Chaff and R27(E)R

[Ultra]

the target was traveling across my nose at an angle....SNIP

 

in any case, obviously the missile itself is working. it's just a CM vulnerability issue.

 

I agree, it seems the base guidance is fine. Good to know.

 

Well, as long as your radar locks the target (and in the case of the SU-27 it almost never breaks lock), it is not a radar problem. The issue is with the seeker of the SAHR missile, that tracks the radar return and seems to see a bigger return from all directions except for the target when there is a chaff cloud in the air.

 

I think advanced and powerful radars such as the one in the SU-27 have a tracking beam that.....SNIP

 

Lost radar lock due to chaff is not modeled. The chaff resistance, or lack of, is based on a probability calculator. I think it's just that the calculator is wrong somehow. Either by taking into account incorrect game data (such as chaff that is too far away from the target to realistically have an effect, like you mentioned), or by having the chaff resistance too low due to not enough real world data about each plane's CCM abilities.

 

Or I could be wrong and the CCM probabilities are approximately correct.... :)

[Ragnarok]

Hey guys, just to say hello

 

... and I see that the battle moved on forum from multiplayer server who yawning empty, but very very hotly forum. Very interesting... I think it's a problem with the Chaff and R-27.

 

I, for now, chill out 'just like developers ED :juggle:

[SDsc0rch]

...

 

such as chaff that is too far away from the target to realistically have an effect ...

 

you understand it just opposite ---- ch will be more effective from long range, where the host a/c radar system will have the least ability to discriminate between legit tgt and chaff/decoy ---- resolution comes in to play

 

Or I could be wrong .... :)

 

^^ yes this

[Cik]

you understand it just opposite ---- ch will be more effective from long range, where the host a/c radar system will have the least ability to discriminate between legit tgt and chaff/decoy ---- resolution comes in to play

 

 

 

^^ yes this

 

the chaff is too far away from the target, not that the target is too far away from the shooting platform.

 

if the chaff is in trail miles behind it will be outside of the radar beam of the shooter, and thus ineffective against any missiles being guided by the shooting platform.

[SDsc0rch]

allllllright, looks like we may need to calibrate your brain housing group here....

 

no worries

 

 

i keep hearing this phrase (or words to the effect of) "chaff is miles behind"

 

at jet speeds, you go a mile every six seconds or so ---- and to go miles you are talking 12, 18, etc seconds

 

no - that's not what we're talking about ---- this is RBC >> "rapid bloom chaff"

 

it literally uses an explosive charge to rapidly disperse a cloud of wires (reflectors) that are cut to specific dimensions to be optimum radar reflectors

 

 

 

and this all happens very fast

 

not seconds later - not miles later ---- it all happens very quickly and yes within the FOV of the host a/c radar and/or the active missile seeker FOV

 

and, won't go in to detail, but there are various ways chaff is used - the kind we're talking about here is not the only kind ----- enough of that..

 

 

 

also.. i think you guys may have an incorrect view of how "narrow" a radar beam is

 

its actually pretty wide - but electrical engineers and programmable signal processing guys have gotten pretty adept at developing "tricks" that can mmm... "artificially" increase the resolution

 

you oughta google it, its actually pretty interesting - some details are out there, you'll get a "good enough" idea..

 

 

 

in general, radar has great resolution when it comes to *range* but much poorer resolution when it comes to angular measurements

 

IR is great with angular resolution, not-so-much with range

[Ultra]

I understand what you're saying SD.

 

On a different note, what I'd like to see next is a test of Hit Percentage of ER vs. Bundles of Chaff Released. I think the next aspect to look at is if the radar/seeker performs correctly in 'reacquiring' the target. I would expect any radar missile to be trashed when the sky is flooded with chaff, but what happens in game when just one or two bundles are released? How soon will the radar/seeker calculator begin to ignore these decoys? I don't know what the expected reacquisition times are for real radars on targets, after some chaff is released.....

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ultra
Typo

[pr1malr8ge]

the chaff is too far away from the target, not that the target is too far away from the shooting platform.

 

if the chaff is in trail miles behind it will be outside of the radar beam of the shooter, and thus ineffective against any missiles being guided by the shooting platform.

 

 

as SD said you're miss understanding things. Radar is not a small concentrate dot. It spreads with distance no matter what mode you're operating it in. From what you're saying I think you think radar is on the same relm of a laser beam under focus. How ever A laser beam will do exactly the same thing as radar and spread with distance. The nice thing with a laser is that it can be focused using a lens. As far as I know RF cannot or to an extent that light can be.

