The Détecteur de Départ Missile (DDM)

[Bogey Jammer]

BTW after watched that video above, and considering the relative straightforward bulky architecture of electronic applications of computing in the 80's, I'm wondering if the RWR rendering would just be pictograms giving Left/right information only instead of a perfectly aligned segments to the origin of the threat :music_whistling:

 

Yet this Razbam's solution is ergonomically logical and convenient but giving the fact that the laser detectors don't have this luxury and must be satisfied with usually 4 sectors, perhaps this has to be reconsidered ?

Who knows if the SAMIR's sensor are just giving global levels instead of a digital picture ? What can be the properties of the prisms related to the direction of the input light ?

[myHelljumper]

BTW after watched that video above, and considering the relative straightforward bulky architecture of electronic applications of computing in the 80's, I'm wondering if the RWR rendering would just be pictograms giving Left/right information only instead of a perfectly aligned segments to the origin of the threat :music_whistling:

 

Yet this Razbam's solution is ergonomically logical and convenient but giving the fact that the laser detectors don't have this luxury and must be satisfied with usually 4 sectors, perhaps this has to be reconsidered ?

Who knows if the SAMIR's sensor are just giving global levels instead of a digital picture ? What can be the properties of the prisms related to the direction of the input light ?

 

I think it can be an good talk, but all datas from aircraft defense systems are classified so DCS implementation is wagess as well as all the talk we can make about it. :)

[syn]

I think it can be an good talk, but all datas from aircraft defense systems are classified so DCS implementation is wagess as well as all the talk we can make about it. :)

 

Well, if:

1.) system was never fitted to the M2000C

AND

2.) system details are classified and nobody knows how coverage angles/cockpit display presentations are

 

The obvious decision should have been not to simulate it... but well.... yeah.... RAZBAM....

[zaelu]

@Jojo (sorry for the long post)

 

Because in posted pictures you can clearly see that there are several sensors on each side to cover the 180° horizontal FoV of each DDM sensor.

So the MLWS false alarm and limitations are on ED side.

 

Best way is to ask Zeus about this. He can tell best if he used anything from A-10C code to make D2M. My opinion that he create it from scratch is based on his WIP pictures and text.

 

How can you dare to compare military jet hardware to 100$ entertainment piece of kit (track IR) ?

 

:megalol: I guess this is a matter of "perspective". Did you know that Romania (my country of origin) had in the late 60's some powerful anti tank and anti-personal Lasers that effectively stopped Russia to invade Romania after disobeying to invade Czechoslovakia? (For the Russian friends here on the forum... please try not to laugh... this is serious :D ) But maybe things are different in the West, maybe these super systems are build by VEAO (they do have contracts with DOD) and the quality is as advertised :pilotfly: .

 

You want to make educated guess ? Then start to educate yourself...

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Approach_Warning

About SAMIR DDM:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1990/1990%20-%203428.PDF

So maybe it isn't just "Track IR" technology in DDM.

 

Comparable AN/AAR-47 "since 1991"

 

Hey, thanks for the links and video!!

 

Its funny that:

 

ITT is negotiating

US rights for the system which is being offered

to USAF to meet its tactical MAWS requirement.

 

So much for that advert :D

 

Also in that Advertising video there is no fighter! And I think we can agree that if they would have had one single fighter they would have mention it because... advertising.

 

 

Returning at D2M system.

 

How do you know that the D2M system on Raphale has no upgrades versus the one on Mirage2000B at least in the sensor? Since both are very secret, thus not really known I would assume (since Military is so awesome :) ) since 90's they would have upgrade it.

 

 

What do you know of the DDM latency ?

 

I can't find the post but I think Zeus said that the warning on RWR will stay for 10 seconds and after those 10 seconds a new one can appear. So if the plane is in a turn this could render the thing very unreliable even more.

 

The lens:

- MiG 29 IRST is generally considered useless equipment in pilot's report (including one USAF pilot on exchange assignment on MiG 29G)

 

I am sure someone with better knowledge than mine could "educate" :P you on this also. But, all I can say to you (not being in the business) is that Russians have IRST on all their planes Su27 family and Mig29 planes (even T-50!) and they have a lot of missiles that work in conjunction with it. Are they lying? If so... big lie :) . But think about it... ManPads can spot/track/ and engage front aspect targets with a disposable seeker and we are to assume the IRST is useless because?!? An US pilot in an exchange program tested one on a Mig29G? C'mon...

