R-27ER Experiment & Findings

[Falcon_S]

...there is no evidence that missile modeling in DCS is done differently in different missiles ... ...238thFalcon mentioned nothing about modeling...

 

My screenshot talk much more than the your analysis of what I wanted to say with that pic. And that screenshot is with good reason in this topic. Some people have already realized that.

 

Missile A

Missile B

Energy

Speed

Hit

Miss

Eating chaffs/flares

 

all these things come from modeling and you can not convince me that all missiles have the same treatment if we want to be close about the simulated RL opportunities. Let's ignore the lack of data form real life. If we're talking about ER`s - How is it possible that you have or accept that primary russian Air to Air missile is so bad in DCS? And why you insist that current ER model is ok??? How is "ok" i give you one more screenshot in attachment - my ER stats from 104th. If you want to say "is not so bad..." you need to know that the majority of hits and kills is inside of 6Km range. Yep, with medium range missile. :music_whistling:

 

EDIT: majority of hits and kills is inside of 6Km range. - and misses too.

 

What's happening in DCS code i don`t know and i can`t talk about that but it`s definitely wrong. Will ED do something to change things i don`t know but majority of us agree that something is wrong and differences between Missile A and Missile B are there.

 

Let`s back on word "MAGIC" one more time. My MAGIC word is ENERGY (speed).

Edited March 29, 2017 by Falcon_S

[David OC]

I defiantly think the ER semi-active-radar missile should be less likely fooled by chaff, seeing the missile uses the aircraft radar, this goes for the AIM-7 too of course.

I guess it would be a lot of work redesigning the AI modeling, I mean that is what we are talking about here, missile AI and FM's, and there's plenty of other AI that needs some tweaking in DCS.

 

Man there's only really just a couple of things that would take DCS to the same level of the modules. It must be frustrating for the ED team working at this level and implementing this cutting edge tech.

Edited March 29, 2017 by David OC

[The Black Swan]

I remember it being said that ED had someone working on air to ground missiles and once he was done with them he would move to tweaking a/a?

Pretty sure that never changed am I right?

 

If that is the case I would think that person is busy with the hornets new weapons and will start back on that soon?

 

Thought for sure I remembered something like that.

[IASGATG]

I remember it being said that ED had someone working on air to ground missiles and once he was done with them he would move to tweaking a/a?

Pretty sure that never changed am I right?

 

If that is the case I would think that person is busy with the hornets new weapons and will start back on that soon?

 

Thought for sure I remembered something like that.

 

 

 

Yep, Wags brought this up on a stream pre-Nevada release.

[JunMcKill]

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.

 

I did several tests a while ago with the IASGATG mod, and can tell you that launching the actual DCS missiles from 10k meters height and M0.9 the ER reached M4.5 to a non maneuvering target, the R-77 reached M3.99, and the others I tested were as the manufacturer say in their online page.

 

Now, when it is against a maneuvering target, everything changes, because the DCS guidance algorithm changes the missile fight profile from the very launch, and in many cases they do not reach the given speed values.

Edited March 29, 2017 by JunMcKill

[Ironhand]

I was curious as to how two identical scenarios would play out, if one dispensed chaff and one did not. So I set up one mission dispensing chaff, flew it and saved the track. The track has me as the "defender" with 30 AI attacking. Co-altitude within 500 meters centered on 6500 meters.

 

I then unzipped the track file and edited the mission file to reduce chaff to "0". So the flights were identical except for chaff being dispensed during the flight. Video recorded the flights and superimposed one over the other. I also edited the track file in the ME to move the target aircraft closer to the AI for subsequent flights. Same aircraft heading was maintained.

 

Anyway, these were the results for the 20 &30 kilometer ranges. Not meant to prove anything. Just interesting to watch and see, among other things, the effect of range and angles among other things:

 

20KM Range:

 

 

30 KM Range:

 

[JunMcKill]

^ good test. the blacks are with chaff and the whites dont?

[OnlyforDCS]

And why you insist that current ER model is ok???

 

Where did I say that I think that the ER missile is ok? In fact I have stated my belief in the opposite in several posts.

 

Your arguments in comparing differing missiles have absolutely no bearing on this problem, and in fact may have an opposite effect. It would be easy for any ED employee to dismiss this whole issue by reading your comments in this thread, for the very same reason.

[Ironhand]

^ good test. the blacks are with chaff and the whites dont?

Yes. If you view them on YT, you should be able to see a bit more of an explanation.

 

It was interesting to see which missiles hit and which missed. Also the point at which the missile tracks started to diverge, etc, etc, etc.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Ironhand

[JunMcKill]

Exactly. If you view them on YT, you should be able to see a bit more of an explanation.

 

Terrific test and idea!, could you make it please with the M2000C SARH missile? I will try to do something similar with the AIM-120C and the R-77 at 20KM

Edited March 29, 2017 by JunMcKill

[OnlyforDCS]

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.

