AIM-120 and R-27 homing

[Teknetinium]

Sure' date=' but you don't fix missiles based on desired pK.. :D[/quote']

 

Agreed, it can be fixed by knowing how pilots in the simulator react to missile lunches and try get as close reaction from MP pilots as in RL.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Teknetinium

[*Rage*]

Is it just me or I noticed the ER is way more deadly and rarely misses its target lately ? Its great thing and its not a complained BTW

 

Sent from my SM-T211 using Tapatalk

 

I cant say i've noticed any difference recently..

[Oceandar]

Yeah it could be just a feeling as I cant provide any technical data and merely based on my observation and experience. But really theres huge difference with 27R. 27R is POS missile even if you fired it at good range. I've seen Frostie almost shot all of his 27R and none of it hit (in BF server). Its not the case with the ER, almost one shot one kill in 104th. ......(shrug)

 

Sent from my SM-T211 using Tapatalk

[Dehuman]

Yeah it could be just a feeling as I cant provide any technical data and merely based on my observation and experience. But really theres huge difference with 27R. 27R is POS missile even if you fired it at good range. I've seen Frostie almost shot all of his 27R and none of it hit (in BF server). Its not the case with the ER, almost one shot one kill in 104th. ......(shrug)

 

Sent from my SM-T211 using Tapatalk

 

Yeah R-27R is useless, anything with afterburners can turn around and outrun them.

 

They'd be better if you kept them in the cockpit, opened the canopy and threw them at your enemies.

[muamshai]

They'd be better if you kept them in the cockpit, opened the canopy and threw them at your enemies.

 

 

and yell Fox Zero

[ked]

R27-ER is easy to shake too

[Breakshot]

The fundamental flaw in missile tracking in DCS is simple. It primarily relates to CM rejection. The model is a simple .lua scripted probability of yes/no odds of success or failure under certain predetermined conditions (okay I might be oversimplifying this, but it is basically correct). It works almost identically for all missile types, regardless of RAD or IR, or seeker type.

 

Which means, for active missile like an Aim-120 because the probability odds are set very high, they are basically a death ray from under 10km, unless notched perfectly (that being a predetermined condition for low tracking odds). Which is all fine and seems relatively legit. Ranges do not, and should not in theory affect tracking odds as it is an active missile that will only home in terminally within pitbull range ~8km. So same thing happens every time. 8km missile starts tracking, rejects chaff... or reacquires if needed = end result, hits target unless kinematically defeated.

 

However, there is a major issue for SARH as they basically follow the ARH rejection model but with piss poor odds in the .lua script, which is totally flawed!

 

Let me explain an example:

 

From long ranges, SARH should be much more prone to misguiding due to chaff/ground clutter affecting the launching radar platform (remember its a SARH missile so thats the most important factor) holding a stable lock, radar returns being poor to missile seeker due to range, poorer M-Link(not even modelled) etc.

 

However, from a point-blank NEZ shot in say a perfect lookup situation, an ER should be a death sentence as long as lock is maintained by launching platform, NO CHAFF should have any effect as the missile should never "see" it unless radar lock somehow drops and chases chaff (extremely unlikely), thus PK should be close to perfect.... but in DCS its not, it just rolls the same dice with shitty odds through .lua script = missile goes for chaff like its retarded. The target can just fly level and pop chaff and dodge the missile.

 

IR missiles follow same logic, and are also terrible with flare rejection. 100% odds of spoofing one if preemptive flares are used. Sometimes idling isn't even needed. Just fly level, and drop a few flares, and you're sorted.

 

All this means for Su-27 driver, just one thing... the only truly reliable PK weapon within parameters, is.... gun. Too 'laser' good in fact that it's harder to use than the spray and pray F15 gun that blankets and hits stuff :)

Edited June 12, 2017 by Breakshot

[Sweep]

Assuming the FCR of the launching platform will reject all CM attempts though is not the best idea. Current implementation is wrong, but fixing only part of the problem will make things much worse.

[Exorcet]

Has the 51 or 104 ever tried hosting missions without CM? You could set it up in Nevada as an air combat exercise if you wanted a mission backstory. I think it would be interesting to see the results.

[winchesterdelta1]

Has the 51 or 104 ever tried hosting missions without CM? You could set it up in Nevada as an air combat exercise if you wanted a mission backstory. I think it would be interesting to see the results.