 

The thing here is this... Russians put IRST on all of their fighter planes and claim it can even do BVR but the French only thought of putting D2M on Mirage2000C... on the back... if the plane carried IR missiles (this detail speak clearly of the intended only anti ManPads)... The difference between IRST and D2M seems huge to me.

 

So yes, again, DDM on M-2000C is "what if". But stop to call it "arcade" and pretend it's a perfect system in game.

It has been reported that it reports any missile or rocket firing, so yes you have false alarms in game.

 

This is I guess a matter of how do we tend to round up or if one is an optimist or an pessimist. If the system was never installed on the C and we know practically nothing about it... you want to call it realistic... I will call it a la "Battlefield 4". Especially since nobody will benefit from it anything against ManPads. Only in A2A will have its use. I don't fool myself about it. Because of this the developer should have asked himself... is it worth it to even expose the plane to online multiplayer possible misuse? That's why I always asked the feature to be default OFF so the mission designer to have not to worry about this aspect.

 

 

 

The best best solution would have been to make this system available even at rearming so it would be independent of mission designer short sight if the case. But it should have been in the Airbase Warehouse Option as available load out!

 

And if it would have been placed there I wouldn't mind to be default ON because is very easy to prohibit it by a Multiplayer Mission Designer.

 

 

But a final decision has been announced. So lets stop arguing about why we have DDM on M-2000C. We all should be angry because MANPADs have no IR signature, and it defeats the purpose of AN/AAR-47 for A-10C and DDM for M-2000C :D

 

This the final etc sounds to me like "I want this thread locked! Locked! Quick! Is too dangerous! Lock it!!!" :D

 

Nothing is final... even if somehow you say I am right... maybe you change your mind later. I would totally agree with your new arguments if necessary.

 

 

One last thing about the Sun and flares. You highlighted the filter aspect in you post but the wording was about "background noise". Not flares not Sun. Again... they would have praised them selves about this not insinuate it or let it at anyone's guess.

 

The problems with flares and sun are that the flares are very powerful and close to the plane/D2M sensor creating what somebody (if not you) said about a missile launch a volcano! The sun is huge and emits on all spectrum so... how do you filter it if it simply blinds everything?

 

The solution I would think is similar with the one that was used in WW1 to make the machineguns fire through the propeller. Although most people would think at some magic thing that would protect or move the blades from bullets it was actually a lot more simpler.... the guns were stopped from firing when the propeller was in the path of the bullet. So the best way is to stop the filter when exposed to flares or Sun. This is one of the things that make me solve the riddle of this D2M system being mounted only on the double seater attack variant of Mirage. Easy to calculate your attack run not to have sun in the back or if it does to disable it.

[Rlaxoxo]

Where is Sithspawn when you need him : D

[Bogey Jammer]

I think it can be an good talk, but all datas from aircraft defense systems are classified so DCS implementation is wagess as well as all the talk we can make about it. :)

Of course but the point is to do the guesswork the most credible as possible.

The obvious decision should have been not to simulate it... but well.... yeah.... RAZBAM....

Problem is… many other features of the M-2000C were developed from guesswork, so your reasoning would eliminate the whole module ;)

[The M]

He described in an earlier post that the System consists of 3 sensor eyes on each side rotated so that the detection area from his source is reached.

He said multiple times he can't change what the sensors see or what the field of view is. They are the same sensors used in the A-10c module, because he can't add new ones to the game, and he can't adjust the ones he uses:

myHelljumper: The D2M will only detect missiles with active rocket motor right ?

Zeus67: I think so. I have no control over that.

 

 

 

Zeus67:

Due to thecnical constrains I had to implement 3 "eyes" per sensor.

The coverage is still 180 degrees azimuth and 80 degrees elevation. Unfortunately there is no way for me to block the upper coverage so I rotated the sensor eyes to simulate it.

 

It looks like there is no "blind spot" but that is an optical illusion created by the drawing of the rotated cones.

 

That is what I understood from what Zeus wrote

[myHelljumper]

Thanks, I know it was somewhere but I haven't got the time to dig :thumbup:

[RightStuff]

The sun is huge and emits on all spectrum so... how do you filter it if it simply blinds everything?

