reported DCS RADARs CANNOT BE SEDUCED BY CHAFFs

[GumidekCZ]

In DCS - ALL RADARs (Airborne/Ship/Ground) CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY CHAFF AT ALL, there is no ccm_k0 value in Lua code in any radar in game.

CHAFF vulnerability factor ccm_k0 only present in missile Lua codes.

Because of this, any radar in game will have you "locked" (not literally), except you notch him or fly out of its limits. - THIS IS WRONG!
Because of various foil stripes length packed into single chaff, it has an effect on most of the radar frequency ranges and will affect both missiles (active or passive) and radars (search or tracking) - generating tracking errors or a radar break-lock.

DOPPLER RADAR:
Against Doppler radars, self-protection chaff is most effective when dispensed at or near the beam, relative to the threat radar. 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.
     Even Doppler radars can have problems with chaff, doppler effect during foil translation can generate inside of the could reflected radar waves with phase shift recognized by Doppler radar as high relative radial speed - which is not filtered out by doppler gate. Considering Chaff cloud as just falling cloud of metallic foils is very inaccurate assumption.

SAM RADAR TRACK WHILE SCAN
Chaff employed against a track-while-scan (TWS) radar is designed to put multiple targets, with an RCS greater than the aircraft, in the resolution cell of the horizontal and vertical radar beams. Since the tracking loop tracks the largest return, the TWS radar will automatically switch to the chaff. After dispensing chaff, the pilot can maneuver vertically or horizontally to move the aircraft out of the resolution cell. SAM TWS is not the same as airborne TWS, which also use Doppler filter to filter out most of chaff effects.
In DCS some late cold war/modern SAM systems able to search while tracking multiple targets.

CONICAL SCAN RADAR - very vulnerable to chaffs. Burst chaff dispensing, employed during the final phase of an engagement by air-to-air or surface-to-air weapons, can generate tracking errors or a radar break-lock. The most dominant factor in chaff effectiveness is the radar cross section of the chaff compared to the airplane at the time when airplane and chaff are in the same resolution cell (angular and range). Chaff cloud have largest RCS reflection when viewed from the side of flight direction and smallest from the front and aft. Aircraft lowest RCS reflections are roughly around 45° off the nose or tail of the aircraft. Aspect is important when developing self-protection maneuvering and chaff dispensing tactics against threat radars. Since the typical fighter aircraft RCS varies between 1 and 10 square meters, depending upon frequency and aspect, the RR-170 chaff cartridge should provide a sufficient RCS to mask the aircraft RCS.
In DCS some active radar missiles and older SAM systems.

MONOPULSE RADAR - also vulnerable to chaffs.Chaff employed against a monopulse radar is designed to put multiple targets in at least two of the tracking beams. This generates errors in the azimuth, elevation, and range tracking circuits. Multiple chaff targets continue to generate azimuth and elevation errors that can eventually generate a break-lock condition, as the radar transfers lock-on to the chaff. Chaff is most effective against monopulse radars when employed on the beam in order to create the maximum angular tracking error.
In DCS some active radar missiles and late Cold War SAM systems.

(some of above mentioned informations comes from  "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals 2000" book, some from "Characteristics and experimental study of radar scattering foil")

[Northstar98]

Yeah, been a thing since forever, it's not so much a bug (though it's definitely a problem) but the consequences of having radars be fairly low fidelity (especially AI radars, which are very simplified).

Chaff has always been more or less just a flare for radar guided missile, using identical mechanics (i.e simple probability) - only the F-14 and the Mirage 2000C consider chaff at all on their radars (with the latter doing slightly more to my knowledge).

As for monopulse vs conical scanning, I can't name any radars that differentiate between monopulse vs conical scanning, though I'm hoping the HB F-4E will attempt to model the limitations of conical scanning (should be super susceptible to DECM employing inverse conical scanning, poor low altitude performance, susceptible to chaff (especially with a pulse radar)).

[GumidekCZ]

So strange that except two people here in forum, nobody else including admins, nobody cares how major part of fighter defensive CHAFF countermeasure works and is treated in DCS high fidelity simulator. I have to admit that I expected more than just single user reply.

That's just sad.

[=BoB= David]

Unfortunately ED has a habit of ignoring these important things, not just countermeasures, but also half-breed simulations of smarter weapons, sensor suites on modules etc.. And not only that, just for the curious, look at the years old bugs in for example BF109K-4..   and what about buggy supercarrier, effect of clouds on sensors etc., we can talk about these things for days, and  the ED rarely ever responds to that..

I absolutely admire Gumidek persistence in pointing these things out, I've honestly given up.

[BIGNEWY]

3 hours ago, GumidekCZ said:

So strange that except two people here in forum, nobody else including admins, nobody cares how major part of fighter defensive CHAFF countermeasure works and is treated in DCS high fidelity simulator. I have to admit that I expected more than just single user reply.

That's just sad.

 

45 minutes ago, =BoB= David said:

Unfortunately ED has a habit of ignoring these important things, not just countermeasures, but also half-breed simulations of smarter weapons, sensor suites on modules etc.. And not only that, just for the curious, look at the years old bugs in for example BF109K-4..   and what about buggy supercarrier, effect of clouds on sensors etc., we can talk about these things for days, and  the ED rarely ever responds to that..

I absolutely admire Gumidek persistence in pointing these things out, I've honestly given up.

We do not ignore threads, but also we can not make it to every thread, we are dealing with hundreds of messages and posts every week, so if you think we have missed something throw us a PM. 

 

I will discuss the topic of the thread with the team 

thanks

[BIGNEWY]

I have found a report for this in our system and have linked the thread as feedback. 

I have no news to share however. 

thank you

[falcon_120]

Hopefully one day we'll see this implemented, it is a very important part of RL defensive tactics and maneuvers, just like preventive flares which indeed work in DCS very effectively.

 

[BIGNEWY]

18 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Hopefully one day we'll see this implemented, it is a very important part of RL defensive tactics and maneuvers, just like preventive flares which indeed work in DCS very effectively.

 

preventive flares have also been reported, hopefully we will see change in the future. 

thanks

[Dragon1-1]

This system really needs an overhaul, I wouldn't be surprised if the same basic idea dated back to Flanker 2.0 days. It might've been fine in LOMAC, but simulation fidelity had advanced since then.