correct as is New Flares ?

[TEOMOOSE]

Hey,

The recent update 2.7.1.6430 open Beta added the new "small flares to the Hornet, which is the TM-M206 Infrared Decoy flare used with the AN/ALE-47 "RWR" dispensing system, same in the F-16CM Viper.

The "old" MJU-7 dual slot cartridge was replaced with the "new" TM-M206 single slot cartridge, and as effective as its predecessor, enabling to carry twice as much flares. - RedKite did a test reporting on the reduced effectiveness of the "new" flares.

Note: the new flare, was introduced with the A-10C 2, the 50% increased flare capacity
 

Just because its "small" it dosent mean its less effective.  Here is a link to a datasheet for both the M206 and the MJU-7.
https://www.tara-aerospace.com/TM-M206
https://www.tara-aerospace.com/MJU-7A-B

 

p.s.: the Viper changelog dosent say, the new flare being used, instead:

• Countermeasures quantity do not match - Fixed .

[WHOGX5]

Did some ACM training just after the last patch dropped before I even knew that anything in regards to countermeasure effectiveness had been changed. There were several situations where we noted people using proper IR defensive maneuvers and throttle management which have been effective up until now in conjunction with appropriate countermeasure programs which have also been effective up until now, yet the end result was the missile impacting the defending aircraft leaving us leaving us quite baffled. It's worth noting that this training was conducted with AIM-9M's, not the AIM-9X with its increased flare resistance.

 

So to summarize, there is no doubt in our minds that something definitely changed in regards to flare effectiveness.

[Rudel_chw]

11 minutes ago, WHOGX5 said:

So to summarize, there is no doubt in our minds that something definitely changed in regards to flare effectiveness.

 

See this:

 

 

[Falconeer]

The Viper in RL can use different kinds of flares including the smaller ones, so it can hold 30 shots in one module.

 

The MJU-7 flares are twice the size of the smaller ones, hence why there only fit 15 in the same module. The modules for the flare types are different and also the back plate on the module is replaced when using different types. the back plate has readable contacts on it, so the Viper can "read" what kind of flares are used at that time

Edited June 6, 2021 by Falconeer

[uri_ba]

you can mix and match flare types and chaff in each dispenser AFAIK, and the system is usually smart enough to dispense the correct type of flare.

i.e some systems deploy one type of flare when in AB, and another when in MIL. some will detect it ran out of specific type of flares and will release something else. even compensating, i.e firing off two M206 if it ran out of MJU-7 and needs to dispense one of those.

but all in all. flare thermal signature is matched to the platform to provide effective protection. so yes, M206 should be as effective as MJU-7 in some scenarios and lack in others.

for an F-16 in MIL M206 might be enough. but not in burner. unfortunately, I don't think DCS (or any other flight sim for that matter) treats chaff and flare in any meaningful way other then RNG generator. if missile has 90% to reject flare. the it will reject any flare 90% of times.

[Falconeer]

On 5/25/2021 at 12:49 PM, uri_ba said:

you can mix and match flare types and chaff in each dispenser AFAIK, and the system is usually smart enough to dispense the correct type of flare.

i.e some systems deploy one type of flare when in AB, and another when in MIL. some will detect it ran out of specific type of flares and will release something else. even compensating, i.e firing off two M206 if it ran out of MJU-7 and needs to dispense one of those.

 

No, you can't mix chaff and flare in one dispenser.

 

It's one or another. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Falconeer

[iLOVEwindmills]

Mostly wondering if it's correct that they are that much less effective.

 

I guess they are smaller, but couldn't they be using more modern materials or have a shorter burn time, achieving similar effectiveness as the larger flares?

 

 

[Lace]

16 hours ago, WHOGX5 said:

Did some ACM training just after the last patch dropped before I even knew that anything in regards to countermeasure effectiveness had been changed. There were several situations where we noted people using proper IR defensive maneuvers and throttle management which have been effective up until now in conjunction with appropriate countermeasure programs which have also been effective up until now, yet the end result was the missile impacting the defending aircraft leaving us leaving us quite baffled. It's worth noting that this training was conducted with AIM-9M's, not the AIM-9X with its increased flare resistance.

