Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[*Rage*]

Ok chaps, here it is. Further testing with latest patch (track and tacviews included)

 

To recap.

-2 missiles launched at 30km range

-Angels 7

-Further 2 missile volley launched much closer in if first volley fails

 

At all times lock is maintained. Target is above launch platform and not in the notch (except possibly 1 missile launch)

 

5 tracks with chaff. 5 without. 28 missiles launches in total

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7su8ges5gefzpfu/UQ4R3qQRhM

 

Testing with target chaffing

Track 1 - 4 launches - 3 missiles go for chaff, 1 hits

Track 2 - 2 launches - 2 missiles go for chaff

Track 3 - 4 launches - 3 missiles go for chaff 1 hits (4th missile missguides before 3rd missile hits)

Track 4 - 4 launches - 1st volley go for chaff, 2nd volley much lower altitude (1 hits 1 ?notched)

Track 5 - 4 launches - 1st volley go for chaff, 2nd volley go for chaff (lower altitude)

 

18 missiles launched

- 3 track

- 14 missguide to chaff for no good reason

- 1 possibly reasonably notched

 

Testing with target not chaffing

Tracks 6-10 - 2 missiles launched in each volley. ALL TRACK AND HIT.

 

My conclusion

There is something seriously wrong with the ER guidance/chaff rejection algorithm. It absolutely loves chaff and will massively detour and guide to it even though a solid high altitude separation lock is maintained.

 

In my testing as a control 100% of missiles will guide correctly in the absence of chaff. That drops to <25-30% of missiles purely for the existance of chaff in the airspace during missile time of flight despite otherwise ideal conditions as demonstrated in the control. That chaffing should be ineffectual if you watch the tracks and yet it completely debilitates the ER. We're not even talking about pK here, simply pTrack.

 

Im sure the focus now is on missile AFM and then F15/27 AFM, which I absolutely cant wait for, but I hope I have identified a problem with missile guidance that ED will address at some point to fit in with DCS:Fighters

 

Awaiting ED/Testers response:)

Edited May 24, 2013 by ///Rage

[pepin1234]

the stronger Missile for Chaffs is the Aim-7. Is amazing how fast and effective is the Aim-7 inside DCS-World. the comparition between the R-27 is about 30 % more effective than the last one, faster as well.

 

Lot of ex-socialist countries have keep this missile ( R-27 ). If the missile is so bad, I am sure they will change and upgrade the systems for the Aim-7. But is not like that, they keep the missile, even been in the NATO, so...

[Grigs]

Thank you for spending all that time of yours to demonstrate your point Rage ,)

[EtherealN]

the stronger Missile for Chaffs is the Aim-7. Is amazing how fast and effective is the Aim-7 inside DCS-World. the comparition between the R-27 is about 30 % more effective than the last one, faster as well.

 

Lot of ex-socialist countries have keep this missile ( R-27 ). If the missile is so bad, I am sure they will change and upgrade the systems for the Aim-7. But is not like that, they keep the missile, even been in the NATO, so...

 

Which country uses R-27 on an aircraft where AIM-7 is even an option?

 

Just in case you weren't aware: no, it is not possible to simply take another missile. You'd have to change a lot in the aircraft, potentially completely replacing radar, computers etcetera.

 

So here's a reason to keep them: money.

If you want to think about it some more, note that Poland does not use R-27's on their F-16's. (Which probably wouldn't be practical no possible anyway, for the same reason, though I guess they could have specified to receive other weapons-related equipment on the aircraft when they bought them.)

[pepin1234]

Which country uses R-27 on an aircraft where AIM-7 is even an option?

 

Just in case you weren't aware: no, it is not possible to simply take another missile. You'd have to change a lot in the aircraft, potentially completely replacing radar, computers etcetera.

 

So here's a reason to keep them: money.

