No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft

[blkspade]

The constraint is how much chaff you can carry. Your punishment is running out of it. Deployed chaff rapidly expands into a large cloud with an RCS much larger than a fighter jet.

 

Pretty much this. Unless we see real RF modelling, we're always going to have a probability approach. The enemy finds the magic number until they are out of chaff, and then they go home. No different than running out of flares to find out the other guy has 1 IR missile left. The real point is airspace denial, by which kills are an eventual by product (perhaps cause the other guy wasn't paying attention to his remaining CMs) not accounting for death by ambush. Everybody wants to be an Ace though, and will often do anything for a kill, or 5. That probably doesn't only apply to Sim pilots.

[RoflSeal]

Why do you think everyone is trying to get ARH AAMs? For lulz? So the MIC can make more money? Or maybe because SARH is so 70s?

 

You know, if it wasn't your missile being susceptible to chaff it'd be your radar...What we have here kinda represents reality, not perfectly, but it gets the feeling right-ish.

 

Well, you can't engage 4+ targets at once with SAHR, neither can you turn away once pittbull or just launch them maddog, nothing specifically to do with effectiveness vs chaff.

Edited January 27, 2016 by RoflSeal

[TheFurNinja]

Well, you can't engage 4+ targets at once with SAHR, neither can you turn away once pittbull or just launch them maddog, nothing specifically to do with effectiveness vs chaff.

 

Actually, wouldn't you think that Actives are more susceptible to chaff by nature alone?

 

If you shoot a basic actively guided missile at a target (with no filtration for chaff) you would think that if the target spammed chaff and made a hard turn that the missile might see the chaff as a target instead of the plane.

 

While with a SARH missile system, if the target dumped chaff and made a hard turn (and lock wasn't broken already) that the signals would not be illuminating the chaff (thus the missile will not guide to the chaff) and as such the SARH at its core becomes more reliable.

 

This could become more compounded as the Russian airplanes have an IRST. The IRST can be used in conjunction with the radar and negate any ECM (including chaff) used by the enemy as long as the IRST has a lock.

[blkspade]

Actually, wouldn't you think that Actives are more susceptible to chaff by nature alone?

 

If you shoot a basic actively guided missile at a target (with no filtration for chaff) you would think that if the target spammed chaff and made a hard turn that the missile might see the chaff as a target instead of the plane.

 

While with a SARH missile system, if the target dumped chaff and made a hard turn (and lock wasn't broken already) that the signals would not be illuminating the chaff (thus the missile will not guide to the chaff) and as such the SARH at its core becomes more reliable.

 

This could become more compounded as the Russian airplanes have an IRST. The IRST can be used in conjunction with the radar and negate any ECM (including chaff) used by the enemy as long as the IRST has a lock.

 

Once again radar is not a laser point, so chaff is rather continually prone to illumination. The ARH missile itself likely has a more narrow FOV positioned closer to the target. The IRST is useless for Radar missiles. I've watched numerous bandits pop flares against my 120s though.

[GGTharos]

Also trying to compare a missile with 30 year old radar technology to a missile with 10-year old technology.

[TheFurNinja]

Once again radar is not a laser point, so chaff is rather continually prone to illumination. The ARH missile itself likely has a more narrow FOV positioned closer to the target. The IRST is useless for Radar missiles. I've watched numerous bandits pop flares against my 120s though.

 

I get that it is not a "beam" and I never claimed it to be one. I stated that the target has maneuvered away from the chaff and the radar is not illuminating the chaff anymore, making it useless.

 

IRST does not by itself guide radar missiles, again I stated (and maybe I'm bad at typing things) that the IRST works in conjunction with the radar and (as they are slaved together) negate any form of ECM (as IRST cannot be fooled by ECM, only IRCM). It would require a target to use both ECM and IRCM to fool both the IRST and Radar system on any aircraft fitted with both.

Edited January 27, 2016 by TheFurNinja

[Tucano_uy]

About the RCS, I can understand that a larger RCS may hide a cold target, but not a flanking or hot one. Chaff will probably decelerate very rapidly presenting itself to a radar as a very different target than a plane.

