Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

So now, find something from ED stating that ERs have the weakest logic or stop wasting everybody's time.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1825291&postcount=5

Wags is explaining it here.

ER/R-27/AIM-7

AIM-120B

AIM-120C

Have different chaff resistance.

This difference on how good missiles are against chaff is nowhere documented which leaves it to speculations or educated guesses.

Since Chaff resistance is based on educated guesses there is room to change it effectiveness so it force pilots to take realistic defence maneuvers.

There will be more results coming up soon.

All missiles will be tested against each other in same conditions where we can for certain talk about the differences between missiles.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1825291&postcount=5

Wags is explaining it here.

ER/R-27/AIM-7

AIM-120B

AIM-120C

 

Have different chaff resistance.

This difference on how good missiles are against chaff is nowhere documented which leaves it to speculations or educated guesses.

 

Since Chaff resistance is based on educated guesses there is room to change it effectiveness so it force pilots to take realistic defence maneuvers.

 

There will be more results coming up soon.

That doesn't explicitly say ERs are the worst, which is what ///Rage is trying to say. He (Wags) says SAHRs are in one category which includes the AIM-7. It also means they have the same logic. We all know the AIM-120C has the best chaff resistance, which it should considering it's a newer missile.

All missiles will be tested against each other in same conditions where we can for certain talk about the differences between missiles.

That would certainly be a much better argument if all missile get tested in near identical conditions so we have something to compare it to. Understandable that conditions will vary slightly between tests, so a large data sample will hold more water than just a handful of tests. If we can see the results and are able to see track files, I'd be more than happy to admit that one missile is stronger if that is what happens in testing, since they should be identical with the current logic. And they should be as missile logic for all SARHs should be the same. ARHs are a different category completely.

What my experience is isn't up for debate. I'm asking you to provide ANY evidence to your claims about an official statement from ED saying that ERs have the weakest missile logic. Which is bunk anyway because in order to say that, you need something to compare it to. The AIM-7 for example would be good. So far all you demonstrated is the effectiveness of ERs prior to 1.2.5, and that is not good enough to be a scientific claim. A post full of numbers claiming that only one missile is underpowered means little. You seem to be reading between the lines that don't exist and think your postings count as an official statement from ED simply because they admitted to chaff being too strong for ALL missiles. Not just ER. If you find anything official that states ERs have the weakest logic, I'll be willing to accept that you're right. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

 

So now, find something from ED stating that ERs have the weakest logic or stop wasting everybody's time.

Sigh. Read the thread. Then provide evidence to the contrary. If you have any. Which you dont. Im done arguing with you when you have nothing to submit.

That doesn't explicitly say ERs are the worst, which is what ///Rage is trying to say. He (Wags) says SAHRs are in one category which includes the AIM-7. It also means they have the same logic. We all know the AIM-120C has the best chaff resistance, which it should considering it's a newer missile.

What we don't know is by how much or even so ;) Lets get back on the topic. All missiles will be compared to each other. When that is done we can start making conclusions about FC3 missiles chaff resistance. No point to argue yet.

We have been flying this simulator for years and now when new missiles dynamic is around we need to be careful so it will reflect realism not only in numbers which we don't know, if we did RL doctrine would not be to extend when launched upon.

I don't know why you believe Rage has to show his sources. The search function works for everyone. It has been stated on the forums multiple times about seeker logic. Nearly this entire thread is based off his hard work. Give the man a break. He's working to improve the sim for everyone.

The fix has already found its way into the jungle.

 

There's some evaluation going on for additional work, but other than mentioning that, no comment.

Im glad ED are still working on it. Kudos for listening. Look forward to seeing what they come up with.

I have raised issue with specified RCS of aircraft in sim, of which quite a few are with wrong RCS value... this in turn has an effect of how well missile will track (the higher the RCS of an airframe the better missile tracking will be).

In sim right now the RCS is same for MiG-29's and F-15 (RCS of 5) and Su-27 has RCS of 5.5 which I think it wrong... F-15's RCS is set too low, also Su-27 should be higher - to what value they should be is yet to be determined as needs some good source(s) for good estimates... so if anyone can find few sources that would be good.

