Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

And you will not have this info. The public info shows that someone is doing something, and that is all. There's not enough information there to make the comparison, so if you don't know this, my guess is that you don't understand the information that was presented.

Unfortunately I have no access to EDs info and I can only go by facts that are shown in public, at the moment they insist that ER should have longer legs then aim-120B/C.

So what you're alluding to is a missile mafia? :p

Yes :P A missile mafia :P

By the way, do you know how a missile turns at high altitude? Do you know why? Do you know what difference, if any, there are when a missile has strakes vs not having them?

When the fuel runs out subject to the laws and any flying object. At high altitude indicated speed is small for missile which is designed to fly at Mach 3-4. Talking about speeds <2200km / h

AFM for missiles in FC1 and FC2, we can say, almost is not there. In FC3 not yet as it should be...

GGTharos, give me a valid document showing that for AIM120C5 a booster engine for more than 10 seconds with a thrust >85 kN, and marching burning more than 20 seconds with a thrust >than 0.5 kN, fuel weight greater than 75kg and the existence of two pulse motors for overcoming resistance in turn. After that I will ED present all formulas on flying quality characteristics managing according to the this document. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xqllh8njx8ajsk0/NASA%20AFM%20missiles.pdf

If you don't give me a document, do not call me ignoramus.

And in my work we will agree on a price. :smilewink:

GGTharos, give me a valid document showing that for AIM120C5 a booster engine for more than 10 seconds with a thrust >85 kN, and marching burning more than 20 seconds with a thrust >than 0.5 kN, fuel weight greater than 75kg and the existence of two pulse motors for overcoming resistance in turn. After that I will ED present all formulas on flying quality characteristics managing according to the this document. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xqllh8njx8ajsk0/NASA%20AFM%20missiles.pdf

If you don't give me a document, do not call me ignoramus.

And in my work we will agree on a price. :smilewink:

Interesting document! Thanks for sharing Ragnarok.

I'm well aware of the rocket parameters being incorrect, in fact, I've submitted changes to the 120 using the real rocket propellant mass and appropriately calculated thrust - although there had to be at least a bit of guessing in that.

Tell you what, I'll do my best to stop responding to you until you actually present something that isn't already known by myself or ED (and for sure, if I don't know it, I'll present it to ED).

PS: That paper doesn't even take into account some of the stuff that the model in the game does. Heck, we know of things that neither this paper nor the game does, either, but I'll tell you one thing ... the in-game missile range will be a better match, with correct parameters, than the one in this paper ;)

GGTharos, give me a valid document showing that for AIM120C5 a booster engine for more than 10 seconds with a thrust >85 kN, and marching burning more than 20 seconds with a thrust >than 0.5 kN, fuel weight greater than 75kg and the existence of two pulse motors for overcoming resistance in turn. After that I will ED present all formulas on flying quality characteristics managing according to the this document. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xqllh8njx8ajsk0/NASA%20AFM%20missiles.pdf

If you don't give me a document, do not call me ignoramus.

And in my work we will agree on a price. :smilewink:

I'm well aware of the rocket parameters being incorrect, in fact, I've submitted changes to the 120 using the real rocket propellant mass and appropriately calculated thrust - although there had to be at least a bit of guessing in that.

 

Tell you what, I'll do my best to stop responding to you until you actually present something that isn't already known by myself or ED (and for sure, if I don't know it, I'll present it to ED).

 

PS: That paper doesn't even take into account some of the stuff that the model in the game does. Heck, we know of things that neither this paper nor the game does, either, but I'll tell you one thing ... the in-game missile range will be a better match, with correct parameters, than the one in this paper ;)

Thank you! I am pleased with the answer.

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

I have given link to software that could be used to get good estimates for RCS of aircraft based on their shape (which includes stealth aircraft also) and I believe this if worked on and used could beenough to get those figures as right as they can be without going into actual measurements of RCS (which is done in real world by military), can someone try it out?

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.

you lost me here

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.

