Archer in 1.5

[GGTharos]

The current situation is wrong, which is why it is being reported as a bug.

 

The new generation has been spoiled with heatseekers that can be avoided reliably with flares :)

[Teknetinium]

The current situation is wrong, which is why it is being reported as a bug.

 

As I understand it is how big the cone of the seeker is, not how good in can resist countermeasures, since we just dont have that info.

[GGTharos]

I'm talking strictly about countermeasures resistance. What you see now is unintended consequences. Flares should be very reliable against any non-FPA heat seeker in the right quantity. These seekers should reliably resist a couple of flares, and they should reliably eat a larger quantity of flares.

 

The re-acquisition is ok, I think we generally expected this when the guidance changes went in.

[Frostie]

A non-FPA seeker is not dependent on amount of flares, it either recognises flares as the same heat source as the aircraft or it doesn't. Seekers that weren't designed in the 60s have the ability to differentiate between a flare and an aircraft that is why low temp flares were created to combat this. UV and IR detectors again combat this.

 

Flares are a poor method of defeating IR missiles that is why infrared jammers are used, FPA seekers don't care for IR jammers.

[GGTharos]

A non-FPA seeker is not dependent on amount of flares,

 

Yes, it is.

 

Seekers that weren't designed in the 60s have the ability to differentiate between a flare and an aircraft that is why low temp flares were created to combat this. UV and IR detectors again combat this.

 

Flares, flare dispense patters and and flare mixes are designed to defeat those seekers reliably, period. There's no magic filter, and it all has to do with how the 'target signal' is presented by the seeker.

 

Flares are a poor method of defeating IR missiles that is why infrared jammers are used, FPA seekers don't care for IR jammers.

 

Flares are still quite effective in RL against con-scan/reticle/rosette seekers, which is why they are carried and why research and production continues.

 

FPA seekers have a different set of constraints when it comes to jammers. Some types affect them, some not.

 

 

I'll re-iterate in case it isn't sinking in well enough: Non FPA missile seekers are reliably defeated by flares, and things will be corrected to reflect this.

[Avimimus]

So if we just release a larger salvo of flares we're guaranteed to be safe (assuming we spot the launch in the first place)?

[Teknetinium]

So if we just release a larger salvo of flares we're guaranteed to be safe (assuming we spot the launch in the first place)?

 

If it was that simple.

[GGTharos]

It really is that simple. While in RL almost all CM use includes some form of (typically low-medium g) maneuvering, that part is not simulated in-game (The seekers and ECCM methods lack complexity to simulate it).

[Teknetinium]

It really is that simple.

Show me a video as we have whit IR jammer that it is as simple :)

I remember seeing F-4 drones popping flares as mad while Aim-9 did't go for them.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

I have a video too, and it involves flares, not jammers.

 

And let's be clear about the video you're referring to: That was an AIM-9X, with an FPA seeker. There are very specific types of flares, employed in VERY specific cases that can decoy an FPA seeker as well. They're not practical.

[Teknetinium]

I have a video for you as well.

[GGTharos]

What does an advertising video have to do with practical flare resistance? :)

[Teknetinium]

That Iglas are more resistible against Flares accordingly to you then ET-27 and R-73.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Where did I say that?

 

Do you have a video with an end-to-end combat shot instead of some sort of edited documentary or advertising?

[Teknetinium]

There is no reliable documentation out there on this subject. But I don't believe that if you can see R-73 or aim-9 and popp some flares that it saves you every time.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

You don't have to believe it. And yes, there's plenty of documentation out there, but it's not the 'This missile, that many flares of this type using that pattern' ... except for some very, very old missiles.

That type of documentation is secret.

 

On the other hand, there are plenty of papers on IRH missile seeker design that can lead to much better understanding of how these things work, and why countermeasures (and what countermeasures) work against them.

 

For these 'ex-gen' missiles, the fact of the matter is that they can be quickly saturated, and that's basically all you need to understand.

 

Are they going to reject 1-2-3 flares? Nearly 100%

Are they going to eat some larger quantity of flares? Nearly 100%.

 

We don't know the details (ie. changing seeker and flare technology is only superficially known, as well as the dispense patterns and the the reasons for them), but we also don't need to know the details. We assume your intel department has done that work for you in-game.

[Exorcet]

Not an expert on the subject, but the idea of dumping buckets of flares to break lock sounds reasonable to me. Make a literal screen of flares between the target and the seeker, and the seeker probably doesn't have much chance to track.