From what I could find on the net the B-52 RCS is 100 and this is matched in game... so not all are wrong. But having main fliables with wrong value is big deal in my opinion and will ask ED to make changes to these values... now it's mater of getting them better.

I have tested this theory of this RCS value has impact on missile tracking... so have changed RCS value for few aircraft and I did find the ER's tracked much better and when fired close to R-max... as long as missile had enough energy to get to target it would have high posibility of hitting that target. Aircraft with smaller RCS like MiG-29 when lower and notching could still defeat the missile at longer ranges... but looking up aspect and firing in good parameters it'l most likely to track and hit.

I have raised issue with specified RCS of aircraft in sim, of which quite a few are with wrong RCS value... this in turn has an effect of how well missile will track (the higher the RCS of an airframe the better missile tracking will be).

And you got the part that is wrong here, well ... wrong.

In sim right now the RCS is same for MiG-29's and F-15 (RCS of 5) and Su-27 has RCS of 5.5 which I think it wrong... F-15's RCS is set too low, also Su-27 should be higher - to what value they should be is yet to be determined as needs some good source(s) for good estimates... so if anyone can find few sources that would be good.

This should be your clue that the statement you made right above it is logically incorrect. The sources you describe do not exist in the public domain - though I'm sure people are about to type it into google and fire off a list of URLs.

I have tested this theory of this RCS value has impact on missile tracking...

And it shouldn't - not the extent that it happens in DCS.

Aircraft with smaller RCS like MiG-29 when lower and notching could still defeat the missile at longer ranges... but looking up aspect and firing in good parameters it'l most likely to track and hit.

The RCS shouldn't matter. Once you have LA, you have a good quality track.

Sigh. Read the thread. Then provide evidence to the contrary. If you have any. Which you dont. Im done arguing with you when you have nothing to submit.

I don't need any when you're not only failing to provide proof to back up your claim and the burden of proof is on you, you're also trying to derail the argument by changing the focus on me. So if you're done, then so be it. Your evidence isn't much to anybody right now anyway.

 

What we don't know is by how much or even so Lets get back on the topic. All missiles will be compared to each other. When that is done we can start making conclusions about FC3 missiles chaff resistance. No point to argue yet.

 

We have been flying this simulator for years and now when new missiles dynamic is around we need to be careful so it will reflect realism not only in numbers which we don't know, if we did RL doctrine would not be to extend when launched upon.

Fair enough. I'm interested in the results myself. But to reiterate, there are 3 different categories. Comparing SARHs to ARHs is like comparing ground beef to prime rib. :thumbup:

I don't know why you believe Rage has to show his sources. The search function works for everyone. It has been stated on the forums multiple times about seeker logic. Nearly this entire thread is based off his hard work. Give the man a break. He's working to improve the sim for everyone.

I do believe he is, but trying to tell me the grass is blue and not defining what green is then not showing me how he got to that conclusion isn't going to work. I don't remember if he posted track files in his old thread, but in order to say something is weakest, you need something to be strongest. As of right now the only thing to compare it to is the AIM-7, which I didn't see him do any tests with. I don't care how scientific his test was, without a control it means nothing. And I did do a search for anything about Wags saying ER is weaker than other missiles. Please pay attention to the part about the 3 different categories. SAHRs include AIM-7, R-27ER, and R-27R. The SHOULD be the same logic. AIM-120s of both variants and R-77s should have a higher chaff resistance.

And you got the part that is wrong here, well ... wrong.

Why?

Ps. Do you realise some of your replies come off as quite arrogant?!

Why?

Because the probability of break-lock varies as a function of closure.

While there is some variance based on the RCS of the chaff itself (and vs. target RCS), it's negligible (except where the RCS of the target is very special - ie. an actual stealth aircraft).

