Aim-54 CCM

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Wasn't the aim120B , introduced in 1994 ? 
And wasn't the Aim54A , already replace by the C variant in 1984 ?

How can the Mk60 analog seekerhead compare to the 120B digital seekerhead from 20 years later ?

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Wasn't the aim120B , introduced in 1994 ? 
And wasn't the Aim54A , already replace by the C variant in 1984 ?

How can the Mk60 analog seekerhead compare to the 120B digital seekerhead from 20 years later ?

The real question is, if they're all PD radars why would any of them be decoyed by chaff at all?

[IronMike]

35 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Wasn't the aim120B , introduced in 1994 ? 
And wasn't the Aim54A , already replace by the C variant in 1984 ?

How can the Mk60 analog seekerhead compare to the 120B digital seekerhead from 20 years later ?

It is the last time that I will allow inquiries about this issue from you. And our answer will not change:

Because, as we told you numerous times before, it is most reasonable to assume that it has been updated, especially since production of both A and C crossed over, and the A has been kept in service long after the C has been introduced. Just because it was analog and not digital, it does not mean that it was not made to perform as close as possible. Or that it has to perform worse against a rather simple chaff model as presented in DCS by design.

Again, we use the values that ED asks us to use, because they know best what makes sense within the somewhat limited model of chaff and chaff resistance in DCS, following the logic presented by us. 

Please stop coming back at this issue. We will not change it, unless a better proof has been presented to us, than what we currently have at hand or ED asks us to. In your dozens over dozens of posts, you presented neither proof nor sound arguements that would convince us thus far. "It was made in 1970" is not the kind of arguement that will change our mind and we argued about the why with you more than it should have been necessary. You have already been set to moderation for your content because of it. If you do keep coming back to this topic, further admin action will be taken against you for insistant trolling. We have shown you more patience than anyone else would have until now, to a point where other forum users are complaining why we did not ban you earlier or do not take harsher action against you - which in the future we will.

Accept our answer or do not accept it, but please drop this topic on our forums once and for all. Any further posts from you on this topic will not be allowed anymore or removed in the future. This is not personal. But we will not allow you to further waste our time on questions that have been answered over and over again. This, too, we have asked you now several times, which you continuously keep ignoring. We would appreciate it, if you would finally oblige. Consider this your final warning. Thank you.

Pinging @BIGNEWY and @NineLine for further observation.

[IronMike]

23 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

The real question is, if they're all PD radars why would any of them be decoyed by chaff at all?

This is a very good question. The answer is, because DCS does not seem to apply this logic for its missiles, and hence we follow suit. Which in fact caters to those who complain here along the lines as if we would conspire to destroy their gameplay...

From a book on Electronic Warfare Fundamentals:

"When chaff is dispensed in the airstream, the drag on an individual dipole is so great compared to its mass that it slows to the velocity of the surrounding air mass almost instantly. Since the relative velocity of the chaff, in relation to the radar, is zero, radar systems employing Doppler processing and tracking will not display the chaff."

This is why our PD radar modes ignore chaff, as they should.

[Ghost33]

15 hours ago, Max1mus said:

There are issues between pilot/RIO which make most radar modes practically unusable if the ping difference is in the low 200s. 

What are the issues that can occur ? I started to play with human rio and we faced some issues, not sure if it is on our side or some bugs from de-sync or something ?

 

15 hours ago, Max1mus said:

A magical 2003 plane that time traveled to 2020 and back, stole some meteor missiles and somehow attached them despite not having the software or correct radar (do its pylons even support it) for it. A truly new level of full fidelity modelling and realism.

I'm not sure about the time travel capacities of the Typhoon but the Lutwaffe tranche 2 and 3 got the Meteor integrated this year. My understanding is that we'll get a mix of German Tranche 1 & 2 so it's not a nonsense to have the Meteor coming with it. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Ghost33

[Callsign JoNay]

42 minutes ago, IronMike said:

This is a very good question. The answer is, because DCS does not seem to apply this logic for its missiles, and hence we follow suit. Which in fact caters to those who complain here along the lines as if we would conspire to destroy their gameplay...

From a book on Electronic Warfare Fundamentals:

"When chaff is dispensed in the airstream, the drag on an individual dipole is so great compared to its mass that it slows to the velocity of the surrounding air mass almost instantly. Since the relative velocity of the chaff, in relation to the radar, is zero, radar systems employing Doppler processing and tracking will not display the chaff."

