Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[GGTharos]

I suppose basically what I am saying is that they need to add more elements and possibilities to the die roll or before the die roll. It needs to go through an equation before a probability factor can be considered on a die roll.

 

It already does, as I mentioned. The real trick in simulation is to simplify things, not to complicate them. If you want to simulate reality, what you need is a supercomputer, science, and spare time. But not a real-time sim that needs to run at 30-60FPS :)

 

Could CM interaction be made more complex? Certainly. In what way, and why, is another story. Eventually spinning BS will get you to the right answer (that's what creativity is in the end, it's trying all kinds of things), but it's better to have some direction in this case, since implementation (and thus testing of implementation) resources are scarce.

[OB1]

Well I guess we can only hope it does improve in some manner... You're apart of the testing team :D, I don't suppose you testers are testing new radar or missile implementations ?

[GGTharos]

No, I wish :)

[SDsc0rch]

what i don't like about the "die roll" is that eventually the person rolling the die (ie.. the fighter popping chaff) wins

 

seemingly no matter what (current state of DCS)

 

chaff/countermeasures not effective? pump more chaff/flares!

 

lets skip right to the end then: program your HOTAS to rapid-fire pump out 15-20 in row --- now you win against that missile

 

what i would like to see is a very noticeable and meaningful difference in countermeasure rejection in the more modern missiles - with "some" circumstances rendering CMs essentially ineffective

[Shepski]

Goran, Mark! It's been a long time. Just recently back myself.

Rich

Hi Rich!

 

Hope all is well with you and your family!

 

I just found out the tire suppler for the Flanker needs to be changed. Locked up and blew both tires while taxiing!

 

Hi George!

[Shepski]

Hi Mark and Rich,

 

good to hear from other old-timers....hey, is it 20 years now from the Windows 95 Su-27 ? Man, we ARE old :)

Happy New Year too!

 

Wow 20 years and we can now fly the Flanker that we saw in Eagle Dynamics rendering videos from back then... only 20 years to get here but still waiting for the full on DCS: Su-27SM which I have always hoped would be their first hi-fi fast jet release.

 

When I have time I'm really enjoying learning the Mig-21Bis... incredible detail and I had to get the F-86 Sabre too. :) Eagerly waiting on the Spit!

 

I hated seeing my old TM Stickworks FLCS/TQS go obsolete and now have a CH Fighterstick/Pro Throttle and other than ease of programming I'm not happy with the soft feel and accuracy of the stick but it works for the limited time I have for flying.

 

Cheers!

[*Rage*]

what i don't like about the "die roll" is that eventually the person rolling the die (ie.. the fighter popping chaff) wins

 

seemingly no matter what (current state of DCS)

 

chaff/countermeasures not effective? pump more chaff/flares!

 

lets skip right to the end then: program your HOTAS to rapid-fire pump out 15-20 in row --- now you win against that missile

 

what i would like to see is a very noticeable and meaningful difference in countermeasure rejection in the more modern missiles - with "some" circumstances rendering CMs essentially ineffective

 

I have to agree with this. If you pump out enough chaff or flares the missile will miss. Almost regardless of the other equation criteria. This is the case with the SARH/IR missiles at least. Not sure about the R77s/120s.

 

I also think ground clutter is way overmodelled. I've frequently seen volleys of R27s miss at WVR distances simply because the bandit is low. This renders the game open to exploits and some ridiculous, yet effective fighting techniques.

[karambiatos]

I have to agree with this. If you pump out enough chaff or flares the missile will miss. Almost regardless of the other equation criteria. This is the case with the SARH/IR missiles at least. Not sure about the R77s/120s.

 

I also think ground clutter is way overmodelled. I've frequently seen volleys of R27s miss at WVR distances simply because the bandit is low. This renders the game open to exploits and some ridiculous, yet effective fighting techniques.

 

ground clutter isnt over modelled, the R-27R-27R/ERs issues with ground clutter is the problem, actually the entirety of the R-27R/ERs existence is the problem, where you cant count on it to hit ever, at any position at any distance.

[*Rage*]

Yes, I should have been clearer. I meant over-modelled for the R27. Maybe for the Aim7 as well but I haven't tested it.

 

As you say, the R/ER is woeful at the moment.

[ShuRugal]

what i don't like about the "die roll" is that eventually the person rolling the die (ie.. the fighter popping chaff) wins

 

seemingly no matter what (current state of DCS)

 

chaff/countermeasures not effective? pump more chaff/flares!

