Chaff and R27(E)R

It isn't biased, it's not functioning like you'd like it to. LOL with your accusations of bias.

LOL with you hard work to convince the community about everything is fair and correct about the Russian fighters

I think instead of attempting a flame war I would want to ask: Why do you think it is biased?

Personally I think that we have the resources to not assume so much about these missiles. These assumptions have been more work trying to work than what is is worth to go around and adapt it over just starting fresh with a more realistic foundation imho.

I feel that it is time for a BVR overhaul, not just FMs, but from the radars to guidance I feel it needs to be looked over again and made to the highest standards (I mean it is one of the most integral parts of the game).

I feel that it is time for a BVR overhaul, not just FMs, but from the radars to guidance I feel it needs to be looked over again and made to the highest standards (I mean it is one of the most integral parts of the game).

ED has said it's coming. Thought I would expect 2.0 release to take priority. What you mention was basically covered in one of Wag's videos.

Not in anybody's interest to R-27 resembles the old SARH R-3. Not even eagles fans. While I kill S-300 with cannon with exploit (SARH bug = 50deg + chaff + slowly), eagles are killing each other because they have no opponents in the form flankers. I have no idea which is the interest that SARH be broken. My impression that programmers do not care for missiless during those months, but don't know for what kicked the logic from DCS 1.2. Definitely it was less wail...

ED has said it's coming. Thought I would expect 2.0 release to take priority. What you mention was basically covered in one of Wag's videos.

I must of missed it then, great to hear that they are gonna do a overhaul :thumbup:

The R-27 Should not be affected by Chaff into 25km. Why? because the Mig/Su onboard radar and the R-27 seeker head have been made with improvement against chaffs countermeasures. Into the 25km the Chaffs effect is downgraded by the closer distance from onboard radar/seeker head to target. Closer distance, less chaff effect

 

The same with the Flares. We see in DCS how the IR seeker head fallow the flares easily. when we talk about air combat with a launch tail on, the missile system have better performance and in DCS with only one flare the missile go hell.

 

both issues commented before are damaging the RU figthers, because they use most this technology.

 

Also we get a minus performance when we see the RWR in DCS with a warning missile launch just when the SARH missile get out of the station. This behavior is INCORRECT, the SARH seeker head is active in a later flight stage, not so early. So is no reason the enemy get aware with missile on his way, warning so early.

As GG pointed out and something I tried to allude to was that chaff has an effect on the host radar all the way up to guns range. I couldn't remember which jet was involved but, apparently it was a hornet having its gun pipper misdirected by chaff. How likely would it be that if the RL hornet's radar can become confused by chaff at guns range, that our in game flanker wouldn't be equally as bad if not worse? Because this lock degradation isn't modeled or visually represented in the HUD, what we get is a result that seems illogical (you believe you're perfectly maintaining lock) when it is ultimately what would likely be happening anyway. This behavior is actually apparent from the missiles perspective looking at tacview though. More so with actives, where you can see them briefly lose and reacquire due to chaff. Granted the fact that SARHs act terminal off the rail is probably wrong at range, you can't expect the chaff to be noneffective.

I didn't say the mechanics weren't important, in fact I said that not everything is working correctly.

 

But yes, I did say that the stochastic approach is adequate. That's all it is.

If this stochastic approach is killing the realism in gamepley then its not adequate.

As GG pointed out and something I tried to allude to was that chaff has an effect on the host radar all the way up to guns range. I couldn't remember which jet was involved but, apparently it was a hornet having its gun pipper misdirected by chaff. How likely would it be that if the RL hornet's radar can become confused by chaff at guns range, that our in game flanker wouldn't be equally as bad if not worse? Because this lock degradation isn't modeled or visually represented in the HUD, what we get is a result that seems illogical (you believe you're perfectly maintaining lock) when it is ultimately what would likely be happening anyway. This behavior is actually apparent from the missiles perspective looking at tacview though. More so with actives, where you can see them briefly lose and reacquire due to chaff. Granted the fact that SARHs act terminal off the rail is probably wrong at range, you can't expect the chaff to be noneffective.

See my previous post here. Even if you think the current modelling is right its killing the game play. And the current modeliing isnt right.

The current situation is most definitely not adequate. Seeing a missile trail make a massive diversion way from you at 30 clicks. Its ridiculous.

 

Basically what youre saying is the same as like saying, well hey, since the Pk of a missile is x then as long as the in game pk is also x then thats ok, regardless of how that pk is achieved. Missile flying backward or to the moon it doesnt matter as long as the pk when I quit the game is the same as real life. Actually no. How the mechanics are represented is just as important as the end result (and im of the opinion the current end result is wrong as well). The mechanics dictate the style of play and the realism of the simulation we're flying.

Also if I have the the right hornet video in mind its a relatively slow speed gunfight at close range. That chaff is pretty much showering over the attacking radar radome. Im not suprised it temporarirly being confused. Im more interested in the long range look up perpendicular or head on shot where the target vector is much more predictable and trackable. Something the radar and missile where design to defeat rather then the high jink scissors type fight which is more suited to guns and visual/helmet sighted aquisition.

