Chaff and R27(E)R

[Exorcet]

I noticed better ER behavior but something else is crashing me.

I am flying 1600 km\h at 12000 meters, happily looking for some n00b to kill.

Found one.

Happily locked and fired.

Sadly watched how the missile loses precious energy.

Missile went almost to 5000 km\h but then lost energy and went dead.

 

When I saw how the missile tried to fight thin air at 12000 alt and how much energy, time has passed till it stabilized I got nervous.

Additionally no lofting make flying at very high alt almost useless, except speed factor of the missile - but it loses it quickly so...

 

Did you lead the missile? I've seen this problem with AMRAAM exactly because it lofts (poorly) in DCS. The lack of loft from ER is a good thing in comparison. The ER also has great kinematics as of the last time I tested it.

[Sweep]

Then tell me please for what reason you made a posting without any point for this discussion if not to fuel the fire/insult the people?

All I can read from you are little poking’s in the side of the ones trying to discuss a problem. You never ever did something to show a thing that this is not a problem!

Al I could read was "excuse me, I do not want hurt anyone..." but then you doing it! An excuse isn't one if you use it before you hurt someone!

There are so many tracks here showing the problem and you never ever showed something against those things.

So please be quiet if you have nothing to show and you don’t want to insult the people/fuel the fire.

Thank you Sir!

 

I was trying to point out a few problems here...if I wasn't clear enough (I totally understand that, I am hard to follow occasionally.) then, I'll try to make my point(s) now:

 

First off, what good is showing tracks/tacviews alone? I understand posting a bunch of them and then say, a manual, an anecdote from a real operator, something that proves that the sim is wrong...Most of what I see here is a few, dedicated guys who think the sim is wrong and might have something to show about how chaff and missiles generally work IRL...but not specifically for the R-27(E)R and Su-27S. One other thing to consider here is that maybe ED actually knows how this stuff works...I have seen some posts on here that would suggest ED has access to data and whatnot that us lowly sim-ers don't.

 

Secondly, I agree, fueling the fire (and it seems like my post came off like that, not quite my intent) and the peeing contests are useless, unhelpful, and are not contributing anything to the sim...but neither is ignorance and/or being a "fanboy" of a certain side/aircraft/weapon system/whatever. Some people in this thread (and the other AAM thread) have contributed a LOT, some haven't, some really don't care.

 

Personally, I'm mostly fine with SARH-CM interaction as is. I think the out of seeker FOV stuff needs fixing, and any FCS/sensor system modeling that could change the equation should be added/fixed/improved...although I think ED said they're kinda done with major FC3 avionic improvements? So I suppose we'll talk about that whenever we get an ASM Su-27S! :D

 

 

All that said, I do wish we had more missions/platforms/weapons oriented towards the days when SARH was in style...because right now, its mostly ARH vs SARH, which while realistic enough, isn't FUN for some people. Though mission design, wishlists, and all that are OT stuff for this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

[*Rage*]

@Sweeper

 

If ED got it right and this is how (E)Rs work in real life than I should stop lobbying ED and start lobbying Moscow and all their export customers about how entirely useless their missiles are. Their tax payers need to know. Snowden, are you reading this?

 

 

And an excert from one you may recognise;) When not flying straight and level 30 degree offset is all it takes baby!

 

 

Honestly. Look me in the proverbial eye after youve watched all three videos and tell me you would be happy with that.

Edited January 2, 2016 by ///Rage

[karambiatos]

Last one is hilarious.

[*Rage*]

^^ Why does the missile, in the presence of chaff, over-lead the chaff and the target and miss? Madness!

[Cik]

wow i knew it was bad but not that bad

 

holy christ you don't even have to notch. you can be totally in the merge and drop a few chaff and it causes an entire formation worth of sukhois to miss with multiple missiles

 

wow

 

now i'm thinking that the lazy maneuvering i see out of most eagles is actually TOO MUCH. they could fly right into my nose and launch AMRAAMs with some half-hearted chaff and win.