 

First idea that comes in my mind:

You know your position, date and time. Though you can exactly tell where the sun is. Knowing that the sun has a diameter of 30' (0.5 degrees), converting this onto the 2D picture of the DDM you can 'blend out' (right wording?) this hot area. In combination with a Gyrosensor like in EDTracker ( to stay in our Sim-World ;)) even hard movement could probably not really harm the needed calculations for judging 'sun' or 'other hot object'.

 

Rem.: I like the tech. discussion on the last pages. Pls keep on!

[PiedDroit]

First idea that comes in my mind:

You know your position, date and time. Though you can exactly tell where the sun is. Knowing that the sun has a diameter of 30' (0.5 degrees), converting this onto the 2D picture of the DDM you can 'blend out' (right wording?) this hot area. In combination with a Gyrosensor like in EDTracker ( to stay in our Sim-World ;)) even hard movement could probably not really harm the needed calculations for judging 'sun' or 'other hot object'.

 

Rem.: I like the tech. discussion on the last pages. Pls keep on!

Certainly not linked to sun's position at a given time, sensors aren't that smart :D

Flitering would be done based on size/intensity => anything that is bigger/brighter than X or is in whatever spectrum is filtered out, that's it.

I worked on sensors, not optical, but I guess the principle is the same, you know what you're looking for (in terms of size, spectrum, etc), anything that falls out those parameters is ignored.

Edited December 28, 2016 by PiedDroit

[RightStuff]

Yup.. The difference between our two approcahes is, that one assumes the hot thing there must be the sun - the other one 'knows' this is the sun.

 

A combination of both would be perfect. :D

[PiedDroit]

Yup.. The difference between our two approcahes is, that one assumes the hot thing there must be the sun - the other one 'knows' this is the sun.

 

A combination of both would be perfect. :D

Usually that kind of filtering is done at a different level in the system (if done at all).

 

For example, let's say you have a sensor that has a fixed set of parameters (which may or may not be configurable), in return the sensor will output everything it find that falls into those parameters.

 

After that (at the next level), all the sensor's input will be grouped together, tracked (i.e. the system will try to link one detection to another detection in the previous cycle).

Detections will then be confirmed or ignored, based on the track history, that the raw sensor doesn't know about.

 

For example, a detection that has is not moving over time, or has a calculated speed that does not correspond to it's predicted path, or unrealistic speed, whatever.

Filtering by sun position would fall into those categories. But due to the number of things that could go wrong with this approach (aircraft attitude, time of day, geo localisation, weather), my bet is that there is no such thing in the DDM, only raw filtering based on strength (and maybe spectrum).

But why not :D

[red_coreSix]

The Typhoons IRST supposedly has the dynamic position of the sun, moon, and other bright stars stored and uses that data to filter out clutter. But then again, it is a few generations ahead of the D2M...

[jojo]

Already posted it, it's the new DDM NG, but still...here is how it sees the sun

 

 

@ Zealu

Also in that Advertising video there is no fighter! And I think we can agree that if they would have had one single fighter they would have mention it because... advertising.

US can do what they want, other countries have other ways to do business.

 

Terma developed solutions for all kinds of airframe, including fighters like Danish F-16, RAF Tornado GR4 or RAF Harrier.

https://www.terma.com/defense/aircraft-survivability-equipment/self-protection-solutions/electronic-warfare-solutions-for-fighters/

 

https://www.terma.com/media/364492/modular%20countermeasures%20pod%20for%20fighter%20aircraft.pdf

Look at the threat display in the pdf, with a perfect azimuth line.

 

Another system for F-16

https://www.terma.com/media/364486/pylon%20based%20ew%20solutions.pdf

 

Look at the tail of Chinese J-11B

 

Russian 101KS-U UV sensor for MLWS function T-50/ PAK-FA

 

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/101KS-U_a002988001.aspx

 

So it's safe to assume that MLWS have some interest on fast jet fighters too.

 

I am sure someone with better knowledge than mine could "educate" you on this also. But, all I can say to you (not being in the business) is that Russians have IRST on all their planes Su27 family and Mig29 planes (even T-50!) and they have a lot of missiles that work in conjunction with it. Are they lying? If so... big lie . But think about it... ManPads can spot/track/ and engage front aspect targets with a disposable seeker and we are to assume the IRST is useless because?!? An US pilot in an exchange program tested one on a Mig29G? C'mon...