 

lets skip right to the end then: program your HOTAS to rapid-fire pump out 15-20 in row --- now you win against that missile

 

what i would like to see is a very noticeable and meaningful difference in countermeasure rejection in the more modern missiles - with "some" circumstances rendering CMs essentially ineffective

 

This. While it is less effective against the AMRAAM, I have found that by binding the scroll wheel on my throttle to countermeasures (forward for flare, aft for chaff) I can effectively defeat any missile launch which I am aware of. My technique upon becoming aware of a launch is to simply scroll the wheel forward or backward (or both) rapidly for one full revolution, thus effectively dropping 20-30 flare or chaff.

 

I feel like this should be ineffective for the same reason that firing a full salvo of missiles simultaneously is innefective: That many launched at once will have the same probability of success as a single alone would, because the launch conditions are not changed.

[GGTharos]

And you would be wrong.

 

There's no reticule seeker that won't go after flares if you give it enough of them. The 'smarter' the flare, the fewer you need (Note modeled in game). If you want a missile that won't bite off on flares, get AIM-9X, IRIS-T, ASRAAM or any of the modern array seekers ( ... not modeled in game).

 

RF missiles, there there might be a difference with respect to chaff, but information isn't quite as readily available/understandable.

 

I feel like this should be ineffective for the same reason that firing a full salvo of missiles simultaneously is innefective: That many launched at once will have the same probability of success as a single alone would, because the launch conditions are not changed.

[OB1]

On a bit of a tangent could someone give insight to the effects of ECM emitting from a target on approaching missiles ? (Not talking about HOJ)

 

Specifically, after burn through are missiles affected by emitting ECM ? How does it affect the missile as the missile approaches impact point ?

Are Semi active and active missiles affected differently ? And is there a correlation with SARH and the range at which the attacking aircraft is illuminating the target that has ECM active.

 

and - is any of this currently modeled in DCS ?

[Kuky]

I assume that SARH should have better tracking of the target than ARH missile, because aircraft's radar is much more powerful than that of the missile, which has to mean that signal bouncing off the target back to missile receiver has to be stronger also... however if both missiles are still suported by shooting aircraft untill impact then I would assume ARH would have better tacking (as both aircraft's radar and missile's radar are painting the target). But this is just my guess.

[Kuky]

By the time ARH gets into terminal phase and picks up target with its own radar, it would have slowed down already (it won't be mach 3-4 missile any more) so better dopler effect might not be much more significant compared to at least 10x stronger radar from aircraft... but again, it's still a guess.

[Ragnarok]

By the time ARH gets into terminal phase and picks up target with its own radar, it would have slowed down already (it won't be mach 3-4 missile any more) so better dopler effect might not be much more significant compared to at least 10x stronger radar from aircraft... but again, it's still a guess.

It's true. Although the receiver SARH depends on the speed rapprochement. Huhh, these are really sensitive matters. What is really impressive is the battery for the radar to ARH. Passive receiver to SARH is quite relaxed. The battery is charged during flight, but was consumed quickly. The biggest spending goes to electric motors for the fins, but no radar is not frugal. Cost-programmed flight ARH, in the inertial phase, saves power for an electric motors for the fins, which is not the case with SARH, maybe this is the reason. Although, I do not know how to power supply so weakened by saving the SARHs receiver, if SARH still agile... :(

Edited January 13, 2015 by Ragnarok

[Kuky]

Just realised something, dopler effect comes from target approaching speed towards you, so doesn't matter what speed you or the missile is doing, if target is beaming dopler effect is not there, and missile has to pick up the target by other means (simply by "contrast" of the incoming signal compared to background... and who knows what else they programm into these missiles)

[Ragnarok]

By the way, it occurs to me something. If the fins on the R-27 consume more electric power bills of fins on the AIM-120, maybe this is why it is impractical to R-27 to be ARH. Heavy missile with enormous speed requires big fins that consume a lot of electricity. With this has only low power consumption for the receive only. Radar would be an additional problem. I do not know, maybe I missed... :(

[Ragnarok]

simply by "contrast" of the incoming signal compared to background... and who knows what else they programm into these missiles)

I think it is not working so it is compared with something. Background Doppler is there only to be rejected by the computer, and not to be compared with the aim of flying. At high altitude have no background effect. Lock on then it is stable. If I understand you correctly...

 

Only the receiver records the Doppler effect, so it is important that the speed of the receiver (the receiver is SARH)

Edited January 13, 2015 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

In the game, once the radar burns through (Missile's radar for ARH, aircraft's radar for SARH), the ECM no longer has an effect. Worse, it will make the radar track you regardless of aspect, so you can't even notch.

