Chaff and R27(E)R

[Cik]

my guess would be that chaff is not nearly as effective as the majority opinion here seems to think

 

the evidence is anecdotal, but my guess is that the entire world's strategy shifting to radar BVR (which shows no signs of actually stopping) means that it's reliable enough (and has been for a while) to build planes specifically for the purpose and basically bet air superiority almost entirely on the performance of your radar and missile systems over any sort of dogfight-centric strategy.

 

if chaff were some sort of cure-all "press this button to dodge nearly infinite amounts of semi-active missiles" as it is in DCS, every defense department on the planet wouldn't be designing their air superiority strategy specifically around long-range radar missile combat.

[*Rage*]

Chaff is ww2 technology and radar missiles have moved on since vietnam. What we have now at best equates to vietnam levels of radar missile proficiency except instead of Mig17s and F4s we're flying Su27s, F15s and M2Ks.

[GGTharos]

Jet engines and radars are WW2 technology as well.

[*Rage*]

Yes and 'chaff engineering' has made the same technological advances as jet engines and radars over the last 60 years or so.

[GGTharos]

Actually it has. Cartridges made to force the chaff to bloom rapidly, cartridges that are capable of some very limited maneuvering, studies on how to use chaff and with what maneuvers (and how much), etc.

 

So yes, it has. It is still loaded onboard aircraft that can use it (some aircraft have RCS so large that chaff just can't help them), it is used in conjunction with jammers, etc. There's all kinds of fun stuff happening and so it's definitely not out of the picture, even if (by itself) its utility against the most modern weapons is starting to wane.

[otto]

As far back as Korea, unclassified studies suggest that a missile launched within proper parameters should be impossible to evade using maneuver alone.

 

 

There's no such thing as 100% hit probability.which your word impossible would describe.

Even if one in 10000 missiles fails to hit you still get 9.9999 hit probability.

 

In the six day war missiles were utter crap: "bidon" as described by the isralian pilots.

The 120 missile has only a 60% hit probability and one of the aircraft it targeted was a US helicopter.

On 20 january 1973 in Missile testing range at Point Mugu California a F14 shot itself down with it's own missile.

How many sparrows did the f14 pilots fire at the libian mig 23s ? because it's more than 2 .

[GGTharos]

There's no such thing as 100% hit probability.which your word impossible would describe.

Even if one in 10000 missiles fails to hit you still get 9.9999 hit probability.

 

Really? You want to nitpick on probabilities? :)

Well apparently you don't know where to put the decimal point then!

 

In the six day war missiles were utter crap: "bidon" as described by the isralian pilots.

The 120 missile has only a 60% hit probability and one of the aircraft it targeted was a US helicopter.

On 20 january 1973 in Missile testing range at Point Mugu California a F14 shot itself down with it's own missile.

How many sparrows did the f14 pilots fire at the libian mig 23s ? because it's more than 2 .

Did you not read what was written? When a missile is launched in good parameters it is not possible to evade it with maneuvers.

 

I don't particularly care about situations where any part of the system fails or missiles that are shot out of parameters; it is beside the point.

 

You missed the point.

[blkspade]

Aim120 singularity.....

 

You're late. I wasn't even the first to mention the 120, but that wasn't even the first time I mentioned it. Plus it was in response to the idea the an 8nm 120 shot is a 100% kill, when I and others can evade 5nm shots. Its still valid to mention, because 120 should still be influencing flanker/fulcrum pilots to ditch their 27(E)R lock even if it weren't going for chaff as much, unless launched in a complete ambush RTR, where the ET is universally better anyway. I can personally evade ideal parameter shots that I know are coming some 90% of the time. That said, there were also recent tweaks to IR missiles CCM probability. Closing the gap still favors Flankers as opposed to Eagles, as their IR missiles are better than the Aim-9m (plus EOS/HOB and better nose pointing) and IR missiles track low targets better than all radar missiles and eagles are almost always looking down on flankers. The eagle is pretty well boned when they run out of flares, unless they get inside Rmin. Which is challenging to do while retaining enough energy to have much hope to BFM with a flanker. Ideally an eagle should never get that close to a flanker, but all the missiles current effective ranges are stacked on top of each other at the edge of being WVR. IF/when ever radar missiles become more reliable at range, SARH will still be inferior to ARH and eagles will be able to stay out of ET range unless flankers stick to the same ambush tactics they are already using.