Sorry GG but I chose to higly disagree with you on this one... getting LA does not mean sure track all the way (unless target does not change course, take evasive action and CM). I'f afraid to say your logic is flawed here as you are ignoring lawys of physics here. Aircraft having high RCS cannot just drop few chaff and break lock that easily, unless you come up with chaff that has higher RCS (or close enough to that of airframe) to have enough return to confuse the radar and missile.

The RCS of an object DOES affect how solid the radar (and missile) will be... the whole concept of stealth is to reduce this RCS so the aircraft can be detected and much reduced ranges. Aircraft with no stealth tech build into them (ie MiG-29 or F-15C or Su-27 for that matter - main flyables in FC) do not have the luxury of having this reduced RCS, and as for this data not being publicly available I agree... but does not mean there aren't good estimates around even in public domain... same concept as with missile ranges.

If you think you know it all and have this solid info others can't have then you need to share it to us and especially ED... but I am sure your info is as good as educated guess as many others here. To me it is more wrong to have same RCS in sim for two aircraft like MiG-29 and F-15 where we know for a fack that RCS of an F-15 is higher than that of a MiG-29... exactly how much is not that important... and unless you have real airframe and real radar and testing facilities to MEASURE RCS... then you are talking guesses as much as anybody else, including myself. My whole idea is to change this so that at least there is some difference in RCS of these aircraft as it does affect how well missiles will track (keep lock) when CM's are released and aspect changes.

And by the way RCS of most aircraft (non-stealth) is highest at sideways... when aircraft is beaming, people have actually measured this in educational institutions and released papers based on these test and they can be found on the net.

I don't consider them directly usable for combat sim, but it does give more insight of that goes on when aircraft changes aspect and how RCS changes with this aspect... this got me thinking how chaff can be used effectively and I think beaming is not the only way.

Sorry GG but I chose to higly disagree with you on this one... getting LA does not mean sure track all the way (unless target does not change course, take evasive action and CM). I'f afraid to say your logic is flawed here as you are ignoring lawys of physics here. Aircraft having high RCS cannot just drop few chaff and break lock that easily, unless you come up with chaff that has higher RCS (or close enough to that of airframe) to have enough return to confuse the radar and missile.

I'm not ignoring laws of anything, I'm telling you what the results of studies on these things are. Let me put it to you another way: The way DCS simulates chaff right now is incorrect according to those studies, and you will break more things by messing with aircraft RCS' than you will fix.

You're also operating under the assumption that a chaff cloud has 3m^2 RCS, and as per the game, so it is - but that's not an accurate representation of chaff RCS either.

Further, you're assuming that the radar resolution is such that lower RCS chaff cannot change the target centroid. You do not need a higher RCS than your airframe to confuse the missile.

The RCS of an object DOES affect how solid the radar (and missile) will be... the whole concept of stealth is to reduce this RCS so the aircraft can be detected and much reduced ranges. Aircraft with no stealth tech build into them (ie MiG-29 or F-15C or Su-27 for that matter - main flyables in FC) do not have the luxury of having this reduced RCS, and as for this data not being publicly available I agree... but does not mean there aren't good estimates around even in public domain... same concept as with missile ranges.

There aren't good estimates (that we know of) in the public domain. Regarding what I highlighted, you need to append 'at range' to the end of that sentence, and then you are correct.

If you think you know it all and have this solid info others can't have then you need to share it to us and especially ED... but I am sure your info is as good as educated guess as many others here.

Try poking around dtic.mil, and you'll probably end up knowing more than I do.

To me it is more wrong to have same RCS in sim for two aircraft like MiG-29 and F-15 where we know for a fack that RCS of an F-15 is higher than that of a MiG-29... exactly how much is not that important...

This is exactly why it's not wrong to have them be the same, and especially when changing it would cause things to happen that are not supposed to happen.

and unless you have real airframe and real radar and testing facilities to MEASURE RCS... then you are talking guesses as much as anybody else, including myself.

I'm not taking guesses, I'm flat out telling you that RCS has negligible impact on break-lock for these fighters, closure does.

My whole idea is to change this so that at least there is some difference in RCS of these aircraft as it does affect how well missiles will track (keep lock) when CM's are released and aspect changes.