 

As you can see I used me 3w laser in my basement and set the focus to show the spred comprible to what a radar would be. I do apologize for my hunting gear being on the floor but I was sorting it this afternoon.

As you can see on top of that spread you can see reflection coming back in all directions. Say your target is in front of that box by say 1mile [need to think in scale] and the box is a cloud of chaff try and find your target.

 

[pr1malr8ge]

Now if you look at this picture, and this is what I'm thinking you are considering how it looks. Unfortunatly it does not look this way.

 

[*Rage*]

the chaff is too far away from the target, not that the target is too far away from the shooting platform.

 

if the chaff is in trail miles behind it will be outside of the radar beam of the shooter, and thus ineffective against any missiles being guided by the shooting platform.

 

Something about the way its coded results in the missile going to the very first chaff released within its FOV. This is what happens when the missile makes a spectacular detour away from the target to follow something it shouldnt. Therefore no chance of reaquiring the target. Although in other tracks it overleads the target or sometimes just flies by.

[blkspade]

i would stipulate that an excessive dud rate like we're seeing should probably be looked at

 

 

 

but!

 

i also want the A120 looked at

 

 

 

theres this thing where a quarter to a third of the amraams i fire instantly pitch nose up (and not in a pop-up profile) and are wasted ---- immediately upon launch the missile springs upward - i know right then its trashed and i fire another ----- watching tacview i see it does not lose lock or anything like that, it still tracks but its energy is so depleted it is useless and never hits

 

due to this, it is my SOP to fire two amraams per target

 

that means.. if i am carrying eight amraams, i effectively only have four engagements per sortie

 

 

 

sure, the RU missiles could see some improvements

 

but then so should the slammers ---- this anomaly where it pops up and is wasted is ridiculous - in the real world this dud rate would not be tolerated (and note - i have other "wishlist" improvements in mind behind this one)

 

 

and once that aspect of the amraam is fixed, stand by to stand by gentlemen - now you have a very lethal slammer inbound and i have effectively *double* the payload

 

yay for me - bummer for y'all

; )

 

What you describe here I typically only see with the first missile off of the rail, and I have seen it with AIM-7s, if only carrying AIM-7s. Its why I almost always double tap the first launch of a full load, but not always in subsequent launches.

[blkspade]

the chaff is too far away from the target, not that the target is too far away from the shooting platform.

 

if the chaff is in trail miles behind it will be outside of the radar beam of the shooter, and thus ineffective against any missiles being guided by the shooting platform.

 

What you are not seeing (due to lack of modelling as mentioned) is the likelihood that host radar is ultimately tracking the chaff upon deployment temporarily. The sparrow is similarly effected but seems to have a higher probability to recover and reacquire the target if fired with enough energy and the deviation isn't too high. I have many times fired a followup shot after the TTI counter expired, just to have my initial missile hit and kill 3 seconds later. Even in single player which removes lag related causes. Similarly you can see 120s track chaff and then switch back to the target. This is CM rejection at work, but it is not instantaneous. Nor does chaff dissipate seconds after deployed. So chaff goes out, gets tracked, checked and deemed invalid, target reacquired. That tracking and validation period causes a missile course deviation, which is either enough to kinematically defeat it or not, or move the target out of the seeker's FOV or not.

 

Since this can be observed from an Eagle's POV, the questions for Flankers/Migs with relation to 27(E)Rs would be, is their CM rejection worse (slower) than US jets and is the R-27(E)R capable of re-acquisition? Without having specific details IRL, we do know which areas the US is typically ahead of Russia and vise-versa. The in game Eagle is slightly more up to date than the in game Russian contemporaries, and the US pretty much bet the farm on avionics for BVR combat. Just yesterday I ate a R-27T (80's night) head on that I knew would be coming and spotted on launch and refused to bite on flares. The current state of all radar missiles, make this the Russian drivers advantage. So keep in mind that improvements to radar missiles will strip that advantage away. The best chances at a 120 kill is with a supersonic launch, at ranges where the ET can track and kill an after-burning target and sometimes one not in AB.

[karambiatos]

The current state of all radar missiles, make this the Russian drivers advantage.

I have a hard time believing this, yet it keeps being spouted as if it's the gospel

[*Rage*]

So chaff goes out, gets tracked, checked and deemed invalid, target reacquired. That tracking and validation period causes a missile course deviation, which is either enough to kinematically defeat it or not, or move the target out of the seeker's FOV or not. Since this can be observed from an Eagle's POV, the questions for Flankers/Migs with relation to 27(E)Rs would be, is their CM rejection worse (slower) than US jets and is the R-27(E)R capable of re-acquisition?

