R-27ER Experiment & Findings

[Falcon_S]

I agree, without a tacview file, we can't analyse anything :).

 

This is from last RedFlag. Situation when MicroVAX kill Frostie. ACMI time: 01:40:00

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/h64okxoo3yf5a1v/Red_Flag_March.trk

[OnlyforDCS]

Any progress about ER`s? ;)

 

Meanwhile i see MATRA corporation DO MAGIC :doh:

 

This is a typical example, of what is usually called a "straw man" argument.

[Cik]

it's not a straw man at all

 

it's comparing one missile to another in the game as it currently exists. explain how that is a straw man, which deals with assuming that an opponent in an argument espouses a certain idea or ideology that they have never advocated? thanks

[Falcon_S]

This is a typical example, of what is usually called a "straw man" argument.

 

In every topic you trying to be DCS PR and tell us how we don`t know how to play proprely.

 

Please show us that we are wrong with your arguments. for ex. 2x2=4 or as GG do it...

 

I know that many things from military are science but is not need not be very smart to see if something is absurdly in DCS as missile that cant intercept target or we cant guide that missile on that target and many other things. This forum is mainly feedbacks to ED`s from its suporters - and common goal is BETTER SIM.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Falcon_S

[Frostie]

This is from last RedFlag. Situation when MicroVAX kill Frostie. ACMI time: 01:40:00

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/h64okxoo3yf5a1v/Red_Flag_March.trk

 

The speed of the Matra is not what surprises me here, I already knew I was in a bad place before I started the engagement and that the Matra would be on me well before I could get my SARH on him. I stayed silent right until the point he turned radar on and immediately locked me up about 15km. What did surprise me though was how easy the R27T gave up on tracking a target that stayed in afterburners.

[GGTharos]

But back to the R-27R/ER chaff issue ...

 

I don't think there is a cure, other than to re-write the countermeasure rejection system. There are many options and each one has limitations, always realism limitations and manpower to implement limitations.

 

This applies to chaff and flares both.

 

In any case, I recall that Chizh wrote in one update that the missiles would no longer consider chaff outside of seeker or radar view ... is this an issue still?

[OnlyforDCS]

it's not a straw man at all

 

it's comparing one missile to another in the game as it currently exists.

 

Exactly my point. He is making a statement about a certain missile (Its apparently "MAGIC" performance) and using that argument to make a point about a completely different missile.

 

We are talking about a simulation here. One missile doesn't have to perform anything like another. His argument is also completely beside the point, as it's telling us absolutely nothing about the guidance and EM rejection problem in the ER specifically, and SARH missiles in general.

 

It's not even a veiled attempt to derail the thread into "missile A) is better than missile B)" territory.

Edited March 27, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
spelling, grammar

[Falcon_S]

...

 

It's another thinly veiled attempt to derail the thread into A) missile is better than B) missile.

 

Can you explain to me why ER can`t intercept / hit target or why so many miss in DCS in short range / no escape? Please.

[OnlyforDCS]

Can you explain to me why ER can`t intercept / hit target or why so many miss in DCS in short range / no escape? Please.

 

Yes, this is what this thread is about. Apparently it's seeker as it is currently modeled is very susceptible to chaff countermeasures.

[Falcon_S]

Yes, this is what this thread is about. Apparently it's seeker as it is currently modeled is very susceptible to chaff countermeasures.

 

I know that... just want that you say that or something like that. ;)

[GGTharos]

All of these are different issues.

 

If the missile goes for chaff, we're done. We're looking at reaction to CMs.

 

If the missile is tracking but failing to connect, we have a completely different problem which could have some, all, or maybe causes that I failed to list here:

 

• Short fuzing (11m for this series)
  
• Target detection implementation for the fuze (all missiles)
  
• Insufficient g available (again - why? If the target is maneuvering beyond the missile's capabilities, we're done. But if it's well within missile capability, why the miss?)
  
• Insufficient lift available - as above but more specific as to the cause
  
• Network artifacts - Usually causes problems in combination with something else - ie. short fuze.
  

 

Can you explain to me why ER can`t intercept / hit target or why so many miss in DCS in short range / no escape? Please.

[DarkFire]

But back to the R-27R/ER chaff issue ...