Also if I have the the right hornet video in mind its a relatively slow speed gunfight at close range. That chaff is pretty much showering over the attacking radar radome. Im not suprised it temporarirly being confused. Im more interested in the long range look up perpendicular or head on shot where the target vector is much more predictable and trackable. Something the radar and missile where design to defeat rather then the high jink scissors type fight which is more suited to guns and visual/helmet sighted aquisition.

No. The reason is that, the american planes used radar mode for small distance, whose characteristics it does not matter whether the bandit is to position 3-9, respectively not interpreter Doppler-pulse as in standard mode. This "frequency mode" is introduced as a supplement to the response to the Russian EOS in order to neutralize the ability hostile 3-9 maneuver. Two major disadvantages of this mode of operation are small range and large susceptibility to interference (ground efect, chaff). This possibility no Russian radars but have their EOS and IR as a supplement.

Before 1997, eagles did not have such a possibility. Upgrade was created after analyzing ways to fight by Flanker.

Such behavior in the "close mode radar" not simulated in DCS/flaming cliffs/lomac, never.

sorry for english again :(

No. The reason is that, the american planes used radar mode for small distance, whose characteristics it does not matter whether the bandit is to position 3-9, respectively not interpreter Doppler-pulse as in standard mode. This "frequency mode" is introduced as a supplement to the response to the Russian EOS in order to neutralize the ability hostile 3-9 maneuver. Two major disadvantages of this mode of operation are small range and large susceptibility to interference (ground efect, chaff). This possibility no Russian radars but have their EOS and IR as a supplement.

Before 1997, eagles did not have such a possibility. Upgrade was created after analyzing ways to fight by Flanker.

 

Such behavior in the "close mode radar" not simulated in DCS/flaming cliffs/lomac, never.

 

sorry for english again :(

Thanks Ragnarok.

I love those threads (except when they go flame).

You guys have so much knowledge, it's awesome.

Here's one question tho : Is releasing chaff before getting shot any useful ?

So this chaff that hasn't even bloomed yet made a high-g turn to stick itself right on the CATA? Interesting. :D

Also if I have the the right hornet video in mind its a relatively slow speed gunfight at close range. That chaff is pretty much showering over the attacking radar radome. Im not suprised it temporarirly being confused. Im more interested in the long range look up perpendicular or head on shot where the target vector is much more predictable and trackable. Something the radar and missile where design to defeat rather then the high jink scissors type fight which is more suited to guns and visual/helmet sighted aquisition.

No.

'No' is right ...

The reason is that, the american planes used radar mode for small distance, whose characteristics it does not matter whether the bandit is to position 3-9, respectively not interpreter Doppler-pulse as in standard mode.

Before 1997, eagles did not have such a possibility. Upgrade was created after analyzing ways to fight by Flanker.

MPRF is the waveform used to enhance clutter rejection, and it has been there since day one.

The point stands. The way chaff effects on the missile are modelled currently is not conducive to fun or realistic play. It ruins any notion of BVR.

@GG

I'm pretty convinced to sooner or later you'll find this information and see that something does a exist. And it is not manually, but automatically turns on. Russian pilots know clearly in his training, in close distance, today noch does not help!

Fair enough Ragnarok, but I don't believe it's anything spectacular - these radars have memory modes to help recover dropped contacts and other fun implementations. Just being close enough can prevent a notch some times as well, depending on the radar set.

If I find some relevant info I'll let you know, I imagine you would be interested :)

@GG

 

I'm pretty convinced to sooner or later you'll find this information and see that something does a exist. And it is not manually, but automatically turns on. Russian pilots know clearly in his training, in close distance, today noch does not help!

If I find some relevant info I'll let you know, I imagine you would be interested :)

Of course :)

Tharos was referring to someone elses post about being beyond DL's range. which the missile will be out of potential energy before that happens.

Are you sure? :)

Also DL in missiles [and correct me if I'm wrong] is a "oneway" receive communication.

Yes at least for the generation of missiles we are talking about here.

The data link is meant for wide angle corrections and does not guide the missile to the impact zone. It only feeds it with generalized direction changes of the target and the seeker is does the rest via a beam guide. So if there is enough "reflected" energy from the chaff cloud that the seeker only sees that it will guide to that regardless of datalink.

No thats incorrect for the R-27R - there is no beam riding involved with its midcourse guidance.

While I could be wrong about the above, I don't think missiles are installed with any type of actual inertial/gps systems for it to determine where it is in space due to cost, size and complexity restraints. so with that if launched it only has it's original position and its calculated position in space. This does not mean it is actually at where it thinks it is. a few inches off where it thinks it is when a Data link course update is computed could result in a 1000+ft at it's intended intercept point.

