R-73 and R-27T/ET flares resistance revision

[85th_Maverick]

Isn't the R-27's IR seeker a bit too resistant to flares? I personally don't think it has much of an ECCM system and even the modified (I don't know what has been modified though) R-27T used by Iran as a SAM missile, proves to love flares even when the target is in full afterburner, as proven by recent Iran-Saudi Arabia and Iran-UAE encounters. Even the R-73 is almost as flares resistant as the AIM-9X, when it should normally be a lot worse versus flares, but the R-27T/ET in DCS have their seekers perform already as good as the mentioned R-73.

[Skysurfer]

I mean, have you played DCS? This is a pretty bold claim to make as the T/ET and 73 are really easy to flare out and defeat based on aspect and burner use.

[BlackPixxel]

First of all they are far from resistant to flares, they eat them alot in DCS.

 

And additionally, the R-27T/ET have CCM. In the manual it is described as having a good resistance against active and passive interference.

Quote

ТГС имеет хорошую помехозащищенность от активных и естественных помех.

 

Sounds like you recently got shot down by ET's alot? 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Their CCM values are the same as the AIM-9M and other contemporaries from the era

the 9X is considerably better, scroll to the bottom, this has the Counter Measure Rejection values from when they were viewable before 2.7

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r3vEbiLWu_riHekhnd8JVUUw-cYqHoif/view

ccm_k0 is what you're looking for the lower the number the better the rejection is and iirc it should be logarithmic too

[dundun92]

On 5/20/2021 at 10:38 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

Even the R-73 is almost as flares resistant as the AIM-9X

Yeah, no. R-27ET and R-73 as mentioned above have the exact same CCM as the AIM-9M, and only take about 5 flares to spoof under normal conditions.

[GGTharos]

On 5/20/2021 at 11:38 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

Isn't the R-27's IR seeker a bit too resistant to flares? I personally don't think it has much of an ECCM system and even the modified (I don't know what has been modified though) R-27T used by Iran as a SAM missile, proves to love flares even when the target is in full afterburner, as proven by recent Iran-Saudi Arabia and Iran-UAE encounters. Even the R-73 is almost as flares resistant as the AIM-9X, when it should normally be a lot worse versus flares, but the R-27T/ET in DCS have their seekers perform already as good as the mentioned R-73.

 

You're just not abusing DCS correctly

You need to be out of AB, have a certain amount of speed ideally, dispense enough flares in a short amount of time and maneuver simultaneously (preferably normal to the tracking LOS)

[85th_Maverick]

On 5/24/2021 at 6:34 PM, BlackPixxel said:

First of all they are far from resistant to flares, they eat them alot in DCS.

 

And additionally, the R-27T/ET have CCM. In the manual it is described as having a good resistance against active and passive interference.

 

Sounds like you recently got shot down by ET's alot? 

Copy that! So it's not as this link tells:

https://codex.uoaf.net/index.php/FC3#AA-10B.2FD_.28R27T.2FET.29

 

And no, it only sounds for you that I get shot by ET nor R-73 very often, both in MP or SP, but those few times I manage to get shot, I wonder why, considering the link that I've provided! Get it?

 

Copy that! Now I learn, based on what you tell that they have ECCM logics! Sorry,  I don't waste time reading manuals, so I ask here directly about one thing or another and who can be kind to answer (as you did, thx), answers!

[dundun92]

1 minute ago, 85th_Maverick said:

Copy that! So it's not as this link tells:

https://codex.uoaf.net/index.php/FC3#AA-10B.2FD_.28R27T.2FET.29

Nope, thats not any sort of official source

[85th_Maverick]

On 5/22/2021 at 12:45 AM, Skysurfer said:

I mean, have you played DCS? This is a pretty bold claim to make as the T/ET and 73 are really easy to flare out and defeat based on aspect and burner use.

No, I haven't played DCS and I've accidentally clicked on ED forums to talk about how the missiles are modeled in it! How do you guys "think" before replying? They are just not easy flare eaters as you say and have just barely a bit higher chance of going for them compared to a 9X. That's all! I had to punch 10 in 0.02 seconds (in F-16) with idle throttle and still 1 in 3 times the missile won't go for flares, no matter the distance between the launcher aircraft and my plane. It's all about the ECCM logics.

Edited May 28, 2021 by 85th_Maverick

[Skysurfer]

4 minutes ago, 85th_Maverick said:

No, I haven't played DCS and I've accidentally clicked on ED forums to talk about how the missiles are modeled in it! How do you guys "think" before replying? They are just not easy flare eaters as you say and have just barely a bit higher chance of going for them compared to a 9X. That's all! I had to punch 10 in 0.02 seconds (in F-16) with idle throttle and still 1 in 3 times the missile won't go for flares, no matter the distance between the launcher aircraft and my plane. It's all about the ECCM logics.

