Ракеты в DCS

[volk]

changing the parameters for RF missiles also changes parameters for IR missiles with respects to counter-measure rejection in DCS

What???

Longer ranged for the ER, maybe. 'Better', not really - the 7 is still receiving upgrades today.

So, we need 'time system' for mission. For example, 'cold war' with their upgrades, 2013 with upgrades etc.

[Chizh]

However 27 should be better than Aim 7/R24/R40.

Agree. I suppose better then R-40 and R-24, but not better AIM-7M.

None of us can prove true chaff resistence.

Of course.

 

This cannot be in real life and should not be in simulator.

Why you contend that? Have you any information how it is in the real life?

 

No one expects 100% success, but current rate of 40% is too low. especially as notch is not executed perfectly most of the time.

40% of effectiveness is good for SARH missile.

Remember, in the Vietnam the AIM-7 had about 10% of effectiveness IIRC, without countermeasures at MiGs.

 

Currently ER missiles are too unlucky:)

It is your opinion only.

AA missiles is not ultimate weapons, even AMRAAM.

[Chizh]

Chaff should not be effective head-on.

Agreed.

In a code a countermeasure resistance changes multiple times depending on aspect of the target. In the head-on position resistance is maximal but not an infinity.

[*Rage*]

Chaff should not be effective head-on.

 

In one study I saw, the only time that chaff will cause break-lock was on the beam (85 deg - 95 deg) with very high probability, and other angles, break-lock contribution from chaff was ~0.02%

 

This was for old F-4 phantom radar.

 

Reality is a little more complex, but I do think that in the game R-27R/ER performs rather poorly in this respect.

 

IIRC, changing the parameters for RF missiles also changes parameters for IR missiles with respects to counter-measure rejection in DCS, which is why things are the way they were, until the CM rejection code is replaced by something better.

 

Again, just IIRC. :)

 

Agree. I suppose better then R-40 and R-24, but not better AIM-7M.

 

Of course.

 

 

Why you contend that? Have you any information how it is in the real life?

 

 

40% of effectiveness is good for SARH missile.

Remember, in the Vietnam the AIM-7 had about 10% of effectiveness IIRC, without countermeasures at MiGs.

 

 

It is your opinion only.

AA missiles is not ultimate weapons, even AMRAAM.

 

See GGT post above. Chaff in game is effective head on. It should not be. I would consider 85-95 degree beam an effective notch. Currently you need much less precision to spoof an ER. I made a test where I flew vertical zig zag +/- 500-1000m and chaff continously. Very easy to spoof 3 of 4 missiles head on. I did not post it since to avoid further mutliplayer exploits.

Edited October 4, 2013 by ///Rage

[*Rage*]

Agreed.

In a code a countermeasure resistance changes multiple times depending on aspect of the target. In the head-on position resistance is maximal but not an infinity.

 

So why it is effective head on?!! What angles do you consider head on?

 

As an aside I commend you for posting 'at work' on a friday night:)

[GGTharos]

Not really. I mean, it's more difficult for some planes but not for F-15: F-15 stopped using the AIM-7 before upgrades to AIM-7P, so, it may have had datalink or maybe not - it was simply an effective missile. I'd make it equivalent to an R-27 at the level of abstraction that we have right now. If you try to simulate AIM-7P, think AIM-120B or early C but SARH in terms of electronics.

 

What???

So, we need 'time system' for mission. For example, 'cold war' with their upgrades, 2013 with upgrades etc.

[GGTharos]

I will just make this comment:

 

Right now, the behavior we see from R-27 in head-on scenario should happen, IMHO, if the target is using ECM + CM. CM alone should not be a rejection of 0, but it should should be practically considered to be zero - ie. you should not want to take the risk of flying at it.

 

In terms of ECM+CM, this sort of modeling does not exist in the game right now. So based on CM alone, rejection of CMs for RF missiles should be extremely high in all regions except 85-95 deg (or perhaps 80-100 :) ) for the specific RF missile types currently useable by the player.

 

If you consider MiG-21 wielding its very old missiles, then I would expect chaff to cause trouble even head-on, but for the playable missiles that we have right now, I don't believe this to be correct behavior.

 

This is just IMHO based on things that I have read and heard.

 

Another IMHO is that good CM modeling will not happen with the current CM code, because it bases probability of rejection on RCS in some way - Kuky demonstrated this. RCS of chaff is not significant in this respect according to the study I saw. Aspect is much more important.