 

In RL, the SPJ would try to (and could) break the radar lock within it's emission cone (some jammers are 360, some not). Effectiveness depends on a lot of things.

 

On a bit of a tangent could someone give insight to the effects of ECM emitting from a target on approaching missiles ? (Not talking about HOJ)

 

Specifically, after burn through are missiles affected by emitting ECM ? How does it affect the missile as the missile approaches impact point ?

Are Semi active and active missiles affected differently ? And is there a correlation with SARH and the range at which the attacking aircraft is illuminating the target that has ECM active.

 

and - is any of this currently modeled in DCS ?

[GGTharos]

Why do they have to be electrical? Back then most fin actuators were (IIRC) hydraulic. For AIM-7 it was an open loop even so the hydraulic fluid would be thrown overboard, and once you run out, no more maneuvering. As missiles get more modern, battery/powered flight time becomes less and less of an issue. AIM-120's don't have a problem with running out of power AFAIK. They use 4 batteries that I'm pretty certain could keep it powered longer than it could stay in the air. It's just the march of technology.

 

By the way, it occurs to me something. If the fins on the R-27 consume more electric power bills of fins on the AIM-120, maybe this is why it is impractical to R-27 to be ARH. Heavy missile with enormous speed requires big fins that consume a lot of electricity. With this has only low power consumption for the receive only. Radar would be an additional problem. I do not know, maybe I missed... :(

[GGTharos]

The doppler shift is compared to the emitter's waveform - that's what the waveguide body antennae are for in these missiles ( ... and also for datalink :) )

 

I think it is not working so it is compared with something. Background Doppler is there only to be rejected by the computer, and not to be compared with the aim of flying. At high altitude have no background effect. Lock on then it is stable. If I understand you correctly...

 

Only the receiver records the Doppler effect, so it is important that the speed of the receiver (the receiver is SARH)

[ShuRugal]

There's no reticule seeker that won't go after flares if you give it enough of them. The 'smarter' the flare, the fewer you need (Note modeled in game). If you want a missile that won't bite off on flares, get AIM-9X, IRIS-T, ASRAAM or any of the modern array seekers ( ... not modeled in game).

 

RF missiles, there there might be a difference with respect to chaff, but information isn't quite as readily available/understandable.

 

So you're trying to tell me that in the real world, flares have a 100% success rate? That's not even true in other modules of this sim. In the KA-50, I can dump flares as fast as i want against an Igla that's already in the air and it won't save my life. Why is it that two flares is enough to decoy a much more sophisticated air-to-air missile?

 

 

And you would be wrong.

Well, naturally.

[IASGATG]

He didn't say 100% success rate though did he. He said if "enough" are deployed. If you look at AIM-9 shots vs QF-4's on youtube, you'll see Sidewinders flying towards flaring phantoms and miss time and again, even at close range. This is because the phantom is putting out about 10 flares a second.

[GGTharos]

Modeling issues can always crop up, but other than that, what IASGATG said.

 

If you're popping flares in your Ka-50, is the Igla already close? Are you perhaps not moving much and the flares and you are in-line with the Igla's flight path?

 

Those things are modeled as well. Not perfectly, but they're there. I'll also suggest that you re-test, because IR seeker susceptibility to CMs was re-worked as of a couple of months ago.

 

If you find something very suspicious, provide a short track if you can to demonstrate.

 

I'll say again though, there's no reticle seeker that won't eat flares if you feed it enough of them. In some cases, once flare will suffice (yes, there have been RL studies), in a small number of other cases, no amount of flares will help you.

 

I'll repeat again, all of this isn't perfectly modeled, but it is adequately modeled.

 

So you're trying to tell me that in the real world, flares have a 100% success rate? That's not even true in other modules of this sim. In the KA-50, I can dump flares as fast as i want against an Igla that's already in the air and it won't save my life. Why is it that two flares is enough to decoy a much more sophisticated air-to-air missile?

[flankerted]

I'll repeat again, all of this isn't perfectly modeled, but it is adequately modeled.

 

In my opinion, the missile is not adequately modeled. In the video of BMS BVR Training following, we can find that the logic of guidance has two stages, rather than obeying the law of proportional guidance all the way. The missiles in this version of DCS may lose energy too much, without sufficeient energy to intercpt targets in the terminal guidance stage. This is why these missiles often have shorter range than the nominal range obviously in high altitude.

 

Edited February 4, 2015 by flankerted