 

i can't believe it

 

edit: that last video

 

WHERE IS IT GOING

it takes a perfect lead pursuit until terminal and then it just flies off into space

 

what is even happening in this game

Edited January 2, 2016 by Cik

[karambiatos]

^^ Why does the missile, in the presence of chaff, over-lead the chaff and the target and miss? Madness!

It probably has ADD and saw a butterfly.

[Sweep]

I think the seeker's gameplan after losing track is an issue here...I read a document a while back that mentioned the ability of certain (or perhaps most? wasn't specific at all :( ) IR missiles to continue their last maneuvering command after target track is lost...I wonder if the SARHs are doing something similar?

 

Maybe THAT is what needs explaining or improvement?

 

IDK, just throwing ideas at the drawing board...

[GGTharos]

No you guys are so close to home on what the issue really is, but no cigar. None of what you're mentioning is really it.

 

It isn't prolonged target track, it isn't even the sensitivity to CMs.

 

Read the above carefully and you might stumble upon it.

 

If you decide to argue about sensitivity instead, you've missed it.

[OverStratos]

Relax guys, the R-27 is a lot better in reality, I think that it is just hard to model something without the correct data, since it is classified. In fact, it is hard to model anything even if you have all the data.

 

I think we have to work with what we have now. That´s all I can say.:D

[OverStratos]

No you guys are so close to home on what the issue really is, but no cigar. None of what you're mentioning is really it.

 

:lol:

[EagleFox]

 

now i'm thinking that the lazy maneuvering i see out of most eagles is actually TOO MUCH. they could fly right into my nose and launch AMRAAMs with some half-hearted chaff and win.

 

Pretty much when I see 29 spike on tews I just laugh.

[Cik]

I think the seeker's gameplan after losing track is an issue here...I read a document a while back that mentioned the ability of certain (or perhaps most? wasn't specific at all :( ) IR missiles to continue their last maneuvering command after target track is lost...I wonder if the SARHs are doing something similar?

 

Maybe THAT is what needs explaining or improvement?

 

IDK, just throwing ideas at the drawing board...

 

sure, maybe but why is it losing track against a medium/high speed non-maneuvering target at relatively close range at a barely look-down aspect that isn't even notched?

 

 

what kind of joke is that? i would expect missiles from the 70s to have a reasonable chance of intercept in those conditions, let alone a "modern" missile.

 

in fact, i'm going to set up the same sort of scenario in a little bit and see if i can hit the same target with an AIM-7m. my bet is, i'll be able to.

 

>eagle, also probably has a better SARH missile than the ER, also has actives

[Sweep]

IIRC, AIM-7M and R-27ER have the same CM resistance and whatnot.

[Cik]

alright, after a reasonable amount of testing of both AIM-7m and ER, i have found the following things:

 

in a frontal aspect without chaff they are almost perfectly effective (5 tests apiece on a target with a 20~ degree or so nose-off of my nose, him at 19000 and me at 25000 with an 100% hitrate) i say almost despite the 100% because there may be a small clutter miss% that just didn't crop up.

 

as long as you can get a radar lock in beam they are marginally effective. PK was still pretty high at the missile's near-max range. about 21 nm for the ER and about 12 for the sparrow. (5 tests of each with the same altitude, target in beam aspect with no chaff allowed)

 

if the target is anywhere near beam and chaff is allowed they are both entirely worthless. of 5 tests with each, one hit was recorded. (4 sparrows/ERs per test run, so 40 missiles fired total) missiles generally go wide by miles. the 'bug' of which rage speaks is obviously in-evidence. for whatever reason missiles seem to fly at the chaff as if it is the target, even though i still have an active radar lock on the target (as evidenced by the HUD) and the missile is only capable of flying lead pursuit on the radar's illumination. how you ripple them seems to mean nothing at all; if you fire all 4 or in a slow ripple it makes no observable difference. missiles that come off the rail often try to fly for chaff that is in trail of the target by 3+ nautical miles and obviously at zero speed.