 

Note: I am talking about self-defense chaff, not chaff corridors which completely mask an aircraft flying in them. Self-defense chaff is not very good for this type of masking at closer ranges.

 

My suggestion for a 'quick fix' is to raise SARH missile resistance to CMs a little more, but IMHO a proper way to deal with this is complete rewriting of seeker and RF models for the entire game to resemble physical reality a little more closely and thus model some nuances of these devices better. Again IMHO.

 

Agreed.

In a code a countermeasure resistance changes multiple times depending on aspect of the target. In the head-on position resistance is maximal but not an infinity.

[*Rage*]

I will just make this comment:

 

Right now, the behavior we see from R-27 in head-on scenario should happen, IMHO, if the target is using ECM + CM. CM alone should not be a rejection of 0, but it should should be practically considered to be zero - ie. you should not want to take the risk of flying at it.

 

In terms of ECM+CM, this sort of modeling does not exist in the game right now. So based on CM alone, rejection of CMs for RF missiles should be extremely high in all regions except 85-95 deg (or perhaps 80-100 :) ) for the specific RF missile types currently useable by the player.

 

If you consider MiG-21 wielding its very old missiles, then I would expect chaff to cause trouble even head-on, but for the playable missiles that we have right now, I don't believe this to be correct behavior.

 

This is just IMHO based on things that I have read and heard.

 

Another IMHO is that good CM modeling will not happen with the current CM code, because it bases probability of rejection on RCS in some way - Kuky demonstrated this. RCS of chaff is not significant in this respect according to the study I saw. Aspect is much more important.

 

Note: I am talking about self-defense chaff, not chaff corridors which completely mask an aircraft flying in them. Self-defense chaff is not very good for this type of masking at closer ranges.

 

My suggestion for a 'quick fix' is to raise SARH missile resistance to CMs a little more, but IMHO a proper way to deal with this is complete rewriting of seeker and RF models for the entire game to resemble physical reality a little more closely and thus model some nuances of these devices better. Again IMHO.

 

Round about the time Kuky demonstrated better tracking with increased plane RCS as compared to chaff I did suggest we raise SARH missile resistance even as a temporary measure. Currently ECM has no effect on missile performance. I do not think we should muddy the waters further however and muck about with that as well. ECM in game now is some kind of weird hybrid system and part of me thinks it would be better removed altogether.

[Teknetinium]

Round about the time Kuky demonstrated better tracking with increased plane RCS as compared to chaff I did suggest we raise SARH missile resistance even as a temporary measure. Currently ECM has no effect on missile performance. I do not think we should muddy the waters further however and muck about with that as well. ECM in game now is some kind of weird hybrid system and part of me thinks it would be better removed altogether.

 

 

Or make ECM like it was in FC1 where opponents could break a lock by turning jammer as fast and as much they wanted. At least ECM were useful against ER-27 long range shots and against F15s TWS.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Off topic.

 

The focus of this thread was and should continue to be missile kinematics, which are difficult enough.

 

Or make ECM like it was in FC1 where opponents could break a lock by turning jammer as fast and as much they wanted. At least ECM were useful against ER-27 long range shots and against F15s TWS.

[volk]

Off topic. The focus of this thread was and should continue to be missile kinematics, which are difficult enough.

Why offtopic? Topic named 'Missiles in FC3' - not only kinematic. We discussed here homing (include radar and EOS work), CM resistance - all what have relation to missiles. But I don't understand this

changing the parameters for RF missiles also changes parameters for IR missiles with respects to counter-measure rejection in DCS

Is this mean, for example, that if ER chaff resistance will be increased, ET resistance to flares will be auto increased too?

[RYSLAND]

Извините что прерываю ваш урок английского, может поясните, что там по ракетам?

[GGTharos]

Why offtopic? Topic named 'Missiles in FC3' - not only kinematic. We discussed here homing (include radar and EOS work), CM resistance - all what have relation to missiles.

 

Because he's turning it into a wishlist, and because rocket kinematics is something that you can actually work on. Countermeasures is not.

 

But I don't understand this

Is this mean, for example, that if ER chaff resistance will be increased, ET resistance to flares will be auto increased too?

If I recall correctly, then yes. What's more incorrect is that I believe it will follow the same sensitivity model - ie. more resistant to flares from the front ... which is not correct :)

[Teknetinium]

Like Rage said which I agree whit. Jammers don't serve that great purpose as they did before because the burn thru occurs at ranges where hitting a target is less than 5%.