I believe that doing this does very little to RCS reduction, and this is conclution made by people who have done these test, including military... in short, only starting from scratch and designing new aircraft frame with SHAPE in mind primarily is the only real way to get good RCS reduction, and that applying coating and slight modification to existing airframes which were not designed with stealth in mind does very little in RCS reduction. Example is B-1 which is not called stealth, but some modifications have been done on it (like radar absorbing painting) while B-2 is designed from scratch with different shape to get stealth and RCS reduction... and same for F-117 and F-22 etc.

So no matter what possbily could have been done to the F-15 (let not forget this is just an IF as you are purely guessing and you have no real proof if it has been done) to try lowering its RCS, this would have been absolutely minimal effect... and lets not forget if this was possibly ever done, it would have been done to test this only and no F-15 in service have this... and in game we surely don't have F-15's that were painted with RAM

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.

that why they MEASURE it. They also use this RCS signature to ID the aircraft.

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.

And this would not have been at 3-9 o'c as at side as aircraft's surface exposed to radar signal is higher than 10 or 6 o'c. You go for 3-9 o'c to get into lower doppler effect with intent to have radar filter you out, so in this case you don't do this to lower RCS (as you actually increase it) bu to lower doppler shift. PS: Its measured that for standard airframe aprox 11-1o'c has lowest RCS

We have none of this in DCS, and we will not have it (my guess, but I'd call it educated).

I agree with this, and to have this would need separate CPU core (I am sure such calculations would be quite involved and take lot of CPU cycles) which won't happen any time soon. This is why getting at least some good aproximation for "average" RCS of an aircraft in sim makes sense (for now).

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.

Here you are contradicting yourself... RCS always has to do with this... Equation of signal streangth radar receives says that RCS coeffient of the target is on the top side of the ratio meaning higher RCS coefficient means higher signal streangth radar receives... also above you said "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." not that you lower your RCS by doing this (as I said 3-9 o'c actually increase your RCS) so in another words you want to drop the RCS to lower the signal returned to radar. So you prove my point in your own words that RCS does have to dow with this (radar search ability, radar lock streangth and same is for missile receiver as they all have same laws determing how well they "see" these radar returns).

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.

This can also be changed...greater number of chaff have more RCS (if dropped at same time to generate larger chaff cloud area) so instead have you drop single chaff (which would not be enough to overcome aircraft RCS) you could drop more... this can be coded, if not coded already (my hintch is that game is already coded that this can be working, just need to test more).

I have given link to software that could be used to get good estimates for RCS of aircraft based on their shape (which includes stealth aircraft also) and I believe this if worked on and used could beenough to get those figures as right as they can be without going into actual measurements of RCS (which is done in real world by military), can someone try it out?

Sorry, I didn't notice but I can look at it. I don't think it will help though, because ...

you lost me here

The point is that it isn't possible to judge RCS by just looking at a plane. That little sphere the raptor crews put on to increase that plane's RCS ... it's really small.

I believe that doing this does very little to RCS reduction, and this is conclution made by people who have done these test, including military

It does enough that air forces spend enough money on it and keep doing it. Again, Eddie pointed out that it's being done for real. Is there a particular reason you don't want to believe him? He deals with this stuff in the real world.

So no matter what possbily could have been done to the F-15 (let not forget this is just an IF as you are purely guessing and you have no real proof if it has been done)

I'm not guessing.

this would have been absolutely minimal effect... and lets not forget if this was possibly ever done, it would have been done to test this only and no F-15 in service have this... and in game we surely don't have F-15's that were painted with RAM

How do you know? :) None of what you said here has a logical flow Kuky. RAM coatings and other modifications do have an effect. The point here isn't that these are being turned into stealth aircraft. The point is that you're not getting that at the RCS sizes we're talking about, the difference between an F-15 and MiG-29 RCS is negligible.

that why they MEASURE it. They also use this RCS signature to ID the aircraft.

Yes, and we have zero of that data.

And this would not have been at 3-9 o'c as at side as aircraft's surface exposed to radar signal is higher than 10 or 6 o'c. You go for 3-9 o'c to get into lower doppler effect with intent to have radar filter you out, so in this case you don't do this to lower RCS (as you actually increase it) bu to lower doppler shift. PS: Its measured that for standard airframe aprox 11-1o'c has lowest RCS

Sorry, I think you missed my point, but at least you correctly said that the 3-9 RCS can be quite large.

