Why do AMRAAMs do this? Pictures attached

[D-Scythe]

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)

 

Ah, but that's where the AMRAAM's special sun-glasses come in...:)

[Prophet_169th]

The problem is, it seems, the missiles are being spoofed way to far away, and make no effort to re-acquire after being spoofed.

 

Even if a chaff does distract the missle from 2 miles away, it should be able to re-acquire as the chaff plume will fade quickly.

[GGTharos]

No. You can try to ignore that particular doppler shift /all/ you want, but you still have a horrible SNR to deal with - THAT is the problem. The AMRAAM can try to do things to get the chaff out of its FoV, but I seroiously doubt that it can just simply ignore it given the enormous difference in reflection power from chaff to aircraft reflactions. It's literally orders of magniture higher - the chaff flialing around may reduce this by some amount, but probably not so much as to make it useless or even not a factor.

 

My point here is: The 120 might not be FOOLED by chaff, but it can be BLINDED by chaff. Couple that with other tolerances like seeker settling, fuze problems, jammers, and maneuvering targets, and all these things add up to give you more and more miss distance.

 

While this in and of itself may not be well REPRESENTED in LOMAC, the END RESULT is likely to be close to the same, plus or minus the three percent poll error ;)

[plug pray]

it's just done for the americans and the other western not to think they rule;)

[GGTharos]

it's just done for the americans and the other western not to think they rule;)

 

Or maybe it's an issue with how missile seekers are modelled. Why whatddya know. It is! ;)

[Kula66]

Or maybe it's an issue with how missile seekers are modelled. Why whatddya know. It is! ;)

Ok chaff slows down VERY quickly ... so is virtually stationary within seconds. So why wouldn't it just disappear in the Doppler filter?

[GGTharos]

Because it spins - it can produce different doppler rates this way. You can also boucne a jamming signal off it, and it'll LOOK like its moving to the radar, even if it isn't.

 

Secondly, without jamming, it still counts as clutter: The energy it reflects is still high-power and can still cause teh automatic gain control to reduce gain to such a level than the missile will be flying blind to its target until the chaff is outside the FoV.

 

There's NO such thing as 'ignoring' counter measures. You can try to counter them, not ignore them.

[Kula66]

If it spins, doesn't it just bounce r/f energy off in different directions? Why does this make it look like its moving?

 

So why can't you see in on the radar in your a/c?

[GGTharos]

Because the moving edges would produce a doppler shift which -may- or may not be significant, and -may- or may nto be cancelled out by the other edge going in the other direction at the same speed - that's kinda where my knowledge of this reaches its limit for the time being.

 

And yes, you can see chaff on radar. This is something that's on the plate for 1.2 ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/cyberpioneer/weapon.html

 

"During the final validation test, an F-15C fighter fired four AMRAAMs at four QF100 drones which were manoeuvring aggressively and deploying flares and chaff decoys. The result - a perfect score."

 

The AMRAAM doesn't suck against chaff.

[coldcrew]

The page you're quoting doesn't even have the quote. Going by your quote in the post it says nothing on how close these drones where. Many people don't wait for the perfect launch conditions to fire the weapon. I was online last night and they guy fired like 6 aim-7 using HOJ. Not knowing my range or profile shooting HOJ was like trying to catch flies in the dark.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, and a bunch of anti-ballistic missile tests used beacons in the target drones to help the missiles hit them.

 

I don't want to take these test reports at face value - I've seen videos of missiles being launched and missing targets, including at least one AMRAAM against a medium range crossing target. It's not panacea - what it is, is dangerous.

 

 

Also keep in mind that the Sorbitsyia system can have any radar fooled in very short time using crosseyed jamming, which is a pretty big factor - undoubtedly, western jammers are just as nasty.

 

Unless we know the specific details of those tests, we cannot really judge the missile's effectiveness. Were the ones that were using chaff maneuvering? What G-loading? Were they also jamming? What kind of jamming?

 

See what I mean? Loads of variables; I'm more concerned with how the seekers work in terms of FOV/gimbals in LOMAC than I am with the chaff issue. Fixing the seekers as a first measure would then allow advanced logic to be installed for the missiles.

[S77th-GOYA]

I got the link and quote from another source. My apologies for the incongruity. I should have checked it. I still believe the 120 is a better missle than the one modeled in 1.1. I have never seen anything to suggest that it would be so easily fooled by chaff unless it's FOV is covered, or somehow loses lock on its target with chaff where the 120 would expect to reaquire.

[GGTharos]

Okay, see my explanation about chaff blinding radar. It's not a matter of fooling the missile quite so much as it is about blinding it when jamming is NOT used ... and in my experience chaff hasn't been very effective when the jammers aren't playing music, but I could be wrong.

 

The way to cope with being blinded by chaff is to use a special trajectory which puts the chaff out of the missile's FoV in the shortest possible time, plus look-ahead logics etc.

[Kula66]

and in my experience chaff hasn't been very effective when the jammers aren't playing music, but I could be wrong.

Certainly all the shots I've seen go stupid were at an a/c that was using jammers.

[GGTharos]

Certainly all the shots I've seen go stupid were at an a/c that was using jammers.