 

Still, if given enough ammount of chaff, a weapon system becomes useless, then why is it still fielded? I know that is not a scientific argument, but something doesn't make sense.

[pr1malr8ge]

I get that it is not a "beam" and I never claimed it to be one. I stated that the target has maneuvered away from the chaff and the radar is not illuminating the chaff anymore, making it useless.

 

IRST does not by itself guide radar missiles, again I stated (and maybe I'm bad at typing things) that the IRST works in conjunction with the radar and (as they are slaved together) negate any form of ECM (as IRST cannot be fooled by ECM, only IRCM). It would require a target to use both ECM and IRCM to fool both the IRST and Radar system on any aircraft fitted with both.

 

 

What you're failing to realize is that the chaff is still being illuminated. just because the targeted craft has maneuvered if the host platform does not change it's aspect angle along with the missile then there has been no change in how the chaff is being illuminated.

 

Think of it in these terms, a plane flys into a cloud and then turns to put the cloud in between you and him. You have to change the angle of relation to you and the plane to be able to see it. Given the amount of distance that has to be done is much longer/further then the missile is capable of traveling to achieve a hit.

Edited January 27, 2016 by pr1malr8ge

[hesterj]

Mission design can minimize the effect of the purported exploits discussed in this thread.

 

I really hope that larger maps are added into DCS, or an overhaul and expansion of Caspian. With longer flight times, people are less likely to play like a madman. Nevada is the epitome of this, full burner until I find bad guys, then full burner back to base. Of course it is a great map for campaigns and as a demonstrator for new technology, but I think that we need maps where it isn't like fighting inside a box. I stopped paying 2.0 because of the red team spawning in the air on many servers. Don't get me wrong, I like Nevada, but it isn't the theater for FC3 combat.

 

Also, thought needs to be put into what is good mission design for multiplayer. I like the persistent servers the most, because you actually have an element of air superiority, rather than having the "A10/Su25" place and the FC3 fighter place. It requires more cooperation, and a superiority fighter is less likely to play like a maniac if they know that their presence is important for the ground push to deter enemy planes. People won't be so quick to roll into the AMRAAM if they know that if they die it's likely there will be ground attack planes that die soon after.

 

In short, I don't claim to know what's going on with the planes as I am not very good, but I do know that thoughtful mission design and longer travel times will induce more realistic behavior in players. And I think that is more fun for everybody that is into this game, as there are many other games to play if you want sky COD. I think that changes in what is considered good mission design would minimize any supposed "exploits".

 

To give some context from where I am coming from I usually fly the 29 with ETs and 77s when doing FC3, I enjoy having to put some thought into fuel management, limited countermeasures, limited missiles, and great acceleration allows for ET-77-turn-burn tactics. Sometimes you'll find me with the S-8 as well though on a server that has a good combined persistent air and ground combat area.

[pr1malr8ge]

About the RCS, I can understand that a larger RCS may hide a cold target, but not a flanking or hot one. Chaff will probably decelerate very rapidly presenting itself to a radar as a very different target than a plane.

 

Still, if given enough ammount of chaff, a weapon system becomes useless, then why is it still fielded? I know that is not a scientific argument, but something doesn't make sense.

 

Yes it does slow down, how ever it is designed to reflect the most amount of radar energy back to the host. So yes it may not look like a plane but it also prevents the real return from being as bright. It's kindof like trying to look at an object through a flame. You know its there you can see it, but it's distorted.

Edited January 27, 2016 by pr1malr8ge

[TheFurNinja]

What you're failing to realize is that the chaff is still being illuminated. just because the targeted craft has maneuvered if the host platform does not change it's aspect angle along with the missile then there has been no change in how the chaff is being illuminated.

 

Think of it in these terms, a plane flys into a cloud and then turns to put the could in between you and the cloud you have to change the angle of relation to you and the plane to be able to see it. Given the amount of distance that has to be done is much longer/further then the missile is capable of traveling to achieve a hit.

 

You seem to assume that I don't understand the geometries at play. Despite my shaky grasp on these matters (and please I do wish to understand) I understand of course that if the chaff is behind, in front of, or anywhere near the target it will be illuminated (again a lock is a cone and has some play) and reflect signals to the host plane and missile. This could lead to a break of lock or the missile following a stronger return from chaff and missing the target plane.

