an AIM-120, the missile will proceed on its lofted trajectory and intercept it. In multiplayer it seems to be hit or miss (no pun intended). Sometimes it will do what it does in single player, other times it will go dumb. My question is, what is actually supposed to happen if a target jams after launch? Will the missile do what it does in game now or will it switch to HOJ mode and or guide on the targets last known computed position at intercept (much like when a track/lock is broken before pitbull)? Jam After 120 Launch.trk

Yes I do agree. Right now from what I understand, the Sorbitsya and every other jammer in DCS (except for the jammers on the Hornet and Viper which can use deceptive techniques), simply use barrage jamming (and possibly sweep jamming for the F-14??). Anyway, as basic as this is it can still prove extremely difficult (partly due to the lack of ECCM in game) to effectively attack a target that has protection from all sides. Even if more advanced jamming techniques are introduced, all of the jamming "hocus pocus" can only go so far as the jammers physical limits. This opens up the door for more complex strategies to effectively take down a target that's jamming. Anyway those are just my thoughts.

So in this basic geometric example involving the Sorbitsya pod, given the jammer has antennas with the ability to cover 120 degrees in azimuth (which from my understanding is very high), in game, I am still jammed by him even though I am clearly outside of his pods coverage limits.

Thanks for the link. Lately I have been reading a bunch of stuff on EW but a lot of it is hit or miss (which is not surprising given how much is classified). In regards to what I am saying about the jamming pods, I am simply wondering (much like how a radar cannot scan outside of its gimbal limits), how can the ECM pods carried by the planes in my example (which appear to have fixed antennas pointing forward and aft (and correct me if I am wrong)) jam a radar source outside of their antenna limits? In the example, it appears as if I was outside of the azimuth scan limits of the jammer antennas and yet I was still being jammed. Again, it seems like there are no ECM coverage limits currently implemented in DCS which makes jamming too effective (at least in this case). Hopefully as Mike_Romeo pointed out though this will be addressed in the near future.

Much like a radar can only cover one area of the sky at a time and has azimuth and elevation limits, so too should any ECM pod/module installed on an aircraft. Currently in game, (as far as I can tell), any aircraft with ECM capability can jam any radar source at any relative elevation and azimuth (see images and track below illustrating basic example). In the future, I am hopeful ED will model some sort of ECM coverage limit for each jammer that will further contribute to the realism of DCS. Even if said coverage limits are "unrealistic" (i.e. too severe or too lenient), it will still be better than what we have now. Edit: For anyone wondering what I am trying to show in the example, it is that my aircraft (the F-16 to the right in figure one) is being jammed by every REDFOR aircraft (to the left in figure one) even though I am very likely outside of their ECM jammers azimuth limit. ECM Jam.trk

Allow me to also point out that this issue does not seem to affect the SD-10 (at least not as severely). SD-10 Shot.trk AIM-120B Shot.trk AIM-120C Shot.trk

I would also like to point out that if you try this defense against in AMRAAM in another game....... you will almost always end up getting hit. I think part of the problem here in DCS is the proximity fuse does not seem to be working or is not modeled.

Correct, notching an AMRAAM should be a fluke not a certainty. In game it currently appears we have the latter.

Thanks for the review. Would you be able to tell me whether or not I stayed in the notch or did I eventually come out of it? As you can see in the tracks, the missiles never reacquired and missed.

I think this video basically sums up the current state of the game (intended or not)

Understood. Like you mentioned, it appears as if all one has to do in order to notch an inbound AMRAAM is to merely “hit” the notch. After that the missile seems to rarely recover. It’s as simple as rolling left or right until you find the sweet spot and then boom, missile trashed. This (along with the missile appearing to just give up tracking for no apparent reason on a hot to cold target) is the most frustrating part of this behavior.

Okay let’s be a bit more lenient and say the velocity gate is plus or minus 50 knots. At this point, a 700 knot defender would have to fly within an arc spanning 8 degrees. Again from the examples I witnessed, at least one of the missiles should still be able to track the target.

So if my understanding is correct, given a target traveling at 700 knots roughy off the nose of an inbound AMRAAM, they would have to fly within an arc spanning approximately 4 degrees in order to notch it. From what I have observed in game, the AMRAAM gets notched well outside of these parameters. For example (as mentioned above) I often observe high speed defenders (700 knots plus) “notch” several inbound missiles all coming in from different aspects.

Forgive me but I am really not understanding the need for this border line hostility. Perhaps you failed to read the title which had a question mark in it. My goal here was to get feedback from the community, not to outright claim something. Granted perhaps my choice of words in some areas revealed my bias towards thinking the current in game AMRAAMs are too easy to notch. Supporting this line of thinking, I have routinely observed defenders successfully “notch” several inbound AMRAAMs all coming in from different aspects. The next time I see and capture this behavior, I will be sure to post it. Though perhaps the solution here is to move this post to another section since I am not officially claiming something is broken at this time. I suppose that is for the moderators to decide.

Been doing some testing lately and it still seems like the AMRAAM (and other ARH missiles) can get notched too easily. As mentioned by others, part of this problem comes from the fact that the RWR's of most planes in game are too accurate. Still, even in planes like the F-14 (where the RWR is much less accurate), notching these missiles is still pretty easy. Another problem that seems to contribute to this is that once active, the missile appears to ignore guidance data from the shooters radar (provided they are still tracking/locking the target), even if the missiles radar loses track. From what I understand (and please correct me if I am wrong), even if the missile loses lock, the shooter should still be able to guide it in until impact (if in STT) or until the missile reacquires the target again. Thoughts? Also out of curiosity , in game, what is the current velocity gate on the AIM-120 as I would like to do some very basic calculations with this information. Track Descriptions: Track One: AIM-120C loses lock and misses F-18 at medium altitude. No chaff or ECM is used in the defense. Additionally, once missile is "notched" missile launch tone terminates providing positive feedback to pilot that "notch" was successful. Track Two: AIM-120C loses lock and misses F-18 at low altitude. No chaff or ECM is used in the defense. Additionally, once missile is "notched" missile launch tone terminates providing positive feedback to pilot that "notch" was successful. Track Three: AIM-120C loses lock and misses F-14 at low altitude. No ECM is used in the defense. Missile launch tone persistent even while in the "notch". Notch One.trk Notch Two.trk Notch Three.trk

Are these much improved radar detection and tracking ranges indented? As you can see in the track, I am able to successfully detect and lock and F-16 out past 80 nautical miles. This is F-14/F-15 level stuff here. F-18 Detect F-16.trk