Chaff and R27(E)R

[il_corleone]

The R3-R of the Mig21 is much better (Yes its overmodeled - blah blah)

 

I know, I mean, Why those missiles from that age are better than for example, an actual 530D from the Mirage?

 

No one knows! well yes, but ...:lol::lol:

[GGTharos]

If the seeker is pointing at the target aircraft those two events happen at the same time, or very close to it (can an aircraft occlude a chaff bundle? It seems doubtful that the devs would bother modelling that sort of thing).

 

Depends on the amount of chaff ... you could think of it in terms of combined rcs, rather than real occlusion.

[GGTharos]

Whoosh.

 

No no no.

 

(Snip)

 

ED by their own admission claim the FC franchise is their most commercially successful. Ive supported them up to the hilt so far. But they and their testers and moderators need to understand that the complaining about the Chaff'-CM-Clutter issue has been going on for years and is NEVER going to stop until it is satisfactorily fixed or at least patched. It is just too important.

[*Rage*]

Did you watch the videos or are you trying plausible deniability:)?

Edited January 3, 2016 by ///Rage

[TAW_Blaze]

A sample pool of 3 tests ain't nothing. Any result from AI missile launch is irrelevant because the AI doesn't know how to use radar, like I said on the other page. And in one of the player tests it worked. Also on the first player scenario the 2nd ER hit from very close range.

 

Make more MP tests and then maybe you can draw a conclusion of what seems to be happening, that might help figuring out what the problem is.

[*Rage*]

No it isnt irrelevant Blaze. And you know that ive done this same test hundreds of times before as the launcher. Its the same if not worse.

 

In case you forgot:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7su8ges5gefzpfu/AADqkiSXQnYX-ZokjpZIDclca?dl=0

 

Funny how the only people trying to maintain the status quo are dedicated F15 drivers. Now they wouldnt have an ulterior motive now would they?! You realise with better modeled guidance other flankers and migs and frogfoots would also be shot down (or at least forced to react) as well - not just F15s:)

Edited January 3, 2016 by ///Rage

[tflash]

I thought it was established beyond doubt already for long that the R-27ER in game is absolutely worthless. The best is when you do a simple 2x2 with SU-27 and Mig-21 at altitude in single player. I usually quickly dispense my R-27ER's to save some weight, since it always ends visual with R-73. No BVR whatsoever possible. The best it to look at the Tacview afterwards. Incredible where those R-27ER seem to fly. Often they still chase the first chaff released while both target and shooter have already angled off almost 90 degrees. It's a kind of sidelobe bonanza. It is indeed beyond imagination that one of the nicest aircraft in game is crippled in such an ashaming way.

 

Anyway I would qualify these R-27ER's as combat-shy, to say the least. They most certainly don't want to get involved, so much is clear.

[Frostie]

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.

 

 

It doesn't mate, FC F-15 has a 20% increase in look down detection range over the Flanker and 90% more tham the Fulcrum.

[Angel101]

Anyone has tried those test in 2.0? The missiles behave in the same way?

[Sweep]

It doesn't mate, FC F-15 has a 20% increase in look down detection range over the Flanker and 90% more tham the Fulcrum.

 

Hmm...I'll have to look into it more I guess.

 

Thanks for correcting that. :)

[DarkFire]

Anyone has tried those test in 2.0? The missiles behave in the same way?

 

They do indeed behave in the same way :( At the risk of going slightly off-topic, the Super 530 missile for the Mirage behaves in exactly the same way, confirming that the issue isn't with the R-27 family but concerns SARH missiles generally.

[GGTharos]

AI is just fine for certain types of tests.

 

In fact MP may be less acceptable for some of those sure to how missile representation is handled by the game.

 

I don't see anything wrong with Rage's tests.

Edited January 3, 2016 by GGTharos

[TAW_Blaze]

AI is just fine for certain types of tests.

 

In fact MP may be less acceptable for some of those sure to how missile representation is handled by the game.

 

I don't see anything wrong with Rage's tests.

 

Remember Falcon's test? AI missed every ER because they kept losing lock or just had the wrong PRF or whatever was the case. This is the problem. We don't know how the AI uses the radar.

[GGTharos]

If you know what you're doing they're just fine and quite reliable. We use them all the time when testing missile envelopes and relatively simple countermeasures rejection if/when we need to test such things.

 

There are tests that are better done in MP, but this type of test isn't one of them.

[SDsc0rch]

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

; )

Edited January 3, 2016 by SDsc0rch

[BIGNEWY]

guys, post with respect and without profanity.

 

If in doubt have a read of the forum rules.

Edited January 3, 2016 by BIGNEWY

[tflash]

I do not know if it is possible to model the SARH missile in such a way that it rejects chaff in the sidelobes more easily than at the center of where the radar is pointing at?

 

When I do a 1 vs 2, SU-27 vs Mig head-on offline, I notice that since both AI Migs start chaffing, there is of course a huge chaff cloud head-on that attracts all R-27-ER's, also thsoe shot subsequently. The tracked bandit dives away to my right, I still have track on the radar and shoot, and my missile veeres off to the left to this big original chaff cloud.

 

I find that a little odd, since the bandit has released first of all newer chaff closer by, and second I am now at an angle and distance where chaff shouldn't fool the missile any more.

 

I wonder if this has to do with the boost fase trajectory of the R-27-ER, burning its big motor in a rather straight course first before adjusting?

[*Rage*]

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

; )

 

Irrelevant to this thread.

 

If you feel there is a case for fixing the 120 (and there may well be) then you need to make it. Test it. Publish it. Validate it. Then lobby for it in another thread. This is an ER and Chaff thread. There are plenty more A2A missile threads you can post in or better yet submit your own bug report.

 

All your still doing is derailing an active thread with your own unrelated wishlist. Because you're afraid of an imbalance to the current status quo and you want to redress it before it even happens. Something you've pleaded desperately before that ED should never do. What happened to "its a sim not a game - @##@ balance" blah blah rhetoric you had before?

Edited January 3, 2016 by ///Rage

[Ultra]

What's the hit rate of the ER against a target within parameters, not going defensive and not deploying chaff, but taking an offset? (Look up situation)

 

It should be very very high, shouldn't it?

[Sweep]

All your still doing is derailing an active thread with your own unrelated wishlist.

 

I thought this was a semi-active thread? :megalol:

 

Alright alright I'll stop now. :P

[*Rage*]

I thought this was a semi-active thread? :megalol:

 

Alright alright I'll stop now. :P

 

I knew as I was typing that some joker would be tempted...;)

[Cik]

What's the hit rate of the ER against a target within parameters, not going defensive and not deploying chaff, but taking an offset? (Look up situation)

 

It should be very very high, shouldn't it?

 

rage had a video where they seemed to go stupid often, but i did 5 tests with the flanker and the eagle both in lookup when the target was out of beam with a 100% hitrate on both the sparrow and the ER.

 

the missile is fairly accurate, and even has quite the range until there's a single bundle of chaff in the air, then you can release all 6 of your ERs to no effect whatsoever.

[Ultra]

rage had a video where they seemed to go stupid often, but i did 5 tests with the flanker and the eagle both in lookup when the target was out of beam with a 100% hitrate on both the sparrow and the ER.

 

the missile is fairly accurate, and even has quite the range until there's a single bundle of chaff in the air, then you can release all 6 of your ERs to no effect whatsoever.

 

Did you give the targets an offset or was it all head on?

 

I think one of the big problems is lack of knowledge and data about how effective CCM is for all the different planes' radars. But I'm sure his has been said many times before.

[Cik]

the target was traveling across my nose at an angle. i tested it at the max ballistic range of the missile, and medium range (about 12nm if i remember correctly) both 100% hitrate.

 

i also tried a beam aspect in clutter, 12nm with my plane at 25 angels and his at about 19. 100% hitrate there, too. keep in mind though that in both cases the target was making no hard maneuvers, just flying in a straight line. i would imagine you could dodge the missiles if you were maneuvering.

 

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

[tflash]

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 is narrow enough to generate a significantly bigger return from the actual target painted than from the chaff in the surroundings. Here it seems to be the converse. You can clearly see in tacview that the missiles favor the chaffcloud over the painted target even when they are pointed more in the direction of the target at launch than towards the offset chaffcloud. To me that makes no sense. These are radiating chaffclouds, not just reflecting ones.