DCS FIGHTER PILOT

It would have less agility if it stored that extra fuel up for the terminal attack phase but it would decelerate at a lower rate.

Even on the ACE setting, the AI does a very poor job when defending against Active Radar Homing missiles. As you can see in the track file and Tacview provided below, the AI initially shoots and cranks, (as it should) but then slams on the brakes. At 30000ft when an AMRAAM is homing in on you, this is a suicidal move. Why would the AI slow down when it should actually be speeding up and diving for the deck as I am? Is it trying to enter into a notch or something? When defending against a fox two, cutting the engines makes since seeing as how you want to lower your heat signature but against fox one's and three's? This has been an issue in DCS for as long as I can remember and really makes fighting the AI in this situation far too easy. Tacview-20210727-114607-DCS.zip.acmi Poor AI Missile Defence.trk

I conducted a simple test in game where I would fire a missile in a straight and level line and found the following. At 35,000ft under standard atmospheric conditions Aim-120C Deceleration time from 2500 knots to 2000 knots~10.20 seconds Deceleration time from 2000 knots to 1500 knots~13.65 seconds Deceleration time from 1500 knots to 1000 knots~21.85 seconds Total deceleration time from 2500 knots to 1000 knots~45.70 seconds SD-10 2500-2000~9.05 seconds 2000-1500~12.60 seconds 1500-1000~19.20 seconds 2500-1000~40.85 seconds Aim-54A/Mk60 / Aim-54C/Mk47 2500-2000~9.90 seconds 2000-1500~15.75 seconds 1500-1000~28.90 seconds 2500-1000~54.55 seconds As you can see, during this simple test, the Aim-54 easily outcompetes the Aim-120C and SD-10 while the Aim-120C just barley bests the SD-10. As a result, during long range engagements, the Aim-54 will easily dominate (no surprises there), while the Aim-120C should beat the SD-10 PROVIDED it is launched from a fast aircraft such as the Viper, Eagle, a lightweight Hornet, and soon, the Eurofighter. Now given during this test, the missiles did not loft and did not pull any G's whatsoever. However it reasonable to assume that during long-range engagements where the missiles loft and fly in a relatively straight line, the following rankings should hold to some extent (even with the 54's lofting issue). When it comes to the terminal phase, where the missiles have to maneuver, I am not sure which one would win in a competition as I have not conducted any tests in this area. Also in regards to the current ECM modeling, I have no comment as I am certainly no expert in this area. The next very simple test that I conducted does indeed show the current gap that exists between the Aim-120C and SD-10. Here, I launched a missile in a straight and level line as before under the following conditions, Launch Altitude 35,000ft, Launch Speed Mach 1.0. Aim-120C~2240 Knots : Burn Time~6.5 seconds SD-10~2455 Knots : Burn Time~10.0 seconds Aim-54C/Mk47~2510 Knots : Burn Time~27 seconds Aim-54A/Mk60~3000 Knots :Burn Time~30 seconds This is where eyebrows have been raised, including my own, in regards to the AMRAAMS burn time and top speed. If @nighthawk2174 would like to comment on this, he can tell you a lot more about this than I can. So in conclusion, the SD-10 is a good missile no doubt, but a long ranges where the AMRAAM is launched at high speeds, the SD-10 and thus the shooter of said missile, should be defeated while the Aim-54 on the other hand, is on a whole different level.

I suppose I was just wondering if the high top speed given to the Phoenix was meant to compensate for the loft issue but it sounds as if this is not the case.

I am curious as to whether or not the top speed on the Aim-54, particularly the Aim-54 Mk60, is a “DCSism” considering the fact that usually during mid course guidance, the missile suddenly changes its vertical trajectory bleeding off literally hundreds of knots of airspeed. As I recall, this is due to a de-sync issue that has plagued the missile from the very start. If and when this problem is ever fixed, will the top speed on the missiles come down or is it correct as is?

Apart from the chaff problem, is anyone seeing weird guidance bugs like missiles missing when clearly they should hit? For instance, just the other day, an AMRAAM coming in at over 1900 knots on a cold target, just outright missed. It’s almost as if the missile just gave up. Unfortunately, it was in MP and I could not get a track for it. I will try to post tracks soon showing this. I just want to know if anyone else is seeing this. Perhaps it’s chaff related perhaps not.

I am by no means an expert on air to air missile rocket motors, but I was under the impression that the c7 and c5 have the same motors.

I could be wrong but as of 2.7, no missiles in DCS appear to have proximity fuzes. Additionally, it appears as if these missiles also do not have end of life self destruction. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen dead AMRAAMS raining down onto the earth causing quite a bit of destruction.

