Flares effectivness

[Crescendo]

eXPeRT, scoreboard pictures (:megalol:) and quotes like this…

 

I probably fly more than anyone else online' date=' and see it all[/quote']

 

And here's the proof that I fly A LOT

 

Please' date=' come follow me and watch and be amazed, or stop trying to dispute it, because I only have the facts and experience[/quote']

 

I see a lot of people having a misconstrued perception of this simulator

 

I know that I am correct and I know this simulator from top to bottom

 

…don’t mean much when we’re trying to isolate variables in a controlled manner.

 

It also shows a real lack of humility that does you a disservice if you want to convince people and be taken seriously.

 

Posting a picture of your tracks folder to demonstrate your amount of experience, as if this proves that you must be right, is simply laughable! This is like a psychic advertising that they have spent a lifetime reading the palms of 10000 people. So what? It doesn’t prove anything. I could just as easily say that such experienced psychics are merely really good at fooling themselves. What about those homeopathy practitioners who treat people eight hours a day fives days a week? They and their patients swear it works, they have years of anecdotal experience, but simple physics shows it to be impossible.

 

 

Yes, experience counts for something, but it never trumps controlled experimentation. The forces of the placebo effect, logical fallacies, confirmation bias, and other cognitive biases are limitless in their capacity to fool. We are all subject to these forces. It’s too easy to trust our human instincts and faculties, and leap to false opinions that we ‘swear are true’.

 

Where 'data' includes the target's physical parameters' date=' like heat and radar signature, as well as countermeasures, like flares, and the environment, like the Sun.[/quote']

 

This is an unfounded opinion. “Data” could simply mean the speed and aspect of the aircraft only. It’s not explicitly stated, so everything is speculation and you ought not assume that flares are taken into account.

 

 

My evidence shows quite conclusively that preemptive flares don't work.

 

 

I did present other evidence to show that preemptive and all flares work well

 

What evidence, other than just asserting it to be true because you’re so experienced? That’s not evidence.

 

You can point to all the tracks in your folder and all the hours you've flown, you can 'just know' that you're right, but ultimately it comes down to this: where's the data? If you're right, prove it. Show us tracks or Tacviews in a controlled environment that support your claims. This means isolating as many variables as possible, which means not using multiplayer, because this eliminates things such as lag, other aircraft 'stealing' a SAM's attention, script errors, bugs, or SAMs simply running out of missiles to shoot.

 

My evidence, which everyone can download see for themselves, shows you're clearly wrong about preemptive flare use in general. I think you've conflated preemptive flare use with other tactics like using the Sun.

 

Yes, you may be right about the Sun. So prove it. I am willing to be proven wrong, but I won't be convinced by your immodest bluster about experience and the how much more you play than all of us. Give me a break.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Crescendo

[GGTharos]

Crescendo, nice job.

 

I'll point out that 1.6nm is pretty short, and so the target is always spotted and well within tracking range for optical/IR systems regardless of the engine setting.

 

Perhaps another question is 'why don't the start the engagement at longer ranges'?

 

I think you've handily proven that pre-emptive flares do not work, and I believe that the AI needs to have some form of delay added to their logic when they see a flare in the FoV.

 

 

PS: These launchers won't launch of supersonic or near supersonic targets usually, so flying a fighter in tends to see less use of MANPADS and such weapons. I think it's a flaw, since the launchers don't necessarily know the target speed, and the missiles aren't entirely incapable of intercepting such targets (but the task is much more difficult)

Edited February 19, 2014 by GGTharos

[Crescendo]

Crescendo, nice job.

 

I'll point out that 1.6nm is pretty short, and so the target is always spotted and well within tracking range for optical/IR systems regardless of the engine setting.

 

Perhaps another question is 'why don't the start the engagement at longer ranges'?

 

I didn't comment on it, but it is strange.

 

If you watch the Tacviews, the tests begin at 4.5 nmi slant range. The SAM itself 'activates' roughly 12 seconds later at ~3.4 nmi and starts tracking, but only fires at 1.6 nmi.

 

I did pretty much the same tests back in 2012/2013, but that instance the average slant range at launch was 2.5 nmi. That's a 1 nmi difference between then and now, which I can't explain.

 

PS: These launchers won't launch of supersonic or near supersonic targets usually, so flying a fighter in tends to see less use of MANPADS and such weapons. I think it's a flaw, since the launchers don't necessarily know the target speed, and the missiles aren't entirely incapable of intercepting such targets (but the task is much more difficult)

That's a good point.

