Problem regarding the way that IR missiles react to counstermeasures - IRCCM inconsistency

[Xhonas]

Hello there. I was practicing defense against IR missiles and i noticed a problem regarding the way that IR missiles react to counstermeasures. To defend against these missiles, especially the modern ones, i tried to fly in a way that when launching flares, i would put as many flares as possible in the missile seeker fov. It works ! well, kinda. The problem is, sometimes it works flawlessly and there are other times that the missile simply doesn't care about my flares, despite me flooding the missile seeker with countermeasures. 

I was able to save some trackfiles, i will upload them below. You will notice that i'm putting myself in the exact same situation and dropping a very similar number of countermeasures and there are times that the missile is spoofed and other times that it doesn't care and goes for me anyways. If you watch in Tacview the perspective of the missile you can have an idea of how many flares were in the seeker fov. In all those tracks the missile is the R-73, i chose this missile because it is very smoky and easy to see however this problem affects all missiles, the Aim-9M/L, Magic 2, etc. 

There is a huge inconsistency when defending against those missiles, there is not a reliable way to avoid them, even when using techniques to exploit the limitations of a IR seeker head. Compare it with how radars are modelled. Notching an airborne radar using High PRF is a very reliable way of breaking the lock of said radar momentarily and it is going to work everytime if you do it right because it is a limitation of the radar. Another example would be pulse radars (like in the F-4), that you can break its lock every time by flying close to terrain because there are no filters so the main lobe gets overwhelmed with clutter. In the case of this report, the missile should go after the flares every time (in the situations shown in my trackfiles) since its seeker is being overwhelmed with countermeasures. 

 

irccm test 8 sucess.trkirccm test 7 sucess.trkirccm test 6 sucess.trkirccm test 5 sucess.trkirccm test 4 fail.trkirccm test 3 fail.trkirccm test 2 fail.trk Trackfiles are on the Syria map, sorry. If necessary, i can provide them on the Caucasus map.

 

Edited July 13, 2024 by Xhonas

[ruxtmp]

Flares are mostly just a random number generator in game as I understand. If the random number equals or is less than or greater than the right value the missile is spoofed, chaff works the same essentially too.

[Hobel]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb Xhonas:

Hello there. I was practicing defense against IR missiles and i noticed a problem regarding the way that IR missiles react to counstermeasures. To defend against these missiles, especially the modern ones, i tried to fly in a way that when launching flares, i would put as many flares as possible in the missile seeker fov. It works ! well, kinda. The problem is, sometimes it works flawlessly and there are other times that the missile simply doesn't care about my flares, despite me flooding the missile seeker with countermeasures. 

I was able to save some trackfiles, i will upload them below. You will notice that i'm putting myself in the exact same situation and dropping a very similar number of countermeasures and there are times that the missile is spoofed and other times that it doesn't care and goes for me anyways. If you watch in Tacview the perspective of the missile you can have an idea of how many flares were in the seeker fov. In all those tracks the missile is the R-73, i chose this missile because it is very smoky and easy to see however this problem affects all missiles, the Aim-9M/L, Magic 2, etc. 

There is a huge inconsistency when defending against those missiles, there is not a reliable way to avoid them, even when using techniques to exploit the limitations of a IR seeker head. Compare it with how radars are modelled. Notching an airborne radar using High PRF is a very reliable way of breaking the lock of said radar momentarily and it is going to work everytime if you do it right because it is a limitation of the radar. Another example would be pulse radars (like in the F-4), that you can break its lock every time by flying close to terrain because there are no filters so the main lobe gets overwhelmed with clutter. In the case of this report, the missile should go after the flares every time (in the situations shown in my trackfiles) since its seeker is being overwhelmed with countermeasures. 

 

irccm test 8 sucess.trk 375.82 kB · 0 Downloads irccm test 7 sucess.trk 380.66 kB · 0 Downloads irccm test 6 sucess.trk 414.78 kB · 0 Downloads irccm test 5 sucess.trk 501.98 kB · 0 Downloads irccm test 4 fail.trk 355.73 kB · 0 Downloads irccm test 3 fail.trk 379.3 kB · 0 Downloads irccm test 2 fail.trk 347.04 kB · 0 Downloads

 

 

I don't remember exactly, but wasn't it the case that pre flare didn't work?   Flares that are dropped before the launch of the missle do not exist for the rocket at launch?