 

But I would imagine (unless I am mistaken) that a plane that turns away (from your perspective which means down, up, or to the sides) from his cloud of chaff, the cone (again assuming the lock hasn't been broken) will follow the aircraft and move away from the chaff. The time it takes to maneuver the cone away would come down to range and the angle of the cone.

 

So a target going defensive would have to use chaff from angles that would keep it illuminated by the aggressors radar.

[Ironhand]

...

IRST does not by itself guide radar missiles, again I stated (and maybe I'm bad at typing things) that the IRST works in conjunction with the radar and (as they are slaved together) negate any form of ECM (as IRST cannot be fooled by ECM, only IRCM)...

It works in conjunction with the radar. But that is not to say that maintaining the "lock" is the same as providing the guidance. If the lock is being maintained by the IRST, the radar is no longer the primary targeting system. The IRST is. As such, the radar is no longer providing guidance. The IRST is simply keeping the radar antenna pointed toward the target. I could very well be wrong but, in looking at the Weapon Control Panel, I don't see how you can have an IRST lock with radar guidance.

[winchesterdelta1]

A M16 it's bullets also misses a lot. Why does it get fielded? Because those bullets also create a advantage. Fighter pilots probably don't care if they have 1 or 5 kills. What they want is to survive. Missiles that are fired make bandits go defensive. Even if they miss they have created a advantage. And a guy being defensive is vulnerable and probably going slower than you. So out of the 3 defeated missiles you might hit two targets. If the entire flight does that 4 times 8 AIM-120C's and only half of it hits and the other gets defeated by chaff or smart maneuvering. You will still kill the mission. If the guy puts himself in a disadvantage position he will get killed. Even by a less sophisticated missile or a missile prone to failure. The bandit will eb so occupied and slow defending that missile even a less capable missile can kill it. That is how i get my kills with ER. 2 or 3 out of 6 hit if it's not to chaotic. And 1 or two more form IR. I think that is still pretty good. Until i encounter a really seasoned pilot. Than i might go home death, or with only 1 or 2 kilsl. Because he defeated all the others.

[TheFurNinja]

It works in conjunction with the radar. But that is not to say that maintaining the "lock" is the same as providing the guidance. If the lock is being maintained by the IRST, the radar is no longer the primary targeting system. The IRST is. As such, the radar is no longer providing guidance. The IRST is simply keeping the radar antenna pointed toward the target. I could very well be wrong but, in looking at the Weapon Control Panel, I don't see how you can have an IRST lock with radar guidance.

 

Well I do it all the time in game. Lock a target up with the radar and turn on "EORL". This allows me to maintain lock (assuming the IRST is tracking) though beaming and ground clutter (if chaff effected tracking I would assume it negates it). It also works it seems to work (with different symbology) in the vice versa ("EO" first and turn on the Radar second).

 

Is this not supposed to happen?:huh:

[Ironhand]

Well I do it all the time in game. Lock a target up with the radar and turn on "EORL". This allows me to maintain lock (assuming the IRST is tracking) though beaming and ground clutter (if chaff effected tracking I would assume it negates it). It also works it seems to work (with different symbology) in the vice versa ("EO" first and turn on the Radar second).

 

Is this not supposed to happen?:huh:

EORL. So far so good. You can have a radar lock with an EOS backup to keep your radar pointing at the target if the radar lock is lost. If you then see TP (тп), that means that the radar has lost it's lock and guidance has stopped. In the sim, at least, even if EORL reappears, your missile will not hit. The target might be "locked" but there is no missile guidance taking place. At least that's been my experience. And I haven't noticed any real difference between successfully maintaining a lock with EORL vs RL.

 

In my former life I would have tested this to death and been able to provide a definitive answer. But, alas, I live a different life now.

[Frostie]

A M16 it's bullets also misses a lot. Why does it get fielded? Because those bullets also create a advantage. Fighter pilots probably don't care if they have 1 or 5 kills. What they want is to survive. Missiles that are fired make bandits go defensive. Even if they miss they have created a advantage. And a guy being defensive is vulnerable and probably going slower than you.