 

It's also not like this makes IR missiles useless. If the first shot drains all the target's flares, it's defenseless against the second shot.

[GGTharos]

You shouldn't need to use so many flares that they're drained on the first shot, but you also shouldn't have the 'luxury' of conservation.

 

Generally speaking each fighter equipped with CMs has an adequate 'threat defeat' program that the pilot will use. He won't be sitting there counting the number of flares - he just pushes a button and that should cause a track defeat.

 

While that's a little simplified, it's the gist.

[Teknetinium]

My assumption is that Flares are not 100% effective that's why IR jammers was made.

[GGTharos]

Flares aren't 100% effective, but that isn't why jammers are made. Even if flares are (and should be) highly effective, they are expendable, and you have to see the shot to use them.

 

There's enough evidence to show that aircraft who see the IRH shot coming and defend with flares are usually successful.

 

On the other hand, jammers are 'always on'. You don't have to see the shot coming to defeat it, and you're not out of countermeasures after defeating 3-4 missiles.

 

PS: As an added bonus, unless your jammer is DIRCM, it's pretty much trying to replicate the same effect on the missile's seeker that flares have - example is the jammer you have in-game in the Su-25T. In other words, if missiles easily reject flares, they should easily reject your jammer.

Edited October 4, 2015 by GGTharos

[GaryIKILLYOU]

Thanks, I figured something was up. I understand that 1-2 bundles won't defeat more modernish IR missiles (R-60M, R-73A, AIM-9P/M). However an entire flare magazine for 1? Seems a bit off. Thanks again GG. :)

[Frostie]

Flares, flare dispense patters and and flare mixes are designed to defeat those seekers reliably, period. There's no magic filter, and it all has to do with how the 'target signal' is presented by the seeker.

 

Dual freq. seekers are there specifically as a magic filter to ignore flares, a flare is seen in the same position through both frequencies but the aircraft and engine are at different thus allowing the seeker to easily reject flares.

 

Flares are still quite effective in RL against con-scan/reticle/rosette seekers, which is why they are carried and why research and production continues.

 

Yes those which have single detector seekers.

[GGTharos]

Dual freq. seekers are there specifically as a magic filter to ignore flares

 

They aren't. They may have been a magic filter against old types of flares, but even then it's not so certain, because all such seekers can be quickly saturated.

 

Their rudimentary positional/temporary filtering capability is inferior compared to the processing enabled by an FPA seeker.

 

Yes those which have single detector seekers.

Even dual detector ones. Flares aren't standing still in development. There's no con/spin/rosette-scan seeker that modern flares cannot defeat, period.

[Frostie]

They aren't. They may have been a magic filter against old types of flares, but even then it's not so certain, because all such seekers can be quickly saturated.

 

Their rudimentary positional/temporary filtering capability is inferior compared to the processing enabled by an FPA seeker.

 

Even dual detector ones. Flares aren't standing still in development. There's no con/spin/rosette-scan seeker that modern flares cannot defeat, period.

 

You're not being consistent, either it's through saturation or flare technology?

 

Even FPA seekers can be saturated it's called blinding the seeker.

[GGTharos]

You're not being consistent, either it's through saturation or flare technology?

 

Both, either, take your pick. The 'ex-gen' seekers effectively have 'one pixel' which attempts to scan a relatively large area very quickly. Resolution suffers as a result, so selecting a target correctly has its limits. Think of it as a radar target being present inside the same radar cell as chaff. How are you going to choose between target and chaff when they separate? (Don't answer, it's a rethorical question and beside the point - it's merely intended to illustrate a specific problem)

 

Your two-color seeker won't help here because the flares used cover enough spectrum in the right proportions to deal with it. A single flare might might not, but a defensive flare mix is a whole other thing. Flares are used because they are highly effective against 'ex-gen' seekers. Not only are they used, development in flare technology and onboard aircraft equipment is increasing rather than being eliminated.

Want a seeker that doesn't care about flares? Try ASRAAM/MICA IR/Python 5/AIM-9X/IRIS-T. For everything else, there's a flare ;)

 

Even FPA seekers can be saturated it's called blinding the seeker.

In general, not with flares. There is a very specific type of flare that under very specific circumstances it can remove LOS to the target for an FPA seeker. Otherwise no dice. Edited October 4, 2015 by GGTharos