If you want to think about it some more, note that Poland does not use R-27's on their F-16's. (Which probably wouldn't be practical no possible anyway, for the same reason, though I guess they could have specified to receive other weapons-related equipment on the aircraft when they bought them.)

 

If the R-27 is so bad missile like what we have now ( the R-27R is almost in disuse in our Simulator ) I think they are not so stupid to spend money in something that will shot our R-27R.

 

they are Slovakia, then come Bulgaria, Poland. Also Peru, Serbia, Ukrania, India, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus.

 

Some of them with probably conflicts against US Hardware and even still they like upgrade or buy new hardware with R-27 or R-77

 

Edited May 18, 2013 by pepin1234

[EtherealN]

"NATO standard" does NOT mean they can carry and fire NATO-developed weapons.

 

It means they can talk to NATO CCC and IFF (and potentially use NATO aerial refueling, possibly also a change in engine to allow use of NATO-standardised fuels). This is something else entirely.

(Remember, far from all NATO fighters have the capability of firing AIM-7 and -120, since they might be made for other weapon system - the French being a prime example.)

 

And surely you are not seriously suggesting to me that Belarus has fighters capable of firing AIM-7? Pray tell where they would have gotten that compatibility from?

[pepin1234]

"NATO standard" does NOT mean they can carry and fire NATO-developed weapons.

 

It means they can talk to NATO CCC and IFF (and potentially use NATO aerial refueling, possibly also a change in engine to allow use of NATO-standardised fuels). This is something else entirely.

(Remember, far from all NATO fighters have the capability of firing AIM-7 and -120, since they might be made for other weapon system - the French being a prime example.)

 

And surely you are not seriously suggesting to me that Belarus has fighters capable of firing AIM-7? Pray tell where they would have gotten that compatibility from?

 

What I mean is, if our R-27R miss with every chaff and only have a effective range of 15 km with a maneuverable target, what they do with this Missile??

[GGTharos]

That's what tactics are for. As for missing with 'every chaff', I doubt that is realistic, but on the other hand it can't compete with AMRAAM anyway, nor can it deal well with western ECM.

 

That's reality, but as far as the game goes, we will see what can be done about it. The problem is there for all missiles, whether you know it or not.

 

What I mean is, if our R-27R miss with every chaff and only have a effective range of 15 km with a maneuverable target, what they do with this Missile??

[pepin1234]

That's what tactics are for. As for missing with 'every chaff', I doubt that is realistic, but on the other hand it can't compete with AMRAAM anyway, nor can it deal well with western ECM.

 

That's reality, but as far as the game goes, we will see what can be done about it. The problem is there for all missiles, whether you know it or not.

 

Ok I dont like discuss about that, but let me tell you that is really hard evade an Aim-7 in DCS-World, does not matter chaff or maneuverability, the Aim-7 does not lose Speed easyly. When I see my result with the R-27R, I go directly to change the payload to a R-27ER

[159th_Viper]

I go directly to change the payload to a R-27ER

 

Rage's post deals specifically with the ER. Are you saying your results/personal findings differ from his?

[GGTharos]

Well you have to be a little careful in terms of what you're talking about because in terms of the game we have two separate issues:

 

1) Missile speed (I am working on this and I think all missiles are too slow :) )

2) Seeker ECCM against chaff/flare, which is not being looked at much until the missile flight dynamics are dealt with.

 

Ok I dont like discuss about that, but let me tell you that is really hard evade an Aim-7 in DCS-World, does not matter chaff or maneuverability, the Aim-7 does not lose Speed easyly. When I see my result with the R-27R, I go directly to change the payload to a R-27ER

[*Rage*]

Guys (Pepin)...please don't derail thread. This is an ER specific topic dealing with guidance/chaff rejection only. No mention of any other missiles etc (see first post).

 

Viper/Krebs...what do you think of tracks/tacviews?

[159th_Viper]

Viper/Krebs...what do you think of tracks/tacviews?

 

Will have a look in the morrow. As a matter of interest, have you ran the same tests with the AIM-7 and if so, have you gotten the same results?