 

conclusion: SARH missiles are basically worthless if the target is anywhere near beam aspect, even if they make no maneuvers. chaff alone is enough to screw over SARH even though that makes no sense.

 

basically, it's ****ed.

[TheFurNinja]

alright, after a reasonable amount of testing of both AIM-7m and ER, i have found the following things:

 

in a frontal aspect without chaff they are almost perfectly effective (5 tests apiece on a target with a 20~ degree or so nose-off of my nose, him at 19000 and me at 25000 with an 100% hitrate) i say almost despite the 100% because there may be a small clutter miss% that just didn't crop up.

 

as long as you can get a radar lock in beam they are marginally effective. PK was still pretty high at the missile's near-max range. about 21 nm for the ER and about 12 for the sparrow. (5 tests of each with the same altitude, target in beam aspect with no chaff allowed)

 

if the target is anywhere near beam and chaff is allowed they are both entirely worthless. of 5 tests with each, one hit was recorded. (4 sparrows/ERs per test run, so 40 missiles fired total) missiles generally go wide by miles. the 'bug' of which rage speaks is obviously in-evidence. for whatever reason missiles seem to fly at the chaff as if it is the target, even though i still have an active radar lock on the target (as evidenced by the HUD) and the missile is only capable of flying lead pursuit on the radar's illumination. how you ripple them seems to mean nothing at all; if you fire all 4 or in a slow ripple it makes no observable difference. missiles that come off the rail often try to fly for chaff that is in trail of the target by 3+ nautical miles and obviously at zero speed.

 

conclusion: SARH missiles are basically worthless if the target is anywhere near beam aspect, even if they make no maneuvers. chaff alone is enough to screw over SARH even though that makes no sense.

 

basically, it's ****ed.

So this makes me want to bring up my question again...

 

1.) How does the data-link and mid-course guidance work between the missiles and the aircraft? Can the AIM-7M and R-27R be continuously guided via datalink?

 

2.) If the above is true: Wouldn't you think that within a certain range the host aircraft would be communicating with the missile via D-L and that it would be much harder to confuse the missile (but you could still confuse the host radar)?

 

3.) From the above question spouts another question: If the above was true wouldn't the EOS system completely negate any sort of ECM as the host plane would be able to data-link the targets position regardless of countermeasures?

 

I really wish I knew where to find more detailed information. :helpsmilie:

 

Aside from my questions, its clear the chaff needs work in this game and I think that its long past due that we properly model chaff and its effects.

 

Now don't get me wrong I'm not all pitch forks and torches about this, I know they are working on it. But I just cant help but feel uncomfortable when missiles get confused but radars don't by the hands of chaff. If I saw that my radar was getting caught up in chaff- I wouldn't launch (as I could see that the radar isn't tracking properly).

[GGTharos]

In the beam it makes all the sense in the world.

 

 

conclusion: SARH missiles are basically worthless if the target is anywhere near beam aspect, even if they make no maneuvers. chaff alone is enough to screw over SARH even though that makes no sense.

 

basically, it's ****ed.

[Cik]

no it doesn't.

 

do you know how SARH functions?

 

the radar paints a continuous-wave "cone" onto the target, and the missile flies a lead pursuit course.

 

missiles flying at bundles of chaff that are multiple miles behind the target WHILE the radar is locked onto the target (and you can tell because it tells you where the target is on the HUD) impossible.

 

furthermore, multiple missiles will track multiple different chaff bundles which is also impossible. if it's modeled correctly they'd at least all go for the same one.

 

tl;dr it's totally broke.

[GGTharos]

no it doesn't.

 

Yes it does!

 

do you know how SARH functions?

 

Yes I do.

 

the radar paints a continuous-wave "cone" onto the target, and the missile flies a lead pursuit course.

 

Irrelevant.

