reported AIM 120C Still easily defeatable

[PatatOorlog]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15GyxPgbqHK0EaH5QH8GmphtgcWf1NIQr/view?usp=sharing


 

Edited April 28, 2022 by PatatOorlog

[BIGNEWY]

We will take a look, but as mentioned in discord it will still be possible to notch. 

And we all know you like to notch and are good at it, so the title should be "AIM 120C Still easily defeatable for me" 

[marcoscosta]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

so the title should be "AIM 120C Still easily defeatable for me" 

Not really 

 

notch.trk

[MARLAN_]

It should be nearly impossible to notch an AMRAAM (or a modern radar at all for that matter) as far as I am aware.

It's a notch filter, it chooses not to see things in the notch due to clutter, but that filter will narrow down as range closes. At the point the missile is pitbull it should be nearly impossible to notch. Perhaps with some luck, a nearly perfect notch, and chaff + jamming you can get lucky against a pitbull AMRAAM, but the "lazy" flying into the notch with the very rough heading guesstimation that most do using via RWR or SA is definitely insufficient.

Even for an aircraft radar much further away you'd need to fly within 1-2 degrees of error to limit closure enough to enter the notch filter, using the RWR or SA page is not sufficient real world (check RDR ATTK BRAA or AIC BRAA callout to bandit and add 90 degrees exactly)

It's ridiculous how you get notched by an AI tanker lazily turning almost all of the time when trying to rejoin.

I'm not a radar expert as much as someone like @Beamscanneris, so I'm happy to be shown wrong, but what I've heard from F18 pilots is this behaviour is totally unrealistic (but of course they can only talk very generally) - certainly DCS can't be a perfect representation of the APG-73 but radar isn't a secret, it's just physics, right? I mean really I bet people would be happier if things were unrealistically more effective than unrealistically ineffective (assuming it can't be accurate; of course that is best!), at least then real world tactics could still be practiced. It throws a wrench into things when equipment is way less effective than it should be.

Edited April 28, 2022 by MARLAN_

[Hotel Tango]

OK, now i see! The problem is not the guidance, it's the players who are notching it all the time XD

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We will take a look, but as mentioned in discord it will still be possible to notch. 

And we all know you like to notch and are good at it, so the title should be "AIM 120C Still easily defeatable for me" 

It certainly seems like you guys had the right intentions for this patch but it appears like there may be a bug somewhere. For as of now, notching the AMRAAM has never been easier, just take a look. Though I am very glad to hear that the team thinks that even in the last patch (when it was very difficult to notch an ARH missile) notching was still too easy.

 

 

AMRAAM NOTCHED.trk

Edited April 28, 2022 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[Beamscanner]

I dont think anyone has any idea how effective, or ineffective, the AIM-120 is. This all comes down to how comfortable the engineers would've with false targets and false target rejection. If they felt that the system was reasonably susceptible to false targets, they would've likely taken action to reduce the number of occurrences of false targets (increase the doppler notch bandwidth/velocity). (False targets from moving cars, spinning fans of AC units, etc)

 

That being said, I think something that's being missed is that RWRs should not be as accurate as they currently are in DCS. Regardless of the exact doppler notch being used, the azimuth provided by the RWR shouldn't be so precise. Adding RNG to the azimuth of the RWR display would solve this problem without the need to play 'arm chair expert'. 

 

This RWR RNG would directly translate to variability in the probability of kill of the missile against a defending target. 

 

FYI 4 antennas performing amplitude comparison is not very precise.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Beamscanner

[comie1]

TBH the patch note with regard to the notching the 120 was either missed from the build or someone is talking rubbish. One of these tracks was while not wearing my HMD in VR. They are still too easy to defend. 

120's 2.trk 120's still suck.trk 120's1.trk

Edited April 29, 2022 by comie1

[BIGNEWY]

relax people we are looking into it, my comment in the thread was to PatatOorlog as we often talk in discord and was a compliment. 

[SPQR PRAETORIAN]

Yeah the amraam fix didnt work they are worse than ever

Edited April 29, 2022 by SPQR PRAETORIAN

[falconzx]

Ok yesterday night i've made some tests with my squadron mates in MP.

What emerged is a problem with the inversion of closure speed. Seems that the missile loses the target easily when the hot target just turn cold. No CM involved, just an extending turn.
On the other side in some pure "notching" test the missile was pretty good, you need to be very precise on angles to get a lock loss, and it is quite fast to reacquire you like before.

