F-15C avionics wishlist

[SwingKid]

SK, could you interpret that diagram for me if possible? I just only barely understand it. It -seems- to be based on target speed, but I'm not sure what the other two speeds are for.

 

Solid line is a 900 km/h fighter speed, 700 km/h target speed.

Dotted line is 1100 km/h fighter vs. 900 km/h target.

 

The left side shows head-on (approach or "encounter") aspects, the right side shows pursuit.

 

As for padlock, it seems fine to me right now ... what are you trying to change for it? :)

 

:wink:

 

Edit: Okay, just remember to leave some easy-to-use keys for comms ... 2-3 should do (2 are enough for relatively complex stuff, but 3 would be better)

 

If you are referring to wingman controls, the Ins/Del/Hom keys were "reserved" for this function - see "Priority 4". Are there other commands I missed?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

No, I'm talking bout available keys to use with things such as TeamSpeak and Ventrillo

[SwingKid]

Tilde key, "Priority 7". One key for this is enough, right? I have it doubled as the voiceover key during track editing to save space, since I can't imagine these functions needing to be used at the same time. Which key do you use today?

 

The "P" key is momentarily available... Are the extra functions something that can be accomplished with Shift/Ctrl-~?

 

Thanks for interest!

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

No, it isn't. We use more than one channel and I'm trying to work out a 'channel commander' assuming the TS devs cooperate at all (and if they don't, I can work around it, it's jsut an uglier solution)

[SwingKid]

Sorry about that just edited my post after re-reading.. Say again please re: Shift/Ctrl/Alt-~, does TS recognize "chord" keys as separate from the original, or it needs physically separate keys?

 

Maybe if TS is in use the "Chat" function of KPEnter also becomes redundant..

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

It recognizes 'chord keys' yes ... such as Shift-alt-control etc, and it will certainly use combinations of up to two of those plus a regular key. The problem is that when you're speaking to someone it needs to be quick, efficiant and convenient.

 

You could, for example, implement 4 keys with just one (ie ~, shift-~, ctrl-~, alt-~, and 3 more if you separate left and right alt control and shift) but it is often far more ocnvenient to have two keys plsu switches for those than a single key with multiple and possibly confusing switches.

 

The reason for having these available is to enable switching between channels and whispering to multiple channels. This enables things to work such as each flight using its own channel, for example, while still being able to communicate with each other and anyoe playing ATC/AWACS at the same time.

[SwingKid]

Keyboard layout discussion continued in separate topic:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?p=35301#35301

 

-SK

[bflagg]

Back on subject.

 

One of the MAIN things I wish the Dev's would put back in the the

seperate key assignment for a missle type.

this cycle stuff is slow and terrible....

I can immediatly (like the real f15) setup a short range senario

with the a keystroke....

 

ie..

radar on, range -10 mile, Vertical scan mode, aim 7 active...

radar off, range -10miles, vertical, aim 9 active...

etc...

 

the key is the key assignments need to be allowed for this..

Seperate keys for the ranges 5, 10, 20 , 40, 80, 100

Seperate keys for the missle types / GUNS (guns is setup with a c already)

Radar modes are pretty much setup already. except for radar on/off is a toggle and not seperate keystrokes...

[D-Scythe]

i.e. chaff gradually becomes much less effective as the launch radar gets in closer to you.

 

I wish I could say that Lock On did model this, but I don't think this is the case. In fact, I'm almost certain it isn't. The only reason it's harder to decoy missile's with chaff at short range vs. long range is that the missile is coming in much faster at short range - i.e. you begin evasive maneuvers when the missile is 3 miles away, but at shorter ranges, the R-27ER is travelling three times as fast. This gives you *much* less time to pump out chaff as you would normally, thus that is why it's so much harder to defeat missile's with chaff alone at short range.