 

Yes this is how it should be, getting into bad positions should result in defeat more often than not, but in the current state of DCS it is so easy to trash a close range SARH turn hot, fire an active and win. The advantage of out maneuvering your opponent is negated by ineffective missiles.

 

It's at a point now and has been for a while that if you acquire a bandit and sneak on him using EOS to get within 10km, it is near suicide to switch on your radar and fire SARH because the unsuspecting opponent will spam chaff and point his nose directly at the incoming threat to get an ARH off and win the day. This imo is pure horse and makes a mockery of what we are trying to do with this sim. This isn't a one off situation this is happenening frequently, there is no respect for missiles being fired.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Frostie

[Cik]

A M16 it's bullets also misses a lot. Why does it get fielded? Because those bullets also create a advantage. Fighter pilots probably don't care if they have 1 or 5 kills. What they want is to survive. Missiles that are fired make bandits go defensive. Even if they miss they have created a advantage. And a guy being defensive is vulnerable and probably going slower than you. So out of the 3 defeated missiles you might hit two targets. If the entire flight does that 4 times 8 AIM-120C's and only half of it hits and the other gets defeated by chaff or smart maneuvering. You will still kill the mission. If the guy puts himself in a disadvantage position he will get killed. Even by a less sophisticated missile or a missile prone to failure. The bandit will eb so occupied and slow defending that missile even a less capable missile can kill it. That is how i get my kills with ER. 2 or 3 out of 6 hit if it's not to chaotic. And 1 or two more form IR. I think that is still pretty good. Until i encounter a really seasoned pilot. Than i might go home death, or with only 1 or 2 kilsl. Because he defeated all the others.

 

this is only actually true if they care about being fired upon, which they do not, by the way, because the missile is worthless.

[Ragnarok]

It's at a point now and has been for a while that if you acquire a bandit and sneak on him using EOS to get within 10km, it is near suicide to switch on your radar and fire SARH because the unsuspecting opponent will spam chaff and point his nose directly at the incoming threat to get an ARH off and win the day. This imo is pure horse and makes a mockery of what we are trying to do with this sim. This isn't a one off situation this is happenening frequently, there is no respect for missiles being fired.

 

this is the point of my theme. You're better explained than I am. I guess, they will hear better you than me :thumbup:

Edited January 28, 2016 by Ragnarok

[OnlyforDCS]

Once again all that has been said here is basically true but still skirting around the issue. Give the missiles their proper range, give them their proper guidance and things will improve, even without fiddling with the chaff or flare resistance too much. Case in point:

 

That SU27 coming in hot at angels 30, 25nm away, did he fire an ER at you? Did he fire an ET? Did he fire two? Do you go defensive? Do you spam chaff or flares? If he is a threat at that range things get a little bit more complicated, especially if there are other threats in the air. Sure you can still spam chaff and flares till your hearts content, and you will probably evade the missile, but now what? At these ranges tactics become a whole lot more important if for no other reason than pure positioning, and encounters have a far less chance into devolving into spamram furballs where getting the kill is the only thing that counts. Air superiority will suddenly become a "thing" in this sim instead of something we read about in magazines and manuals.

[winchesterdelta1]

Yes this is how it should be, getting into bad positions should result in defeat more often than not, but in the current state of DCS it is so easy to trash a close range SARH turn hot, fire an active and win. The advantage of out maneuvering your opponent is negated by ineffective missiles.

 

It's at a point now and has been for a while that if you acquire a bandit and sneak on him using EOS to get within 10km, it is near suicide to switch on your radar and fire SARH because the unsuspecting opponent will spam chaff and point his nose directly at the incoming threat to get an ARH off and win the day. This imo is pure horse and makes a mockery of what we are trying to do with this sim. This isn't a one off situation this is happenening frequently, there is no respect for missiles being fired.

 

I see the problem of this topic. But not of this 10KM range EOS ambush. What should he do? If he does not turn into you he is going to get killed. So he turns in for a last ditch maneuver. And while he is doing that why not fire back when he is able to lock you in his defensive maneuvering using vertical scan. If he does not kill you or get you defensive in that maneuver he is going to be death anyway.