The R-27R has an inertial navigation system(INS), which plots the most efficient course to target using proportional navigation method based on target coordinates uploaded to it prior to launch and updates transmitted to it from aircraft radar after launch. At terminal stage( when the target comes within acquisition range of the seeker) guidance switches to SARH operation at which point the target coordinates obtained directly by the seeker are passed to the INS and overrides those sent to it from aircraft radar.

So the only way the missile can be affected by chaff during initial stage(while still under midcourse guidance) would be if the aircraft radar is affected by it and transmits faulty target updates to missile INS.

Know of any missiles that out-range their datalinks? :)

Well according to some sources that could be the case for the R-27R - i.e. that for an R-27R launched from a MiG-29 the datalink range is some 25 km - if you compare this with published range figures for the R-27R(up to some 70 kilometers against a non-manouvering target), it would seem that the missile could outrange the datalink reach by a fairly large margin :)

Are you sure? :)

 

 

Yes I'm sure thats what he was refering to.. See more on topic below on your second post regarding this thats quoted

Yes at least for the generation of missiles we are talking about here.

No thats incorrect for the R-27R - there is no beam riding involved with its midcourse guidance.

The R-27R has an inertial navigation system(INS), which plots the most efficient course to target using proportional navigation method based on target coordinates uploaded to it prior to launch and updates transmitted to it from aircraft radar after launch. At terminal stage( when the target comes within acquisition range of the seeker) guidance switches to SARH operation at which point the target coordinates obtained directly by the seeker are passed to the INS and overrides those sent to it from aircraft radar.

While the missiles do have accelerometers [this can be quite small since PIZIO's are Solidstate based] the gyroscopic portion of these are not. They also require a substantial time "calibrating" even when using a Ring laser. as I stated the missile is fed with "initial" INS information from the host platform and it must compute its location with just accelerometers and time. Lacking the gyro side it is can easily be off even with mid course guidance updates for its target[once launched the host aircraft Does not GUIDE the missile it only tells the missile what the target is doing and the missile computes a new flight path with that data]. If the missile is off as I said by a few inches it can be off by 1000+ft at impact, hence the need for the SARH seeker head. I suspect this is probably why a lot of missiles don't have higher K/Ratios.

So the only way the missile can be affected by chaff during initial stage(while still under midcourse guidance) would be if the aircraft radar is affected by it and transmits faulty target updates to missile INS.

Well according to some sources that could be the case for the R-27R - i.e. that for an R-27R launched from a MiG-29 the datalink range is some 25 km - if you compare this with published range figures for the R-27R(up to some 70 kilometers against a non-manouvering target), it would seem that the missile could outrange the datalink reach by a fairly large margin :)

You're mistaking M-link for two way communication between aircraft[data link]. It is not the same Datalink that is transmitted by the high power transmitter mounted to the nose of the aircraft for missile systems. I suspect that Mlink would have a much FURTHER reach then a omni directional datalink used for S/A between planes such as that if the radar can see an aircraft to launch at then it's missile can be supported for as long as the missile can travel.

Wouldn't the length of time that chaff stays in the window depend on the trajectory of the aircraft and the chaff itself? I'd assume that if you lined things up properly, it gets difficult to tell which is which. And if you keep ejecting chaff, that momentary interference remains even longer. Each time, the radar needs to pick between aircraft and chaff, right?

 

I know I didn't mention any kind of filtering in my example, so it would apply to something less complex than a fighter radar, but as far as I know (not even an amateur) picking the two apart is still something that a modern radar can fail at.

What I meant was that the aircraft radar operating in STT(which it would when supporting a SARH weapon) is "pinging" the target at short intervals and store a track record in order not to lose lock in case it momentarily fails to locate the target.

So while it may momentarily pick up returns from chaff, its unlikely that it will enough to break its lock on the real target since a chaff cloud doesn't behave like an aircraft. Of course range and aspect are factors and I am not saying that chaff cannot affect an aircraft radar in some circumstances, but IMHO it unlikely to fool an aircraft radar in STT tracking a target at range.

Chaff is a missile decoy and needs to be "administered" so that it appears between the targeted aircraft/seeker of incoming missile at the right time and combined with evasive manouvering to be effective.

Sorry but I have not heard of any A2A missile system that talks back not saying they are not out there but It seems a bit pointless.

MBDA meteor for one. And its there for a very important reason.

end point is this is a "GAME" and programers have constraints and non military budgets to work with.

You're mistaking M-link for two way communication between aircraft[data link]. It is not the same Datalink that is transmitted by the high power transmitter mounted to the nose of the aircraft for missile systems. I suspect that Mlink would have a much FURTHER reach then a omni directional datalink used for S/A between planes such as that if the radar can see an aircraft to launch at then it's missile can be supported for as long as the missile can travel.

I think the next time one of these threads opens, a moderator should delete every post that doesn't come with a linked source.

Everybody is an expert about the stuff they think they know ;)

For all I know, they may well be experts. However, I've learnt to trust published sources rather than what my mate Dave says at the pub.