 

 

Show me a tacview of this happening please.

[85th_Maverick]

14 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Their CCM values are the same as the AIM-9M and other contemporaries from the era

the 9X is considerably better, scroll to the bottom, this has the Counter Measure Rejection values from when they were viewable before 2.7

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r3vEbiLWu_riHekhnd8JVUUw-cYqHoif/view

ccm_k0 is what you're looking for the lower the number the better the rejection is and iirc it should be logarithmic too

Many thanks bro...! That's a way to answer!

23 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

You're just not abusing DCS correctly

You need to be out of AB, have a certain amount of speed ideally, dispense enough flares in a short amount of time and maneuver simultaneously (preferably normal to the tracking LOS)

Thanks for reminding Tharos! Although I knew that already about the best conditions to make the flares most effective, it was all about this link that tells very different stuff about the R-73 and R-27T/ET:

https://codex.uoaf.net/index.php/FC3#AA-10B.2FD_.28R27T.2FET.29

 

Cheers bro!;)

[85th_Maverick]

40 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

Yeah, no. R-27ET and R-73 as mentioned above have the exact same CCM as the AIM-9M, and only take about 5 flares to spoof under normal conditions.

Well, as I've mentioned, I drop 10, not 5 (in F-16 with 0.02 time interval) and still have it not go for flares, although it might be due to not enough speed only (some 200+kias), but changing LOS and being well below AB are taking place! Anyway, it might be very good as they are already, I just didn't know about how effective their ECCM logic is, but I had to reply to you that 5 are not enough! Cheers!

Edited May 28, 2021 by 85th_Maverick

[GGTharos]

I think the F-16 flare type has changed and the single flare is now less effective.

[GGTharos]

19 minutes ago, 85th_Maverick said:

Many thanks bro...! That's a way to answer!

Thanks for reminding Tharos! Although I knew that already about the best conditions to make the flares most effective, it was all about this link that tells very different stuff about the R-73 and R-27T/ET:

https://codex.uoaf.net/index.php/FC3#AA-10B.2FD_.28R27T.2FET.29

 

Cheers bro!;)

 

I wouldn't really believe that site ... it makes little sense, and there are videos of real R-27s (used as SAMs) hitting flaring F-15Es.

 

At the same time, as you know the flare model in DCS is completely stochastic while IRL it's anything but.  IRL a new flare could come out and suddenly the ECCM is worth zero, until you correct it.  We have none of this in DCS.  Likewise, IRL flares are used to abuse the data input method of the single detector seekers (ie. pretty much everything before FPAs)  which is not possible in DCS, since we don't really simulate seeker function.   In turn these seekers have fun ECCM like 'if you see the intensity rise faster than this, quit tracking and wait until it passes' - and they also might have a way to count the number of targets, in which case they might have a limited target memory ... and still none of this applicabple to DCS, so, as you know it's all about cheating the dice in DCS

 

There's probably no way to drive the probability of a target switch to 1, just very close to it.

[XPACT]

On 5/21/2021 at 5:38 AM, 85th_Maverick said:

R-27T used by Iran as a SAM missile, proves to love flares even when the target is in full afterburner, as proven by recent Iran-Saudi Arabia and Iran-UAE encounters

 

You mean this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpQ0nOsT6o

 

Well I must inform you that it was a direct hit, F-15 was damaged but landed, if I remember correctly rear horizontal stabilizer was hit... but missile obviously didn't detonate either because of malfunction or it was damaged during modification for ground launch. If that missile detonated those engines would be no more.

 

Edit: Forgot to add in original post, Iran ≠ Yemen

Edited May 28, 2021 by XPACT

[85th_Maverick]

8 hours ago, XPACT said:

 

You mean this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIpQ0nOsT6o

 

Well I must inform you that it was a direct hit, F-15 was damaged but landed, if I remember correctly rear horizontal stabilizer was hit... but missile obviously didn't detonate either because of malfunction or it was damaged during modification for ground launch. If that missile detonated those engines would be no more.

 

Edit: Forgot to add in original post, Iran ≠ Yemen

 

Not a direct hit, but although the missile self-detonated some tens of meters slightly above and either to the left or right of the plane (we can't see the 3rd dimension), the blast and/or shrapnel damage was just enough to do the damage you mention.

And, I wasn't specifically mentioning that video, but this one...:

 

9 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Show me a tacview of this happening please.