 

I dont think that happens in DCS. From what ive seen its merely a mathematical calculation with the number of chaff within FOV at any given time along with other factors rather than a simulation of radar/missile CCM processing.

 

Just yesterday I ate a R-27T (80's night) head on that I knew would be coming and spotted on launch and refused to bite on flares. The current state of all radar missiles, make this the Russian drivers advantage. So keep in mind that improvements to radar missiles will strip that advantage away.

 

Lol. Maybe if we only played 80's with no 120s and only crappy chafftastic 27R and Aim7s then perhaps. But otherwise? Just no. As a dedicated Flanker driver ill take the radar missiles improvement any day. The reason we're now so dependant on IR missiles and getting in peoples faces (the merge before any gets the wrong idea;)) is because the (E)R is so terrible. In my opinion if your 1v1 with someone and you get splashed with an E(T) then you've done something wrong whether youre flying an eagle or a flanker

Edited January 4, 2016 by ///Rage

[Cik]

in my experience at least the ET's kinetics mean you are solidly inside threat range of the AMRAAM if you are in ET range

 

as a BVR option it's only real ability is surprise attacks from the deck against high targets. in a merge it's useless, because an EOS lock in a merge is nearly impossible to get and you will be killed if you try to press for a good enough shot.

 

i'd also like to mention that an ET that refuses to bite on flares is one in a million. in my experience if an eagle flares once or twice poof, off it goes into the blue yonder.

 

basically the ET as a BVR solution doesn't work because it's pretty garbage in a merge. most of the time you won't be able to fire, and most of the time the eagle will flare because they expect an ET from you. if you ripple both they will be spitting flares/chaff to spoof the ER and will probably end up spoofing both.

[Ultra]

The discussion about current game tactics isn't really the point. Finding a possible flaw in the ER modeling is. (Of course)

 

What I think someone needs to do is test 'chaff effectiveness per bundle' and 'reacquiring time' of the ER versus those of the regular R and/or AIM-7. I think that data might show the problem we're looking for.

 

(I would try to do it, but I'll bet some of you guys would do a better job. Also I've been having problems with TacView lately ;))

[Cik]

when i tested it they looked exactly the same (probably it's own problem) the ER's and AIM-7s chaff vulnerability can best be described as "total"

 

unlike the AIM-120, which has a limited (or, well, not so limited) ability to operate in a chaff-heavy environment (IE, every fight in the game) every SARH missile does not.

 

every SARH carrier in the game is effectively a WVR platform for this reason. shooting someone down outside WVR is mostly an impossibility.

 

perhaps if they fly straight into merge and spit out less than 2 chaff, or something.

[Ultra]

when i tested it they looked exactly the same (probably it's own problem) the ER's and AIM-7s chaff vulnerability can best be described as "total"......snip

 

Ok, that's something. The only thing is I think to make that into a case for change we need numbers like how many chaff bundles it takes to spoof those missile XX% of the time. That will show quantitatively what's going on in-game.

[Cik]

i could do it, but the tester in this thread seems convinced there is nothing wrong. even if i were to gather a ton of data that says a few clicks of countermeasure release effectively disables every SARH missile in the game outside WVR, what response would i get?

 

probably none. seems like wasted effort. ED probably knows that the ER is useless. i mean, how could you not? try firing it at someone like twice and you'll realize the same.

 

russian BVR has been hopeless for a very long time. if they wanted to fix it they already would have, probably.

[NineLine]

even if i were to gather a ton of data that says a few clicks of countermeasure release effectively disables every SARH missile in the game outside WVR, what response would i get?

 

Probably more of a response than without any data supporting what you are or are not seeing. Fo course supported real world data is needed as well to show there is an issue, and its not just a perceived issue, otherwise is all just guesses.

[Ultra]

i could do it, but the tester in this thread seems convinced there is nothing wrong. even if i were to gather a ton of data that says a few clicks of countermeasure release effectively disables every SARH missile in the game outside WVR, what response would i get?

 

probably none. seems like wasted effort. ED probably knows that the ER is useless. i mean, how could you not? try firing it at someone like twice and you'll realize the same.

......snip

 

Yes, there is resistance to change the game performance, but I think if we come up with enough evidence it won't be able to be ignored.

Forum users have gotten quite large game parameters changed before. It's not like it never happens, this subject is just one of the most difficult.