And thus you break things by having chaff be more effective for some planes than others, which is not supported by any literature that I've read so far. Even huge RCS things like naval destroyers use chaff (though obviously they use more).

The solution that makes more sense to suggest is to lower chaff RCS further - which is the equivalent of what Rage is suggesting, and making it impossible to decoy any missiles at all.

This is exactly why it's not wrong to have them be the same, and especially when changing it would cause things to happen that are not supposed to happen.

 

 

 

I'm not taking guesses, I'm flat out telling you that RCS has negligible impact on break-lock for these fighters, closure does.

 

 

 

 

The solution that makes more sense to suggest is to lower chaff RCS further - which is the equivalent of what Rage is suggesting, and making it impossible to decoy any missiles at all.

I cannot agree with your argument about RCS values. Many things in this sim are best estimates. I dont know what the specific RCS values are but the relative values can be estimated. As such the Mig << F15 < Su27. Having the F15 and Mig 29 the same RCS when the Su27 is higher makes no sense.

I would be very interested in finding out why RCS has no effect on breaking lock (As hard as I find it to believe)? Where are you getting this from? Can you send us a link?

And lastly, is chaff resistance/RCS binary? Chaff RCS was bugged before and missile performance improved when the value was adjusted. Can it not be adjusted more?

I have raised issue with specified RCS of aircraft in sim, of which quite a few are with wrong RCS value... this in turn has an effect of how well missile will track (the higher the RCS of an airframe the better missile tracking will be).

 

In sim right now the RCS is same for MiG-29's and F-15 (RCS of 5) and Su-27 has RCS of 5.5 which I think it wrong... F-15's RCS is set too low, also Su-27 should be higher - to what value they should be is yet to be determined as needs some good source(s) for good estimates... so if anyone can find few sources that would be good.

 

From what I could find on the net the B-52 RCS is 100 and this is matched in game... so not all are wrong. But having main fliables with wrong value is big deal in my opinion and will ask ED to make changes to these values... now it's mater of getting them better.

 

I have tested this theory of this RCS value has impact on missile tracking... so have changed RCS value for few aircraft and I did find the ER's tracked much better and when fired close to R-max... as long as missile had enough energy to get to target it would have high posibility of hitting that target. Aircraft with smaller RCS like MiG-29 when lower and notching could still defeat the missile at longer ranges... but looking up aspect and firing in good parameters it'l most likely to track and hit.

Thats very interesting, hadn't thought of RCS values for the flyables! Could you demonstrate it in a track or tacview? Say launches at 35KM with varying target RCS. What you describe above is how BVR combat should be.

I'm actually flat out with work and some testing past few days and have few hours in evening after work to do this... I'll see to record track with 2 different RCS values and how the missiles perform.

Surely best guess on RCS 29<15 is no different to what we have now with chaff resistance 120>AIM-7 etc.

I'm flat out telling you that RCS has negligible impact on break-lock for these fighters

Saying this you mean that a locked target has totally different values of handling the received echoes, right? Otherwise this statement is invalid. I guess that's what other don't take into consideration, thus attacking you.

No, it's actually quite a bit different, or are people not understanding what I've written? This isn't a trivial, benign change in the game.

Further, where with radars (other than LPI, although I've got wind that older radars did some interesting things too in that respect) we can have a reasonable comprehension and guestimates of their signal strength based on power ratings, apertures and frequencies, we can't do the same for RCS. On one hand, we have a little sphere that makes a Raptor look like a B-52 (I'm exaggerating on purpose), where a B-2 looks like a bumblebee. There are RCS reduction methods applied to F-16's, and possibly F-15's as well. Some of those may include particular flight maneuvers (ie. don't let a bandit look down your intakes), while physical methods include some RAM coatings, or at least ferrous coatings to fill in the little right angled corners in screws, and gold-plated canopies.

