Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[GGTharos]

But what if the jammer is synchronized so it /doesn't/ jam the radar during its duty cycle? The F/A-18 for example does that, while it appears that the good old Su-27P has such problems.

[HubMan]

I understand what you are saying, but this sounds like it is not a very big problem for a monopulse seeker ... I have been led to believe by someone 'in the know' that pure pursuit would definitely not be the choice of navigation against a jamming target ... but I do not know the details. I think against SPJ's it is quite fair to say it would use proportional if its lock is not broken! :)

Considered the angular accuracy an processing power of modern ECM systems, that sounds fair enough :) Especially if your reasonning was "orientated" by someone 'in the know'.

 

But I still wonder if the hardware available in the supposed to be Lockon time frame (beginning of 90's) was performant enough to provide proportionnal navigation against a jamming source (ie no tracking, because as you said it, if the target is locked, using pure is a waste). :)

 

Hub.

[GGTharos]

I believe there was a post by one of the ED devs that indicated that the R-27R would use proportional guidance when jammed, and also the algorithm for detecting jamming (for the export version, I think) ... I will try to find this post :)

 

Edit: I found it, but it is in the beta forum so I cannot repost it ... but, it does not mention what type of guidance is used ... in other words, it does not mention that the missile will switch to pure pursuit, nor that it will remain in PN. Personally I would rather believe it will stay in PN, but accuracy may be reduced :)

[tflash]

But what if the jammer is synchronized so it /doesn't/ jam the radar during its duty cycle? The F/A-18 for example does that, while it appears that the good old Su-27P has such problems.

 

Today's AESA radars can do magic for this, and enabling full integration of jamming/scanning signals. But indeed, I think CW radars in particular have much more limited options, and would be affected by strong noise jamming.

[HubMan]

Today's AESA radars can do magic for this, and enabling full integration of jamming/scanning signals. But indeed, I think CW radars in particular have much more limited options, and would be affected by strong noise jamming.

Hi tflash :)

 

What makes you think that CW radars are easier to jam than the other ones ? :)

 

And absolutly, jamming can interfere with radar activity, especially if the radar you are trying to "brute jam" has a frequency similar to the one of your own radar. But most of the modern ECM systems are integrated with the rest of the electronics carried by your aircraft and you shouldn't be jamming your own radar. :)

Of course, if the jammer is just an independent component, just throwing out noise all around (barrage), on a bandwith covering also your radar (spot) or stepping on it from time to time (swept), there is nothing you can do about it... :)

 

 

 

I believe there was a post by one of the ED devs that indicated that the R-27R would use proportional guidance when jammed, and also the algorithm for detecting jamming (for the export version, I think) ... I will try to find this post

 

Edit: I found it, but it is in the beta forum so I cannot repost it ... but, it does not mention what type of guidance is used ... in other words, it does not mention that the missile will switch to pure pursuit, nor that it will remain in PN. Personally I would rather believe it will stay in PN, but accuracy may be reduced

Ok :) Thank you for digging through the archives :) I'll have a look at the Jane's "Air-Launched Weapons", but I doubt I'll find that kind of information in it... :) Anyway, considered the range of the R27R, it's very probable that the missile will use PN (and probably get to burnthrough range before the end game) :)

 

Hub.

[GGTharos]

Well yes - R-27R is pretty short-ranged, IIRC the max head-on range at 10000m with v/c of 2000kph is about 35km, from the diagram that I have seen :)

 

The information I looked at came from an actual R-27R manual, but I do not posess it.

[HubMan]

Well yes - R-27R is pretty short-ranged, IIRC the max head-on range at 10000m with v/c of 2000kph is about 35km, from the diagram that I have seen :)

...

 

Thanks for the data :)

 

...

The information I looked at came from an actual R-27R manual, but I do not posess it.

 

Hehe :) Too bad :D

 

Hub.

[GGTharos]

Thanks for the data :)

 

Why don't I look for the graph :)

 

Hehe :) Too bad :D

 

Hub.

 

 

Indeed :)

[159th_Viper]

Coupla tit-bits of info re R27-R found on a site....

 

Parameters

 

 

Performance

 

"Against a target flying 900km/h, in an altitude of 10 a thousand meters and with the launching aircraft flying 1100km/h the reach frontal is 35km for the R-27R..."

 

Direct Link

[HubMan]

Coupla tit-bits of info re R27-R found on a site......

 

 

Detonation Parameters

 

 

Performance

 

"Against a target flying 900km/h, in an altitude of 10 a thousand meters and with the launching aircraft flying 1100km/h the reach frontal is 35km for the R-27R..."

 

Direct Link

Thank you very much 159th_Viper... :D (couldn't resist to post below what I found on this page... :) )

 

Hub.

 

PS : GGTharos does it look like the graph you saw ? :)

[GGTharos]

Yes, that is the one, and here is where I saw it :)

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=7936&postcount=1

[HubMan]

Yes, that is the one, and here is where I saw it

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=7936&postcount=1

I should have thought about it ! The genesis of MiniZap Thread ! :) Thanks for digging this one up as well :)

 

Hub.

[GGTharos]

No problem! :)

[centermass]

At a "microscopic" level, your solution is probably the closest to "realistic" ECM. But at a "macroscopic" one, ie the one that matters, I definitly think that the semi random principle of GGTharos is better :

 

What makes up the macroscopic, A bunch of microscopic things.?

 

- ECM / ECCM is too much classified. Even more than missiles range ! Lomac historical period is just to "recent" to get accurate real life data. ED would have to make wild guesses, probably quite far from the reality or breach some national security secrets to modelize the game properly... :)

 

How about educated guesses given the data provided?

