Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

Aim-120s also go for chaff like crazy in the new patch its not just a problem with the ER or R missiles

you fire some chaff that aim120 isnt ever going to hit you.

even if its right behind you >10Km you fire chaff its going to do crazy hard turns to catch it

Aim-120s also go for chaff like crazy in the new patch its not just a problem with the ER or R missiles

 

you fire some chaff that aim120 isnt ever going to hit you.

 

even if its right behind you >10Km you fire chaff its going to do crazy hard turns to catch it

Check the first post. This is about ERs. Aim 120 seem less affected by chaff in my experience. It is kinetically nerfed however. Provide a number of tracks/tacviews f you feel it is something not being addressed by the Devs (ideally in another thread).

Check the first post. This is about ERs. Aim 120 seem less affected by chaff in my experience. It is kinetically nerfed however. Provide a number of tracks/tacviews f you feel it is something not being addressed by the Devs (ideally in another thread).

im just saying it isnt a problem with the ERs only, so it doesnt turn into one of those "Russian stuff is underpowered the DEVs are biased threads".

im just saying it isnt a problem with the ERs only, so it doesnt turn into one of those "Russian stuff is underpowered the DEVs are biased threads".

Extreme chaff susceptibility is not limited to the ERs only? Please provide a series of Tracks/Tacviews. Im bringing to the attention of the Devs/Testers/Mods something that I think is not quite right.

Hello Rage,

I guess the 1st thing you should try is a test fire on an aircraft with any chaff on board at set ranges.

Test 1, get an average hit-miss at 30km 25km 20km 15km 10km. Without chaff. Try 10 missiles at each range.

Test 2, load 5 chaff on each aircraft, test each range with the same launches.

Test 3, load max chaff, retest again.

You have to established a baseline before you can test counter measures. Also, repeat all test with ECM on.

Disclaimer, all missiles are still in beta. When the next patch comes out. All of your work could no longer be valid.

AFAIK nothing has been changed regarding missile guidance, only the kinematics. And the kinematics will be, again AFAIK, the only focus regarding missiles, until they are done - after this, guidance will be worked on.

There is no ETA, kinematics are actually quite difficult.

Hello Rage,

I guess the 1st thing you should try is a test fire on an aircraft with any chaff on board at set ranges.

 

Test 1, get an average hit-miss at 30km 25km 20km 15km 10km. Without chaff. Try 10 missiles at each range.

 

Test 2, load 5 chaff on each aircraft, test each range with the same launches.

 

Test 3, load max chaff, retest again.

 

You have to established a baseline before you can test counter measures. Also, repeat all test with ECM on.

 

Disclaimer, all missiles are still in beta. When the next patch comes out. All of your work could no longer be valid.

I will repeat the tests without chaff, but I think you've missed the point. If you watch the tracks carefully you'll see that the ER makes a course (miss)direction from long range to a point where the target was still flying straight and level i.e. the first chaff it released. The ERs do this from a long distance away when chaff shouldn't be a problem. I'd understand if they went for the newly released chaff at much closer ranges as the f15 dives/notches and gets into ground clutter but it doesn't. It goes for almost the first chaff that's released (far away from the target and no longer painted by radar)

AFAIK nothing has been changed regarding missile guidance, only the kinematics. And the kinematics will be, again AFAIK, the only focus regarding missiles, until they are done - after this, guidance will be worked on.

 

There is no ETA, kinematics are actually quite difficult.

Thats fine. This isn't a whine thread nor is it a wheres my patch thread! Im only pointing out something that I've noticed. Have you watched the tracks? Is there an explanation for my above point? If I've misunderstood Im happy to be corrected otherwise it seems theres a strange algorithim dictating ER chaff rejection.

I haven't watched, but I am pretty familiar with what you have observed.