 

So to summarize, there is no doubt in our minds that something definitely changed in regards to flare effectiveness.

 

Concur.  Now seem much less effective.

[SCPanda]

So did the Viper get the new flares? Or is it just for the Hornet?

 

If so, with the new flares, how much can you carry on the Viper now? and how much chaff?

 

Before, the standard was 60 chaffs and 60 flares for the Viper. 

[TEOMOOSE]

10 hours ago, SCPanda said:

So did the Viper get the new flares? Or is it just for the Hornet?

 

If so, with the new flares, how much can you carry on the Viper now? and how much chaff?

 

Before, the standard was 60 chaffs and 60 flares for the Viper. 

you have to excuse my ignorance, and i hope it will not derail this topic, but i gotta ask, Have you read this post ? The questions you are asking suggest that you did not.

[TEOMOOSE]

to summit up,

You can carry (at least this version) one type of flare. With the latest update brings the "small" flares called M206! This update also changes the Viper flare count which is now 120, from 60.

The only difference between the old MJU-7 and the m206 is the cartridge size. The 206 is smaller but as good as the old mju-7. The materials used in both are the same and burns the same at temp. and when you say small you only say the cartridge size. The flares are the same in diameter.

Generally speaking when you drop flares to avoid IR seeker missiles you want to push throttle idle to differentiate your heat signature from flares, and hope the IR missile will lock on the highest temp.

If you are already flying slow and low, than you are SOL. 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Teomo

[Bunny Clark]

On 5/25/2021 at 7:21 AM, Falconeer said:

No, you can't mix chaff and flare in one dispenser.

My understanding is each dispenser "bucket" is divided into three zones of 10 slots each. Each zone can be loaded with a different expendable. Interestingly, the Hornet in DCS can be modified in increments of 10 while the Viper can only be modified right now in increments of 30. I'm not sure if that's realistic or not, but the ALE-47 is capable of addressing expendables in banks of 10. With GenX it would be annoying to only be able to load expendables in buckets of 30. 

 

3 hours ago, Teomo said:

This update also changes the Viper flare count which is now 120, from 60.

This update did not change the number of flares the Viper can carry, it can still carry 120 total expendables, with the default being 60 chaff and 60 flares. Previously the Viper was using the double-slot flare cartridges but they only took up a single slot, which should not be physically possible. The Hornet did have its total flare count increased, as it was previously using the double-slot flares and counting them correctly, though the Hornet is not capable of being loaded with double-slot flares. The Viper should be capable of loading both single-slot and double-slot flares, as is the A-10, I have no idea if that's planned though. 

[TEOMOOSE]

1 hour ago, Bunny Clark said:

My understanding is each dispenser "bucket" is divided into three zones of 10 slots each. Each zone can be loaded with a different expendable. Interestingly, the Hornet in DCS can be modified in increments of 10 while the Viper can only be modified right now in increments of 30. I'm not sure if that's realistic or not, but the ALE-47 is capable of addressing expendables in banks of 10. With GenX it would be annoying to only be able to load expendables in buckets of 30. 

 

This update did not change the number of flares the Viper can carry, it can still carry 120 total expendables, with the default being 60 chaff and 60 flares. Previously the Viper was using the double-slot flare cartridges but they only took up a single slot, which should not be physically possible. The Hornet did have its total flare count increased, as it was previously using the double-slot flares and counting them correctly, though the Hornet is not capable of being loaded with double-slot flares. The Viper should be capable of loading both single-slot and double-slot flares, as is the A-10, I have no idea if that's planned though. 

Thank you for correcting.


I think it should be fine if they decide to go with the single slot cartridge, there are no benefits of having the dual cartridge flares since its the same, but doubling up on the flares could make life and death, and its used bu the Viper rwr system.

 

[SCPanda]

6 hours ago, Teomo said:

you have to excuse my ignorance, and i hope it will not derail this topic, but i gotta ask, Have you read this post ? The questions you are asking suggest that you did not.

