Ракеты в DCS

[BlackPixxel]

8 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

No, it isn't severed.  The missile stops 'listening' to it unless it loses track.  The Su-27/MiG-29 WCS discontinues the DL, yes, the AMRAAM platform does not.

 

Su-27/MiG-29 don't stop the datalink, it is just that the missile stops using it once the condition of transition to SARH is met (LOS vector of seeker points at the target and the missile is within the defined seeker range).

[Breakshot]

I'm sorry but what did I say that was false here?  LOS rates is absolutely a possible avenue to build a loft profile that doesn't require ranging information.  As can be seen there are missiles that loft without any range information in use.

Bro, we are not here to build missiles. We are trying to bring the current missiles of relatively the same era to behave to a logical standard within DCS limitations! Cmon

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[dundun92]

4 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

So for example an STT supported 120 that lost track on a target in the notch, while the support platform has a clear lock from a different angle should just miss and not reacquire the target. Is that what you mean?

Are you disputing the information that is clear in the F16 manual as referenced above by Dundun?



Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

Heres the exact manual quote " Once the target has been acquired by the missile, terminating data link will have no impact on probability of kill (PK) unless the missile loses track." (emphasis mine). It will help the missile reacquire if it looses track from notching, chaff, ECM, or any combination of those. Sure, if the target doesnt do anything to break the track the DL does nothing, but we arent concerned with DL if the target is doing nothing to try and break the track.

Edited July 22, 2021 by dundun92

[Breakshot]

Heres the exact manual quote " Once the target has been acquired by the missile, terminating data link will have no impact on probability of kill (PK) unless the missile loses track." (emphasis mine). It will help the missile reacquire if it looses track from notching, chaff, ECM, or any combination of those.

Bingo! End of argument

Thanks

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[nighthawk2174]

4 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

Swedish air forces tactics say different.... also, from the papers I recall.... the support is dropped only in last few frames since that DL accuracy gets much lower than the seeker, so it would degrade the accuracy if DL input were included.  

 

The tactics may simply be for the highest PK possible but there's nothing there that says the missile is hopeless without it.  If anything I wouldn't be surprised if keeping track of the target till impact (so long as you shot first and your missile will hit first) was for SA purposes so you didn't loose the target.  Especially since from the vid it looks like their in a 2v4 situation.

 

[GGTharos]

8 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

So in that case it is still not supported by the aircraft if it retains the initial target. They were saying that you could like overide the guidance to prevent a Mad-dog missile.

 

No I don't think so, but to be clear this is what I think, specifically for AMRAAM:

 

MADDOG/VISUAL:  Missile launched without support beyond knowledge of launcher's g/direction bias.   There will never be any datalink that this missile will consider, and the weapon system will not generate it.

Normal launch:  The missile is will consider the DL until autonomous.  The WCS will continue to emit the data-link until the 'drop dead' time (About 99 sec).  The missile may 'listen' to it if it loses track.  The DL is normally used to sort out initial targets for acquisition by the missile, including picking out the desired target in a formation.

HOJ: ???? - a lot of cases, pretty much none of which are correctly covered in DCS for a variety of reasons.  Removing the PN variables and loft a denied range target is scraping the tip of the iceberg, but even this isn't entirely correct for all cases - eg. if you have a valid track and it begins jamming, the WCS already has good track data to launch with and can be transferred to the missile.  Likewise if the missile is launched after ECM begins.  Range can also be calculated by other means.

 

And this is just for our simple little range-denied jammer in DCS.

4 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

Su-27/MiG-29 don't stop the datalink, it is just that the missile stops using it once the condition of transition to SARH is met (LOS vector of seeker points at the target and the missile is within the defined seeker range).

 

Maybe I misunderstood what ha been quoted time and again from the manuals:  At a certain computed range, the DL is discontinued and replaced with a homing signal.

[Breakshot]

Supporting the missiles should be a thing in DCS, just as it is in RL. Just as it is dictated in training for all pilots employing them in RL.