Maybe you heard about technology progress ?

MANPADs were not always able to perform head on tracking.

In fact IR tracking system went from hot spot tracking to imaging tracking system. These missiles are much harder to foul with FLAREs, this is why DIRCM are becoming more important these days.

 

This is how Mica IR see a Mirage 2000, so good luck to spoof it with flares:

Again bi-spectral IR sensor.

 

Back to Soviet IRST on MiG 29 in the 80'...it was nowhere near that kind of technology

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

One sensor that got a lot of discussion from Intel analysts was the infrared search-and-track system (IRSTS). Most postulated that the MiG-29 could use the passive IRSTS to run a silent intercept and not alert anyone to its presence by transmitting with its radar. The IRSTS turned out to be next to useless and could have been left off the MiG-29 with negligible impact on its combat capability. After a couple of attempts at playing around with the IRSTS I dropped it from my bag of tricks.

 

Did you know that Romania (my country of origin) had in the late 60's some powerful anti tank and anti-personal Lasers that effectively stopped Russia to invade Romania after disobeying to invade Czechoslovakia? (For the Russian friends here on the forum... please try not to laugh... this is serious )

Without any reliable source to back it up, off course we have to laugh :megalol:

A laser weapon which can stop a tank in 1968 !

Edited December 28, 2016 by jojo

[zaelu]

Thanks again for reply and links Jojo!

 

Already posted it, it's the new DDM NG, but still...here is how it sees the sun

(IMG)

 

Sure but as you said later in your post... good luck spotting a launch from the air now... while yanking hard that sensor. A picture can look impressive. A smudged video feed with "2 diodes and a resistor" to compute it might be a bit harder. Imho this why you see DDM on the attack version of Mirage and not on the Fighter. The DDM can be selectively started by the Weapons Operator while in the dive and after attack while egressing when a smoother trajectory is mandatory. I think for the Fighter version the results with that era technology was bad enough so they did not bother.

 

Look at the threat display in the pdf, with a perfect azimuth line.

 

Yes at 45° ;) . Since it has 2 sensors... even double sensors it would be nearly impossible to display (continuously!) a moving line across more azimuths.

 

 

So it's safe to assume that MLWS have some interest on fast jet fighters too.

 

Of course. I don't deny this... so is the interest on having an airborne powerful laser.

 

Maybe you heard about technology progress ?

 

 

I think you misunderstood me here so your extra tea spoon of arrogance is not necessary :) .

 

I said that since ManPads technology now days (obviously not from the middle ages...) can spot-track-engage a moving IR target with a disposable seeker (because the missile will be destroyed with all the electronics and it needs to be cost effective you can't launch a Hubble telescope after every plane) we can assume that an IRTS from a Mig29/Su27 even if a bit older would be far more helpful. At least this is what I find reasonable.

 

 

This is how Mica IR see a Mirage 2000, so good luck to spoof it with flares:

(IMG)

 

Again... if that target stays like that. But moving, it will roll or turn presenting far different image. Thus the seeker must have more images stored or a fall back algorithm and this I think would make it susceptible to flares. Another thing is that lots of big flares will make the image of that sensor look like a brand new piece of white A4 paper. There is no need then to spoof the missile anymore... it's simply blinded.

 

This can happen with D2M too if it has to look into a cloud of flares launched from own plane. It can have 10 spectrums... all will be blinded. And you can't afford to make flares with only one spectrum radiation because they will become useless isn't it?

 

And finally... when this technology will be really that good I am sure the military will hire some fireworks technicians to build something like this, but foldable and to look more like a plane than a dragon :D .

 

http://21ccgroup.com/fireworks/lancework-fireworks/

 

 

 

Back to Soviet IRST on MiG 29 in the 80'

 

I think everybody have seen that testimony (I was pointing at it too in my post). I find it anecdotal to say the least. Not to mention the only one and in contradiction with common sense as I said above.

Edited December 29, 2016 by zaelu

[jojo]

Ok, I'm done.

 

Western technology is crap.

Soviet technology from the 80' was so superior.

And Romanian were even on top of that, with anti tank laser weapon that were able to deter Soviet Army in late 60' ! Anyway Darth Vader was Romanian chief of staff.