 

missiles flying at bundles of chaff that are multiple miles behind the target WHILE the radar is locked onto the target (and you can tell because it tells you where the target is on the HUD) impossible.

 

Also irrelevant. While reality itself is not exactly simulated, the effect can easily be correct, especially depending on what 'miles behind the target' means, since this gives at minimum a couple of geometrical arrangements.

 

furthermore, multiple missiles will track multiple different chaff bundles which is also impossible. if it's modeled correctly they'd at least all go for the same one.

 

tl;dr it's totally broke.

 

Not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. Missiles will fly to a target centroid which may be shifted by well spaces chaff bundles. Not simulated by anything anywhere in the entertainment industry.

[Cik]

i mean, come on. the way this works out doesn't make any sense. either

 

1. the radar knows where the target is and you have a good track, and can thus guide the missile to somewhere NEAR the target

 

2. you don't have a lock

 

in the first case the missile should not be tracking a trail of completely stationary chaff miles away, it should be getting pretty close

 

and in the second case you should simply lose lock (or, in the case of su27's case you may keep an EOS lock) and thus all of your radar missiles in flight should go dead (in which case, you may miss by miles)

 

currently AMRAAMs and ERs behave in the same basic fashion when on terminal attack when in fact this doesn't make any sense at all. currently ERs have a de facto active stage BUT ONLY WHEN ATTACKING CHAFF

 

in every other case they attack the same target, but suddenly when there is chaff in the air they seek the chaff even though they have no capability to do so. if the illuminated target exits their sight they should just go dead in the air (or continue their last maneuver, like someone upthread said) instead they beeline for the chaff that they have no ability to see at all!

 

 

you can't have missiles violating the principles of their own guidance. i mean, do you disagree? is there some 'hidden mechanism' that allows the missile to guide to something that the host plane is not even illuminating?

 

the behavior is patently bizarre. you can't magic that away by saying ten dollar words like 'centroid' when the modeling is totally broken.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Cik

[GGTharos]

i mean, come on. the way this works out doesn't make any sense. either

 

1. the radar knows where the target is and you have a good track, and can thus guide the missile to somewhere NEAR the target

 

Homing missiles generally guide themselves though.

 

currently AMRAAMs and ERs behave in the same basic fashion when on terminal attack when in fact this doesn't make any sense at all. currently ERs have a de facto active stage BUT ONLY WHEN ATTACKING CHAFF

 

Those missiles have already missed. It's irrelevant. It merely looks bad.

 

you can't have missiles violating the principles of their own guidance. i mean, do you disagree? is there some 'hidden mechanism' that allows the missile to guide to something that the host plane is not even illuminating?

 

It isn't hidden, it's just inconsequential.

 

the behavior is patently bizarre. you can't magic that away by saying ten dollar words like 'centroid' when the modeling is totally broken.

 

You're looking at the wrong part of the model. This isn't the problem. Those missiles have already missed.

[SDsc0rch]

listen - its no big deal - you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill

 

its called "computer modeling"

 

its st00pid to go to the nth degree to simulate reality when you can achieve the same effect by a little sleight of hand

 

what do you care if the missile misses by 100ft or 1nm? a miss is a miss

 

 

 

ED does this all over the place - not just here

 

ever use interleave mode on the radar? know what its supposed to do?

 

its supposed to INTERLEAVE HPRF and MPRF (each yields different detection performance based on range, closure rate, aspect, look-down etc)

 

does it do that?

 

no ----- what it actually does is *averages* the two

 

my reaction? bleh!

 

give me REAL INTERLEAVED MODE!!!

 

 

well.. maybe someday ----- when we get ASM and a high fidelity radar model (maybe that's what's holding up the hornet?? eh?) - when we get a DCS level F-15C???

 

 

 

 

if you look closely you'll find this "estimation" or "modeling" happens many places

 

not just in DCS, but in govt simulations as well

 

as long as the EFFECT is the same....... alls good

 

 

 

listen, if you want to go nutz over this, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander

 

imma gonna come back with youtube vids and trackfiles of amraams coming within ten feet of my targets - and they don't EXPLODE and kill the bandit

 

what. the. HECK.