The susceptibility of a missile sensor to countermeasures is based on the following, AFAIK:

- Base suspeptibility probability, ie. probability of being decoyed by a single countermeasure in the seeker iFoV

- The aspect of the target (if there is a target)

- the number of countermeasures in the iFoV

Even changing the speed of a missile may change how CM's affect it because they may remain inside the iFoV for a different amount of time, so things get a bit complicated.

Typically, for a DCS missile to take a huge turn away from its target means that it was decoyed from very far away (so that tiny iFoV actually sees quite far around the target) or that it has lost track and is looking for the target again, and finds some CM's first.

I haven't watched, but I am pretty familiar with what you have observed.

 

The susceptibility of a missile sensor to countermeasures is based on the following, AFAIK:

 

- Base suspeptibility probability, ie. probability of being decoyed by a single countermeasure in the seeker iFoV

- The aspect of the target (if there is a target)

- the number of countermeasures in the iFoV

 

Even changing the speed of a missile may change how CM's affect it because they may remain inside the iFoV for a different amount of time, so things get a bit complicated.

 

Typically, for a DCS missile to take a huge turn away from its target means that it was decoyed from very far away (so that tiny iFoV actually sees quite far around the target) or that it has lost track and is looking for the target again, and finds some CM's first.

Ok, So if we assume thats its tracking a target thats cranking and chaffing but still locked and illuminated and not in ground clutter, and then the number of CM exceeds the threshold using the above equation. Why does it go for the first chaff released? One that was released 2-3km higher and far away from the crank?

Edit: This would be alot easier if you guys actually watched the tacviews

Because that code is old and quirky? :)

Please Rage, look at this from my point of view. I have nothing that can be reported yet. I need to see data that can support the claim. And the minimum circumstances that will repeat the results.

As GGTharos said, no seeker logic has been changed. There will be room for improvement. We just have to find a result that will allow a proper change request to be made.

I am unable to watch tacviews until I get home.

Please Rage, look at this from my point of view. I have nothing that can be reported yet. I need to see data that can support the claim. And the minimum circumstances that will repeat the results.

As GGTharos said, no seeker logic has been changed. There will be room for improvement. We just have to find a result that will allow a proper change request to be made.

 

I am unable to watch tacviews until I get home.

Hey I know it can sometimes be difficult to be a tester. Ive seen lots of Testers/Mods justifiably get frustrated with people ranting and whining but not bothering to show proof or offer solutions. Im trying to show a problem here and ive done my bit by providing sequential tacviews with a degree of consistency.

As you suggested i've redone the test this time with the target having no chaff onboard. Launch parameters were the same (or similar).

5 more Tacviews to observe:-

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/j2dtm4u6wg1nby3/jXBaG2s9tm

10 missiles fired at ~ 30km range. Target is jamming but no chaff. Lock is never lost. Same parameters as before. ALL MISSILES GUIDE. As such theres no point in testing at shorter ranges or with ECM off etc.

Clearly theres a problem with the chaff rejection algorithim for the ER. if theres no chaff all missiles guide. If theres chaff 11/18 (>60%) will either come off the rail dead or inexplicably go for some far away chaff that should be entirely ineffectual.

I know currently the Devs are focusing on kinematics. But I am looking for acknowledgement that this is a deficiency and that it will be reported to them.

I am watching the tracks now. I only see that ECM + Chaff is very effective. Any launch around 10NM or farther seems to track the Chaff off the rails.

The reason I mentioned ECM is because it will increase the effectiveness of chaff. I should of worded my sample test to you better.

I want to see what a test of chaff only (no ECM) would do for the ER seeker. Would a 10NM shot track the chaff at launch without ECM running? If it tracks the Chaff with no difference. Then I would say we can report something. If you launch on a target at the same range with no ECM and it tracks correctly. Then we can look at ECM and see how effective it really is.

I can say that the devs know that the seeker logic is "Old Code." No idea when they plan to update it. That's there information.

I hope this helps Rage. Everyone knows there is room for improvement for all missiles.