You bet..., lol! I wonder how I'm the first one proving this...!

 

10 flares vs R-27ET, ET wins.trk 10 flares, enough speed, some maneuvering, no deceiving.acmi

[85th_Maverick]

Just fresh, with 15 flares. Same result. Indeed I was pushing (not pulling) some around -2Gs while dropping them, but still, it was towards the ground and the IR seeker is more sensitive to ground heat also and I was having some speed in there. I'm not complaining or anything, but just testing it for you!

Even with 15 flares, same result.acmi Even with 15, same result=).trk

[85th_Maverick]

And as far as I remember, in 2.5 the R-27T/ET seeker was going for the first 3-4 flares (not 3-4 pairs, exactly 3-4 flares), so I believe they've been most likely changed, otherwise I can't get the differences. From my opinion, missile IR seekers have evolved, so the newest models might not necessarily be unrealistically resistant to flares, but for the early models we probably have in DCS, they might just be too resistant!

[dundun92]

10 hours ago, 85th_Maverick said:

Well, as I've mentioned, I drop 10, not 5 (in F-16 with 0.02 time interval) and still have it not go for flares, although it might be due to not enough speed only (some 200+kias), but changing LOS and being well below AB are taking place! Anyway, it might be very good as they are already, I just didn't know about how effective their ECCM logic is, but I had to reply to you that 5 are not enough! Cheers!

 

The F-16s got less effective flares this last patch, so that may be playing into it. I personally used programs of 6 flares pre patch and it worked decently well, but ive had to up it to 10.

[Skysurfer]

Yeah, I know who you are now.  

 

Your use of flares is pretty wrong, try spacing them out more and dropping more in an interval, not just a program. Aspect matters as well - there is no reason to notch a heatseeker or a Flanker to begin with. Are you going to full MIL or to idle thrust? TLDR - you want multiple bursts of say 10 flares per burst, it's always better to flare a bit too much than too little and die, after all every flare you drop is a RNG diceroll.

 

However I do agree with the fact that the "small" flares ED introduced should not be 50% less effective, this is pretty stupid. There is stuff like rise to peak time, actual heat output and IR spectrum + fadeout time. 

9 hours ago, 85th_Maverick said:

And as far as I remember, in 2.5 the R-27T/ET seeker was going for the first 3-4 flares (not 3-4 pairs, exactly 3-4 flares), so I believe they've been most likely changed, otherwise I can't get the differences. From my opinion, missile IR seekers have evolved, so the newest models might not necessarily be unrealistically resistant to flares, but for the early models we probably have in DCS, they might just be too resistant!

 

And if this is the last patch then it might very well be, haven't really done much PvP against reds or testing lately. 

[dundun92]

Ehh theres no reason to space out flares, in fact getting as many in the FoV as possible has been shown to increase effectiveness (e.g, 5 flares at once has a higher effectiveness than 5 over a 2s period, even when the missile TOF is over 2s). Also, MIL vs IDLE doesnt actually matter for IRCM. In DCS, its either your in AB, or you arent. And aspect is similar; your either ahead or behind the 3-9 line as far as the missile is concerned.

[Mistang]

In real life flares don't do much against anything but very primitive missiles. In Afghanistan the soviets found flares worked against Sa 7 but stingers were dominant and grounded their air force after 1987. 
 

Every missile made after the 80s has UV sensors and flares are totally ineffective. The way they are modeled in games is a sign that the designers don't actually talk to military sources. 
 

 

[Cmptohocah]

4 hours ago, Mistang said:

In real life flares don't do much against anything but very primitive missiles. In Afghanistan the soviets found flares worked against Sa 7 but stingers were dominant and grounded their air force after 1987. 
 

Every missile made after the 80s has UV sensors and flares are totally ineffective. The way they are modeled in games is a sign that the designers don't actually talk to military sources. 
 

 

 

Is that the reason why aircraft still cary flares?

Edited June 15, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[Mistang]

41 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

 

Is that the reason why aircraft still cary flares?

 

Flares are basically a contingency in case other technologies in the future require them. There are virtually no missiles made in the last 40 years susceptible to flares.

Chaff, probably the same story but that's classified. 

[GGTharos]

Your statements are proven false in real combat.   Not only that, it's not even hard to find GAO reports where improvements against flares (and of flares) are sought.

Flares are primary in today's defensive programs, and the 'contingency' is 'a missile will or has been launched at me'.   There are no other technologies mounted on the vast majority of fighter aircraft that will help against heat seekers.

Edited June 15, 2021 by GGTharos