[Cik]

if the range ratio stays about the same and the accuracy of missiles increases it will help the flanker more than the eagle, IMO.

 

the problem the flanker has is that it has a theoretical range advantage, however at that range it's PK with the ER is basically 0%

 

if it had better CM rejection and it's pk was 5% it could actually play range games instead of just having to blindly charge into AMRAAM and pray to the gods of thermal seeking for a hit with an ET, or even worse try to beam into close range for R73.

 

furthermore, the psychological impact of the missile actually having a chance to hit something would do wonders for the flanker's "threat rating" in the minds of it's adversary. as it is now, eagles will blindly charge you because they know that your only real weapon that outranges them is a total joke.

 

if it was less of a total joke, you'd have a deterrent to tell them to back off.

[*Rage*]

^^ Yep.

 

On the 104th I not only see F15s flying at cherubs head on at Flankers which are much higher and faster and launching on them without a care in the world. I now see them flying at 4-500km/h because the tracking is even more laughable at that target speed.

 

This mutation of BVR is a direct consequence of the guidance issue im talking about.

[blkspade]

if the range ratio stays about the same and the accuracy of missiles increases it will help the flanker more than the eagle, IMO.

 

the problem the flanker has is that it has a theoretical range advantage, however at that range it's PK with the ER is basically 0%

 

if it had better CM rejection and it's pk was 5% it could actually play range games instead of just having to blindly charge into AMRAAM and pray to the gods of thermal seeking for a hit with an ET, or even worse try to beam into close range for R73.

 

furthermore, the psychological impact of the missile actually having a chance to hit something would do wonders for the flanker's "threat rating" in the minds of it's adversary. as it is now, eagles will blindly charge you because they know that your only real weapon that outranges them is a total joke.

 

if it was less of a total joke, you'd have a deterrent to tell them to back off.

 

The ERs range advantage is in that it would reach intercept before the 120, if all other parameters are equal. Eagle drivers would only need to be concerned with pitbull, which is typically 8nm short of intercept. This becomes worse for flankers with improved guidance and cheap shots being in a decent ball park. Cheap shots are intentionally breaking lock 2-4 seconds prior to pitbull.

Edited January 5, 2016 by blkspade

[GGTharos]

Cheapshots are in HPRF track range, pitbull in MPRF track range.

 

Everything else, AFAIK, is a MADDOG.

[blkspade]

Cheapshots are in HPRF track range, pitbull in MPRF track range.

 

Everything else, AFAIK, is a MADDOG.

 

That adds clarity to the RL definitions. Pitbull seemingly takes place the same fixed distance in game, every time. Still translates to the Eagle having the privilege to break off prior to missile intercept early or earlier still, and flankers should ditch or die. The ability to potentially stay out of IR reach I see as a bigger bonus, than threat of an ER because of this. Right now 1v1, extend and reset isn't really an option for the previously mentioned factors. Its way too easy to be inside RTR while already extending, so you're forced to fully commit further into the flankers domain.

[karambiatos]

Well maybe we can get the missiles fixed(ish), and then we'll see what's an advantage over what, because even with ISTAGS missile mod, it's way better because at the very least you know what the ER can and can't do, right now it just can't do much of anything.

When people keeps saying.

"You don't want them fixed you'll be at a disadvantage" over and over again, it really starts to sound like shilling.

[Sweep]

Cheapshots are in HPRF track range, pitbull in MPRF track range.

 

Everything else, AFAIK, is a MADDOG.

 

Sorry for the OT here...Are the HPRF/MPRF ranges of the 120 simulated?

[GGTharos]

blkspade is right ... there's no HPRF in-game. It's just pitbull.

[ArkRoyal]

The ERs range advantage is in that it would reach intercept before the 120, if all other parameters are equal. Eagle drivers would only need to be concerned with pitbull, which is typically 8nm short of intercept. This becomes worse for flankers with improved guidance and cheap shots being in a decent ball park. Cheap shots are intentionally breaking lock 2-4 seconds prior to pitbull.

 

Just a sidenote here: a R-27ER does not have a longer range than the AIM-120C. It doesnt even outrange the AIM-120A. This is a misnomer caused by impressions given to people from FC2 and cursory readings of max missile ranges given on most websites.

 

In reality, the ranges given for missiles on most web pages are not for equivalent altiitude/speed at launch. IIRC, the 70nm often quoted for a ER is for a mach 2.5 launch from 50k against a equivalent target. This is not necessarily the case for a slammer, although data like that for that missile is still classified, even for the A.