 

Finally MLWS are so useless piece of crap that everyone is adding it to fighters, helicopters, tactical transport plane...

Edited December 30, 2016 by jojo

[zaelu]

Ok, I'm done.

 

Western technology is crap.

Soviet technology from the 80' was so superior.

And Romanian were even on top of that, with anti tank laser weapon that were able to deter Soviet Army in late 60' ! Anyway Darth Vader was Romanian chief of staff.

 

Finally MLWS are so useless piece of crap that everyone is adding it to fighters, helicopters, tactical transport plane...

 

I think your post summaries perfectly how the discussion went in this thread. :megalol:

 

I didn't said western tech is crap... I said I don't trust military contractors advertising. Why, is really easy to understand if you think about it, no need to expand here.

I didn't said Soviet technology is so superior, I was using an argument to explain why IRST can't be crap since it uses a huge Optic/IR device that looks at least far more superior to a disposable ManPad seeker that seems to work very well even from the humble beginnings. Your only argument was an old bar story about a US pilot flying a German legacy Mig29.

What I said about Romania was pure joke... you missed it with flying colors. :cry:

 

 

Finally MLWS maybe is not crap on F35 or a "Google Fighter" :P but this is the first and final point you missed badly. And you and the others are missing it so badly because you start to read with a wrong bias. You know... if you start "listening" to somebody "knowing" he is your "enemy and a piece of ...." you can't really "hear" what he is saying and you can't be constructive in the dialogue.

 

So finally I will say it again:

 

Because DDM wasn't installed on any real Mirage 2000C maybe is not such a realistic option and since is just a glitch opportunity (since is close to useless in game it can only go up towards "usefulness"/exploit in case of bug/glitch) maybe... just maybe it should be Off by default and not On.

 

Then... I thought of a better solution. Why not ad that to Warehouses in Airfields/Airbases so it will be On by default as you really really like it and mission designers can quickly and in a centralized manner can disable them. You know... like almost any other system attachable on a plane or helo.

 

 

Like here:

[myHelljumper]

Your opinion is absolute, you can't agree or give credit to anything someone else say.

 

WHO SAID IT WAS A CHEAT ??

Is it a cheat on the a-10 too ?

 

I understand jojo that have done à bit of diging and linked sources, it is easy to say it's not true without sources to back you up.

 

You are trolling because most of what you said is based on guesses that you think are facts.

[zaelu]

Is the second time you yell that empty question. You want the answer? read the thread. You are not listening and I have absolute opinion? :megalol:

[myHelljumper]

Lol keep the fun comming, with the Romanian lasers and stuff.

I have yet to see you providing a single document backing anything you said.

 

I can understand some of your guesses but without documents to back them you can't take them as fact.

 

About the cheat, this is your opinion and you act as if it's absolute truth.

Edited December 30, 2016 by myHelljumper

[spiddx]

Guys, you are going round in circles. Just sayin'...

[Azrayen]

Hi,

 

Let's try to move forward.

Actually I like the idea of having D2M availabity as a "pod" like the Eclair.

 

I don't know if it's doable (code-wise) as it would probably mean to modify the payload screen too (to add one or two "stations" able to "carry" the D2M pylons, and this would be need to be tied to the fact that Magics are carried on external hardpoints, or at last that there is not another payload here (I mean, you can't have D2M + rockets pods on the same pylon, as Rockets pods use (IRL) a different pylon than Magics).

 

This would also provide a way for servers / missions makers (who don't want it to be use) to prevent the D2M use.

It would also make it "default Off" provided that the default payloads don't include it.

But it would make it a bit harder (in fact: longer time, really) to "forbid" it than just a checkbox somewhere.

 

What do you think? (people and Zeus)

 

++

Az'

[spiddx]

I thought the best way to do it would be to just make two different missiles: a Magic and a Magic D2M (both versions seem to be coded anyway now). The D2M version would only be loadable on the outer stations, would use the different pylon and enable D2M functionality. No need to modify the loadout screen and can be disabled in the warehouse if desired.

 

That being said I also have no idea how much work this would be for the devs, especially now that there's already another system in place. Maybe it could be revisited at a later time...?

[Azrayen]

Nice idea too :) I like it better, actually.

[Enduro14]

Good idea or how about if you dont want to use it dont flip the switch to power it.