This is why our PD radar modes ignore chaff, as they should.

ED are you listening??

[BIGNEWY]

12 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

ED are you listening??

Always, are you being patient?? 

[Callsign JoNay]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

Always, are you being patient?? 

Never!

[BIGNEWY]

9 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Never!

[Spurts]

All part of getting plane and missile radars to function properly with chaff and real ECM mode effects.

[cheezit]

 

10 minutes ago, Spurts said:

All part of getting plane and missile radars to function properly with chaff and real ECM mode effects.

 

 

My uneducated take on this topic is that the ceiling to how well EW and ECM can be practically implemented in DCS is not very high, but nonetheless we are currently very far below that ceiling.

[Slant]

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

"When chaff is dispensed in the airstream, the drag on an individual dipole is so great compared to its mass that it slows to the velocity of the surrounding air mass almost instantly. Since the relative velocity of the chaff, in relation to the radar, is zero, radar systems employing Doppler processing and tracking will not display the chaff."
 

So, is this bit essentially saying chaff is automatically in the ground clutter filter because of its speed being (basically, since floating) absolute zero and it's relative velocity putting it in the filter?

 

I'm asking for clarification, because since the radar is moving through the air, the relative velocity should be Vc... or am I completely lost here?

Edited December 10, 2021 by Slant

[cheezit]

Of the two filters that could potentially be in play here (main-lobe clutter and zero-doppler [shift]), I think MLC is the one that's going to be relevant for chaff.

 

The MLC filter is subtracting V_ground from the raw doppler return and then filtering out anything within 133 kts of zero.  Since chaff nearly immediately assumes the velocity of the surrounding body of air, unless the component of V_wind pointing directly towards the aircraft is greater than 133 knots, chaff won't get past MLC.

 

I wonder if you could rig up hurricane-force winds in the mission editor and see whether chaff starts showing up on the DDD and/or TID.

[Slant]

Hmm, yeah, that's what I meant but with the proper terminology, I reckon.

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, Slant said:

So, is this bit essentially saying chaff is automatically in the ground clutter filter because of its speed being (basically, since floating) absolute zero and it's relative velocity putting it in the filter?

That's correct. My understanding is the radar in the AIM-54 is a PD radar, so if it's pitbulled on a target chaff should be no factor. We know the notch of the AWG-9 is +/- 133 kts of GS, I don't know how big the notch is for the AIM-54's radar, but the only way chaff would decoy it is if the wind was strong enough to blow the chaff out of the notch. I assume it would probably take some very strong wind to do that, and it would have to not be perpendicular in any way to the approaching missile.

 

Chaff should only be a factor to the AWG-9 if the MLC is set to out,  or if using pulse search, and chaff would have to decoy the AWG before the missile pitbulls, (or impacts in the case of a PDSTT shot).

 

Edit/add: AIM-120s should all be immune to chaff of course, too.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Callsign JoNay

[Max1mus]

10 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

That's correct. My understanding is the radar in the AIM-54 is a PD radar, so if it's pitbulled on a target chaff should be no factor. We know the notch of the AWG-9 is +/- 133 kts of GS, I don't know how big the notch is for the AIM-54's radar, but the only way chaff would decoy it is if the wind was strong enough to blow the chaff out of the notch. I assume it would probably take some very strong wind to do that, and it would have to not be perpendicular in any way to the approaching missile.

 

Chaff should only be a factor to the AWG-9 if the MLC is set to out,  or if using pulse search, and chaff would have to decoy the AWG before the missile pitbulls, (or impacts in the case of a PDSTT shot).

 

Edit/add: AIM-120s should all be immune to chaff of course, too.

 

You bring up a good point with MLC off. And at high altitude with long range launches, the AWG-9 being chaffable there would have a big implication for the first pass.

About close distance. Heres the thing. What if the target is hot at a high speed and then breaks into the notch. The chaff pumped while it was hot will still be there outside the notch filter speed for a while.

ESPECIALLY for a (DCS) AIM-120, which has a filter of only 5 m/s in some situations. Meaning that until the chaff has gone from mach1 to -> 5 m/s, it will be seen. How good that stuff is filtered out is another question. And how well certain jamming pods mess with that filtering. Or how the chaff is cut/designed. The same way flares have been continously improved/adapted (modern jets have "maneuvering flares", the old chaff from ww2 is not the same as that used in modern jets.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Max1mus

[IronMike]

3 hours ago, Max1mus said:

You bring up a good point with MLC off. And at high altitude with long range launches, the AWG-9 being chaffable there would have a big implication for the first pass.