[Chizh]

If I recall correctly, then yes. What's more incorrect is that I believe it will follow the same sensitivity model - ie. more resistant to flares from the front ... which is not correct :)

You are right.

The chaffs and flares use the same sensitivity model at the present time. It is heavy heritage of LOMAC.

We have plan to rework countermeasures but later.

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

I know, I spoke with the appropriate person. All in good time, patience makes good things happen.

 

IMHO, must concentrate on what can be done right now - missile kinematics :)

[volk]

You are right.

The chaffs and flares use the same sensitivity model at the present time. It is heavy heritage of LOMAC.

Однако мы можем видеть, что контрмеры действуют на ракеты с АРГСН в соответствии правилом 3-9, в отличие от ракет с ТГСН. Единственное исключение - Р/ЭР. Я еще проверю дополнительно AIM-7 - может ли она тоже перенаводиться на дипольные отражатели при неманеврирующей цели.

40% of effectiveness is good for SARH missile.

И 100% для активных (при неманеврирующей цели, отстреливающей диполи). Словно между ними разница в 2 поколения и 30 лет.

IMHO, must concentrate on what can be done right now - missile kinematics.

We are waiting for decision about R-27R and AIM-7 for testing. We can discuss any questions about missiles in this topic.

[volk]

Я проверил Р-27Р с параметрами из http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1892473&postcount=4153 пусками в ЗПС. Цели поражены.

Условия

1) h = 10000 м, Vи = 900 км/ч, Vц = 700 км/ч, Д = 15 км

Результат:

 

 

 

 

 

2) h = 1000 м, Vи = 900 км/ч, Vц = 700 км/ч, Д = 6,5 км

Результат:

 

 

 

 

 

[volk]

Извините что прерываю ваш урок английского, может поясните, что там по ракетам?

http://translate.google.ru/?hl=ru&tab=TT Если что-то непонятно, например абревиатуры, можем объяснить.

[RYSLAND]

http://translate.google.ru/?hl=ru&tab=TT Если что-то непонятно, например абревиатуры, можем объяснить.

 

Не перепутали кому ссылку кидать? Стратосу кидайте. Что за англопоклончество какое-то.

[Lans]

Я проверил Р-27Р с параметрами из http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1892473&postcount=4153 пусками в ЗПС. Цели поражены.

Ну и ладушки. Теперь слово за военпредом:) и переходим к тепловым.

[Chizh]

Не перепутали кому ссылку кидать? Стратосу кидайте. Что за англопоклончество какое-то.

Английский это язык мирового общения. Мне безусловно жаль, что ты ничего не понимаешь, но это не наша проблема и не проблема форума.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Chizh

[Chizh]

Начинаю тестирование Р-27Р. Отличие от утвержденной Р-27ЭР в "0.03 , -- Cx_k3 планка Cx0 на "

 

Name = P_27P, --R-27R

Escort = 1,

Head_Type = 6,

sigma = {5.6, 5, 5.6},

M = 253.0,

H_max = 25000.0,

H_min = 1.0,

Diam = 230.0,

Cx_pil = 2.21,

D_max = 14000.0,

D_min = 700.0,

Head_Form = 1,

Life_Time = 90.0,

Nr_max = 24,

v_min = 140.0,

v_mid = 500.0,

Mach_max = 4.5,

t_b = 0.0,

t_acc = 6.0,

t_marsh = 0.0,

Range_max = 35000.0,

H_min_t = 20.0,

Fi_start = 0.87,

Fi_rak = 3.14152,

Fi_excort = 0.97,

Fi_search = 0.1,

OmViz_max = 0.35,

warhead = warheads["P_27P"],

exhaust = tail_solid,

X_back = -1.227,

Y_back = -0.128,

Z_back = 0.0,

Reflection = 0.0479,

KillDistance = 11.0,

 

ModelData = { 58 , -- model params count

0.9 , -- characteristic square (характеристическая площадь)

-- параметры зависимости Сx

0.07 , -- Cx_k0 планка Сx0 на дозвуке ( M << 1)

0.08 , -- Cx_k1 высота пика волнового кризиса

0.02 , -- Cx_k2 крутизна фронта на подходе к волновому кризису

0.03 , -- Cx_k3 планка Cx0 на сверхзвуке ( M >> 1)

2.5 , -- Cx_k4 крутизна спада за волновым кризисом

1.2 , -- коэффициент отвала поляры

 

-- параметры зависимости Cy

0.9 , -- Cy_k0 планка Сy0 на дозвуке ( M << 1)