 

Anecdotally, I've watched Tacview files where I've unknowingly overflown IR SHORAD in a fighter at speed. I was well within the threat bubble, yet it never fired. It could have been out of ammo, but if I had known the SAM was there and had been using a preemptive flare program, I could see myself thinking that it 'worked'.

[159th_Viper]

I did pretty much the same tests back in 2012/2013, but that instance the average slant range at launch was 2.5 nmi. That's a 1 nmi difference between then and now, which I can't explain....

 

Depends on target aspect.

 

Best-case scenario for these missiles are a 5km Max Range. Now with a head-on engagement, engine heat-signature shielded from the SAM sensors you have a launch range within the NEZ of 4km.

 

A simple test with target off-set 90 degrees to the SAM gives us a launch range of 4.5km, still within the 5km Max Range mark and probably just outside the NEZ.

 

Above accords well with the documented changes to the DLZ as published by the Devs. Personally cannot fault range presently as it relates to the Gopher.

 

PS: These launchers won't launch of supersonic or near supersonic targets usually, so flying a fighter in tends to see less use of MANPADS and such weapons. I think it's a flaw, since the launchers don't necessarily know the target speed, and the missiles aren't entirely incapable of intercepting such targets (but the task is much more difficult)

 

Yeah I agree that's fishy as the Gopher's missiles should be good against a target travelling at about 1500km/h in a head-on aspect.

[Crescendo]

Depends on target aspect.

 

Best-case scenario for these missiles are a 5km Max Range. Now with a head-on engagement, engine heat-signature shielded from the SAM sensors you have a launch range within the NEZ of 4km.

 

A simple test with target off-set 90 degrees to the SAM gives us a launch range of 4.5km, still within the 5km Max Range mark and probably just outside the NEZ.

 

Above accords well with the documented changes to the DLZ as published by the Devs. Personally cannot fault range presently as it relates to the Gopher.

 

I might do some more preemptive flare testing later this week where I take an offset, rather than directly overflying the SA-13. Just out of interest.

[GGTharos]

Does anyone have a better source of info than wikipedia on the SA-13? Wikipedia lists 'maximum range of target destruction' and this confuses me.

 

Does it mean you can launch the missile so far that the target is destroyed when it hits the 5km distance from launcher mark, or does it mean rmax is 5km?

[159th_Viper]

Might be better to dig for info regarding the missile (9M333) as opposed to the system.

[GGTharos]

Found what I needed. All that's missing is typical firing ranges against particular targets, but that's missing for most systems anyway.

[Supersheep]

Thanks for your patience, I wasn't as professional as you can expect from me. I'll watch my ways. With that out of the way, kudos to all of you who put in a considerable amount of time to actually further the discussion. The observed behavior is indeed interesting.

 

Edit:

Is it good to throttle to idle and attack in the first place, and would be used?

Intuitively, that only makes a maneuver that is bad to start with slightly better.

I don't assume this to be a good tactic, b/c it depends on the current SAM logic.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Supersheep

[159th_Viper]

Edit:

Is it good to throttle to idle and attack in the first place, and would be used?

 

In DCS I suppose if you want to show off or are dropping in on a SAM from above outside of effective range (3500m) where you can trade altitude to speed.

 

In RL largely irrelevant as you'll be dead from the S-1 system 45km distant already :D

[ENO]

I didn't comment on it, but it is strange.

 

If you watch the Tacviews, the tests begin at 4.5 nmi slant range. The SAM itself 'activates' roughly 12 seconds later at ~3.4 nmi and starts tracking, but only fires at 1.6 nmi.

 

I did pretty much the same tests back in 2012/2013, but that instance the average slant range at launch was 2.5 nmi. That's a 1 nmi difference between then and now, which I can't explain.

 

That's a good point.

 

Anecdotally, I've watched Tacview files where I've unknowingly overflown IR SHORAD in a fighter at speed. I was well within the threat bubble, yet it never fired. It could have been out of ammo, but if I had known the SAM was there and had been using a preemptive flare program, I could see myself thinking that it 'worked'.

 

Perhaps that part of the envelope is reserved for when it works in tandem with the DE radar?