 

I think people would really appreciate graphed data about chaff effectiveness. I think it may be enough for change, IF something is shown to be very suspicious.

 

If you do collect this data, remember both the aggressor and target aircraft need to be human controlled.

[Cik]

Probably more of a response than without any data supporting what you are or are not seeing. Fo course supported real world data is needed as well to show there is an issue, and its not just a perceived issue, otherwise is all just guesses.

 

as you and i both know, real world data is impossible to acquire as AFAIK the ER hasn't even been used in combat more than a few times, and the R may or may not bear any resemblance to it in terms of seeking.

 

neither me or you can somehow magick together contacts in the kremlin unfortunately. the best i can do is tell you that in game it's a lemon, and that all missiles of the type are (at least, currently)

 

unfortunately there is a very obnoxious doublespeak about this issue, as when you say "balance wise, it's a mess" everyone says they want realism; realism which can't be acquired, which means the status quo that favors eagles is indefinitely sustained.

 

GGtharos says it's true to life. i can't exactly call him a liar without proof, and since there is no proof either way, and since balance doesn't matter, nothing will ever change.

 

i understand the frustration of the flanker pilot now.

[NineLine]

as you and i both know, real world data is impossible to acquire as AFAIK the ER hasn't even been used in combat more than a few times, and the R may or may not bear any resemblance to it in terms of seeking.

 

neither me or you can somehow magick together contacts in the kremlin unfortunately. the best i can do is tell you that in game it's a lemon, and that all missiles of the type are (at least, currently)

 

unfortunately there is a very obnoxious doublespeak about this issue, as when you say "balance wise, it's a mess" everyone says they want realism; realism which can't be acquired, which means the status quo that favors eagles is indefinitely sustained.

 

GGtharos says it's true to life. i can't exactly call him a liar without proof, and since there is no proof either way, and since balance doesn't matter, nothing will ever change.

 

i understand the frustration of the flanker pilot now.

 

 

Well thats where we end up I guess right? I mean if you think there is glaring performance issues with how it works in game, gather your data and I will point Chizh at it as long as its done in a proper manner. GG knowns a lot, he has a lot of contacts, and in my case I would defer to someone like him just because he is more versed in these subjects, that doesnt mean he has final say on everything for ED, so dont be afraid to submit data if you feel there is an issue.

 

The issue with these threads is they become very messy, so many opinions, little data to examine. Its hard to get mad at the devs, many who don't speak English as their first language, if they ignore, or dont understand what is being stated as a problem in these threads.

[Ultra]

The issue with these threads is they become very messy, so many opinions, little data to examine. Its hard to get mad at the devs, many who don't speak English as their first language, if they ignore, or dont understand what is being stated as a problem in these threads.

 

That's why I'm saying someone should make some graphs!

 

There's a lot of talk, and talk is cheap. :D

[blkspade]

I have a hard time believing this, yet it keeps being spouted as if it's the gospel

 

Its possible to get 8nm Aim-9m head-on kill if the bandit is very cooperative aided by the fact they can't see it, but needs to be a high energy launch. The ET can achieve the same at ~14nm with better kinematics, but is more visible. By 8nm the target doesn't really need to be in AB anymore. The 120 is a waste launched outside of 12nm most of the time, and the Eagle is likely in AB leading up to shot unless its a follow up. To reliably evade an ET you need flares while idle and maneuvering for separation, which quickly bleeds speed. If both the eagle and flanker successfully evade and are left under 8nm from each other the flanker has all the advantages. The eagle will be slower than ideal and the risk of AB is too high if the bandit hasn't gone completely cold or lost them on radar. The eagle has to commit to killing you inside this range as there is no escape from the ET trying to extend here. 120s are easy to beam or just miss when you get low enough. The flanker will have better low speed handling plus the HOB R-73, and will typically be looking up. Worse case scenario is you force a merge with a slow eagle, and you know how that's likely to end.

[karambiatos]

you don't need to maneuver for separation at all, unless a rolling and flaring is considered maneuvering now.

 

IR missiles are so stupidly evaded currently, and i highly doubt a real world tactic for evading IR missiles is to point your nose toward it, roll and pop flares.

 

And inside 8nm the aim-120 will hit your plane 100% unless you turn away from it or you are really slow and notch it, at which point you'll still die because he'll be on top of you, while all the eagle needs to do to evade an et is again idle, roll, flare, he doesn't need to turn away from his target at all (that goes for any plane fighting IR missiles).

Edited January 4, 2016 by karambiatos