Recommended settings for UV26 Flare dispenser

[Sealpup]

I'm curious if the difficulty in spoofing an already fired MANPAD has less to do with developments in seeker technology and more to do with the ranges in which they are employed? I mean, that close to a helicopter, the missile would probably have no problem telling the difference between engine exhaust and flare, especially if the seeker is already quite intently staring at the engine heat signature.

[MiG-77]

I'm curious if the difficulty in spoofing an already fired MANPAD has less to do with developments in seeker technology and more to do with the ranges in which they are employed? I mean, that close to a helicopter, the missile would probably have no problem telling the difference between engine exhaust and flare, especially if the seeker is already quite intently staring at the engine heat signature.

 

Thats true. Especially against fast movers like jets. True engament time window is so small, that manpand like SA-18 has hard time even locking correctly in that time. When they have locked target usually is out of effective range. Also as I said, if they are dropping flares, then seeker has hard time to get "correct" heat singature and may lock to flare. Even after all this, if you manage to hit, warhead is relatively small so target may still fly away (as we all have seen pictures from damaged aircrafts hit by manpands).

 

BTW; survived yesterday 4 hits from SA-16 in game. Fifth hit brought chopper down ;) (all four where bottom and last on to left engine)

Edited December 23, 2008 by MiG-77

[Weta43]

BTW; survived yesterday 4 hits from SA-16 in game.

 

What pattern were you using ? :-)

 

(Personally mostly 7:1:5)

[MiG-77]

What pattern were you using ? :-)

 

(Personally mostly 7:1:5)

 

 

Usually 2-2-2 with both dispensers, but I also usually launch that sequence 2 times for each missile. I was out of flares when last on killed me.

Edited December 23, 2008 by MiG-77

[Squid_DK]

3-3-5 here, works fine so far as a preemptive program.

 

Staffan

[BaD CrC]

I'm curious if the difficulty in spoofing an already fired MANPAD has less to do with developments in seeker technology and more to do with the ranges in which they are employed? I mean, that close to a helicopter, the missile would probably have no problem telling the difference between engine exhaust and flare, especially if the seeker is already quite intently staring at the engine heat signature.

 

Manpads max range is around 6 km (+/- 1km) and min range is about 1 km whatever the missile. When launched, flares are creating a big hot spot blurring the whole target, whatever the distance, then slowly detaching from it, initialy following a similar trajectory. And that's when problems start for heatseekers. Because even 1 km away, helicopters or planes just look like a big hot spot for them. So how to tell that the second spot detaching is a flare or is the target loosing altitude? Algorithms can be used to take into account the initial trajectory before flare launch. A good flare is a flare that gets quickly far away from the aircraft it protects, but not too quickly so it has a credible trajectory for the missile. :smartass:

[BaD CrC]

To ED testers and staff: Anychance to have some conclusion on this thread, or maybe to have some official guidelines? Will it be in the hard copy of the manual?

[RvETito]

The conclusion is that you should program your UV-26 depending on the mission meaning that you must be aware at least to certain degree what the threats might be and where they might be which again brings it to navigation and map study. Remember that missile have PK, which is never 0 or 1. So it comes down to probability assessment- dumping all your flares over the target or upon missile launch might give you an adequate protection but what about the guy with the tube in the woods on the other side of the ridge? ;)

[EvilBivol-1]

If you look at combat footage, you will usually see flares being dispensed preventatively whenever the aircraft is over a high threat area. In real life, the pilot can't afford to rely on spotting the missile before taking action. Single, dual, or quad flare launches are typical every few seconds whenever you think a missile may be fired.

Edited December 25, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Brute]

I'm a bit surprised by the flares' effectiveness against the modern IR missiles as modeled in this sim. AFAIK, most of the modern IR seekers utilize a second (UV) band specifically for flare rejection. I wonder if this is simulated?

[Lobo_63]

I often use 7-1-8 if in unsecure areas.

 

Sounds interesting! Are you using them out of one side at a time or both dispensers at once?

[sobek]

I'm a bit surprised by the flares' effectiveness against the modern IR missiles as modeled in this sim. AFAIK, most of the modern IR seekers utilize a second (UV) band specifically for flare rejection. I wonder if this is simulated?

 

Word is on the street that there will be a seeker logic upgrade to better simulate this. Decoying a seeker after sucessful lock will be next to impossible, IIRC.

[Bimbac]

Hi,

 

have you guys ever heard about multi-spectral flares?

[Frederf]

Certainly a flare countermeasure developer would attempt to make flares that functioned on the best spectrum to spoof the threat and the threat developers are trying to make missile seekers that can tell flares and aircraft apart better.

 

A dev or tester once commented (and I believe him) that in real life flares are most effective at preventing lock and with modern systems stand a very low chance of fooling tracking missiles. However he noted that in DCS:BS the ability to spoof tracking missiles is still very high compared to reality.

[Sinner6]

4-1-1, both sides at once. Good multipurpose setting that puts out 8 flares over 4 seconds.

[BaD CrC]

I wonder after some flying time wether 1-1-0 on both side is not just the best? Release rate will depend then about how quick you press the flare release button. Quickly in critical situations, occasionaly while flying in unsafe areas.

[EvilBivol-1]

The above is indeed probably best for us flight simmers with programmable HOTAS. For "die-hard" realists, who would not dare program a HOTAS flare release function (because it's not there on the real thing) it's not the best, because you would have to let go of the cyclic to reach to control panel every time you wanted to fire the flare(s).

 

I have it on my HOTAS. :D

[GGTharos]

I don't have it on the HOTAS. I have to let go and push the insert key on the Keyboard :D

 

I switch to the left hand for the cyclic, leaving the collective alone.

[ruprecht]

I have it on my HOTAS until I build my countermeasures panel, then I'll use that :)

[Mugatu]

8-2-2 and run like hell, from both wings :) I normally bank hard left only to plumpet to the ground with no rotors.

[fox_111]

I manually lunch them, one by one.

 

When I come close to a possible threat, I drop them from one wing in intermitence. (like I've often seen it done in Iraq or Afghanistan)

 

If I see or hear a lunch, I drop them in quick succession of 3 flares.

 

When I check my ACMI tapes in Trackview, I see than the missil get distracted pretty soon by the first 3 flares.

[Brute]

I use 1-4-7, decoys inbound Stingers nearly every time. :)

[skypirate]

I use 1-4-7, decoys inbound Stingers nearly every time. :)

 

Well why do you need delay 7 when you have only one sequence of 4 :smilewink:

 

I use 3-4-3 / 4-4-3 but if I don't bank hard together with that and I don't have enough airspeed to get me out of there I'm getting BOOM very close.

[Brute]

Well why do you need delay 7 when you have only one sequence of 4 :smilewink:

 

 

Oops!

Somehow it's gotten into my head that the delay was between the individual flares, and not between sequences. :huh: :doh:

[Frederf]

My personal favorite is any sequence beginning with 9 (aka 9XX) which is not available in the simulation despite prominent display on the instrument's cockpit chassis, being the automatically-prompted mode.

 

Someone ring up the Kamov design bureau and tell them the Ka-50 urgently needs two programmable modes, one for heat seeking threat lock avoidance and one for heat seeking threat evasion.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Frederf