Why are we even disputing this?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[GGTharos]

7 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

So for example an STT supported 120 that lost track on a target in the notch, while the support platform has a clear lock from a different angle should just miss and not reacquire the target. Is that what you mean?

Are you disputing the information that is clear in the F16 manual as referenced above by Dundun?

 

No, what I mean is that except for this, you don't need to support the missile in terminal.  Certain people want to make it seem like the missile is not worth much without the DL when terminal, which is not correct.

[Chizh]

53 минуты назад, Breakshot сказал:

@chizh can you please also look into making the relevant PN adjustment and remove variable PN logic and loft for SD10 and Aim54s vs ECM.

Because they can just be manually lofted into space with a high pitch angle. ECM makes no difference to those missiles.

Thanks

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

This is not ED's code. Please contact the developers of these missiles.

[GGTharos]

3 minutes ago, Chizh said:

This is not ED's code. Please contact the developers of these missiles.

 

I'm not part of any 3rd party development, and so I don't know what happens behind closed doors with regards to the missile API, but it would be beneficial to expose the progress you are making to those developers.

Eg. when the missile is launched, there should be probably be a standard method to transfer data from WCS to missile, so the missile can act accordingly.  My understanding is that there is no 3rd party missile code at all (only configuration) but they do have to keep up with what you do internally for guidance.

 

4 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

Supporting the missiles should be a thing in DCS, just as it is in RL. Just as it is dictated in training for all pilots employing them in RL.

Why are we even disputing this?

 

Because there are cheapshot tactics

Edited July 22, 2021 by GGTharos

[Breakshot]

@GGTharos

We can speculate all we want about HOJ. But I'm willing to bet in modern ECM environment those missiles might have a hard time guiding at all!

In DCS we have perfect guidance on ECM by an SD10. Thankfully 120 is already adjusted.

Are you saying the Chinese have broken some kind of ECM milestones with their missiles?

Let's stick to what can be the most ballpark implementation in DCS. Remove variable PN.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

This is not ED's code. Please contact the developers of these missiles.

This creates a serious disparity of standards for missiles in DCS....

Could you at least give recommendations to those third party developers? As far as I'm concerned ED missile standards are the benchmark. Everything else should just follow suit as improvements are made.

Or is this a case of UFO missiles make better sales?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[nighthawk2174]

Just now, Breakshot said:

@GGTharos

We can speculate all we want about HOJ. But I'm willing to bet in modern ECM environment those missiles might have a hard time guiding at all!

In DCS we have perfect guidance on ECM by an SD10. Thankfully 120 is already adjusted.

Are you saying the Chinese have broken some kind of ECM milestones with their missiles?

Let's stick to what can be the most ballpark implementation in DCS. Remove variable PN.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

Well the fact that a specific ECM technique, cross eye jamming, had to be developed (mid 2000's?) to counter active monopulse seekers like the 120 (at least that's my understanding of it) I think speaks a lot about its ability to counter older jamming techniques.  Nor are we sure about the exact effectiveness of this technique either.

[GGTharos]

 

 

1 minute ago, Breakshot said:

In DCS we have perfect guidance on ECM by an SD10. Thankfully 120 is already adjusted.

Are you saying the Chinese have broken some kind of ECM milestones with their missiles?

Let's stick to what can be the most ballpark implementation in DCS. Remove variable PN.

 

I'm saying that 3rd parties do not have access to the missile guidance code, AFAIK.  They inherit whatever ED does.  Given that you can see some missiles follow what's done to the 120 and some do not, they're probably not using the same guidance functions - all made by ED, but they leave the legacy things in as they develop newer capability.

 

[Breakshot]

 
No, what I mean is that except for this, you don't need to support the missile in terminal.  Certain people want to make it seem like the missile is not worth much without the DL when terminal, which is not correct.

Exceptions don't make for good arguments.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[GGTharos]

1 minute ago, Breakshot said:

Exceptions don't make for good arguments.