 

vor 23 Minuten schrieb ruxtmp:

Flares are mostly just a random number generator in game as I understand. If the random number equals or is less than or greater than the right value the missile is spoofed, chaff works the same essentially too.

That's not quite right - there are already games in the aviation sector that simulate chaff very well and, depending on the amount and aspect, can deceive the radar very authentically.   

The Razbam modules can also react quite plausibly to chaff.  

[Xhonas]

1 minute ago, Hobel said:

I don't remember exactly, but wasn't it the case that pre flare didn't work?   Flares that are dropped before the launch of the missle do not exist for the rocket at launch?

That is true, pre flare doesn't work. Simple test, aim a heatseeker towards a flare. It wont give you tone, regardless of the missile. 

[falcon_120]

Not correct, pre flare is simulated. You can test it against manpads. Flaring in advance can make missiles go directly to the previously released flare right after launch, I've seen this on occasions.

Also if you are followikg a bandit with the IR missile seeker with no radar on, flares will take your missile momentarily off the target (loosing tone).


Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Pavlin_33]

1 hour ago, falcon_120 said:

Not correct, pre flare is simulated. You can test it against manpads. Flaring in advance can make missiles go directly to the previously released flare right after launch, I've seen this on occasions.

Also if you are followikg a bandit with the IR missile seeker with no radar on, flares will take your missile momentarily off the target (loosing tone).


Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Not in FC3 at least nor in the JF-17. You can pre-flare all you want, but the seeker stays on the target.

[ruxtmp]

On 7/13/2024 at 7:18 AM, Hobel said:

That's not quite right - there are already games in the aviation sector that simulate chaff very well and, depending on the amount and aspect, can deceive the radar very authentically.   

The Razbam modules can also react quite plausibly to chaff.  

I meant in DCS not other games. I believe chaff works the same as flares in DCS too. no need for a program just keep releasing chaff or flare for appropriate missile type until its spoofed. Sometime I only need to release 1 sometimes it takes 3-4 before the missile is spoofed.

[Red_Camarada]

On 7/13/2024 at 7:43 AM, Xhonas said:

Hello there. I was practicing defense against IR missiles and i noticed a problem regarding the way that IR missiles react to counstermeasures. To defend against these missiles, especially the modern ones, i tried to fly in a way that when launching flares, i would put as many flares as possible in the missile seeker fov. It works ! well, kinda. The problem is, sometimes it works flawlessly and there are other times that the missile simply doesn't care about my flares, despite me flooding the missile seeker with countermeasures. 

I was able to save some trackfiles, i will upload them below. You will notice that i'm putting myself in the exact same situation and dropping a very similar number of countermeasures and there are times that the missile is spoofed and other times that it doesn't care and goes for me anyways. If you watch in Tacview the perspective of the missile you can have an idea of how many flares were in the seeker fov. In all those tracks the missile is the R-73, i chose this missile because it is very smoky and easy to see however this problem affects all missiles, the Aim-9M/L, Magic 2, etc. 

There is a huge inconsistency when defending against those missiles, there is not a reliable way to avoid them, even when using techniques to exploit the limitations of a IR seeker head. Compare it with how radars are modelled. Notching an airborne radar using High PRF is a very reliable way of breaking the lock of said radar momentarily and it is going to work everytime if you do it right because it is a limitation of the radar. Another example would be pulse radars (like in the F-4), that you can break its lock every time by flying close to terrain because there are no filters so the main lobe gets overwhelmed with clutter. In the case of this report, the missile should go after the flares every time (in the situations shown in my trackfiles) since its seeker is being overwhelmed with countermeasures. 

 

irccm test 8 sucess.trkirccm test 7 sucess.trkirccm test 6 sucess.trkirccm test 5 sucess.trkirccm test 4 fail.trkirccm test 3 fail.trkirccm test 2 fail.trk Trackfiles are on the Syria map, sorry. If necessary, i can provide them on the Caucasus map.

 

 

Hey @BIGNEWY and @NineLine no comments about this? No new IR engine in the making?

Edited July 15, 2024 by Red_Camarada

[AeriaGloria]

Whether a particular module models flares effect on seeker or not, as soon as missile leaves the rail, they will all behave the same and go for a flare that was released before launch if it the countermeasures meet the proper criteria and RNG 

[TheFreshPrince]

The IR missile logic is bonkers in DCS. If you shoot at max range and the target is flaring during the shot, you're gonna miss 100% of the time. Unless shooting from behind. So usually the first missile in an engagement is gonna miss anyway. With the next ones it's a lottery. But it's possible to miss all missiles against a flaring target, I've done that multiple times. 

Edited July 19, 2024 by TheFreshPrince

[Nealius]

My experience has been that AI-deployed flares are vastly more effective than player-deployed flares.

[Hotel Tango]

Interesting... ED, could you take a look at this?

[Xhonas]

@BIGNEWY @NineLine Hello there guys, can you please take a look at this issue? This problem exists in DCS for a very long time, any news regarding a fix ? thanks.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

we will take a look, thank you 

[Chizh]

В 05.08.2024 в 05:56, Nealius сказал:

My experience has been that AI-deployed flares are vastly more effective than player-deployed flares.

No. Countermeasures of player and AI are same.

Another reason is that high-level AI can perform anti-missile maneuvers more accurately.

1 час назад, Xhonas сказал:

@BIGNEWY @NineLine Hello there guys, can you please take a look at this issue? This problem exists in DCS for a very long time, any news regarding a fix ? thanks.

I don't see a problem here. In reality, missiles going into flares is also a probabilistic event.
But I want to clarify that in the case of flashes, we consider both the shielding effect and the retargeting effect. When there are many flares in the missile's field of view, the probability that the missile will lose its targets is very high.

[Chizh]

В 16.07.2024 в 13:09, TheFreshPrince сказал:

The IR missile logic is bonkers in DCS. If you shoot at max range and the target is flaring during the shot, you're gonna miss 100% of the time. Unless shooting from behind. So usually the first missile in an engagement is gonna miss anyway. With the next ones it's a lottery. But it's possible to miss all missiles against a flaring target, I've done that multiple times. 

 

What is wrong here?

[Red_Camarada]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

No. Countermeasures of player and AI are same.

Another reason is that high-level AI can perform anti-missile maneuvers more accurately.

I don't see a problem here. In reality, missiles going into flares is also a probabilistic event.
But I want to clarify that in the case of flashes, we consider both the shielding effect and the retargeting effect. When there are many flares in the missile's field of view, the probability that the missile will lose its targets is very high.

Is it possible to make a white paper regarding IR seekers and CM? because its the first time I heard something like "shielding effect and the retargeting effect" in the IR missile API, I'm used to only the random numbers and probabilities.

[Chizh]

8 минут назад, Red_Camarada сказал:

Is it possible to make a white paper regarding IR seekers and CM? because its the first time I heard something like "shielding effect and the retargeting effect" in the IR missile API, I'm used to only the random numbers and probabilities.

We are currently thinking about a new countermeasures system. It will be realistic on physical principles, without dice. When it becomes tangible, we will write about it.

[Xhonas]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

I don't see a problem here. In reality, missiles going into flares is also a probabilistic event.
But I want to clarify that in the case of flashes, we consider both the shielding effect and the retargeting effect. When there are many flares in the missile's field of view, the probability that the missile will lose its targets is very high.

Hello there, as far as i was able to test, the irccm mechanisms of the missiles that have it are not simulated in DCS. IR missile evasion in DCS is just rolling a dice, and i don't mean this in a disrespectful way. In the trackfiles, there are instances that the enemy missile is easily defeated by the countermeasures, and other instances that the missile simply doesn't care for my flares, despite being in the same situation and having roughly the same amount of countermeasures in its field of view. It is not possible for the missile to continue tracking the IR signature of my aircraft due to the high amount of cm's on its FOV. I would understand if the missile lost the lock momentarily and then reacquired, but that never happened.

Although a probabilistc event, In the situations shown in the trackfile, the missile should awlays gor for flares, since there is enough distance and time for the flares to heat up, the maneuver being employed together with the distance maximizes the amount of countermeasures in the seeker FOV, i'm flying with reduced power and deploying 4 flares each time i click on the countermeasure release button, so the IR signature of the flares is much greater than the signature of my aircraft.

Another issue is that IR missile seekers don't lock on countermeasures prior to being launched, making preemptive flaring a not so relevant tactic.

