R-27ET

[Fri13]

Not having a target at launch and acquiring it post launch is different (something the ET is not capable of) to having a lock from the moment of launch, but getting heat sources confused on the way to the target. Missile doesn't loose track, it just starts tracking something else

 

Actually IR missile can lose a track, and that is one of their programmed functions how to operate in a such scenario, like example:

 

You lock a missile on target and you launch a missile.

Missile maintains lock on target and tracks it.

At some point target will release counter measurements (flares).

The missile needs to recognize each counter measurement and track their trajectories as well their heat signature, and determine that what is the proper target. Ie. If target is flying straight then it is easy to ignore all the flares as the assumption is that target keeps flying straight and all flares are suddenly flying away from that.

If the missile gets confused and starts tracking a counter measurement, the flare has limited burn time that can burn out and missile has just lost a target.

Should the missile just "Okay, I am done" or "Where did it go?" and perform the search pattern for a X seconds before giving up and self-destruct?

 

The challenge with the counter measurements is that the missile needs to actually track each of them to determine their trajectory and check that against to target trajectory history (ie. 5 seconds).

This is crucial why you need to have a proper timing and count of flares against each missile as it is not about amount of the flares or their heat amount, it is about forcing the seeker to perform a series of the checks between targets to determine what is the correct target. If you suddenly dump a 15 flares in one second, it is easy just to check and ignore. But if you dump the 15 seconds in time of 5 seconds, with 3 flares on each release, it becomes challenge for a given seeker to check the new target, compare it to old one, check the new target, compare it to old one etc. And finally you will break a lock as the missile seeker can't anymore find the original target in the assumed position.

 

That is why it is completely wrong that R-27T/ET is so easily defeated with flares by just quickly releasing 3-5 flares, as what makes the difference is that you have proper timing, count and direction of the flares.

This is one of the things that missile designers and counter-measurement designers compete with each others, to find out the process how the targets are searched, found and tracked and determined what is real and what is false. All information about position of the flares dispenser, the direction, the vector, timing etc matters that how effective both are.

Why in briefing you get to know what enemies are likely to be met, you know what weapons the enemy likely has, equip a proper flare mixtures and you program your counter measurement system with a proper release sequence and you find out what is the proper maneuvering rules for the program. As you can't start maneuvering too early or too late of the sequence as you must fool the missile seeker in its logic how it is defining a real target.

 

And that is the flare purpose, not to get it to be the target (nice thing to happen) but as well confuse the missile so it can't anymore find the real target (it has just lost the target and can't find it anymore).

 

It is similar thing with the radar and tracks. It takes time to calculate an accurate track and estimation where the target will be in next time, and if the target suddenly maneuvers after tracking gate gets smaller so target is outside of it. Then lock is lost and it is required to search again from the area that is possibility it could have gone. And this is where the ECM systems leans to, to confuse the radar to track something crazy and widen the search and track gate and then suddenly stop and radar doesn't anymore know what is the real target and what is false and start again with searching and tracking for long time.

[Fri13]

You mean has, sir, not had.

 

The R-27T/ET use to have a datalink capability like the R/ER variant. Meaning you locked target with radar on long range, launched the R-27T/ET with datalink guidance and then closer at the target it locked on the target that thought that it was dealing with a radar missile.

[GGTharos]

Im assuming that was a multiplayer playback? Do we know who calculates the missile? The shooter?

 

The shooter. Clients display a missile trajectory based on the firing point and time of the shooter, but the two missiles, so to speak, are not synced. This is why you can sometimes see some pretty weird things happening when watching the 'fake' missile, and it won't correspond with what the shooter sees.

 

And if its a dedicated server, does it have the terrain collision?

 

Yep, there is always terrain collision. If the shooter's missile hits the ground, the missile is gone. Even if it's displayed in MP, it can't do anything to you.

[Coxy_99]

For someone who has done pvp since 2013 still cant evade ET, Theres no pre flares and clearly was not looking out the pit its called SA.

[Shadow KT]

Actually IR missile can lose a track,

 

Don't take my words out of context. I did not say that it is not capable of loosing track in general.

 

I was referencing to the switching to a different aircraft, than the intended target in a furball, as mentioned by the post above my original one.

 

Lock-on after launch, loosing track and switching targets mid flight due to confusion (aircraft or flare) are 3 different things

Edited September 7, 2020 by Shadow KT

[GGTharos]

You mean has, sir, not had.

 

It has always had it.

 

Back in the days of LOMAC it had datalink, which was removed. The seeker still performed a significant search if launched without a lock, and this was then contrained to a small cone looking straight ahead.