 

I don't think there is a cure, other than to re-write the countermeasure rejection system. There are many options and each one has limitations, always realism limitations and manpower to implement limitations.

 

This applies to chaff and flares both.

 

In any case, I recall that Chizh wrote in one update that the missiles would no longer consider chaff outside of seeker or radar view ... is this an issue still?

 

Difficult to say without knowing the exact characteristics of the Flanker radar, and what "out of view" is taken to mean (outside of main lobe, not visible to any emitter lobe under -10db etc etc) however very preliminary and totally anecdotal results indicate that it may be an issue. Much, much more testing needed and I may be entirely wrong.

 

On the subject, is the emitter pattern of the N001 published anywhere that could be considered a reliable source?

 

Edited to add: this web site: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html gives the following characteristics:

 

Radar Type: N001 Myech

Antenna Design: Twisted Cassegrain MSA

Av Power [kW]: 1.0

PAAVE [dBWm2]: 28.0

Pk Power [kW]: 4.0 (25% duty cycle)

PAPEAK [dBWm2]: 34.1

Range [NMI], 1m^2 RCS: 43.0 - 53.0 unspec

LNA NF [dB]: ~9.0

 

However these figures don't appear to be referenced so their provenance is unknown.

Edited March 27, 2017 by DarkFire

[Cik]

Exactly my point. He is making a statement about a certain missile (Its apparently "MAGIC" performance) and using that argument to make a point about a completely different missile.

 

We are talking about a simulation here. One missile doesn't have to perform anything like another. His argument is also completely beside the point, as it's telling us absolutely nothing about the guidance and EM rejection problem in the ER specifically, and SARH missiles in general.

 

It's not even a veiled attempt to derail the thread into "missile A) is better than missile B)" territory.

 

that isn't a strawman, it's a red herring at best.

 

but asking why one missile made in the same era as another using the same homing type is useless while another is exceptional is legit anyway

[GGTharos]

I suspect if you have chaff outside of 6 degrees of the launcher's radar beam then it shouldn't be well-illuminated. Couple that with the missile seeker's own 6 deg iFoV as well, chaff outside of this (not on the edge, outside) should not affect the missile at all.

 

Difficult to say without knowing the exact characteristics of the Flanker radar, and what "out of view" is taken to mean (outside of main lobe, not visible to any emitter lobe under -10db etc etc) however very preliminary and totally anecdotal results indicate that it may be an issue. Much, much more testing needed and I may be entirely wrong.

 

On the subject, is the emitter pattern of the N001 published anywhere that could be considered a reliable source?

[DarkFire]

I suspect if you have chaff outside of 6 degrees of the launcher's radar beam then it shouldn't be well-illuminated. Couple that with the missile seeker's own 6 deg iFoV as well, chaff outside of this (not on the edge, outside) should not affect the missile at all.

 

All the sources I've been able to find indicate that radars from and including the APG-63 / N-001 era should have a main lobe (50% power) width between 2 and 6 degrees. So yes, that sounds entirely reasonable.

[GGTharos]

It's about 1.5 for the MSIP II APG-63 and IIRC from literature 3 deg for the flanker (I suspect the difference is due to antenna geometry among other things) but the point being that if you see something like the missile going for chaff that 10+ degrees away, that's probably just the F-35's invisibly floating around the game telling it to go somewhere else, right? :D

[DarkFire]

It's about 1.5 for the MSIP II APG-63 and IIRC from literature 3 deg for the flanker (I suspect the difference is due to antenna geometry among other things) but the point being that if you see something like the missile going for chaff that 10+ degrees away, that's probably just the F-35's invisibly floating around the game telling it to go somewhere else, right? :D

 

3 degrees for the N-001 sounds right. Heh, F-35 missile deflection shields activated :lol:

 

I'll do some testing over the next few days to see if I can work out where the limits are. Going to take a lot of launches for it to be a statistically viable answer, but we'll see.

[IASGATG]

that isn't a strawman, it's a red herring at best.

 

but asking why one missile made in the same era as another using the same homing type is useless while another is exceptional is legit anyway

 

 

 

Comparing expectations of how a in game missile should perform in comparison to another missile in game missile is useless. It works off the assumption that your expectation of missile a is correct, your expectation of missile b is correct, and the assumption that missile a is modelled correctly to make the comparison to missile b.