 

Even without CM you can defeat all missiles very easy. Mostly i expend my CM's in the first or second engagement. Only ET's become a bit more dangerous at close range and it's a bit harder to defeat R-73. ER and R-77's are very easy to defeat without CM. At least that is my experience.

[red_coreSix]

From long ranges, SARH should be much more prone to misguiding due to chaff/ground clutter affecting the launching radar platform (remember its a SARH missile so thats the most important factor) holding a stable lock, radar returns being poor to missile seeker due to range, poorer M-Link(not even modelled) etc.

 

However, from a point-blank NEZ shot in say a perfect lookup situation, an ER should be a death sentence as long as lock is maintained by launching platform, NO CHAFF should have any effect as the missile should never "see" it unless radar lock somehow drops and chases chaff (extremely unlikely), thus PK should be close to perfect.... but in DCS its not, it just rolls the same dice with shitty odds through .lua script = missile goes for chaff like its retarded. The target can just fly level and pop chaff and dodge the missile.

 

Even though the FCR is illuminating the target the missile is still self-guiding, which means that even if the FCR isn't affected by chaff the receiver in the missile might. A point blank ER shot should be pretty deadly but not a "death sentence". Also, if the chaff blooms fast enough it will affect the missiles miss distance. The current model is very simplified indeed but I wonder if it's ever possible to model something accurate while respecting every parameter there is, and there are a lot.

[GGTharos]

Chaff in the beam should be trouble for all radars in pretty much any condition. What you do get is some missiles that can reject this situation better than others, but such a thing isn't well modeled. Radars have no problem switching to chaff at any range under the right circumstances, but it's just not modeled.

 

As for heaters, pre-emptive flares do exactly what they should do ... spoil the shot, so do not fire unless there are no flares in the FoV. This is RL instruction. The exact reasons for this aren't modeled, and it would be nice if they were.

 

There's also another edge case with heaters where they always hit, and shouldn't - idle, slow, pre-emptively flaring aircraft at closer ranges.

 

But none of this has to do with R-77's on flankers.

 

PS: Yes you can model a lot of stuff, and there are things that can be done to make CM more realistic (According to what we know) - yes, in the end it will always be something that's just tweaking a probability value since no one is going to write a real EM model for this along with the accompanying physical movement code ... none of this is necessary anyway. IMHO behavior can be made a lot more correct with certain changes but like red_coreSix said, it's a lot and you have to make some choices.

Edited June 12, 2017 by GGTharos

[*Rage*]

Has the 51 or 104 ever tried hosting missions without CM? You could set it up in Nevada as an air combat exercise if you wanted a mission backstory. I think it would be interesting to see the results.

 

There was a brief period when one of EDs patches (dont recall when, maybe a year ago) rendered all CMs ineffective. The complaints from Eagle drivers was epic:lol:

 

Just goes to show how everyone has got used to lazy missile evasion.

[Sweep]

[Breakshot]

Even though the FCR is illuminating the target the missile is still self-guiding, which means that even if the FCR isn't affected by chaff the receiver in the missile might. A point blank ER shot should be pretty deadly but not a "death sentence". Also, if the chaff blooms fast enough it will affect the missiles miss distance. The current model is very simplified indeed but I wonder if it's ever possible to model something accurate while respecting every parameter there is, and there are a lot.

Yes of course. But I think my point still stands. The current state of SARH modeling is very flawed. More so than other missile types as the launch platform is the added variable.

 

The R27 is a complete POS, almost a non threat to any half competent pilot. It was not like this in FC1...

 

Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

[Cmptohocah]

Yeah I would say give the R-27/ER an option to reacquire the target after the chaff disperses, at least this would give it some chance of hitting the target after CM.

[Dudikoff]

Reacquire? If I understand correctly, the missile seeker should basically be slaved to the locked target and if due to ED implementing a better radar modeling (with e.g. varied susceptibility to chaff between different radar types) the lock gets dropped due to it sticking to chaff, the R-27 should be lost for good IIRC.

[red_coreSix]

Reacquire? If I understand correctly, the missile seeker should basically be slaved to the locked target and if due to ED implementing a better radar modeling (with e.g. varied susceptibility to chaff between different radar types) the lock gets dropped due to it sticking to chaff, the R-27 should be lost for good IIRC.