 

- right now, Lomac only modelizes -explicitely- "noise jamming" / ie range obscuration technics. That is the simplest and oldest ECM technic, used to conceal the -distance- to the target. But real life jammers have other purposes, one being to to break the radar lock of a fighter / missile. To do so, a -lot- of different "deception" technics are used to generate false information about the range / angle / velocity of the target (such technic being not real far away from the result of ECM blinking... *no flaming, please :)* ). Considered the complexity and the large number of technics involved, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try to modelize precisely the behavior of every (or even a few) ECM and ECCM component included in this electronic fight.

That would probably take months or years... And such a large time (money) investment would probably better be used somewhere else (missiles behavior ? ) :)

 

- actually, What only really matters is the outcome : what will be the probability for a specific radar / missile be able to defeat a speficic jammer ? As already suggested several time on the forum, using a simple semi random algorithm (like rolling a dice with a bonus / malus) would probably be far easier to code and not further away from the reality than some semi accurate modelisation. Simply because the parameters involved in ECM / ECCM are just too many to be considered and that introducing some randomness is the only way to introduce this "complexity" in a game.

 

I agree that it will be easier to randomize the ECM, but not realistic. I think the game will suffer from it.

 

- there shouldn't too difficult to establish an "ECM" hiearchy ie the bonus and malus of every jammer against every kind of threat family in the game. The problem then, will be to get the game "balanced" and for readers of this forum to survive the following thousands of posts like "DEVs, FIX THE ALQ-135 !!!".

 

So all the fighter aircraft radars and ECM in the game would be the same except for the dice roll and bonuses / penalty on their effectiveness?

 

Balance gameplay is a problem not a solution. Players should know their system's advantages and weaknesses and use / avoid them.

________

BW200

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[SUBS17]

I'm afraid that this is incorrect. There's no such thing as 'burn through' against real ECM - no, let me rephrase that. You could burn-through /certain kinds/ of ECM techniques, but not all of them. They can actually be effective to within a few hundred feet from the aircraft... in other words, if you're sitting 1500' behind the guy to gun him, it might still mess with your gunsight!

 

ECM can deny a lock, break it, or deceive the tracking radar or missile radar as to your actual whereabouts. It might also not work well, and make you a juicier target instead.

 

I wonder if EDs considered adding gate stealers and decoys to BS or are they going to leave it until TK?

[GGTharos]

While I'd love to see all those modeled with some level of detail ... well ... it's a huge load of work, and we don't even -really- know what they work against and don't work against ... so I would say implement the -representation- of the technique ... as in roll to see which one you're using at a given time, and then roll to see if it works, then apply the appropriate results.

So you'll be able to look at it and say 'oh hey his range is getting big really quick' or 'his closure's all wrong' or 'he broke my lock' or 'he's warping all over the radar screen' and so on, and it will have a similar effect on your missile, but in the end wether it works or not against your radar is the roll of a die.

 

This way, like real ECM is becomes a /tool/ for defeating your opponent, not a sure-fire way of achieving this ... it's just 'one more trick in the back' with no guarantee of success.

 

That would also require the least time to model and make it seem 'real' ... anything more and ED may as well start writing EW simulation software.

 

So yes, you won't see anything like this in BS.

[tflash]

I fear indeed we are led astray into the unknown. It is better to keep it simple, and to propose solutions that are close to what we have now and could bring some small improvement.

 

- I vote for proportional navigation for HOJ. Seems an implementable solution that already brings a new factor to consider when ECM "on".

 

- I think it should be possible to implement better chaff rejection. I was looking at some tracks with TACVIEW, and it seems to me, when a missile like AIM-120 is decoyed in Lockon, it makes a sudden very sharp turn away from the tracked aircraft. This is logical since it starts following the chaff which slows down considerably. I am very sure chaff rejection on real missiles takes this into account: a sudden deceleration or target course change beyond a certain treshold is considered suspect and the missile seeker is kept on the previous heading.

 

This is inversely the reason why a supermanoevrable Flanker DOES have an edge in some scenario's.

 

I think it would be very easy to implement that if the missile seeker is confronted with a very high angle sudden course change it rejects course recomputation. The bonus is then that if you are a really good pilot in the Flanker you could spoof the missile, which would reward skill rather than chaff.

 

- GGTharos in another thread previously suggested to take into account Line-Of-Sight issues involved in chaff/flare rejection. If the chaff and flares are behind the tracked aircraft in LOS, then there should be no decoying of the engaging missile. This also would require more skill to avoid incoming missiles.

[Geier]

Especially look likes very strange the breaking lock in TWS after ECM blink...

[centermass]

Missiles are fought with aspect more than spiffy jinks or expendables. :D

 

:pilotfly:

________

Ducati GT1000

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[Viper101]

is this thread ever gonna die? lol

[D-Scythe]

This is inversely the reason why a supermanoevrable Flanker DOES have an edge in some scenario's.

 

I think it would be very easy to implement that if the missile seeker is confronted with a very high angle sudden course change it rejects course recomputation. The bonus is then that if you are a really good pilot in the Flanker you could spoof the missile, which would reward skill rather than chaff.

 

Sorry, but unless the Flanker can slow from Mach 1 to 0 airspeed like chaff particles can, this is impossible. There's no way for any aircraft, save some alien spaceship, to physically "fake" being a chaff cloud.

 

Even the fact that missiles can reject chaff clouds based on its deceleration comes with several limitations. The range has to be pretty small (like 1 to 2 miles) in order for even a chaff cloud (that can decelerate to 0 instantaneously) to generate a LOS change great enough to be rejected.

[tflash]

Mmmm ... you must be right. Would be pulling a lot of g's that way ;)

 

I'll be off the forum for a couple of weeks ... on holidays outside cyberspace!