 

Furthermore, active radar missiles are *way* too prone to go after chaff decoys. The AIM-120C and the R-77 are essentially flying computers with a huge bang, and both should be far smarter than their SARH counterparts, the R-27ER and the AIM-7M. As such, their guidance should be able to distinguish an enemy target from its chaff much more effectively, and reject it accordingly. And with a range around 6-8 miles, the active radar seeker in both the AMRAAM and the R-77 is more than powerful enough in most cases to allow their onboard computers to defeat jamming or reject chaff in the terminal phase.

 

Thus, although the guidance radar on the F-15 or Su-27 would provide a stronger radar return on the target at short range, it doesn't matter squat because it's the computers in the SARH missiles themselves that actually guide it - i.e. it tracks the radar waves bouncing off the target by itself. So as long as the AMRAAM and R-77 is smarter, they should consistently prove to be more lethal than SARH missiles in all regimes, provided that its active radar can track its target. It's been proven in tests and proven again and again in combat - ARH missiles are the weapon of choice in most situations. There's a reason everyone nowadays is re-equipping their next-generation fighters with active radar missiles ;)

 

I agree with GGtharos : in Lock On, either SARH missiles are overmodelled, or active radar missiles are undermodelled. I mean, sure, you can probably develop an SARH missile equipped with more powerful computers and smarter software, but I think one of the reasons why this hasn't been done is because ARH missiles are so much more flexible operationally. You can launch and leave, mad-dog it, guide it with some other means besides radar (like FDL or RWR), etc. whereas with a SARH missile you can't do any of that stuff.

[GGTharos]

Right, the other thing is the seekr itself: With a monopulse active seekr, AFAIK it's harder to jam the missile since you can code the pulses and filter out everything that doesn't fit (and since coding needn't be the same every time, a jammer can't keep up) ... at the same time, the ARH can do it's own MTI against the target to reject chaff, which is something the SARH missile probably can't do quite as easily - my reasoning is different, but essentially the conclusion is the same as D-Scythe's.

[D-Scythe]

If anything, that interception closure is very fast. Saying it’s due to reduced closure speed (i.e. time compression) is not at all consistent with what I am doing.

 

Why not? You said that you cannot execute the same weaving manuever at close range, and I'm telling you exactly why you cannot. At close ranges, you simply won't weave enough times to 1) bleed enough airspeed from the missile and 2) pump out enough decoys. It doesn't matter if you pump out one or twenty chaffs - as long as you pump out the same number at every apex of your turn.

 

You beam from the missile at close range precisely because it gives you extra time for you to do your oscillating/orthogonal evasive manuevers to 1) Bleed enough (or at least more) speed from the missile and 2) pump out more chaff as opposed to the head on weaving manuever. Either you are doing this intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know, but this is exactly what you're doing. You cannot deny that weaving head on around the missiles flight path presents greater closure rate than when you beam - you are flying into the missiles head on. By beaming, you are affording yourself much more time to lose the incoming missile.

 

And in most cases, if you are even the slightest bit proficient, almost anything you do will allow you to dodge that first BVR missile shot - it's always the subsequent launches you have to look out for. Most of the time, AI or human, the first missile is launched at or near Rmax, to put you on the defensive and keep you there. So it's really no surprise that enemy R-27ERs in your case are falling for chaff - gliding in at speeds around 1000 kmph (as opposed to almost 3800 kmph before the motor burns out at short range - almost 4 times as fast), there is ample time to bleed speed or decoy these long range missile shots. Moreover, weaving (or a similar manuever) is particularly effective at long-range because of the over-aggressive proportional navigation of missiles in Lock On.

 

So really, as much as I love the sim, I think you are over-estimating Lock On. You can actually test it out yourself by lowering the missile effectiveness slider (which I have done to experiment)- chaff rejection rate by SARH or any other type of missile is the same no matter what the range.

[Alfa]

But relative speed is not the deciding factor as to which RCS object the missile launcher's radar ‘decides’ to call the target, and then nav the missile toward.