 

Then that is as it should be if you want to assume that the jammers are even the slightest bit advanced beyond noise jamming.

 

A combination of bouncing off a jamemr signal off of chaff will not just just blind the missile, it is in fact LIKELY to fool it, AMRAAM or no AMRAAM. Special trajectories or other ECCM techniques may help.

[Kula66]

So what you are saying is that the only reliable weapon to use is a Sidewinder or gun? AMRAAMs are "likely to be fooled" ... not a good situation for a BVR optimised air-superiroty fighter ... and I've seen plenty of shots with F-15/16s armed only with AMRAAMs. OR is the AMRAAM modelling badly broken?

[GGTharos]

ARH modelling is broken ... not very badly, but not too well either.

 

Keep in mind that there are other factors which contribute to a missile hitting its target: Lack of training, inability (for any reason) to pull very high g's (why do you think the NEZ's are computed against aircraft doing 6g or 7g turns instead of the full 9 for example?), and in general well trained personnel should be able to trash a lot of missiles, no matter how advanced, esp. with the help of the appropriate equipment.

 

All missiles in LOMAC can be fooled easily: The 9's, the 73's, the 77's, the 27's, the 7's.

 

The jammer is a very effective defensive tool now when combined with chaff (which is apparently realistic) ... but SARH missiles doing HoJ might not be as susceptible as the ARHs since they're not emitting ...

 

But in real life this would be less of an issue, since the jammer would shut off the moment it dropped your lock, rather than waiting for you to remember to shut it off.

 

Basically what we have is a somehwat reasonable approximation of the real life warfare situation insofar as the electronic battlefield goes. It could be better, but simulating this is a difficult proposition.

[tflash]

What we certainly have to keep in mind is that ED chooses for modelling rather than parametrisation. They really want the missiles to act in function of burntime, acceleration, radar performance, countermeasures, emmission context, temperature, height etc.

 

In a more arcade-style game, you just add a bunch of parameters to the object "ARH missile", and tweak performance by adjusting those. E.g. you could program the missile to reject chaff in 35% of the cases. In Lockon however, obtaining a different performance means changing basic constants and properties. This could adversely effect the performance of other objects in the game. In this sense, such a complex modelled game can give strange, unexpected results in boundary conditions.

 

To me, it's no surprise that modelling ARH missiles proves so difficult. It is also the case in reality. How raytheon obtained the very strong performance of Amraam is a very well kept secret of course, and that should stay so.

[MBT]

I haven't tried the fighters in 1.1 yet, but it seems from what is being said on this thread that missiles which worked adequately in 1.02 are now 'broken' in 1.1? Further that ED aren't interested in patching whatever it is they broke between 1.02 and 1.1, but instead we'll have to pay for 1.2, presumably another $35?? I'm loving the 25T and all, but isn't that kind of sucky customer service, unless I've missed something?

[GGTharos]

Uh, yeah.

 

It's called 'jumping to conclusions'.

 

The missiles have problems, but the missiles ALWAYS had problems.

They're not being patched for the enxt version, they're getting reworked.

[MBT]

It's not jumping to conclusions when it comes from reading all the informed posting on this thread is it? Are you saying the missiles actually work the same as they did before and haven't been altered? If so, then that's cool, I didn't mind them before. However, the impression this thread gives is that they've got considerably worse.

 

I'm not having a go at you or ED, I'm just surprised by what seems to be being said. Please don't jump on what's intended as an innocent and un-flaming question.

[GGTharos]

Basically, every time something new is done, things change.

 

The missiles were changed, so now they behave quite differently than they used to. In some cases they're better, in some they're worse.

 

Work continues ;)

[Pilotasso]

Missiles still work with missile efecteviness at 100%. We have been playing it at 100% online all the time anyway... Yes they behave differently but there are 2 things to keep in mind:

 

1)AMRAAM's now have a smarter trajectory path

2) countermeasures have their weight on how they perform

 

wich ultimatly changes the rate of success depending on specific circuntances:

 

A)In 1.02 AMRAAM's didnt lofted, paradoxaly a shot to a target flying high had more range than shooting a target flying low wich killed much of its range.

Now it doesnt happen as much.

 

B)in 1.02 AMRAAM's would only miss by lack of manueverability and never due to tracking problems, now its a mix of the 2.

 

C)sometimes in 1.02 they would miss for no apparent reason even without countermeasures, some say AMRAAM's simply dropped off their targets unpredictablily (at least some peaople say, personaly I fail to see it)

With labels on you can see how in 1.1 we can observe trajectory and almost "sense" if its going to hit home or not.

 

 

As for the AIM-9 I dont know why ED chose to cut its range to HALF, yes HALF, its useless if not fired at point blank range and then the shear relative speed of a target that close meant many times it simply couldnt cope with the sharpness of the required manuever. Its on level with the R-60 only wich is ridiculous.

 

By contrast the R-73 is almost a BVR weapon, with about, I would dare to say, as much as 3 times the range of the sidwinder.

[MBT]

Does the same apply to SAM's as well? I seem to escape them more than I used to, but I'd put that down to becoming a flying genius :biggrin: