Missile Dynamics - A discussion

[lunaticfringe]

Most of this is common knowledge mixed with a total misunderstanding of what you read.

 

Misunderstanding? More like numerous stabs in the dark of conjecture against fact.

 

Oh, and you got a star for today's forum commentary; funny how I got one, too. YAY US!!!1!

 

And are you trying to say that teamwork doesn't exist in mp?

 

Based on the substance found in Tek's voluminous commentary, I, like GG, have significant doubts.

[Teknetinium]

Misunderstanding? More like numerous stabs in the dark of conjecture against fact.

 

Oh, and you got a star for today's forum commentary; funny how I got one, too. YAY US!!!1!

 

 

 

Based on the substance found in Tek's voluminous commentary, I, like GG, have significant doubts.

 

There is a risk that this simulator will become like FLCONS if you continue whit your stars!!! At the moment it leans that way already where you have 20xF15, 2xSu-27 / 20xA-10C, 2xSu-25T in FC3 servers already.

What do you think will happened when DCS fighter arrives and what do you think will happened if DCS fighter don't have opponents to fight against where you and up whit F-15 vs F-18 or MIG-21 vs F4.

 

It doesn't depend on that F-15 or A-10C is more popular :)

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Kuky]

GG has already told you, up to and including post #43. As it stands, the generation of MiG-29 modeled cannot shoot through TWS. Period. End of sentence.

 

Have more respect replying to people

And there is TWS capability in MiG-29S, in RL I mean

Edited December 6, 2012 by Kuky

[Frostie]

Oh, and you got a star for today's forum commentary; funny how I got one, too. YAY US!!!1!

I'm not interested in your game of super mario, or whatever other kids game youre playing.

 

Based on the substance found in Tek's voluminous commentary, I, like GG, have significant doubts.

 

 

Except you got lost on the fact that the point had nothing to do with tactics and everything to do with the games failings. Yet you still saw fit to give an irrelevant long winded answer that did nothing but prune western egos.

And now you're drawing conclusions about mp based on your own misreading, good one.

[GGTharos]

Guys, chill ... seriously. I think all questions have been answered. I hate to have to sling warnings or close threads so if you're itching to respond to SOMEONE, just sit on your hands for a bit.

 

Everyone has said their piece, it's done.

[Alfa]

You didn't; Frostie did. I merely used your picture to illustrate the humorous earlier point made (I believe by Kuky) about those being "datalink antenna" as opposed to fuzing

 

No that was me and I am glad you managed a little laugh on my expense in return for all the fun I have had reading your insightful and informative posts in this thread :) .

[falcon_120]

Sorry,some more questions a bit off topic. Is breaking a radar lock through chaffs and Ecm something that might be simulated in the Future? Notice I'm talking about the aircraft radar lock,not the missile.

And one more, Can't be simulated through some sort or stadistic variable like a gaussian or some other type ,a % of failure in radar lock or RWR deteccion? Right now the RWR is a perfect piece of HW that never misses a single emission though as most of you know this shouldn't be the case.

[Teknetinium]

Sorry,some more questions a bit off topic. Is breaking a radar lock through chaffs and Ecm something that might be simulated in the Future? Notice I'm talking about the aircraft radar lock,not the missile.

And one more, Can't be simulated through some sort or stadistic variable like a gaussian or some other type ,a % of failure in radar lock or RWR deteccion? Right now the RWR is a perfect piece of HW that never misses a single emission though as most of you know this shouldn't be the case.

 

Could be another approach witch was mentioned back in FC1. If RWRs are not that reliable for all aircrafts would increase the immersion of realism and bring respect for your opponents.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Sorry,some more questions a bit off topic. Is breaking a radar lock through chaffs and Ecm something that might be simulated in the Future? Notice I'm talking about the aircraft radar lock,not the missile.

 

This is a desired possibility, although I imagine chaff vs modern radars ... eeeeh ... not if it's coming out of your plane. If someone sent chaff-spewing drones to fill up the air, maybe.

 

And one more, Can't be simulated through some sort or stadistic variable like a gaussian or some other type ,a % of failure in radar lock or RWR deteccion? Right now the RWR is a perfect piece of HW that never misses a single emission though as most of you know this shouldn't be the case.

 

Yes, but, on the other hand, we also do not have a dense electronic environment, so you might argue that the RWR simply has nothing to impede it, and the more modern it is, the less likely to suffer a failure it is.

 

In addition, because the signals tend to repeat for a long time, it might not make real sense to model failure to detect because realistically a signal will be re-sampled when it comes along again.

 

Of course, it would be nice to see false positives and negatives on radars and rwrs ... can you imagine the bug threads? :D

[falcon_120]

 

Of course, it would be nice to see false positives and negatives on radars and rwrs ... can you imagine the bug threads? :D

 

I would love it, it would open a new dimensions,same as Stt locks triggering launch warnings once in a while,or the opposite,Rwr that some times fails to detect the change of the enemy radar waveform to attack until the distance is closer hence the received power higher.

[Kuky]

Brainstorm:

 

Here's what we really need in FC3... this INS really has to be inetegrated as it makes me realise the radar lock can't be dropped due to chaff, only missile can be spoofed... BUT... this can't happen while missile is still in INS guidance... which is why I think we really need it!

 

Once the missile is in temrinal phase and starts guiding itself on the radar reflection... this is the only time missile can be spoofed by chaff because while in INS mode missile is not guiding off radar reflected of the target but M-link from launching aircaft (and there is no chaff between missile and launching aircraft)... when missile is guiding off radar energy reflection THEN ONLY can it be fooled by chaff as chaff will scatter lot of the radar energy.

 

GG and other gurus do you agree?

[Teknetinium]

Brainstorm:

 

Here's what we really need in FC3... this INS really has to be inetegrated as it makes me realise the radar lock can't be dropped due to chaff, only missile can be spoofed... BUT... this can't happen while missile is still in INS guidance... which is why I think we really need it!

 

Once the missile is in temrinal phase and starts guiding itself on the radar reflection... this is the only time missile can be spoofed by chaff because while in INS mode missile is not guiding off radar reflected of the target but M-link from launching aircaft (and there is no chaff between missile and launching aircraft)... when missile is guiding off radar energy reflection THEN ONLY can it be fooled by chaff as chaff will scatter lot of the radar energy.

 

GG and other gurus do you agree?

 

I believe chaff effect directly on Aircrafts radar when it comes to SARH. While AIM-120/R-77 is a different where you effect missiles radar whit the countermeasures. Thats why I believe that aim-120/R-77 should not be as effective against countermeasures in active state.

 

( I know it is debatable, Im just pointing out different approaches we could achieve more realistic immersion of reality from my point of view.)

Edited December 5, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Alfa]

I believe chaff effect directly on Aircrafts radar when it comes to SARH. While AIM-120/R-77 is a different where you effect missiles radar whit the countermeasures. Thats why I believe that aim-120/R-77 should not be as effective against countermeasures in active state.

 

Tek,

 

A SARH seeker does the same as an ARH in this respect - i.e. homes on radar returns, so if there is chaff between the target and missile seeker, it affects its operation as well.

 

I think you might be confusing this with ECM :)

[Teknetinium]

Tek,

 

A SARH seeker does the same as an ARH in this respect - i.e. homes on radar returns, so if there is chaff between the target and missile seeker, it affects its operation as well.

 

I think you might be confusing this with ECM :)

 

Right. I still believe ARH would be weaker then aircrafts radar against countermeasures, but that's assumption and debatable, still a way to improve the immersion of reality from my point of view.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Kuky]

Shouldn't matter if missile radar or aircraft radar is what's used to home on target... it's the signal to noise ratio that matters and chaff is used to create this "noise".

 

So even though radar from aircraft creates more reflected energy (as it trasmits more energy to begin with) this results also in more reflective energy from chaff.

[Alfa]

What kuky said :)

[USAFMTL]

Shouldn't matter if missile radar or aircraft radar is what's used to home on target... it's the signal to noise ratio that matters and chaff is used to create this "noise".

 

So even though radar from aircraft creates more reflected energy (as it trasmits more energy to begin with) this results also in more reflective energy from chaff.

 

Not to mention that some missiles have modes that when ECM goes active, it can be by passed by a change in trajectory to avoid said source. That's called ECCM.

Edited December 5, 2012 by USAFMTL
Re phrasing

[Kuky]

What kuky said :)

 

Yay, I finally said something smart :smartass:

 

Not to mention that some missiles have modes that the ECM source can be by passed by a change in trajectory based on that source. That's called ECCM.

 

This is different, talking pure scatter noise due to chaff, not use of ECM

[USAFMTL]

Yay, I finally said something smart :smartass:

 

 

 

This is different, talking pure scatter noise due to chaff, not use of ECM

 

I know, I was just throwing that out there. In regards to chaff the AIM-120 has sidelobe clutter rejection.

[Cali]

There is no prove on that Aim-120 is better or worse in active mode since all factors as ground clutter, jamming and chaff is very hard to model in a simulator. making the aim-120 not as deadly in active mode would not harm the immersion of reality in this sim. ( Same argument was made about ETs in FC1).

 

So you think it was ok to fire ET's from 20 miles away and get kills? This was a game exploit that was fixed. ET's don't have that long of a range head on. In a tail chase the range is much longer and the purpose of the missile.

 

 

And dose this improve the FC3 immersion of reality?

In FC2 aim-120 statistics have similar if not three times better Pk.

 

But thats not the point the missile would have the advantage even if it was poked down to not have as good radar as F-15 in active state. The stats would probably look the same.

As Su-27s are still killing alot whit ETs even if it was poked down in FC2.

 

Once again see above, I like ET's but shouldn't get a head on kill at 20 miles! They weren't porked down, they where fixed.