So what we suggest to the team to find the issue is to test the hot to cold target maneuvering cases.

Edited April 29, 2022 by falconzx

[comie1]

With all due respect Falcon that approach would only fix one issue which I agree is a problem. However notching is still way too easy to perform as many have suggested and the patch did not correct this in any way it would seem.

[PatatOorlog]

A good Idea might be to just make the rwrs inaccurate to the point where you cant notch reliably with them

[falconzx]

17 minutes ago, comie1 said:

With all due respect Falcon that approach would only fix one issue which I agree is a problem. However notching is still way too easy to perform as many have suggested and the patch did not correct this in any way it would seem.

At the moment i think this issue is the priority, it makes the missile quite useless.

For the notching angle window, from what i tested personally it seems a little bit reduced, but i'm not here to say if it is easy or not, and I'm not interested to discuss if it should or not. At least until we speak through subjective statements.
In DCS i think the intent is to reproduce a missile with all his flaws and limitations, how big they are and how they impact is not my business, i trust ED choices and its sources.
For sure i would not love this simulator, and i wouldn't even call it simulator, if the missiles were a launch=kill weapon.

[Hobel]

What exactly has been changed? The approach speed or "notch gate" is still the same as before.

Who has noted before the patch how big the Notchgate was and now test, will come to almost the same result for the Aim120.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Hobel

[okopanja]

22 hours ago, Beamscanner said:

That being said, I think something that's being missed is that RWRs should not be as accurate as they currently are in DCS. Regardless of the exact doppler notch being used, the azimuth provided by the RWR shouldn't be so precise. Adding RNG to the azimuth of the RWR display would solve this problem without the need to play 'arm chair expert'. 

I always wondered about RWRs. Any math/diagrams behind this? Which deviation do you expect?

I though determening signal direction and strength was not a big deal in 1940s.

[B503]

Rough looks but I think this is exact same issue happened in 2.7.7.14727 update.

Missile doesn't get outrun, nor got dragged into chaff, nor getting notched, nor over-leading itself out.

They just for some reason lost track possibly due to no correlation between range gate and velocity gate.

Edited April 29, 2022 by B503

[Beamscanner]

37 minutes ago, okopanja said:

I always wondered about RWRs. Any math/diagrams behind this? Which deviation do you expect?

I though determening signal direction and strength was not a big deal in 1940s.

of course:

Electronic Warfare and Radar System Handbook 5-3.3

"DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: Approved for public release."

~10 degrees rms accuracy for a 4x antenna configuration

[TLTeo]

I imagine it's easier to compare amplitudes than perform interferometry on the fly (because computational power), but do we know whether there is any modern RWR or other EW gear that actually does that?

[okopanja]

Just now, Beamscanner said:

of course:

Electronic Warfare and Radar System Handbook 5-3.3

"DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: Approved for public release."

~10 degrees rms accuracy for a 4x antenna configuration

Thanks! I will try to locate the paperback and in worst case order the kindle version.

One last question: did you calculate that accuracy and if yes where did input data come from?

[Hobel]

Is such behavior intentional or correct?
https://streamable.com/scad96

Edited April 29, 2022 by Hobel

[comie1]

6 hours ago, Hobel said:

Is such behavior intentional or correct?
https://streamable.com/scad96

 

Maybe post a track of that or more angles in the video it’s hard to see what’s going on. Although I don’t doubt it’s more unintentional behaviour.

Edited April 30, 2022 by comie1

[okopanja]

6 hours ago, Hobel said:

Is such behavior intentional or correct?
https://streamable.com/scad96

 

I can not read numbers...

[Archer.xd]

7 hours ago, Hobel said:

Is such behavior intentional or correct?
https://streamable.com/scad96

 

By looking to the numbers Im assuming this is a well in-range shot and I think its definitely not correct or intentional. 120s are tend to easily lose lock with straight diving/turning bandits for quite some time (after the INS update this got out of hand)

[Hobel]

1 hour ago, comie1 said:

Maybe post a track of that or more angles in the video it’s hard to see what’s going on. Although I don’t doubt it’s more unintentional behaviour.

 

The track is over an hour long and the behavior depicted should hopefully be more than familiar.  It served only once again as an example.

 

56 minutes ago, okopanja said:

I can not read numbers...

Then get up and sit down at the PC on the  phone I can not read it either