 

Keep in mind that within seeker range to target (in the case of the 9B-1101K seeker of the R-27RE this would be some 20-25km), the launching radar does not "nav the missile" towards anything ;) - the missile seeker takes over and is the one computing the intercept course to a predicted intercept point and steering the missile towards it.

 

.....but ofcourse, since it is SARH, the launching radar needs to provide return signals from the correct target in order for the seeker to be able to home on it :)

[D-Scythe]

What I think is happening in the choice, is that this returned quantity is being used to select a probability biasing for the choice of selecting one, or the other. A choice such as that is obviously being made; if you watch the missiles you can visibly see when the equations have flipped target selection from you to the chaff. This choice does not appear to correspond to speed difference as far as I can detect, but is instead determined via the return ‘signal’ quantity, and therefore, the range from the SARH radar.

 

I do not believe closing speed has anything to do with this choice, it only appears to be related to speed because when the range is shorter (and the signal is thus higher, affecting the probability biasing of the choice), then the relative closure speeds also just happen to be higher on average.

 

But relative speed is not the deciding factor as to which RCS object the missile launcher's radar ‘decides’ to call the target, and then nav the missile toward.

 

Do you see what I'm getting at now?

 

How do you explain that choice making process, if not via probabilistic return signal related quantity means?

 

The bias is telling the radar to always select the aircraft and never select the chaff, once the signal returned rises above a certain threshold … once that occurs, the chaff becomes totally ineffective.

 

That biasing could be adjusted.

 

I know *exactly* what you are talking about zzz, but my point is that I simply do not think that Lock On is modelling chaff rejection in such a manner. AFAIK, through lots of testing, the chaff rejection rate in all missiles in Lock On is fixed - it doesn't matter the range or anything (as it should, as explained by you). I realize that closure rate has *nothing* to do with decoy rejection - never said it was, btw - merely that since Lock On's decoy rejection rate system is FIXED, that this causes the increase effectiveness of your beaming manuever simply because it affords you MORE TIME.

 

I knew exactly what you were getting at zzz, it's just that I do not agree that Lock On went into such depths to model this. I could be wrong, but I'd like to hear that from a dev or a beta tester. IRL, sure, everything you said about radar return, range, etc. applies no doubt (although the ability of the guidance computers to take maximum advantage of this in old SARH missiles like the AIM-7 and R-27 remain in doubt), but I simply do not think Lock On models this. In fact, I'm almost certain it doesn't. That's all.

 

There’s no question that Lock On is using this type of radar model, where at 50 km range from the emitter the signal is one quarter the returned signal strength at 25 km distance; so as the aircraft closes up the distance, the returned signal quantity in the equation rises non-linearly. The closer it gets, the faster the return signal strength rises.

 

How can you be so certain that Lock On uses this? I see absolutely no difference between SARH decoy rejection throughout their typical envelope - i.e. they are deathrays most of the time. Dodging from long range is easier because the target (the player) can execute a series of maneuvers to bleed enough speed from the incoming missile to defeat it kinematically.

[GGTharos]

Yes, there's some RCS-based stuff but it seems a little primitive - I think you'll see some advances in this with 1.1 and 1.2 ... eg. it will be harder to decoy a missile inits MCU flight (the aircraft's radar I would imagine is far better at rejecting decoys than the missile) but once it begins to home the probability that it might go for chaff rizes - the bloom from chaff has /huge/ RCS. A flat strip of metal has RCS like you wouldn't believe - on the order of magnitudes greater, AFAIK.

[D-Scythe]

I don't know how you can call them "death rays most of the time"; I mean, they either are, or they aren't, and in my experience, they sure aren't, until the range to the launch aircraft shortens.

 

What I mean by "deathrays most of the time is that there are certain manuevers the target can do to evade incoming SARH missiles, no matter what the range. For example, barrel-rolling around the missile's flight path, or pulling beam then pulling up - both these manuevers are highly successful at defeating incoming missiles.

 

I can't see how these are fixed? Can you explain that some?

 

To me, it seems that missiles have a fixed probability in rejecting decoys; i.e. every time a chaff is released, there is a fixed chance that the missile will fall for the chaff. In addition to the stale AI, it's one of the reasons why a specific air-to-air battle will play out the same every single time.

 

You also aren’t indicating how that target switching decision is being achieved then, if not by the means I'm suggesting?

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question (i.e. target switching?). Basically, from what I see, everytime a decoy is released, there is a certain, fixed probability (e.g. 5% for every chaff deployed) that the missile will fall for the decoy, no matter the range nor type of missile.

 

Sure, RCS of the target may be factored into this probability (i.e. it will take a lot more chaff from an Il-76), but in no way or form does this seem to be influenced by the range of the launch aircraft from the target. Thus, although RCS and radar discrimination may be modelled in MY AN/APG-63 or Slot Back, it does not matter to my AIM-7, which sees its target as the same regardless of range to the target.

 

The fact is, these are not death sticks, and there IS an RCS targeting decision-making algorithm involved here, and it IS working off a basic function of the radar model, and this very much appears to be a function of range. I don't insist it is a range-based decision, but all I have seen suggests it is the case, and I've not noticed any "fixed" decoy to missile spoofing effectiveness ratio.

 

I can be absolutely 100% certain this is the case, because without that simple physical basis a quasi-realistic radar model is quite impossible to code; there is ZERO chance it isn't so.

 

That's not true. You can still have an accurate, realistic radar modelling without simulating the SARH missiles to its full. Sure, no doubt, on my F-15 radar, targets show up much better at close range, with RCS factored in and all, but to the missile, this doesn't seem to matter at all. SARH missiles will be SARH missiles, close range or long range, with the same FIXED chaff rejection ability (perhaps influenced only by jamming).

 

GGtharos, by your logic then, active radar missiles should be virtually immune to chaff - the discrimination between chaff and target in the guidance (radar) seeker is always the same for long or short range launches, because the radar itself is mounted inside the missile. Just further goes to prove the superiority of active radar missiles NOT modelled in Lock On.

[SwingKid]

Gentlemen,

 

Anticipating that this thread might one day be read by an avionics programmer whose first language might not be English, could we start a different topic for the discussion of chaff effects on SARH vs ARH missile seekers? I think it's interesting, important and encourage to continue, just, not here.

 

Thanks,

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Roger SK. Damn, and I was just about to type a reply ;)

[GGTharos]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001missiles/defabio.pdf

 

I figured you might enjoy this SK, and it has a 'tenative' picture of what a Link-16 display might look like as well.

[wsoul2k]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001missiles/defabio.pdf

 

I figured you might enjoy this SK, and it has a 'tenative' picture of what a Link-16 display might look like as well.

 

Tks for the Link GG

 

nice info over there, and it will be much more chalenge if an link 16 is sumulated in the game... a lot of possbilities

[169th_DedCat]

If this has already been mentioned in this enormous thread, just ignore me.

 

I would really like to see time-to-intercept (TTI) and time-to-active (TTA) countdown cues on the F-15 and Russian HUDs when employing AIMs.

[GGTharos]

Russians don't have TTI/TTA.

 

THat's what the BIG clock in the pit is for.

[169th_DedCat]

No TTA you say? Well then the Eagle should have it anyway.

 

Know anywhere to get figures for max range intercept-times for various altitudes and aspects of the R-27ER then?

[GGTharos]

Nope, you'll just have to have a buddy sti there and take a pounding while you time it.

 

And yes, the Eagle in LOMAC /does/ have TTA for 120 and TTI for 7.

[gherring]

DedCat, next time you're in the F-15, look in the lower left of your HUD. When you fire a radar missile, a new line will appear counting time down. If you fired an AMRAAM, an "M" will precede the countdown, and there will be two countdowns; one till activation and one till impact. An AIM-7 will have one countdown, preceded by "T".

[169th_DedCat]

Rgr that. Thanks guys. Been a long time since I flown the Eagle, I just assumed it wasn't there without actually checking first. :oops: