Jump to content

Why do AMRAAMs do this? Pictures attached


Recommended Posts

Ok, Can some one explain why this AMRAAM goes 'stupid' and turns away from the target during the last few seconds of an intercept?

 

In the first pict ... AMRAAM closing nicely on a Mig23 in a dive.

In 2nd pict ... AMRAAM has turned to aim way behind Mig ... now obviously missing the target. You can see it has reasonable speed and has lost alot in this pointless turn ... why? I've seen this happen again and again. Lock was maintained throughout ... Missile slider on 50/50 ...

 

This coupled with the way AMRAAMs ignore data-link during multishot engagements really do make playing 1.1 A2A very frustrating and pointless... a real step backwards from 1.02. 1.02 had a great balance between multishot TWS and AR AAMs in F-15s and greater numbers, longer range missiles and EOS on 27/33 ... a really good Flanker could always get through and surprise you! This no longer applies.

 

If its a bug and going to get fixed fine ... but if this is the way AMRAAMs are modelled ... then I'll stick to 1.02 fr A2A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Can some one explain why this AMRAAM goes 'stupid' and turns away from the target during the last few seconds of an intercept?

 

In the first pict ... AMRAAM closing nicely on a Mig23 in a dive.

In 2nd pict ... AMRAAM has turned to aim way behind Mig ... now obviously missing the target. You can see it has reasonable speed and has lost alot in this pointless turn ... why? I've seen this happen again and again. Lock was maintained throughout ... Missile slider on 50/50 ...

 

This coupled with the way AMRAAMs ignore data-link during multishot engagements really do make playing 1.1 A2A very frustrating and pointless... a real step backwards from 1.02. 1.02 had a great balance between multishot TWS and AR AAMs in F-15s and greater numbers, longer range missiles and EOS on 27/33 ... a really good Flanker could always get through and surprise you! This no longer applies.

 

If its a bug and going to get fixed fine ... but if this is the way AMRAAMs are modelled ... then I'll stick to 1.02 fr A2A.

 

 

Chaff modelling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kula It doesnt happen it you swich missile effecteviness to 100% and if you soot without HOJ. I know the DEV's said 50% was more realistic...but I disagree for these reasons:

 

1) real missiles dont do this, they only miss by, and dont turn away in the last minute.

2)Kill ratio is far worse believeing wht your saing.

3)I believe the missiles are porked by software glitch in the game and/or the devs had not yet implemented other features of the missiles wich can improve their perfomance.

4)in 100% they still miss, and IMHO in a much more natural looking way, they dont turn away like that.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo irl the missile uses data-link for a certain phase of the flightpath, when it closes in it uses its own radar only or the reflected radar beam. So in your picture1 I think it is still datalinked and in picture2 it's out of datalink phase and uses its own radar/radar reflections and is mislead by chaff.

355th_XANTRIS.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo irl the missile uses data-link for a certain phase of the flightpath, when it closes in it uses its own radar only or the reflected radar beam. So in your picture1 I think it is still datalinked and in picture2 it's out of datalink phase and uses its own radar/radar reflections and is mislead by chaff.

Ok ... but this seems to happen alot ... 90% of the time. Is AMRAAM soooo easily spoofed? OR is the AI dodge/timing/chaff perfect EVERY time? This just isn't in the realms of possibility!

 

In 1:1 I usually end up with a Sidewinder kill!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going after chaff. This usually happens when attacking a target that is jamming.

 

100% is -definitely- unrealistic as it takes away the drift vector errors ... hard to guess how the missile behaves in real life when it, the aircraft and the chaff are in close proximity:

 

Chaff blooms have an enormous signature which can destroy the SNR to the point where the aircraft cannot be seen at all by the missile radarwhile the chaff's in the seeker's FoV. Although it is possible that the chaff bloom will be detected and rejected, and you can use a look-ahead function using known data to attempt and reacquire the aircraft, there's a time during which the missile may well be flying blind. Although the miss shouldn't look the same as it does now, things wouldn't be terribly different I imagine. Either way, the missile sensor modelling is slated for reworking for 1.2 - ie. this behavior is not really a bug (but other things, liek ignoring the target choice and datalink are)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

raise your missile effectiveness slider, the 50% in 1.1 is a bit too ineffective (but it's great for me when stingers and sams respond more to evasive manuevers). But if you're building your own missions or running your campaign why leave it on 50% if it's not good for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, the missile sensor modelling is slated for reworking for 1.2 - ie. this behavior is not really a bug (but other things, liek ignoring the target choice and datalink are)

 

So until 1.2 the F-15 flies with a broken weapon system? Poor multi-target engagement capability and AMRAAMs that are easily fooled by chaff. Or will we see this patched (with the associated impact on 1.2 delivery date)? Shame this got broken in 1.1, they worked fine in 1.02!

 

I assume the 77 is similarly fooled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 77 supposedly behaves in the same way.

 

I don't know if it'll be patched or not, and I don't think the devs will answer that question either. They've got a lot of work on their plate and they need to pick and choose wat they'll do.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the missiles were going for chaff then wouldn't they be going towards the chaff? Though slammers shouldn't be anyway. I can see chaff 'shielding' a target if it is directly between the target and the seeker but if any offset is present at all the slammer shouldn't have any problems with the intercept.