 

Exceptions don't make the rule, and the rule is 'Pk does is not affected by the supporting aircraft when the missile is autonomous unless the missile loses track' the emphasis being the exception, and even then we don't know what the missile can/cannot do to recover the track by itself.  There are already statements regarding the sparrow's capability for recovering track-breaks caused by split-S, I doubt the 120 would be any worse.

Edited July 22, 2021 by GGTharos

[FoxAlfa]

19 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

" Once the target has been acquired by the missile, terminating data link will have no impact on probability of kill (PK) unless the missile loses track."

Exactly, and the thing is missile way more likely to lose the track due to seeker power, chaff, notch and other limitations.

Again, most MPRF filters are in 50-60 knots range... to quote a research IEEE paper from this two Defense and Electronic Center, Westinghouse Electric Corporation engineers 

"A typical rejection notch width is 55 knots with respect to the ground which requires a doppler notch width of +I870 Hz with respect to the center of mainbeam clutter frequency (for an X-band system)"

This paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1457409/authors#authors

I am not sure how wide is our Aim-120 notch gate. 

Edited July 22, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[Breakshot]

Well the fact that a specific ECM technique, cross eye jamming, had to be developed (mid 2000's?) to counter active monopulse seekers like the 120 (at least that's my understanding of it) I think speaks a lot about its ability to counter older jamming techniques.  Nor are we sure about the exact effectiveness of this technique either.

Yes exactly. So really what is clear is that HOJ guidance is way too good in DCS. So is the radar interaction vs ECM.

We all understand the limitations of DCS ECM mechanics, so lets get all missiles to act to the best possible manner within those constraints.

SD10 should not have variable PN vs ECM. Phoenix should probably be just dead weight vs ECM but OK, at least it should also not loft and use variable PN either if 120 doesn't.

My argument is very simple and prudent. Less speculation, more consistency.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[GGTharos]

1 minute ago, Breakshot said:

SD10 should not have variable PN vs ECM. Phoenix should probably be just dead weight vs ECM

 

Just like the R-27

[FoxAlfa]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Just like the R-27

R-27 currently has pure.... which also wrong... it should be just simple PN.

[Breakshot]

 
Just like the R-27

R27 has pure pursuit vs ECM which renders it basically useless. And defies all logic.

It needs a normal pn vs ECM. But yes thanks for bringing it up!
@chizh

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Jack1nthecrack]

5 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

R27 has pure pursuit vs ECM which renders it basically useless. And defies all logic.

It needs a normal pn vs ECM. But yes thanks for bringing it up!
@chizh

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

Why does it not have a normal PN though?

Edited July 22, 2021 by Jack1nthecrack

[BlackPixxel]

21 minutes ago, Jack1nthecrack said:

Why does it not have a normal PN though?

 

 

Not 

[FoxAlfa]

Are there any plans to add side lobe emitions to active missile heads and generally radars?

Currently RWR detect only main lobe emitions making notching exect. Namely as soon as missile drops from rwr it is notched... But in reality RWR should still detect side lobe emitions.

[Chizh]

2 часа назад, FoxAlfa сказал:

Are there any plans to add side lobe emitions to active missile heads and generally radars?

Currently RWR detect only main lobe emitions making notching exect. Namely as soon as missile drops from rwr it is notched... But in reality RWR should still detect side lobe emitions.

This is recorded in the Wishlist, but it requires a big overhauling of all radio-emitting devices and receivers.
In the future, when there is time, we will model the side lobes, but not now.

[Max1mus]

• AIM-120 missile. Reduced the missile guidance error to the target performing a barrel roll maneuver.

- Latest changelog.

 

Will this decrease of lock-breaking be modelled on the other missiles, including R-27ER and R-77?

 

People are reporting that AIM-120 are much, much harder to defeat than some months ago. To the point where at high altitude, the only thing that can save you is a random aiming error.

 

Meanwhile all the other missiles can still be defeated reliably at all altitudes.