Odd chaff resistance of AIM-120?

[July]

(OB vers. 2.5.6.59398) I've been seeing some odd AMRAAM behaviour lately (could be as a result of this new OB patch?) against targets that begin to pop chaff, the missiles in this particular case (towards the end of the .trk file) seem to have been tracking their targets fine, then all of a sudden go for chaff. In this .trk, one missile even pulls ~23.0G.

 

Is this normal behaviour? I'd like to get some thoughts on this.

 

Attached below are both the .trk files and tacview.

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1CfZ_Cn6XHBQcQ5Xko9aCVnn2I_tnqQHA?usp=sharing

Tacview-20201219-011251-DCS-Caucasus - Coiled Derp.zip.acmi

[nighthawk2174]

This behavior is not new but also not correct.  We just have to hope ED rebuilds the chaff system as currently they are just a big flare but for radar missiles.  This is not how (in particular) PD missiles and chaff should interact.

[Blinky.ben]

I’m interested to hear as to why you say this as fact? I see these statements a lot in the forums when they demand the Aim-120 to be made more superior.

 

I have been working with some of the most advanced submarine hunting and air search radars for a couple of decades now and Doppler is NOT the Gods eye for everything. There is soooo much going on in the radar world that a statement like PD radars can’t be effected by chaff is a shinning example of people reading Wikipedia as if it a reason to be called a qualified expert. People in my field spend years studying radar theory. In my current field a new member spends 4 months 5 days a week 10 hours a day just studying radar theory before They even get  to see the radar itself. Then they get another 4 months of training before they get to go on a real mission and even then they aren’t considered a reliable operator for at least a year after that.
 

So my point here is ED have their SME’s that unless you work in the field no matter how much you think you know it doesn’t scrap the surface to how much these people who have studied and learnt. Which ED I would suspect rely on for advice. Doppler is not the answer to the God radar/missile so much demand from ED.

 

chaff does have an effect it always will have an effect as long as a radar pulse is involved. It effects some radars more then others but is also not the answer to easily defeating all missile either.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Blinky.ben

[nighthawk2174]

8 minutes ago, Blinky.ben said:

I’m interested to hear as to why you say this as fact? I see these statements a lot in the forums when they demand the Aim-120 to be made more superior.

 

I have been working with some of the most advanced submarine hunting and air search radars for a couple of decades now and Doppler is NOT the Gods eye for everything. There is soooo much going on in the radar world that a statement like PD radars can’t be effected by chaff is a shinning example of people reading Wikipedia as if it a reason to be called a qualified expert. People in my field spend years studying radar theory. In my current field a new member spends 4 months 5 days a week 10 hours a day just studying radar theory before They even get  to see the radar itself. Then they get another 4 months of training before they get to go on a real mission and even then they aren’t considered a reliable operator for at least a year after that.
 

So my point here is ED have their SME’s that unless you work in the field no matter how much you think you know it doesn’t scrap the surface to how much these people who have studied and learnt. Which ED I would suspect rely on for advice. Doppler is not the answer to the God radar/missile so much demand from ED.

 

chaff does have an effect it always will have an effect as long as a radar pulse is involved. It effects some radars more then others but is also not the answer to easily defeating all missile either.

 

I have been told by multiple pilots at this point that chaff is not very effective against missiles.  One even said its like less than a .01% chance it would actually decoy a missile (context was modern active missiles).  Where it can help though is near the notch in throwing off a track from a tracking radar for a SARH missile and helping in attempts to confuse re-acquisition attempts.  Now its not that chaff won't have an effect it most certainly will but it acting like a flare but for radar missiles just doesn't seem how it would work.  More that it would draw the aimpoint behind the target.  Or help the target get into the notch.  Not causing the missile to pull max G towards a chaff bundle well outside the res cell of the radar.

[Blinky.ben]

6 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

 

I have been told by multiple pilots at this point that chaff is not very effective against missiles.  One even said its like less than a .01% chance it would actually decoy a missile (context was modern active missiles).  Where it can help though is near the notch in throwing off a track from a tracking radar for a SARH missile and helping in attempts to confuse re-acquisition attempts.  Now its not that chaff won't have an effect it most certainly will but it acting like a flare but for radar missiles just doesn't seem how it would work.  More that it would draw the aimpoint behind the target.  Or help the target get into the notch.  Not causing the missile to pull max G towards a chaff bundle well outside the res cell of the radar.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your original point.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Blinky.ben