 

Chaff decelerates rapidly following release, after even only one second it should be slow enough to be rejected by the seeker. That doesn't meant it won't have any effect but what we see now with missiles basically "locking chaff" and flying through them shouldn't be the case.

[Svend_Dellepude]

Yeah I would say give the R-27/ER an option to reacquire the target after the chaff disperses, at least this would give it some chance of hitting the target after CM.

 

AFAIK SARH already have the ability to reaquire, at least i have seen AIM-7 doing something that looked like it was doing that and since they share the same code I would expect russian missiles to have the same ability.

[Cmptohocah]

...If I understand correctly, the missile seeker should basically be slaved to the locked target... ...the R-27 should be lost for good IIRC.

 

I am not an R-27 expert, but any reason why this should happen?

 

R-27 is guided via M-link during 80% (please correct me if I am wrong) of it's intercept path and then uses it's seeker for terminal guidance. I am sure once the M-link phase is done it starts looking for the target being illuminated by launching radar. Now if it gets fooled by the chaff and then that chaff disperses, why shouldn't it start looking for the next illuminated thing?

[Cmptohocah]

AFAIK SARH already have the ability to reaquire, at least i have seen AIM-7 doing something that looked like it was doing that and since they share the same code I would expect russian missiles to have the same ability.

 

I haven't tested the AIM-7, but once R-27 starts chasing chaff that's it - it's a lost missile. Would be ok if this happened in the homing phase, but more often than not it starts flying towards the chaff of the rail at 30+ km, so it's basically a dud.

[Svend_Dellepude]

...but more often than not it starts flying towards the chaff of the rail at 30+ km, so it's basically a dud.

 

That happens to all missiles, but i will agree that SARH and russian in particular seems more prone to this behaviour..

 

ED is however, reworking the missile code, or at least that is the rumor.

 

Whether or not it's gonna help the issues in MP only time will tell.

[Sweep]

One other thing I've found with the Russian stuff is that the FCS loves pulling my radar track and replacing it with IRST+IFF when the bandit beams. You want a trashed Alamo? That's how you get a trashed Alamo. :(

[Ironhand]

One other thing I've found with the Russian stuff is that the FCS loves pulling my radar track and replacing it with IRST+IFF when the bandit beams. You want a trashed Alamo? That's how you get a trashed Alamo. :(

I'm sure you know this but the EOS system is always operating as the slave/backup system when radar is selected as the primary. So when the radar loses its lock, the backup IR system maintains the contact if it can...which is what you're seeing. Yes, your radar missile is trashed but not by the system. It was already trashed, when EOS took over as primary. You should have seen the solid radar launch cue start flashing just before the changeover. That's the indication that its no longer maintaining lock.

[Dudikoff]

R-27 is guided via M-link during 80% (please correct me if I am wrong) of it's intercept path and then uses it's seeker for terminal guidance. I am sure once the M-link phase is done it starts looking for the target being illuminated by launching radar. Now if it gets fooled by the chaff and then that chaff disperses, why shouldn't it start looking for the next illuminated thing?

 

It's receiving target position updates until the seeker starts receiving a strong enough reflected signal that it's set to during the launch procedure (the exact distance at which this happens I guess depends on the target size and distance from the illuminating aircraft).

 

But, IIRC, this frequency set during launch is lost if the lock is broken and cannot be re-established (by e.g. re-locking the aircraft). So, if the illuminating aircraft's radar starts tracking chaff instead of the target and then loses the lock, the missile guidance is also lost as far as I understand.

 

I'm sure there are older threads where this was discussed 'ad nauseam'.

 

I haven't tested the AIM-7, but once R-27 starts chasing chaff that's it - it's a lost missile. Would be ok if this happened in the homing phase, but more often than not it starts flying towards the chaff of the rail at 30+ km, so it's basically a dud.

 

That's true, but this is due to the simplified modeling where (I presume) the datalink phase is not simulated at all and since the radar lock was not susceptible to chaff, the missiles were made to be (I presume via some random numbers play going on when the chaff gets released?). So, think of it as if your radar lock was broken by released chaff and the missile lost its guidance.

 

But, I'm not up to date with the state of the radar and missile modeling at all. Perhaps it's already much more advanced by now?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Dudikoff