Thank you for the feedback guys. Going off of some of your comments, particularly the ones about “barrage jamming” and spike jamming, (if you will), can’t targets that barrage jam pick and choose which threats to jam? I completely get the fact that in a high EW environment, you could very well have several dozen different radar sources hitting your plane and that jamming them all would be impossible. I for one would think that either the pilot or the defensive systems, could pick an N amount of the highest threats to barrage jam at any given time. However, currently in DCS, according to another post that I read, planes that can “barrage jam” do so to any radar hitting them at any aspect, I.e 360 degree protection. I take it this is a major problem. Also, and I could be very, very wrong, I would think that a plane as advanced as the F-18c would be able to perform both types of jamming. It would be nice to hear an official statement from ED as to what their plans are here. One video from Wags on the subject really does not tell us much about the system that DCS has modeled here.

The F-18 seems to be the only plane in DCS that can jam spikes but not nails. Why is this? Are there more updates in the future that will address this or is this the finished product? Also, why in the world does activating the jammer shut down the radar? The F-18s ASPJ seems quite weird.

I think another major problem here, as Nighthawk once mentioned, is that should an ARH missile loose lock for any reason, ie. due to chaff, notching etc., in DCS, it never reacquires the target when it should in many cases. This is something that needs to be looked at.

The missile was not in flight that long.

I have seen this type of behavior several times with the Aim-120 but never captured it until now. Long story short, the Aim-120C I fired seems as if it just gives up on the target that it is chasing even though it is hot (in the end). The missile was not decoyed by chaff (amazingly), but did indeed miss none the less. I would not be surprised if this is the low altitude error sim at play (seeing as how the missile was coming down from high altitude onto a low flying target), but for some reason, I seem to remember this type of stuff even before the last patch. Very bizarre. Aim-120C target miss.trk

So that’s why it seems as if my AMRAAMS are missing even more. I was sure that this had something to do with it but I was not 100% certain. This coupled along with the 120’s relatively poor chaff resistance at the moment makes DCS feel like an arcade game right now where all one has to do is drop a few pieces of chaff and the missile goes stupid. With that said, ultimately, what is the most realistic behavior we can see with ARH missiles in DCS? Am I wrong and is it close now or is there much to be desired? To elaborate, how many pieces of chaff, how much notching, terrain masking, etc., would it take to truly make an Aim-120 go stupid?

What is this? An elaboration would be appreciated. Thanks.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/262104-having-a-really-hard-time-with-the-f18-aa-radar-again/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-4628157

At the moment, I can only pick up fighter radar for contacts, (both large and small) from about 50 miles away even though they are hot. Before the update, I was able to bug targets usually over 80 miles. Was this change intentional or is it a glitch?

Let’s just hope that 2.7 fixes things once and for all.

I’m afraid that is not the case at all. Just today, I fired an AMRAAM at a human target at 45k ft from underneath him and the thing got decoyed by the chaff. In terms of the AI, it’s nearly impossible to kill them with ARH missiles because they know how to perfectly exploit the current bug.

The Aim-54 is even more easily spoofed by chaff than the Aim-120. This makes sense seeing as how it’s an older missile but as I have mentioned, the 120 currently eats chaff for breakfast while the Aim-54 eats it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

It’s pretty clear that some people don’t know what’s going on here. First of all, this “bug,” is not unique to the AMRAAM but effects all current ARH missiles in game including the Sd-10, Aim-54, and R-77. It’s unfortunate that the title of this thread has the word Aim-120 in it as it should encompass all ARH missiles in DCS right now. With that aside, those of us that are “complaining,” are not asking for an “undodgebale kill button,” but rather as close to an accurate representation of a 21st century ARH missile as possible that does not get spoofed by a handful of chaff packets. For as of right now, as I have shown and will be happy to show any of you again, all it takes is for some amateur nobody to notch (and not even perfectly mind you,) and drop a few pieces of chaff to make any ARH missile tracking on them to go utterly stupid. Do I have any proof of any real world data to prove this is utter BS? No, but there is literature out there that supports the claim that ARH missiles such as the Aim-120 are very hard to spoof with chaff. Believe it or not, the engineers of these missiles are smart enough to realize what types of maneuvers targets will be performing and the countermeasures they will be employing against the missile and account for it in the design. In addition to this, as time progresses, the technology of radars and electronics continue to improve. To end, frankly, there are many of those out there in the DCS community that are afraid to go up against a “beefed up,” ARH missile because they don’t know how to properly defend against it using kinetic defense tactics. As a result, THEY are the ones who go and complain to ED to get the missiles nerfed in the areas of kinetic performance and EW resistance.

It’s almost like ED is forcing us to Bfm.

Notching and chaffing may work once, maybe twice if your lucky, but if you rely on it to defend against ARH missiles, you will eventually die. At least that’s how it should be but alas in DCS right now, any fool can notch an ARH missile, drop one, maybe two pieces of chaff, and get away without a scratch.

I suspect it was for balancing.

That’s the thing, this type of behavior is EASILY recreated and anyone can do it. I have lost literally dozens of kills to people who do this when instead, they should be nothing but fireballs. It’s frankly, maddening. I created these tracks to show what just ONE or TWO chaff packets can do, just think how bad it would be with more than that.