0.8 , -- Cy_k1 планка Cy0 на сверхзвуке ( M >> 1)

1.2 , -- Cy_k2 крутизна спада(фронта) за волновым кризисом

 

 

0.29 , -- 7 Alfa_max максимальный балансировачный угол, радианы

0.0, --угловая скорость создаваймая моментом газовых рулей

 

-- t_statr t_b t_accel t_march t_inertial t_break t_end

-1.0, -1.0 , 6.0 , 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0e9, -- time interval

0.0, 0.0 , 11.33 , 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -- fuel flow rate in second kg/sec(секундный расход массы топлива кг/сек), масса топлива 68 кг.

0.0, 0.0 , 25620.4, 0.0 , 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -- thrust 6000 by doc

 

1.0e9, -- таймер самоликвидации, сек

60.0, -- время работы энергосистемы

0, -- растояние до поверхности срабатывания радиовзрывателя, м

0.4, -- время задержки включения управленя, сек

1.0e9, -- 5000.0, -- дальность до цели в момент пуска, выше которой выполняется маневр набора высоты

1.0e9, -- 10000.0, -- дальность до цели на трассе, менее которой начинается завершение маневра набора высоты (длжен быть больше чем предылущий параметр)

0.0, -- синус угла возвышения траектории набора горки

50.0, -- продольное ускорения взведения взрывателя

0.0,

1.19, -- характристика системы САУ-РАКЕТА, коэф фильтра второго порядка K0

1.0, -- характристика системы САУ-РАКЕТА, коэф фильтра второго порядка K1

2.0, -- характристика системы САУ-РАКЕТА, полоса пропускания контура управления

5000.0, -- дальность полета в горизонт с располагаемой перегрузкой Navail >= 1.0 на высоте H=2000

2.2, -- крутизна зависимости дальность полета в горизонт с располагаемой перегрузкой Navail >= 1.0 от высоты H

30.0, -- коэф поправки к дальности от скорости носителя

0.75, -- безразмерный коэф. эффективности САУ ракеты

32.0, -- Прогноз времени полета ракеты

-- DLZ. Данные для рассчета дальностей пуска (индикация на прицеле)

35000.0, -- дальность ракурс 180(навстречу) град, Н=10000м, V=900км/ч, м

14000.0, -- дальность ракурс 0(в догон) град, Н=10000м, V=900км/ч

15000.0, -- дальность ракурс 180(навстречу) град, Н=1000м, V=900км/ч

0.2, -- Коэффициент уменьшения дальности при увеличения угла между векторм скорости носителя и линией визирования цели

0.7, -- Вертикальная плоскость. Наклон кривой разрешенной дальности пуска в нижнюю полусферу. Уменьшение дальности при стрельбе вниз.

2.0, -- Вертикальная плоскость. Наклон кривой разрешенной дальности пуска в верхнюю полусферу. Увеличение дальности при стрельбе вверх.

-3.0, -- Вертикальная плоскость. Угол перегиба кривой разрешенной дальности, верхняя - нижняя полусфера.

0.5, -- Изменение коэффициентов наклона кривой в верхнюю и нижнюю полусферы от высоты носителя.

Тут все нормально?

Можно прогонять финальные тесты?

[ups]

Английский это язык мирового общения. Мне безусловно жаль, что ты ничего не понимаешь, но это не наша проблема и не проблема форума.

Нет, это Ваша проблема, так как Вы и ещё ряд пользователей нарушаете правила этого форума. По идее, модераторы давно уже должны были вас забанить, но почему-то смотрят сквозь пальцы ;)

 

Если забыли или не читали, процитирую:

 

5.2. Язык общения на этом форуме РУССКИЙ или АНГЛИЙСКИЙ (в соответствующих разделах форума), все публикации на иных иностранных языках только с разрешения Администрации форума. Если Вы пишите на русском языке и у Вас отсутствует русская клавиатура, то пользуйтесь сервисом www.translit.ru. Это облегчит восприятие вашего сообщения читающими.

 

Выделение цветом - моё.

И да, этот раздел форума называется "Русский".

Поэтому, пожалуйста, пишите по-русски, лоббируйте отмену п. 5.2 правил или переносите обсуждение в английский раздел.

Edited October 5, 2013 by ups

[Lans]

Тут все нормально?

Можно прогонять финальные тесты?

да вроде все проверено можно погонять финальные тесты

Edited October 6, 2013 by Lans