 

That's not necessarily incorrect, and if the missile initially launched and guided towards your aircraft right away (thus taking a collision course) or if that missile was launched to a predicted collision course by the pilot and you fell in the capture basket once unmasked, what can I say - you're the victim of bad luck.

 

Some of the stuff that's lacking from the realism perspective IMHO:

* Lack of error in autopilot (very accurate straight flight) which probably the new FM with missile mechanics will take care of to some degree

* Lack of error in the seeker

* Both of the above would combine to making the situation you flew yourself into less likely, though it's already pretty unlikely IMHO

* Lack of thermal distractions for the seeker after it has lost lock (or if launched without lock) which is what prevents IRL employment of these missiles in the way we do it in game (launch unlocked and hope the target is in the capture basket)

 

But frankly what happened to you is so unlikely that you could just stop complaining about it ;)

[GGTharos]

For someone who has done pvp since 2013 still cant evade ET, Theres no pre flares and clearly was not looking out the pit its called SA.

 

He was masked by a mountain ... what effect would the flares have? He has every expectation of the missile not randomly finding him once unasked.

 

This whole thing was literally 'surprise M*!!!'

[Coxy_99]

He was masked by a mountain ... what effect would the flares have? He has every expectation of the missile not randomly finding him once unasked.

 

This whole thing was literally 'surprise M*!!!'

 

1. Tacview is poor representation (A track would be more helpful)

2. Why would you not flare?

3. Like blaze said he ate the ET in face. :)

[Shadow KT]

Can I also suggest that people should stop hi-jacking the original poster's thread on how to defeat the missile, by starting the old argument of who believes what is and is not possible

[Coxy_99]

Can I also suggest that people should stop hi-jacking the original poster's thread on how to defeat the missile, by starting the old argument of who believes what is and is not possible

 

He ate R-73 22km in the face and posted a bug report on that to so what to say?

[GGTharos]

Can I also suggest that people should stop hi-jacking the original poster's thread on how to defeat the missile, by starting the old argument of who believes what is and is not possible

 

I looked at the beginning of the threat, it's all a necropost.

[Fri13]

Don't take my words out of context. I did not say that it is not capable of loosing track in general.

 

I didn't.

 

If you would read what I wrote, I gave only a few different scenarios and there are many scenarios where the missile would lose a lock and try to reacquire it - only to lock on to wrong target.

 

I was referencing to the switching to a different aircraft, than the intended target in a furball, as mentioned by the post above my original one.

 

That is realistic thing that can happen, as I explained.

 

Lock-on after launch, loosing track and switching targets mid flight due to confusion (aircraft or flare) are 3 different things

 

As I explained.

And each cause will have a different effect.

And all are possibilities in reality.

[TAW_Blaze]

You mean has, sir, not had.

 

 

 

That, sir, is plain wrong. I A) descended a bit and B) turned left a bit, so missile would pass me in front of me and above me if it wouldn't have changed course.

 

 

Yes, seems ED added LOAL capability to -27ET recently (to -27T possibly aswell) without even telling us in their patch changelogs. Everyone will find out eventually, but this isn't good communication between a developer and their customers.

 

Your maneuvers resulted in a displacement compared to the original course at launch insufficient to remove you from the seeker search cone and you failed to maintain mountain masking. Hence the missile reacquired you when you re-entered the line of sight of the missile. From the only source you provided the missile is flying level 1 g prior to you re-entering line of sight at which point it reacquires and intercepts. It may or may not have turned before that but this cannot be determined based on this video.

 

You could definitely say it was bad luck. However, more importantly you should take away what can be improved on your end - SA.

 

It's hard to tell based on your video again due to the poor PoV but by the available sight picture of the ridgeline you could have positioned yourself to be at the lower region where it would have provided better masking and potentially prevent all of this from happening.

 

You also could have cut power instead of accelerating to stay back and let the missile pass while you had good ground cover since it must have been fairly clear looking forward in your cockpit that right in front of you the mountains are far lower than your immediate vicinity.

 

 

I agree on the developer and customer communication, however this works both ways. If you want them to take you seriously then you have to put in much more effort to prove your claims instead of just providing a rant post with a inadequate video to draw proper conclusions.

[dundun92]

Regardless LOAL has always been on the DCS ET, I had something similar happen a year or two back. Popped up over a ridgeline just after a flanker happened to maddog an ET upwards from the other side. Was very confusing till I looked at the tacview :D

[D4n]

Regardless LOAL has always been on the DCS ET

 

Did it have it even directly on FC3 launch?

What about AIM-9M, does it have it too?

[GGTharos]

Everything has it, it's the same code.