 

What we do know is that the A model was required to have more range than Sparrow. We also have data on the AIM-7F, which you can get from archive of SAC. Launched at a much lower height and much lower speed, RMAX for the aim7F was 53nm. Doing some interpolation for different launch conditions, you arrive at the fact that that AIM7-F/M and R-27ER were roughly equivalent. The aim-120A was superior to the ER and the 7M....and were now 3 generations of aim120 later.....

 

Long story short, a missile from the late 80s to be anywhere near the ballpark of a missile from the mid 2000s.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ArkRoyal

[tovivan]

furthermore, the psychological impact of the missile actually having a chance to hit something would do wonders for the flanker's "threat rating" in the minds of it's adversary. as it is now, eagles will blindly charge you because they know that your only real weapon that outranges them is a total joke.

 

+1 everything the man says!

[Sheepherder]

The data-link has nothing to do with it in this case. You COULD use it, but there's probably a reason why these missiles use terminal homing instead of some sort of host-based steering-to-target. You could generate a datalink signal from the EOS. In situations where you're steering the radar with EOS, you're basically already in some sort of failure mode - sort of like FLOOD for the F-15.

 

Meanwhile, work on a practical solution was already proceeding. During the April Air Defense Command conference on the jamming problem, 236th Missile Regiment Commander Tran Xanh recommended use of a new guidance technique called the "three-point method." Because the jamming incapacitated the SA-2's automatic lock-on and tracking mode, the three-point method relied on "track on jam" tactics, with the radar operating essentially in a receive-only mode (if the radar transmitter was at full power the combination of the radar return signal and the jamming signal overloaded the radar receiver and turned the radar screens white). The operators could see and track the jamming signal by manually keeping their target designators on a specific point on the jamming signal, thereby generating course corrections which were transmitted to the missile via the missile guidance data link.

 

The "three-point" method required great skill, manual dexterity, and coordination between the bearing and elevation trackers, who had to keep their respective target designators centered on a single three-dimensional point in the broad jamming signal (aircraft equipped with jamming pods flew in a precise formation to enable the signals from the pods to form a large single signal). Because the thirty-foot-long SA-2 missiles were not agile and the SA-2 missile control signal was transmitted in a very narrow beam, the slightest over-control by the trackers or the slightest confusion between the bearing and elevation trackers could take the missile out of the data-link signal beam or send it tumbling out of control. During the August strikes against Hanoi 66 percent of all missiles launched lost control and self-destructed, and over 6 percent of the missiles crashed back to earth. Civilian deaths and property destruction caused by crashes of the giant missiles, filled with rocket fuel and high explosives, were so serious that the Party Politburo held a special meeting to consider the problem. A senior Air Defense Command officer was sent to meet with Ho Chi Minh himself to explain what the Command was doing to correct the problem.

 

By sheer good luck the Vietnamese had found a partial solution to the USAF QRC-160-1 jamming pods at the very moment the Commando Club bombing system went into operation. The Vietnamese advantage, however, would not last. While bad weather returned in December with the northeast monsoon, a few days of clear weather brought U.S. air strikes which revealed a shocking new development. On 14 December, when the Americans launched large strikes against bridges and ferry crossings in the Hanoi area, almost every missile launched crashed back to earth as soon as it left its launcher. The only missile that guided properly was aimed at a Navy A-4. On 15 December the 236th and 275th Missile Regiments launched a total of eleven missiles against a USAF strike attacking the Canal des Rapides Bridge; every missile crashed back to earth shortly after launch. Once again 236th Regiment took the lead in identifying the cause of the problem. In August one of its battalions first detected a new jamming signal directed at the missile guidance data-link frequency. On the night of 14 December the regiment reported that it believed the Americans were jamming the missile guidance data link.

 

During the review session on the night of 15 December a violent disagreement split the meeting into two separate factions. The first argued that the enemy Air Force had altered the technical equipment on its aircraft. The second maintained that the problem was a human problem. This group said that subjectivism had reared its ugly head among our missile cadre and combatants and that our troops were experiencing "ideological jamming" inside their own heads. This position was held by a considerable number of the Service's political cadre [emphasis added]. The argument lasted late into the night, but no conclusion was reached.

 

In fact, the USAF had introduced the new, more powerful QRC-1608 (AN/ALQ-87) jamming pod and had begun jamming the SA-2 missile guidance data link, preventing the missiles from receiving guidance commands from the ground after launch. U.S. Navy aircraft continued to be vulnerable to Vietnamese SAMs because the Navy insisted on using its own jammers.

 

A joint Vietnamese-Soviet task force was formed to study the problem and work out a hardware fix for the missiles to protect the datalink signal. Eventually these efforts produced an upgraded version of the SA-2 missile with a different antenna for the guidance data-link signal and other major modifications.

 

Pribbenow, Merle L. “The -Ology War: Technology and Ideology in the Vietnamese Defense of Hanoi, 1967.” The Journal of Military History 67, no. 1 (January 2003): 175–200.

TL;DR: command link guidance needs to be highly directional to avoid jamming and omnidirectional to make sure it's always receiving the signal despite constant bearing changes. And a pony.

 

Track-Via-Missile, which is a sort of datalink + SARH control mode, is probably only possible because the guidance radar itself isn't in motion and so a higher gain antenna is possible, and besides which you can fit a lot of wattage on a MAZ-7910. Even so, it supposedly retains SARH as a fallback mode.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Sheepherder
TVM

[*Rage*]

I dont know who merged it, it shouldnt have been merged really, so if you want to create a new one, copy your info and you can even list me in it that I suggested you should do this you can. I cant really un-merge it.

 

If you create a new one, attach your data, explain what you are seeing as a bug and we can try and keep it clean, you can even link that old one and ask people to use that for discussion.

 

Thanks Sith. New bug report created.

[blkspade]

^^ Yep.

 

On the 104th I not only see F15s flying at cherubs head on at Flankers which are much higher and faster and launching on them without a care in the world. I now see them flying at 4-500km/h because the tracking is even more laughable at that target speed.

 

This mutation of BVR is a direct consequence of the guidance issue im talking about.

 

I've seen this too. I sense its done more to effect look down detection more so than the missile guidance alone. Its barely even sensible (borderline stupid) for Eagles to do unless the bandits are significantly higher and/or they are launching from outside of pitbull off the rail range. If the Eagle driver does it wrong (many do), its incredibly easy to just lead the slammer into the ground.

[Ragnarok]

omg lol I opened a forum page just to write exactly that. Yesterday I flew at 104th. and I've seen several times in a row, opponent flying about 400 km / h, I fire him, he does not run. I killed him with gun :D

 

people, I think that the biggest hassle for developers for the right, how to coordinate constantly behavior skills from AI and new small correction for guidance SARH. Apparently, while we debate the probability of impact, the problem is programmed an adequate anti-missile maneuver for AI.

 

I mean, I do not know... :(

Edited January 8, 2016 by Ragnarok

[Angel101]

Just read about "Ethiopian Eritrean War, 1998 - 2000" were they fought Mig-29 and Su-27, in conclusions about air war we arrive to this:

 

Finally - except one - all the air-to-air kills were reportedly scored by R-73, even if quite a few (up to 24) R-27s were fired, pointing to some possible problems with R-27s, which is otherwise highly praised by quite a few air forces around the world! Supposedly, there should be no significant differences between early and new - or domestic and export - versions of R-27s, however, it seems, that this type so far has a worst combat record than even US Vietnam-era AIM-7Es or AIM-7Fs! This was certainly no good news for the Russians, which were keen to try out their new mounts and weapons under conditions of conventional warfare, and against a well organized enemy.

 

So, this seems very close to we have now in DCS... maybe people should start seending complaints to the Kremlin :lol:

[NineLine]

maybe people should start seending complaints to the Kremlin :lol:

 

And you thought our moderation team was mean? ;)

[pr1malr8ge]

Just read about "Ethiopian Eritrean War, 1998 - 2000" were they fought Mig-29 and Su-27, in conclusions about air war we arrive to this:

 

 

 

So, this seems very close to we have now in DCS... maybe people should start seending complaints to the Kremlin :lol:

 

 

So let me get this straight in an actual war the r27 went 0/24 which is a 0%pk rating.

 

Let me just help the r27 out a little bit and say that 50% of those were fired in abnormal launch parameters. so we have a 0/12 ratio or still a 0%pk value. I'll even go as far as saying that half of those shots missed was due to pilot error in breaking lock too soon and the missile going ballistic. We have a 0/6 0%pk ratio. No half of those missiles were evaded because of terrain masking we are now to 0/3 or 0%pk ratios. So that leaves us with 3 missiles fired in correct parameters and they were evaded because of Chaff.

 

Well Still seams about the same as what we have in DCS. :P