 

 

The only comparisons that should be made is in game missile to real life missile counterpart. You reduce the assumptions to one, that the data you have for the real life missile is correct. If it is and the in game does not reflect that, then there is where things must be changed. Madness lies the other way.

[OnlyforDCS]

Comparing expectations of how a in game missile should perform in comparison to another missile in game missile is useless. It works off the assumption that your expectation of missile a is correct, your expectation of missile b is correct, and the assumption that missile a is modelled correctly to make the comparison to missile b.

 

 

The only comparisons that should be made is in game missile to real life missile counterpart. You reduce the assumptions to one, that the data you have for the real life missile is correct. If it is and the in game does not reflect that, then there is where things must be changed. Madness lies the other way.

 

Yeah, some people believe that just because two missiles are made in the comparable era, that they should perform similarily. This is completely false for a huge, varied number of reasons that I could write ten paragraphs about. Suffice to say that they are DIFFERENT missiles and as such perform DIFFERENTLY.

[*Rage*]

Comparing modelling not missiles.

[David OC]

Comparing expectations of how a in game missile should perform in comparison to another missile in game missile is useless. It works off the assumption that your expectation of missile a is correct, your expectation of missile b is correct, and the assumption that missile a is modelled correctly to make the comparison to missile b.

 

 

The only comparisons that should be made is in game missile to real life missile counterpart. You reduce the assumptions to one, that the data you have for the real life missile is correct. If it is and the in game does not reflect that, then there is where things must be changed. Madness lies the other way.

 

We need a little comprise here in the sim, yes we want everything as real as ED can get it, the problem here is ED may have some exact specification on some missile systems? NDA's? We are still limited to those are areas that are not classified here, especially even more with any missile systems.

 

Like others have said I don't mind the missile performance, even if it needs to be out to be allowed in DCS. The missile AI logic needs to be better smarter and tweaked to be more realistic, this would make for much better multiplayer matches, when you pop flare and chaff and it's compared to the missile position, this should come into the logic.

[OnlyforDCS]

Comparing modelling not missiles.

 

Now you are arguing semantics, there is no evidence that missile modeling in DCS is done differently in different missiles, and AFAIK one model is used for all missiles, only the parameters are different. Besides, 238thFalcon mentioned nothing about modeling, he only put up a screenshot that by itself says nothing about that.

 

Nothing is gained by the statement Missile A) is better than Missile B). Other than a push towards game balance. If thats what you want, fine. But please then just say it straight, don't mince words and pretend its based on anything we have in real life.

Edited March 29, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[IASGATG]

We need a little comprise here in the sim, yes we want everything as real as ED can get it, the problem here is ED may have some exact specification on some missile systems? NDA's? We are still limited to those are areas that are not classified here, especially even more with any missile systems.

 

 

Actually most of the data you need for most of the missiles in the game is publicly available, or at the least unclassified. The question is more what your philosophy on the data is and how you want to interpret it.

[David OC]

We need a little comprise here in the sim, yes we want everything as real as ED can get it, the problem here is ED may have some exact specification on some missile systems? NDA's? We are still limited to those are areas that are not classified here, especially even more with any missile systems.

 

Actually most of the data you need for most of the missiles in the game is publicly available, or at the least unclassified. The question is more what your philosophy on the data is and how you want to interpret it.

 

and the implementation of it...

 

Totally agree, and that's what is being discussed here, Idea's on the information at hand, what are we seeing in the sim? what should exactly be implemented for better and more accurate game play with that unclassified data. I don't want the weapons to be the same, I wish for more personality implement from that type of missile with the information that we have.

[Frostie]

Now you are arguing semantics, there is no evidence that missile modeling in DCS is done differently in different missiles, and AFAIK one model is used for all missiles, only the parameters are different. Besides, 238thFalcon mentioned nothing about modeling, he only put up a screenshot that by itself says nothing about that.

 

Nothing is gained by the statement Missile A) is better than Missile B). Other than a push towards game balance. If thats what you want, fine. But please then just say it straight, don't mince words and pretend its based on anything we have in real life.

I don't think ED making a mach 4.5 missile only reach mach 3.5 while Razbam make a mach 4.5 missile reach over 4.5 is the same modeling.