[Asmod]

Pretty good source

 

If one looking for good info on Russian modern SAM systems (and other weaponry too) this is a pretty good source: http://ausairpower.net/

[esb77]

Well, if launch range on expert ai Iglas is now 3-4 km that's a nice change from a pilots point of view. Last time I did a serious MANPAD range test 8-9 km was the minimum safe distance. That probably would have been sometime in versions 1.2.4 to 1.2.6, I don't remember exactly.

 

Anyone tested other skill levels yet? Used to be that launch distances were up to .5 to .7 km different per skill level setting. Lower skill levels would launch closer to the edge of the missile's envelope and didn't reload as quickly as I recall.

 

Someone complained about it earlier in the thread, but until they have a collision/line-of-sight model implemented for vegetation, aircraft v. MANPADS engagements will be lacking from a realism perspective.

 

Of course, the real solution to SAM logic problems is to improve Combined Arms enough to give players decent launch control. Well, in multiplayer at any rate.

[159th_Viper]

Keep in mind that the Igla-S outranges the SA-13.

[104th_Maverick]

Great post Crescendo +1!

 

The no data just believe me approach wasn't really working for me either!

[*Rage*]

;2000322']Great post Crescendo +1!

 

The no data just believe me approach wasn't really working for me either!

 

+1

[Pyroflash]

If one looking for good info on Russian modern SAM systems (and other weaponry too) this is a pretty good source: http://ausairpower.net/

 

Largely disreputable source, it is generally best to ignore that site, unless you are looking for some VERY specific facts that you already know to be true.

 

Basically, its editors (most notably Karlo Kopp), are experienced industry professionals that have made contributions to their fields, but misuse their credentials in order to give weight to misinformation.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Pyroflash

[Dima89]

Hmm, a lot of posts seem to have disappeared .

[Supersheep]

I deleted two of mine, they were entirely not relevant to the topic.

[159th_Viper]

Expert has been exterminated.

[Crescendo]

As promised, here is an addendum to the original set of experiments.

 

In these three subsequent experiments, the A-10C has taken an 'offset' and is approaching the SA-13 from an angle (as opposed to flying at it directly in Experiments 1-7). This is illustrated below:

 

 

Results

 

Experiment 8 - Offset - No countermeasures

 

Slant range at launch: 2.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2, 2.2.

Average slant range: 2.2.

 

Experiment 9 - Offset - 3 flares / 0.5 s

 

Slant range at launch: 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1.

Average slant range: 2.1.

 

Experiment 10 - Offset - 3 flares / 0.5 s with throttles idle

Slant range at launch: 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1.

Average slant range: 2.1.

 

All 15 individual tests (in Tacview format) are provided in the zip file attached to this post.

 

 

Thoughts

 

Preemptive flare programs do not delay/deny SA-13 SAM launches in an offset scenario.

 

It's interesting to note that the offset flightpath has increased the average slant range at launch by ~0.5 nmi as compared to a direct flight path.

 

Perhaps this higher slant range is due to the higher heat signature of the exposed engines, as was suggested earlier in the thread. Another possibility is that the SAM AI must track a valid target for some minimum of time before it can launch, and therefore the lower rate of closure of the offset flightpath resulted in a higher slant range once this minimum time had elapsed (this is pure speculation on my part).

 

:book:

 

---

Crescendo_preemptive_flare_experiment_offset.zip

Edited February 20, 2014 by Crescendo

[ObvilionLost]

Crescendo explained everything in his first reply. Flares have absolutely no effect on delaying IR SAM launch. As far as DCS concerned.

 

As far as SA-18 concerned, in real life the seeker head filters out flares and other interfering background IR sources. It even helps you lock on target that is dropping flares, by attempting to filter out flares from potential targets. For more explanation about how it works read the document mentioned below.

 

If you want more details about SA-18 and willing to translate from Russia, look up " Техническая подготовка командира взвода ПЗРК 9К38 «Игла»".

 

So best advice, don't rely on flares alone to save you, especially in slow A-10C.

Edited February 21, 2014 by ObvilionLost

[GGTharos]

The SA-18 will eat flares the same as any reticle seeker, you just need enough of them.

[ObvilionLost]

The SA-18 will eat flares the same as any reticle seeker, you just need enough of them.

 

Not easily as older MANPADS.

[GGTharos]

Yes, that easily. There's no reticle seeker in the world that won't 'walk' onto a string of flares when such a thing presents itself.

 

Older seekers may be more likely to go for singletons, but proper defense = decoyed missile. The strength of MANPADS is not seeing it coming.

 

Not easily as older MANPADS.