 

Even if the screenshot posted before proved that this difference exists (and Im not convinced it does) it still doesn't say a damn thing about the guidance problems of the ER and SARH missiles in general.

[Frostie]

Even if the screenshot posted before proved that this difference exists (and Im not convinced it does) it still doesn't say a damn thing about the guidance problems of the ER and SARH missiles in general.

 

No but what it does say is that if you have more than one company working on missiles they will inevitably come to different conclusions on how those missiles should perform be it speed, chaff resistance, drag etc.

[Ironhand]

Terrific test and idea!, could you make it please with the M2000C SARH missile? I will try to do something similar with the AIM-120C and the R-77 at 20KM

Just ran some tracks using the Matra Super 530D and 1 with the AIM-120C (for now). If I have a chance to process them, I'll post them later today. The 530D seems far less susceptible to chaff (which perhaps it should be--I don't know a thing about the missile other than it's SARH). And the AIM-120C seems to have issues of it's own but a different sort. I'll play with the AIM-120C more, hopefully, tomorrow AM. Once I have a more complete set, I'll post a set of track files as well.

[DarkFire]

I was curious as to how two identical scenarios would play out, if one dispensed chaff and one did not. So I set up one mission dispensing chaff, flew it and saved the track. The track has me as the "defender" with 30 AI attacking. Co-altitude within 500 meters centered on 6500 meters.

 

I then unzipped the track file and edited the mission file to reduce chaff to "0". So the flights were identical except for chaff being dispensed during the flight. Video recorded the flights and superimposed one over the other. I also edited the track file in the ME to move the target aircraft closer to the AI for subsequent flights. Same aircraft heading was maintained.

 

Anyway, these were the results for the 20 &30 kilometer ranges. Not meant to prove anything. Just interesting to watch and see, among other things, the effect of range and angles among other things:

 

Very interesting. I'm left wondering what caused the misses where no chaff was expended. I suspect some of the launches may have been outside of or on the border line of acceptable launch parameters, but I was surprised to see a couple of the closer range shots miss completely. I'm guessing a few more were probably equivalent to maneuver defeats due to the angles.

 

A very rough visual inspection of the number of ER shots that missed would give a Pk in the region of <5% when chaff is being used. That's a pretty poor performance.

[lunaticfringe]

I defiantly think the ER semi-active-radar missile should be less likely fooled by chaff, seeing the missile uses the aircraft radar, this goes for the AIM-7 too of course.

 

A SARH missile only uses the aircraft radar for illumination; it's not using it for signal processing and the line of sight work that determines guidance- that's all in the missile itself, and is also why an active missile would automatically have a higher ECCM (as mentioned earlier): you're talking two independent radars needing to both be spoofed, versus only needing to defeat one antenna process cycle- whether the one in the jet, or the one in the missile, to make a SARH go dumb.

 

With ED putting both sets of work on the shooter radar (as SARH's, mentioned previously, are handled seekerlessly except for the ECCM values), the one question I would ask about the recognition of chaff outside of the main lobe is if it is based on the dynamics of intercept geometry plus tactical employment (see: cranking) and what total amount of non-main energy the seeker would have visibility of in the reflection, thereby illuminating chaff.

 

I doubt that's the intent, but it's the only thing that comes to mind in short order that would justify that extent of excess coverage.

[TAW_Blaze]

Very interesting. I'm left wondering what caused the misses where no chaff was expended. I suspect some of the launches may have been outside of or on the border line of acceptable launch parameters, but I was surprised to see a couple of the closer range shots miss completely. I'm guessing a few more were probably equivalent to maneuver defeats due to the angles.

 

A very rough visual inspection of the number of ER shots that missed would give a Pk in the region of <5% when chaff is being used. That's a pretty poor performance.

 

After a short look it looked like from the first shots about 2x as many ERs missed in case chaff was involved and all hell broke loose once you got around beam aspect and continued with rear aspect shots. In my opinion this makes sense, however the amount of missiles going dumb is a bit questionable in some cases.

[DarkFire]

After a short look it looked like from the first shots about 2x as many ERs missed in case chaff was involved and all hell broke loose once you got around beam aspect and continued with rear aspect shots. In my opinion this makes sense' date=' however the amount of missiles going dumb is a bit questionable in some cases.[/quote']

 

Yes, I'd expect rear aspect shots to be very low Pk unless fired from well within Rtr, and even then only as long as the target closure doesn't put it in the doppler notch. Not sure if doppler notch it modelled for the N-001.

[GGTharos]

The notch is modeled for all PD radars in game.

[Ironhand]

Very interesting. I'm left wondering what caused the misses where no chaff was expended. I suspect some of the launches may have been outside of or on the border line of acceptable launch parameters, but I was surprised to see a couple of the closer range shots miss completely. I'm guessing a few more were probably equivalent to maneuver defeats due to the angles.