I skimmed it

[Ramsay]

1 hour ago, Teomo said:

there are no benefits of having the dual cartridge flares since its the same,

Not in DCS, currently the smaller flares now fitted to the Hornet and Viper are about 70% as effective as the dual cartridge modelled in the A-10C, etc., so you need to use twice the amount of flares for the same effect.

 

https://youtu.be/9O75Sue8n-c?t=121

 

[Falconeer]

On 5/27/2021 at 1:37 AM, Bunny Clark said:

My understanding is each dispenser "bucket" is divided into three zones of 10 slots each. Each zone can be loaded with a different expendable. Interestingly, the Hornet in DCS can be modified in increments of 10 while the Viper can only be modified right now in increments of 30. I'm not sure if that's realistic or not, but the ALE-47 is capable of addressing expendables in banks of 10. With GenX it would be annoying to only be able to load expendables in buckets of 30. 

 

Thats only true for the later "mixed payload" dispensers, which we don't have in DCS as far as i know (also dependend on software upgrades)

 

For MJU-7 or M206 type of flares, mixing is not possible. The module for the MJU-7 is different than M206, because MJU-7 is twice the size of a M206. (It's  also know as a 2 by 1 flare, while a M206 is a 1 by 1 flare) Therefore the backplate can only recognize 1 type of ordinance loaded.

 

See the image below. M206 on the left,  MJU-7 on the right

Edited June 6, 2021 by Falconeer

[TEOMOOSE]

18 hours ago, Ramsay said:

Not in DCS, currently the smaller flares now fitted to the Hornet and Viper are about 70% as effective as the dual cartridge modelled in the A-10C, etc., so you need to use twice the amount of flares for the same effect.

 

https://youtu.be/9O75Sue8n-c?t=121

 

What are you on about ?? 

 

This is getting out of hands man. I started this thread saying, we should be able to carry twice as much and it should be as good as the old one, not less effective. You talking about something I already said. I recommend you to read my very first post. Thanks.

[GumidekCZ]

M206 and MJU-7 are not same performance.  M206 is no more than 60% effective as MJU-7. Thats also why even now the A-10C II is using both type flares. M206 in wingtip dispencers and MJU-7 in discpencers behind main gears.

Not dierct proof here but usefull data from its sister and brother made by CHEMRING company:

Flare CM 218 Mk3 Type 1 - MJU-7 equivalent

https://www.chemring.com/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V3/documents/countermeasures/updated datasheets/conventional flares/58500_Issue_8.pdf

  

Flare CM 118 Mk3 Type 1 - M206 equivalent

https://www.chemring.com/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V3/documents/countermeasures/updated datasheets/conventional flares/58550.pdf

    

Just how complicated is world of only western made flares is depicted in folling article:

https://www.armadainternational.com/2021/09/airborne-deception/

Edited February 16, 2022 by GumidekCZ

[feipan]

Will the effectiveness of the new flares eventually be fixed? Any news about that?

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all, 

I have spoken to the team, the smaller flares are correct as they are, being smaller they are less effective. 

Thank you

[FoxOne007]

14 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all, 

I have spoken to the team, the smaller flares are correct as they are, being smaller they are less effective. 

Thank you

That’s not how things work, by that logic bigger engines would mean they’re faster or more effective which is also not the case. Things generally get smaller and more effective….. the above post shows some hard data that contradicts what “the team says”.

 

And also demonstrated below:

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by FoxOne007

[Deano87]

1 hour ago, FoxOne007 said:

That’s not how things work

When it comes to an amount of a chemical compound (the same in both flares) burning, that's exactly how it works. The smaller flare gives off a smaller IR signature, so is less effective. 

[GumidekCZ]

Size not always reflect the efficiency. If we are talking about MTV flares, it still can be same chemical compound => same peak heat radiated per steradian, but in half of time of big flare. If IR seeker is narrow FOV (many modern IR seekers, like SA-18/24, FIM-92C) with aim to reject flares, longer time of burning outside of seeker has no effect on survivability.

As this academic PhD thesis says, the effectivity of small versus big also depends on target aspect. Only Beam aspect fully utilize potential of big flares.

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/6935

(flare type 218 = big flare, 118 = small flare)

Edited February 23, 2022 by GumidekCZ