[*Rage*]

Will have a look in the morrow. As a matter of interest, have you ran the same tests with the AIM-7 and if so, have you gotten the same results?

 

No not with AIM-7. Someone with F15 competencies can do that:)

[pepin1234]

Guys (Pepin)...please don't derail thread. This is an ER specific topic dealing with guidance/chaff rejection only. No mention of any other missiles etc (see first post).

 

Viper/Krebs...what do you think of tracks/tacviews?

 

 

Well, the R-27R have the same seeker and I have saw you talk about the chaffs against R-27ER and this is direct linked with the seeker family, even more when your tests were made at 30 and 20 km, a distance that the same seeker should have the same reaction.

 

Just think about the weigh of your Su-27 when you set four ER and two R ( they have the same seeker ) and you shoot two ER first at 30km , then you have yours wings with low weigh, after that you reach the 20 km range and you make a combination to finish with one R. After that you see how the same missile with less weigh, same seeker and launched closer, having a terrible result.

 

In these cases, you will find probably in front one F-15. This one will start a combination with a SARH missile and maybe will launch an Aim-7 at the same time of your R-27 seeker family. Anyway you will see how the same R-27 missile family with low weigh and shorter range than the ER never will reach the target, provably because you were destroyed first because the Aim-7 in DCS-World is official faster than your R-27 Family and also the chaff will give to your R-27 seeker family so low probability to impact

 

But all right, I will not any comparison talking about the R-27 seeker family, against chaff

Edited May 19, 2013 by pepin1234

[159th_Viper]

But all right, I will not any comparison talking about the R-27 seeker family, against chaff

 

Yes please, if you have any interest whatsoever in helping solve problems, talk a helluva lot less and help a helluva lot more.

 

How?

 

Post short tracks with short descriptions of the issue so it can be easily investigated as Rage has done. We have ER tracks, we now need R tracks and AIM-7 tracks to properly investigate seeker and chaff rejection algorithms as a whole and not just for your or somebody else's pet missiles. It's about the bigger picture and in the case of complaint/bug reports, rants do little. Constructive aid does a lot.

 

If you are not interested in doing the above then that is fine as well - that is what us testers are there for and what we are doing every day behind-the-scenes in an attempt to get the SIM right for EVERYBODY.

 

What we do not need is for every second post to be a rant that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation nor aids in investigating. All it does is irritate, making us as testers less enthusiastic to actually help the original poster who has now been saddled with an irritated tester courtesy of your moaning.

 

See how that does not help anyone at all?

[pepin1234]

Yes please, if you have any interest whatsoever in helping solve problems, talk a helluva lot less and help a helluva lot more.

 

How?

 

Post short tracks with short descriptions of the issue so it can be easily investigated as Rage has done. We have ER tracks, we now need R tracks and AIM-7 tracks to properly investigate seeker and chaff rejection algorithms as a whole and not just for your or somebody else's pet missiles. It's about the bigger picture and in the case of complaint/bug reports, rants do little. Constructive aid does a lot.

 

If you are not interested in doing the above then that is fine as well - that is what us testers are there for and what we are doing every day behind-the-scenes in an attempt to get the SIM right for EVERYBODY.

 

What we do not need is for every second post to be a rant that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation nor aids in investigating. All it does is irritate, making us as testers less enthusiastic to actually help the original poster who has now been saddled with an irritated tester courtesy of your moaning.

 

See how that does not help anyone at all?

 

Wow you become angry?? why?? I like help you, saying you and remenber some troubles we find in the Sim. Sorry if you are Stressed and full of work. I am stressed of my work too and when I want to play DCS, I become double stressed. I will continue buy the DCS products because I hope some day all the things that are not good will become better.

 

I will try find time to make some tracks for you. Now I cant but I will post all the things I have found about the R-27 seeker against chaff, Thats why I have bought a Beta, so I will say the bugs. So please respect all us and control yourself. Try to read my last post again, because I tried to write everything with total respect to all DCS Team, so your answer should be in the same way. Whe have not fault that some things work not good.

 

Anyway I have said the Sim have become much better and we have a lot of choise and plans for the future, but is absolutely unacceptable that you believe that when we find some Observation we Keep in silence because you dont like hear us.

 

Please try dont brake the threat, because Rage have made a good Job

 

Anyway, I wish you a good day

Edited May 19, 2013 by pepin1234

[159th_Viper]

Wow you become angry?? why??

 

Angry? Stressed?

 

No, not at all :)

 

Merely an attempt at an explanation that you or others will understand and remember the first time around so I won't have to repeat it again.

[pepin1234]

Angry? Stressed?

 

No, not at all :)

 

Merely an attempt at an explanation that you or others will understand and remember the first time around so I won't have to repeat it again.

 

Ok you win :thumbup:

 

Please Keep away the Problems. the thread is pretty interesting

[volk]

nor can it deal well with western ECM.

С одной стороны, это может быть проверено только практическим путем. Если есть точная информация, нужно ее приводить, или добавлять IMHO. С другой стороны, ЛЮБАЯ ракета, не только Р-27Р, может быть подавлена помехами, в т. ч. AMRAAM:

The design of AMRAAM makes it very dependent on the quality of targeting information provided by the host aircraft. The requirement for the missile to be very selective, in other words to hit only the desired target and not one in close proximity, forces the missile to follow instructions from the host aircraft very carefully. Targeting information is provided by way of a one-way Radio Frequency (RF) data link that provides the missile with target information. Since the missile very closely follows host radar instructions, bad instructions will significantly reduce the effectiveness of the missile. Electronic jamming can cause significant degradation to the tracking ability of the host radar and thus degrade the quality of the targeting data passed via the data link. The AMRAAM searches a volume, known as the uncertainty volume, around the data link provided point. If the targeting data is bad enough the target will never be seen by the missile, even if it's own robust Electronic Protection capabilities would allow it to track and guide on the jamming target.

 

Из документации к Су-27 по РГС-27 (РГС - Радиолокационная Головка Самонаведения - Radar Homing Head):

Особенностью РГС является наличие инерциального участка после схода ракеты и захват цели на траектории. При пуске на больших дальностях на инерциальном участке осуществляется радиокоррекция. РГС защищена от пассивных помех (дипольное облако), от активных уводящих по скорости и углам помех. При постановке активных помех на частоте Доплера РГС наводится по углам на сам источник этих помех.

 

Я полностью согласен с этим

but on the other hand it can't compete with AMRAAM anyway

AMRAAM является более совершенной ракетой, чем Р-27, НО. В нынешней реализации DCS стойкость Р-27 к воздействию дипольных отражателей является заниженной. Когда ракета уходит на 2 ловушки, это ненормально.

[Kenan]

BTW, here comes a question: Is R-27R IRL more efficient in Su-27 then in Mig29(A/S) due to better (more powerful) radar employed by Su-27? Does it make a difference?

[falcon_120]

I think that falls under top secret category ;).

[Pilotasso]

No need to access classified data to know the answer to that one. ;)

[GGTharos]

I have posted my opinions regarding expendable counter-measure rejection before. Let's say that in general we agree and leave things there for now. The subject is complex and since FC does not simulate chaff rejection correctly right now (this affects all missiles, of course) the first step is to correct that.

 

AMRAAM является более совершенной ракетой, чем Р-27, НО. В нынешней реализации DCS стойкость Р-27 к воздействию дипольных отражателей является заниженной. Когда ракета уходит на 2 ловушки, это ненормально.

[*Rage*]

We have ER tracks, we now need R tracks and AIM-7 tracks to properly investigate seeker and chaff rejection algorithms

 

I can submit 27R tracks in the next few days hopefully.

Edited May 20, 2013 by ///Rage