About close distance. Heres the thing. What if the target is hot at a high speed and then breaks into the notch. The chaff pumped while it was hot will still be there outside the notch filter speed for a while.

ESPECIALLY for a (DCS) AIM-120, which has a filter of only 5 m/s in some situations. Meaning that until the chaff has gone from mach1 to -> 5 m/s, it will be seen. How good that stuff is filtered out is another question. And how well certain jamming pods mess with that filtering. Or how the chaff is cut/designed. The same way flares have been continously improved/adapted (modern jets have "maneuvering flares", the old chaff from ww2 is not the same as that used in modern jets.

 

The time this takes is 6ms, an thus not really a factor head-on. When you think of "almost instantly" it would imply something like less than 100ms. Now thinking back of the 6ms that kind of short window would make chaff totally useless against a seeker with pulse-doppler. The chaff in DCS is self-protection chaff, and not smart/ special at all and the simulated window not big enough.

Also, the above quote I posted continues: "Doppler processing radars will continue to track the aircraft unless it also has a relative velocity of zero. This occurs when the aircraft is abeam the radar. Chaff corridor and area saturation tactics against Doppler tracking radars will have limited effectiveness."

The seekers of these missiles should also be smart enough to recognize this kind of chaff as fake, if they would be confused for that splitsecond to loose the target, and track the correct target again. 

High altitude, long distance or short distance or low altitude have little to nothing to do with that, but rather the time window, which again, is so small, it goes against null and thus should not be a factor.
 

Edited December 11, 2021 by IronMike

[Slant]

10 hours ago, Max1mus said:

About close distance. Heres the thing. What if the target is hot at a high speed and then breaks into the notch. The chaff pumped while it was hot will still be there outside the notch filter speed for a while.
 

 

You're ignoring what IronMike says about Chaff basically stopping in mid air instantaneously. This is dishonest debating. Read what he said, try to understand it. Don't gloss over important details and pretend they don't exist. It doesn't matter which way the bandit goes, as soon as Chaff is dropped, those light foil stripes will be floating around and not continue to go hot at you at 0.8 Mach... this is common sense, mate. Come on.

Edit: Fun experiment suggestion, take tinfoil, cut it into small, very thin stripes, take a handful of that and throw it as hard as you can. See how far you get.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Slant

[IronMike]

39 minutes ago, Slant said:

You're ignoring what IronMike says about Chaff basically stopping in mid air instantaneously. This is dishonest debating. Read what he said, try to understand it. Don't gloss over important details and pretend they don't exist. It doesn't matter which way the bandit goes, as soon as Chaff is dropped, those light foil stripes will be floating around and not continue to go hot at you at 0.8 Mach... this is common sense, mate. Come on.

Edit: Fun experiment suggestion, take tinfoil, cut it into small, very thin stripes, take a handful of that and throw it as hard as you can. See how far you get.

 

Don't worry, we won't stand for his trolling any longer. His posting rights have been revoked. After insulting me in PMs several times, his attempt at coming off "nice" and "genuine" here, shows just how disingenuous he is. We certainly won't stand for it anymore, and he certainly will not be welcome here anymore.

Edited December 11, 2021 by IronMike

[Slant]

Sorry you have to endure it. But I appreciate the discussion, as I learned more details about the radar and chaff interactions that I wasn't quite aware of. So it's not all for naught.

[IronMike]

3 minutes ago, Slant said:

Sorry you have to endure it. But I appreciate the discussion, as I learned more details about the radar and chaff interactions that I wasn't quite aware of. So it's not all for naught.

All good, and if there is an upside for you guys, I am happy. If you have any questions, feel free to always ask. Besides us there is a lot of knowledgable users in these forums who can give a lot of great input.

[IronMike]

14 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Chaff should only be a factor to the AWG-9 if the MLC is set to out,  or if using pulse search, and chaff would have to decoy the AWG before the missile pitbulls, (or impacts in the case of a PDSTT shot).

This is correct, btw, irl chaff would show in PS modes and if the MLC is turned off.