 

 

REAL missiles have a proximity fuze and detonate within a lethal radius - they spew projectiles which cut, bludgeon, pellet, sever, and otherwise "disrupt" the target a/c

 

this is not modeled

 

 

in DCS, if an absolute HIT is not achieved (ie.. the missile doesn't get "skin"), you fly free

 

 

i know two things ---- 1) you have been victim of this (ie.. your missiles didn't achieve a HIT) and 2) you have been the beneficiary of this (ie.. a missile targeting you did not KILL YOU ---- ever look back and see a missile flying formation on you and then fall back as it lost energy? i have - a half dozen times...)

 

it all evens out

 

 

 

like i said, good for the goose, good for the gander ---- you get your improvements, then i want mine

 

fairs fair

 

 

and gentlemen.. i got a list

 

 

 

i want my amraams to not be subject to losing lock within a mile or two - that's frigging ridiculous

 

nor should it be as susceptible to certain kinds of countermeasures as range reduces toward the end-game

 

 

 

and remember - more modern missiles are BETTER

 

that's just the natural progression

 

 

and the amraam and AIM-9 are modern

 

and continually being upgraded

 

 

 

russkies.. whatchoo got?? mm hmm

 

exactly

 

 

 

again, fairs fair

 

you think you got me? i got plenty more where that comes from.....

[Sweep]

(joking) This picture might be helpful in explaining how chaff works. Just move the radar more or less behind the missile somewhere.(/joking)

 

 

Edit: And on a serious note, that's where a missile SHOULD miss...IMO.

[Cik]

Homing missiles generally guide themselves though.

 

 

 

Those missiles have already missed. It's irrelevant. It merely looks bad.

 

 

 

It isn't hidden, it's just inconsequential.

 

 

 

You're looking at the wrong part of the model. This isn't the problem. Those missiles have already missed.

 

those missiles have missed in a way that's physically impossible. here's my question, because what scorch says is reasonable in many ways:

 

is the missile missing because of the chaff that is close to the plane, or is it missing because there is ANY chaff in the air?

 

if it is the latter, there is a huge problem. it really screws over the behavior of missiles in general, not just russian ones.

 

if it is only getting spoofed by the chaff inside it's CW cone, but still decides to randomly go after other chaff there is no problem, it just gives the wrong impression.

 

scorch, i don't really care about modeling that is only cosmetic; if the interleave strength is just an average of HPRF and MPRF it literally means nothing. what i care about is if my missile is about half as effective as it should be because it's being spoofed by chaff that it can't even see.

 

i mean, that's a non-cosmetic difference there buddy. a HUGE one.

 

you talk like i'm against adding proximity fuses and all that shit. i'm not. the AMRAAM is a clearly superior missile but it's modeling is still pretty bad. it seems like an SRM to me, for one. if they FIX this problem that may exist then every missile will noticeably improve. maybe sparrows will be worth taking, who knows what sort of magical dreamland we may enter?

Edited January 3, 2016 by Cik

[Sweep]

Going off topic for a bit here, but I think HPRF and MPRF and all that would be quite important if the F-15 and Su-27 didn't have the same radar, TWS/NCTR aside.

 

Back on track: What's this bit about CW illumination and crap, I thought that went out of style years ago? Like when R-27R's seeker was designed?

 

Oh wait...

 

Edit: GG says something real interesting here:

(...) Not simulated by anything anywhere in the entertainment industry.

 

Remember guys, its a civilian-level simulation...we don't have some super computer in the middle of the Western US with a crapload of storage and processing power. We have a bunch of nerds, some home computers, and a dev team that actually works on military level stuff...and gives us the leftovers (thats not an insult, btw...I'm very grateful for that ED's done with DCS), basically...

Edited January 3, 2016 by Sweep