By doing this last ditch maneuver he puts himself in a vulnerable position. Most of the time he will not be able to defeat a second missile. Also if you don't want to be found because of your missile trail. Fire and crank. Don't keep going straight. Sorry... in this situation it's all your own fault if you get shot. You come from a superior position and still get killed. And i know from experience that it's hard to dodge the second ER coming to you or even lock up the attacker after that 10KM shot. 90% of the time it go's terribly wrong if you get ambushed like that, even if you get the lock/missile warning. It's a combination of the maneuver and the chaff that saves him the other 10%. And yes if you get the trick yo can decrease the chances you get killed in a 10KM attack. But you will still be killed a lot by such ambushes. I fly the flanker myself. And the only reason i don't get as much kills as in the F-15 is not even the bad missiles. It's the lack of situational awareness i have in it and the lack of acceleration like the F-15 has after a defensive maneuver.

Edited January 28, 2016 by winchesterdelta1

[ttaylor0024]

I see the problem of this topic. But not of this 10KM range EOS ambush. What should he do? If he does not turn into you he is going to get killed. So he turns in for a last ditch maneuver. And while he is doing that why not fire back when he is able to lock you in his defensive maneuvering using vertical scan. If he does not kill you or get you defensive in that maneuver he is going to be death anyway.

 

Agreed.

 

"A good fighter pilot must have one outstanding trait- Aggressiveness." - Major John T. Godfrey, USAAF

 

"Every time your opponent attempts to dive at you or attack you in any way, the best thing to do is to turn on him, pull the nose of your machine up, and fire." - Lt. Colonel W. A. "Billy" Bishop, RAF

 

Few relatable quotes from Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering. I'll tell you one thing, I'm not going down without a fight.

[RoflSeal]

Part of the reason why aircraft like to hunt in mountains on the 104th is that we have much less situational awareness then we would in real life.

No AWAC/GCI, or datalinking that would be available in real life due to their buggy nature which means that all the information we get is from the 60 degree arc from our radar and almost blind 1.5-2nm visual detection, so you stay in the mountains to have more chance of spotting visual threats, especially since shadows are much easier to spot then actual aircraft.

 

And what's the point of staying at 35,000ft when missiles are broken and you don't get a significant range advantage over a someone at 5,000ft when the missiles don't loft and under 20,000ft they deploy a parachute.

Edited January 28, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Sweep]

Part of the reason why aircraft like to hunt in mountains on the 104th is that we have much less situational awareness then we would in real life.

No AWAC/GCI, or datalinking that would be available in real life due to their buggy nature which means that all the information we get is from the 60 degree arc from our radar and almost blind 1.5-2nm visual detection, so you stay in the mountains to have more chance of spotting visual threats, especially since shadows are much easier to spot then actual aircraft.

 

And what's the point of staying at 35,000ft when missiles are broken and you don't get a significant range advantage over a someone at 5,000ft when the missiles don't loft and under 20,000ft they deploy a parachute.

 

^This.

 

I fly high and fast because high mach = survivability, IMO. Sit up there at 35k and mach 2.2...then drop down to 20k and mach 2.0...I think I hit the pressure limit! :lol:

[Cik]

for sukhoi high altitude is just death. your missiles are not reliable enough to ever play BVR games.

 

a kinetic advantage, even an enormous one is basically worthless; at best you will force the enemy to disengage. if he doesn't fire an AMRAAM at you (a very low probability) you can chase.. into his three friends with AMRAAMs, which work very well against you at high altitude.

 

if he does fire at you, you'll probably survive, maybe. and then you'll have to disengage, wasting a ton of your speed and fuel for pretty much nothing.

 

BVR tactics for the sukhoi are a non-starter, because the missiles are not good enough to actually kill anything, even from an almost arbitrarily superior position.

 

source: i've tried extreme high speed approaches at every altitude, including in lookup situations against extremely high eagles. the best i got was for them to beam out and chaff all of my missiles away and then run. in many cases they came nearly straight at me with a huge kinetic disadvantage and won anyway.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Cik

[Sweep]

Well why are you going 1v4 to start with?