 

That IL-76 picture seems to indicate more of a pursuit ballistics issue than anything else.

 

I would think that the devs should be focusing their effort on what is present and getting it working right over adding new features to justify charging for an addon - feet of clay and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't need to be between the aircraft and the missile - it just needs to be in the seeker's FoV - chaff bundles have a HUGE radar signature and they probably aren't entirely unlikely to drown out the aircraft's signature in this manner ... kinda like trying to look for venus while it's passing by the sun.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Wanna enlighten us? I mean, I've got a bunch of suggestions of what to do about it, but the end result is that you need to put the chaff bloom out of the seeker's FoV. If you don't, you miss. Just like that.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the problems with the ARH missles can be summed up as this: They don't care about what they have locked, nor do they care about guidance they are receiving from their mother a/c. All they care about is the biggest radar return they are getting. They are scanning for targets when they shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you figured out what it is, though to be more precise: Like AI aircraft, there's no 'scanning' ... they just pick up everything in a certain volume simultaneously, AFAIK, and go for the biggest thing.

 

I'd rather have the seeker actually simulated, and like you correctly observed, it doesn't seem to be simulated at all ... otherwise most of these would be non-issues, though as far as aircraft flying in close formation go, you should still get trouble.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I think ARH missiles should behave would be: If chaff covers the missiles field of view and the fighter that launched it doesn't have a lock it should maintain its current intercept. If the fighter still has a lock and the chaff isn't obstructing the fighter as well it should continue compansating for the fighters changes in vector. Is this what you mean by modeling the missiles seeker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not at all convinced that this is a chaff issue. The erratic flightpad often starts more than a mile, often 2 miles away from the intercepted aircraft. The Amraam just seems to be in the totally wrong midcourse position and starts making a very steep turn towards the aircraft. It is amazing how many seconds the Amraam flies around in the endgame.

 

Chaff is only effective to misguide the missile at the very, very last moment, as if you could make a surprise move. My impression is the Amraam lost it already way before.

 

Even if we take into account that in Lo-mac e.g. Tu-95 can make extreme manoevres that in reality just would rip their wings of, the manoevrability options of an aircraft that has made its first evasive dodge at high speed are so limited that this cannot explain why the Amraam makes such a far miss. Chaff would indeed be in the last second a last resort, but the Amraam never comes near enough.

 

I did notice however that it makes a big difference if you "center the dot before the shot". I don't know how the first part of the flightpath is calculated: with continuous updates or with interval corrections? In the latter case, firing the Amraam without correctly centering the pipper could explain the bad midcourse position.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II did notice however that it makes a big difference if you "center the dot before the shot". I don't know how the first part of the flightpath is calculated: with continuous updates or with interval corrections? In the latter case, firing the Amraam without correctly centering the pipper could explain the bad midcourse position.

 

Not something I've noticed tflash, I'll give it a go and see if improves things ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I think ARH missiles should behave would be: If chaff covers the missiles field of view and the fighter that launched it doesn't have a lock it should maintain its current intercept. If the fighter still has a lock and the chaff isn't obstructing the fighter as well it should continue compansating for the fighters changes in vector. Is this what you mean by modeling the missiles seeker?

 

 

No, you're talking about the datalink and you also mean to model beter missile logic as well, I'm sure.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't need to be between the aircraft and the missile - it just needs to be in the seeker's FoV - chaff bundles have a HUGE radar signature and they probably aren't entirely unlikely to drown out the aircraft's signature in this manner ... kinda like trying to look for venus while it's passing by the sun.

Surely there is some analysis of the speed of the target? 1sec my target is doing 400kts, next second its bigger but stationary ... I'll go for that ... and that other blip thats just appeared doing 400kts, I'll just ignore that ... doesn't add up GGT.

 

Most sensors now have ECCM features, ignore flares/sun/chaff etc ... and I'm sure AMRAAM is about as advanced as it gets ... They got badly burned with the poor performance of the AIM-7, so they took 10 years to get it working right ... in an era when funds were plentiful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the way I see it right now in Lock On, chaff is over-modelled. BUT, GGtharos is also right...no missile is entirely immune to chaff, including the AMRAAM. Sure, there are ways for the missile's onboard computer to distinguish between chaff and target, but nothing's perfect. There are still some situations where the chaff may get the better of the missile.

 

The one thing I was disappointed in with V1.1 is missile reacquistion modelling. A lot of times after being spoofed by decoys, the missiles would often fly by stupidly within a mile of their target after being spoofed, or it would take them an eternity to re-acquire, even though the target is well within its seeker's FOV.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree AMRAAMs would not be immune ... everything can be dodged/jammed/spoofed to some degree, just as you say D-Sythe, its abit too often.

 

I've also notice AA-10s fly past 1/2mile away being spoofed by the jamming/chaff ... then turn and hit from behind. How does that work ... you watch them go right past ... then BANG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me try and explain the chaff issue ...

 

Ignoring it when it's in the same FoV as the target is about as easy to do as tracking a candle flame with your eye and then someone shooting a laser beam into your eye. This is a FARILY realistic assessment of the radar reflection intensities (or should be: SK, feel free to chime in)

 

The AMRAAM can ignore the chaff and try a look-ahead function to attempt to reaquire the target aircraft, possibly use a special trajectory to pu the chaff out of its FoV etc, but it all translates to dodging it easier.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...