Looking at it now, perhaps this is not exactly a bug, but rather a problem resulted of how the interaction of countermeasures with IR missile seekers are modelled. Nonetheless, its a issue worth looking at that will greatly improve this simulation. And thanks for coming by and taking a look in this thread.

 

Edited August 12, 2024 by Xhonas

[Chizh]

10 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Hello there, as far as i was able to test, the irccm mechanisms of the missiles that have it are not simulated in DCS.

Not simulated, but taken into account. Modern missiles have significantly greater resistance to countermeasures than older ones. You can compare AIM-9X vs AIM-9B in DCS.

10 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

In the trackfiles, there are instances that the enemy missile is easily defeated by the countermeasures, and other instances that the missile simply doesn't care for my flares, despite being in the same situation and having roughly the same amount of countermeasures in its field of view. It is not possible for the missile to continue tracking the IR signature of my aircraft due to the high amount of cm's on its FOV. I would understand if the missile lost the lock momentarily and then reacquired, but that never happened.

Sorry, but in reality there are no identical scenarios either. There are no such instructions - "throw up 6 flares against R-73, and it is guaranteed to miss". It may work, and it may not, since it depends on a lot of factors.

10 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Although a probabilistc event, In the situations shown in the trackfile, the missile should awlays gor for flares, since there is enough distance and time for the flares to heat up, the maneuver being employed together with the distance maximizes the amount of countermeasures in the seeker FOV, i'm flying with reduced power and deploying 4 flares each time i click on the countermeasure release button, so the IR signature of the flares is much greater than the signature of my aircraft.

The missile has a rejection of countermeasures mechanism. However, this also depends on the missile generation. I think you can easily fool the AIM-9B, but you will have to sweat with the 9X.

10 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Another issue is that IR missile seekers don't lock on countermeasures prior to being launched, making preemptive flaring a not so relevant tactic.

Yes, you are right about that. We will think about it.

10 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Looking at it now, perhaps this is not exactly a bug, but rather a problem resulted of how the interaction of countermeasures with IR missile seekers are modelled. Nonetheless, its a issue worth looking at that will greatly improve this simulation. And thanks for coming by and taking a look in this thread.

Thanks for dialog!

[Red_Camarada]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

We are currently thinking about a new countermeasures system. It will be realistic on physical principles, without dice. When it becomes tangible, we will write about it.

good to know that, waiting for more news on it

[Default774]

Relevant to note are the current limitations in infrared modelling also present. Missiles currently guide to model origin and not the engines in the case of infrared guided missiles. If you fire an AIM-9 at a Tu-95 it will guide towards the fuselage, not the engines. Also is the current two tier ir emissions system. Only two floating point values define the ir emissions for military power and reheat/afterburner, throttle setting has no further effect.

I hope these are under consideration for being reworked in the future.

[TheFreshPrince]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Chizh:

What is wrong here?

From my understanding, a shot from further distance gives the seeker more time to evaluate and the countermeasure resistance more likelyhood to work it's magic. Always missing the first shot seems highly unrealistic, but from my tests and experience, it's the case in DCS. A close up shot on the other hand gives the seeker only a brief time to select one target and no chance to reacquire the target due to field of view limitations.

I'd appreciate an overwork of the missiles logics and countermeasures in DCS in general. 

[Chizh]

В 13.08.2024 в 01:42, TheFreshPrince сказал:

From my understanding, a shot from further distance gives the seeker more time to evaluate and the countermeasure resistance more likelyhood to work it's magic.

No. The greater distance to the target is the worst situation for the missile.

В 13.08.2024 в 01:42, TheFreshPrince сказал:

Always missing the first shot seems highly unrealistic

I disagree. This is actually realistic. Long range, relatively small target signature and many flares in the field of view of the seeker, together give a lower hitting probability.
You can kill the target with the first missile only if the target does not see the launch.

[TheFreshPrince]

I highly doubt that, because that also implies that IR-missiles have zero countermeasure-resistance and will always fall for flares from longer range. Which might be true in DCS, but I don't expect this in real life. Also, in real life every aircraft has its own type of flare, where certainly some must work better than others against certain missiles. In DCS unfortunately we only have one type. 

So claiming that an IR-missile will always go for any flare from a distance seems illogical to me. But I guess there's no public data about it anyway.