However we will not model this currently, as no one else does, and as it would not be possible anyway until chaff is being tracked as world objects. Currently it is just a dice-throw to shake missiles and a visual effect.

Edited December 11, 2021 by IronMike

[Spurts]

you don't need equivalent components to have equivalent performance.  The dish size in a Phoenix is several times larger in area and this effect power output and gain.  So the Phoenix and AMRAAM having similar performance is more about the Phoenix using Brute Power compared to the AMRAAM have finesse.

[Quid]

Support for AIM-54As did not stop when production stopped.  I'm away for the holidays so my typical sources aren't available, but GlobalSecurity has a run-down:

"Performance modifications to the AIM-54A were incorporated during and after production. The Reject Image Device (RID), High Altitude Performance (HAP), and Extended Active Gate (EAG) were incorporated during production. The MK 11 MOD 3 Electronics Assembly (EA) modification was installed by retrofit after production. "

"The AIM-54A's MK 11 MOD 3 EA modification upgrades the Targeting Detecting Device (TDD) to improve warhead lethality against short targets."

"The AIM-54A's HAP modification improves capabilities against very high and fast targets."

Site source is: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54.htm

Stockpiles of AIM-54As were not depleted even by the 1990s, so it is unsurprising that the A was still being supported with upgrades by Hughes as the 54C became the standard.  How that gets put to values in DCS is something for the devs to figure out, but missiles, like aircraft, are upgraded over their lifetimes.  The AIM-54A is no different, and assuming you're facing 1970s technology in a 1990s scenario (for the sake of example) would be foolish, unless a nation is known to have older technology.  Iranian AIM-54As, for example, would not have seen the same updates.  I don't know if or how that will be addressed when HB releases the 95; we'll have to see.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Quid said:

Support for AIM-54As did not stop when production stopped.  I'm away for the holidays so my typical sources aren't available, but GlobalSecurity has a run-down:

"Performance modifications to the AIM-54A were incorporated during and after production. The Reject Image Device (RID), High Altitude Performance (HAP), and Extended Active Gate (EAG) were incorporated during production. The MK 11 MOD 3 Electronics Assembly (EA) modification was installed by retrofit after production. "

"The AIM-54A's MK 11 MOD 3 EA modification upgrades the Targeting Detecting Device (TDD) to improve warhead lethality against short targets."

"The AIM-54A's HAP modification improves capabilities against very high and fast targets."

Site source is: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54.htm

Stockpiles of AIM-54As were not depleted even by the 1990s, so it is unsurprising that the A was still being supported with upgrades by Hughes as the 54C became the standard.  How that gets put to values in DCS is something for the devs to figure out, but missiles, like aircraft, are upgraded over their lifetimes.  The AIM-54A is no different, and assuming you're facing 1970s technology in a 1990s scenario (for the sake of example) would be foolish, unless a nation is known to have older technology.  Iranian AIM-54As, for example, would not have seen the same updates.  I don't know if or how that will be addressed when HB releases the 95; we'll have to see.

This.

By the same logic suggested as to when something was made, the F-15C should then also be capped at the technology of 1984? Or 1979 even?

In a post I did not allow (for various reasons) someone suggested that the F14 was just built 25 years after the last ww2 fighter fought over Germany. While a 2000s fighter jet would be 30 years younger even. Aka, the difference should compare like an F14 compares to a P-51...

This is not how logic works. There are so many more factors, than just time or timestamp of origin.

A) Technology advancements become increasingly faster over time and include retrofits the longer the time progresses. Say someone would build a P-51 today (for normal use, not for historic accuracy), it would likely come with a glass cockpit, a G3000 and whatnot..

B) It depends who built it, and if that someone kept updating his creation. The answer in our cases is almost always yes.

C) It depends how long it has been kept in service, for what purposes, etc.

D) technological jumps in the 20th century were much greater at first, and become smaller and smaller as time progresses, too, although the impact can vastly differ from insignificant to a complete new rebranding of how we perceive the world, no matter how big the jump is.

... and so much more.

This is why "but it was built in 1970" is not an arguement at all. Go figure, the brandnew car that you buy today, has been built already 8 years ago... at least. And with time progressing, technology becomes increasingly retrofittable, compatible, etc. - ofc depending if wanted. 

Let us please collectively move on from this arguement, as it will not change our mind and speaks against everything we know.

Edited December 11, 2021 by IronMike