 

In real life this is a team game, and tactics are developed based on knowledge, the way you want to fight, and the capability of your wingmen.

 

You tell yourself whatever the vault and training tells you to tell yourself. All we know is that RL pilots don't ignore threats to their life, but we don't know squat about tactics except for the basics, which is what we are trying to make work.

 

Like GG said, it's a team in real life. Air Forces don't send 1 jet up by itself, especially not against more on the other side. You guys (51st) should know this already. You guys are very good flying as a team. You know how to work together and use the strengths of the airframe you are flying and the weapons it has.

 

I was talking about RL. In-game you will find a mix of people. Lone wolves are the meat here generally speaking, though the vast majority of flight simmers never really get online anyway.

 

Teamwork isn't easy. It's hard. Few people do it well. This has nothing to do with missiles. People ignoring missiles isn't bad just in teamwork, it's bad in 1v1 as well.

 

That is DIFFERENT than people who are well versed in enemy missile capabilities and maneuver in such a way as to screw over any shot you might take.

 

+1, nothing else to add to this, people need to understand this. We have all done the lone wolf before and it is fun at times. However, don't get upset when you get shot down saying "these missiles suck" or anything along those lines. You go into a fight like that knowing your chances.

 

 

Tell you what- I'll trade you a MiG-29S with TWS 2-bug for an F-15C MSIP II carrying an MPCD with more than a PACS page; namely, the HSD with FDL data. An APG-63 with proper azimuth control; no need for AESA. And you can leave the broken "announce my presence to the world" TEWS.

 

I promise you- you won't like that trade one bit, and you'll come back saying that things are broken yet again; not because ED, GG, and everyone confronting you is biased (with a bias towards data), but because *you* are biased.

 

+1, the F-15 has been missing how many features since it first came out? There is a reason why the 15 is king of the skies. I hope you guys don't think having DCS fighters is going to change the outcome much in the air. It's going to be the same way it is now. Then what are people going to complain about then?

 

No matter what side gets improvements......the other side is going to cry about it.

 

 

LOL, is it how you see it, its very productive for your beloved simulator.

Dont worry It will be easier for me to shot you down in F-18 soon enoght.

 

Lets hope it's a F-18 or F-16. What's gonna happen if the next DCS model isn't a red jet? I can hear and see the post now :argue:

 

I know, I was just throwing that out there. In regards to chaff the AIM-120 has sidelobe clutter rejection.

 

This guys knows some stuff, if only.....

[GGTharos]

Brainstorm:

 

Here's what we really need in FC3... this INS really has to be inetegrated as it makes me realise the radar lock can't be dropped due to chaff, only missile can be spoofed... BUT... this can't happen while missile is still in INS guidance... which is why I think we really need it!

 

Hi Kuky, while INS isn't there, MCU's are. You cannot spoof a missile before it acquires with its own seeker in-game, right now.

 

INS will change the game a bit for sure as the missiles will travel to their activation point instead of flying straight when the MCU's drop.

 

If you ever saw a missile launched and starts to loft, you lose lock and the missile goes for the moon, that's lack of INS - you lost lock, the MCU's dropped and so the missile just goes straight. With INS it will complete its lofting profile and fly towards the latest target position. There it may actually acquire if you re-lock the target, but only if it's more or less at the predicted position (MCU's will not restart when you get lock again).

[GGTharos]

Chaff will usually create a larger RCS than your target depending on circumstances - you can, IIRC, get up to 50m^2 RCS from fighter-borne chaff deployment.

 

However also keep in mind that chaff can be eliminated by using a doppler filter and other techniques, like motion techniques etc.

 

Shouldn't matter if missile radar or aircraft radar is what's used to home on target... it's the signal to noise ratio that matters and chaff is used to create this "noise".

 

So even though radar from aircraft creates more reflected energy (as it trasmits more energy to begin with) this results also in more reflective energy from chaff.

[USAFMTL]

Chaff will usually create a larger RCS than your target depending on circumstances - you can, IIRC, get up to 50m^2 RCS from fighter-borne chaff deployment.

 

However also keep in mind that chaff can be eliminated by using a doppler filter and other techniques, like motion techniques etc.

 

 

 

+1

[blahdy]

Speaking of Missile Dynamics, though somewhat unrelated..

 

I noticed that AGM-114 Hellfire in DCS has motor burn time of 5 seconds, but in reality, it only burns for 3 seconds.

Source:

- http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/docs/1helfire.pdf

- count the burn time yourself here:

[Kuky]

Chaff will usually create a larger RCS than your target depending on circumstances - you can, IIRC, get up to 50m^2 RCS from fighter-borne chaff deployment.

 

That's not right because chaff doesn't "hang around" your aircraft, you release it and it's far behind you in instant.

 

The only thing it can do is create a "cloud" of radar energy reflection and overwhelm reflection of the aircraft and missile can switch to this, loosing track of aircaft and become spoofed missile.