ECM shouldn't matter at that distance (10nm)....should it? The aircraft's radar should have burned through the ECM, thus ECM not effecting that locking aircraft's radar and missile?

I am watching the tracks now. I only see that ECM + Chaff is very effective. Any launch around 10NM or farther seems to track the Chaff off the rails.

 

The reason I mentioned ECM is because it will increase the effectiveness of chaff. I should of worded my sample test to you better.

 

I want to see what a test of chaff only (no ECM) would do for the ER seeker. Would a 10NM shot track the chaff at launch without ECM running? If it tracks the Chaff with no difference. Then I would say we can report something. If you launch on a target at the same range with no ECM and it tracks correctly. Then we can look at ECM and see how effective it really is.

 

I can say that the devs know that the seeker logic is "Old Code." No idea when they plan to update it. That's there information.

 

I hope this helps Rage. Everyone knows there is room for improvement for all missiles.

As Cali said. ECM should not matter at that range.

The ERs coming off dead or changing mid course are only following chaff which should not be that effective.

Since im a sucker for evidence.

5 more sequentional Tacviews.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/j2dtm4u6wg1nby3/jXBaG2s9tm

Same parameters but this time no ECM, only chaff. Target is always locked. Never below me during missile flight. Never in ground clutter.

20 missiles fired in pairs. 1st volley at 30km or less. 2nd volley much closer in.

11/20 miss-guide to chaff inappropriately

4/20 fly by the canopy and wave

5/20 Guide and hit

I see two problems there.

1) Over-susceptibility to chaff (and not chaff + ECM) in what should be almost ideal circumstances

2) Missiles flying past the canopy and doing nothing (Perhaps a topic for another thread)

Please watch the tracks. Are you convinced yet there is a problem? Your question to me was if the missiles track chaff without ECM interference in launch and tracking circumstances they shouldn't. They do. Will it now be reported to the Devs?

That isn't necessarily true, but we'd have to know the jammer's output power to determine how close you need to get for a pure power burn through (it may actually be less than a mile).

ECM shouldn't matter at that distance (10nm)....should it? The aircraft's radar should have burned through the ECM, thus ECM not effecting that locking aircraft's radar and missile?

Rage, I will watch the new tracks. But I am busy with family and holiday this weekend. Your going to have to wait till Monday for me to do so.

Where are the links to the five new tracks? Are they included with the Tacview download?

Rage, I will watch the new tracks. But I am busy with family and holiday this weekend. Your going to have to wait till Monday for me to do so.

Enjoy the Easter weekend.

Where are the links to the five new tracks? Are they included with the Tacview download?

All the Tacviews are in the above dropbox link.

6 tacviews ECM+Chaff (time stamp only)

5 tacviews No ECM (labelled as such)

5 tacviews No Chaff (labelled as such)

I think Viper's point is: it's best to be able to see this _in_ the simulator: thus tracks, not tacviews. (Tacviews can be created from the tracks, but the tacviews cannot be looked at and compared between versions.)

Yes yes yes yes yes yes......

Tacviews are about as useless as tits on a Bull for the purposes of testing/reporting bugs.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes......

 

Tacviews are about as useless as tits on a Bull for the purposes of testing/reporting bugs.

You learnt nothing from the tacviews I posted?

You learnt nothing from the tacviews I posted?

I do not watch tacviews. I do not have the time to watch things, however useful, that will not contribute towards testing. A Tacview will not - I need tracks.

Thing is, ED Testers have an variety of different versions of DCS World and any of the modules to test at any one time.

By supplying a .trk file the testers can replay this track in the different internal testing versions of the game to see if the behavior is still present in the current build.

Mind you, there's no need of proving how it works now in the released build.

There's only there desire to make sure it works better in the build that will be released next.

Hence, watching how its currently working in tacview is useless in regards to the development of the game and testing internal builds.

Hope you understand the need for a track file better now.

~S~