 

A very rough visual inspection of the number of ER shots that missed would give a Pk in the region of <5% when chaff is being used. That's a pretty poor performance.

 

In the initial volley, most (all?) of the missiles that missed came from aircraft that cranked. I suspect they exceeded the gimbal limits and lost the target. Since the chaff/non chaff flights are otherwise identical, it might be that up to 5 or 6 of the chaff TRK misses at that point were for the same reason. You see something of the sort happen in a number of the flights with various missiles. Not all but a number of them.

 

While I was curious about the chaff/non-chaff behavior, I was also interested in seeing how the missiles behaved given the various positions of the target aircraft and the 30 launching platforms. The one thing that is impressed upon you is that 1) range matters and 2) angles matter. A single missile shot doesn't do that nearly as well as do massed missiles from similar angles. To anyone versed in this stuff, it makes sense. To a newby, it puts an exclamation mark on the point.

 

Here are some additional videos. My apologies for the inconsistent "quality". I'm creating these away from home with video editing freeware that I'm trying to learn at the same time I'm creating these.

 

Super 530D Chaff/Non-chaff 20KM:

 

 

 

Super 530D Chaff/Non-chaff 25KM:

 

 

 

AIM-120C Chaff/Non-chaff 25KM:

 

 

 

These next are my favorite because they highlight the speed/range differences between the AIM-120C and the R-27ER. Both videos are chaff only:

 

AIM-120C & R-27ER 25KM Chaff:

 

 

 

AIM-120C & R-27ER 30KM Chaff:

 

 

In this last video it's clear that the range is too far for the AIM-120Cs, while 12 of the 30 R-27ERs hit their target.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Ironhand
Edited to replace videos with color versions

[OnlyforDCS]

According to your tests Ironhand, it appears that Super 530D has better chaff resistance than either the ER or the AIM120, which appear to be pretty even in that regard, at least at long range. The AIM120 seems to have much better scores against non chaffing aircraft, and against chaffing aircraft at closer ranges. The active radar seems to nearly double it's performance against chaffing aircraft compared to the ER at close ranges.

 

Very good tests Ironhand.

 

From these tests, it looks like the ER is seriously handicapped and misses much more than you would be expect it to at close range. Close Range, beaming shots that the Super530D and AIM120C hit with a high PK. Whether that is intentional modeling or not, I have no idea, but to my eyes it looks wrong.

 

Now Im wondering how the AIM7M would perform. :)

Edited March 31, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[JunMcKill]

.

 

Mate have no words! great job!

[JunMcKill]

According to your tests Ironhand, it appears that Super 530D has better chaff resistance than either the ER or the AIM120, which appear to be pretty even in that regard, at least at long range. The AIM120 seems to have much better scores against non chaffing aircraft, and against chaffing aircraft at closer ranges. The active radar seems to nearly double it's performance against chaffing aircraft compared to the ER at close ranges.

 

Very good tests Ironhand.

 

From these tests, it looks like the ER is seriously handicapped and misses much more than you would be expect it to at close range. Close Range, beaming shots that the Super530D and AIM120C hit with a high PK. Whether that is intentional modeling or not, I have no idea, but to my eyes it looks wrong.

 

Now Im wondering how the AIM7M would perform. :)

 

QED what we all knew a while ago in the hard way, CTRL-E three times! :D

[GGTharos]

From these tests, it looks like the ER is seriously handicapped and misses much more than you would be expect it to at close range. Close Range, beaming shots that the Super530D and AIM120C hit with a high PK. Whether that is intentional modeling or not, I have no idea, but to my eyes it looks wrong.

 

It is intentional, and it is wrong for the 530D and correct for the 120C.

 

Now Im wondering how the AIM7M would perform. :)

 

Should be more or less on par with R-27's (at least, IIRC the numbers are the same) ... maybe slightly better due to a better platform.

[*Rage*]

Great tracks Ironhand! Can you do the same for the AIM7M?

 

I need to take a much closer look at the videos but what justification is there for the 530D having better chaff rejection than the ER or AIM7M? Why is that different and where can I see the values?

[Ironhand]

Great tracks Ironhand! Can you do the same for the AIM7M?

 

I need to take a much closer look at the videos but what justification is there for the 530D having better chaff rejection than the ER or AIM7M? Why is that different and where can I see the values?

 

I'll do the AIM-7M soon but it may not be until after the weekend. Also I've reworked the videos (I'm finally learning the software a bit) so they're a bit easier to see. In color, too. I'll edit in the new ones, when I'm in front of my computer again.

 

DarkFire, concerning the R-27ER, the Pk across the 3 volleys in each track is higher than you think. @ 25km start Range, the Pk with chaff is 33.3% during the course of the track; no chaff it's 57.8%. With the 20 km start Range it's 28.9 with chaff and 57.8% without. The last volley is always almost 0% in all the samples.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Ironhand
Spelling correction and rewording for clarity