It's actually very difficult to guess RCS. Even in studies, the RCS of an aircraft ends up being integrated/averages/somethingorothered, since it's actually quite complex. A real life break lock maneuver, given certain distance, could simply comprise of dumping a bit of chaff and putting the bandit on a very specific bearing where your RCS suddenly drops 10-20db. We have none of this in DCS, and we will not have it (my guess, but I'd call it educated).

Once inside a certain distance though, reflected radar power grows, radar cells shrink, and generally tracking quality improves. And RCS has nothing to do with it, except affecting the range at which all of this happens.

None of this applies to the countermeasure rejection algos AFAIK. They're just a straight up stochastic model, so the moment you start messing with target RCS', you break everything.

When/if the countermeasure rejection stuff is fixed up, then play with target RCS' to your heart's content, that's my 2c.

Surely best guess on RCS 29<15 is no different to what we have now with chaff resistance 120>AIM-7 etc.

I don't understand what you're asking. A locked target has different values from when it's not locked? What exactly are you responding to?

You don't have to take anything that I say into consideration, but this is a two-edged sword, so I will put it this way:

This material is complicates, requires a lot of research, and a lot of knowledge. I don't have all of it, and it isn't even out there for civillians to have as a whole.

The test team has people who know and understand these things, but they can't tell details (because the method application of chaff may be target specific for example, which means they'd have to tell secrets).

I've done plenty of research and reading myself, and frankly, I'm not telling you anything that is difficult to understand or that is not somehow is not out there - I supply all of this stuff to ED (like Kuky suggested I do - way ahead of you on that one Kuky, by years, but good thought :) ). Not all of this stuff is necessarily for public consumption, and not all sources can be publicly mentioned (no, there aren't any law breakers).

On the other hand, people have presented zero actual research to support their claims here, and demand that I present mine.

Honestly, I don't have time to redo all that homework - but again, for those that can access the site, dtic.mil is a good starting point for a lot of things.

Saying this you mean that a locked target has totally different values of handling the received echoes, right? Otherwise this statement is invalid. I guess that's what other don't take into consideration, thus attacking you.

Surely best guess on RCS 29<15 is no different to what we have now with chaff resistance 120>AIM-7 etc.

That would be same as saying a crossbow could conceivably be better than automatic rifle due to some unforeseen factor.

Plz pilotasso why are you insisting on something that is not realistic we all know that Mig-29 is smaller than F-15/Su-27. if it is not modeled and hard to do so stand on that point instead of showing your arrogance where you belive ER-27 is like bow compared to Aim-120 as a Rifle.

GG those who fly Su-27 don't believe your claims because you have no evidence or documentation to bring forward. As I see it your words means as little as anybody else until you can prove them.

I wish you side was neutral GG but we all know where you stand.

Lets get back on the topic.

It seems aim-120C reach target before ER-27 dose in conditions with no lofting. I believe that is not right from documentation I have seen on Russian missile thread.

Plz pilotasso why are you insisting on something that is not realistic we all know that Mig-29 is smaller than F-15/Su-27.

that's the mistake right there, its not a question of dimensions, its a question of reflectivity features.

Infract I cannot tell you who has the biggest RCS, the mig is smaller however it has straight engine ducts, just as many right angles and exposed edges among other things. RCS was the last thing in Mikoyan heads when the plane was designed.

that's the mistake right there, its not a question of dimensions, its a question of reflectivity features.

 

Infract I cannot tell you who has the biggest RCS, the mig is smaller however it has straight engine ducts, just as many right angles and exposed edges among other things. RCS was the last thing in Mikoyan heads when the plane was designed.

So those stories from India that Mig-21 is harder to pick up at low altitudes then Su-27 is bullshit?

Of course dimension play a role together with reflecting materials and angels on the shape.

GG those who fly Su-27 don't believe your claims because you have no evidence or documentation to bring forward. As I see it your words means as little as anybody else until you can prove them.

Really? What can you prove?

It seems aim-120C reach target before ER-27 dose in conditions with no lofting. I believe that is not right from documentation I have seen on Russian missile thread.

Where does this documentation include time and speed targets for those missiles? Why are you making statements you can't prove, again?