Here you are contradicting yourself... RCS always has to do with this... Equation of signal streangth radar receives says that RCS coeffient of the target is on the top side of the ratio meaning higher RCS coefficient means higher signal streangth radar receives... also above you said "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." not that you lower your RCS by doing this (as I said 3-9 o'c actually increase your RCS) so in another words you want to drop the RCS to lower the signal returned to radar. So you prove my point in your own words that RCS does have to dow with this (radar search ability, radar lock streangth and same is for missile receiver as they all have same laws determing how well they "see" these radar returns).

I'm not proving your point. I'm telling you that RCS is very unpredictable. You're trying to say the opposite thing. This RCS unpredictability though is only useful at a range where the RCS drop can put the return signal in a place so low that countermeasures can be effective against the carrier radar. It's useless at closer ranges - track quality is increased at shorter (and by shorter I don't mean non-BVR, just so we're clear) because the RCS changes don't drop the signal below a certain level, among other things. In other words, aircraft RCS has no effect on missile track quality.

In particular, even if you consider something huge in RCS like a B-52, that thing will come equipped with ECM and chaff appropriate to deal with its own RCS. Maybe that pilot has to do things right on the ball to make things work right since he doesn't have as many maneuvering opportunities, but once more, it's not like in DCS where chaff has a single value which directly interacts with the aircraft RCS. It is not possible to realistically represent anything right now by screwing around with the aircraft RCS values. And once more, you'd have to know what those values are, anyway.

This can also be changed...greater number of chaff have more RCS (if dropped at same time to generate larger chaff cloud area) so instead have you drop single chaff (which would not be enough to overcome aircraft RCS) you could drop more... this can be coded, if not coded already (my hintch is that game is already coded that this can be working, just need to test more).

Yep, amount of chaff in the FoV is taken into account (Note ...amount, not RCS). And it's still wrong. There are significant changes that should be done to this IMHO, it will be probably a long time before they are done.

The point is that it isn't possible to judge RCS by just looking at a plane.

actually shape does have most to do with reduced RCS

That little sphere the raptor crews put on to increase that plane's RCS ... it's really small.

so check this... it's small (SIZE) and it's a sphere (SHAPE). Need to separate the two. Larger sphere means larger RCS, and this can actally be claculated... so for same SHAPE of different SIZE you get different RCS. Then again using different SHAPE of two different objects of same SIZE, again you get different RCS.

About the F-15 being coated with RAM... maybe its done... if Eddie says he knows first hand it has then ok... I have no issues with that.. it would mean lower RCS (question how much)... second question... when was this done (year?) then 3rd question... if this has been done on the F-15 (depending on year) then do we want to add this for our F-15C in sim?

And I said you are guessing because you said it yourself in your own words... now you say Eddie knows (so ok, I'll take his word for it) but you said "they possibly" meaning you don't know for sure... which is guessing.

And one more time... RAM coating does have an effect but not enough to reduce RCS significantly... they have done this (I think I mentioned this in previous post already) but they found out through testing that it is not enough and that shape of the aircraft is the way to go about this. So ne more time, I am not saying RAM coating doesn't work.. it does but to minimal effect. And you or Eddie know by what % RAM coating reduces RCS compared to shapping put it out... I'm all ears.

In other words, aircraft RCS has no effect on missile track quality.

look, the radar return signal is what is used to locate, lock on and therefore track an object. The stronger the signal return the easier will be for radar to locate, lock and track that object at same distance, or locate, lock and track further out. And since RCS contributes to this signal return, this is not a guess, it's how it works - proven - to which if you still don't believe I don't know what to say... isn't the whole concept of stealth to do with RCS reduction?... if you can't get enough signal return you can't "see" me or lock me or track me... is this hard to accept? You know all this and you still continue to argue that RCS has nothing to with it... well it does.

Yep, amount of chaff in the FoV is taken into account (Note ...amount, not RCS). And it's still wrong. There are significant changes that should be done to this IMHO, it will be probably a long time before they are done.

Well think a little bit... single chaff is now RCS of 3... chuck 4 of them out in one go where are they going to be? Right over each other... separated but close enough to create single RCS object with RCS 4x times of that of single chaff cloud? So I'm saying that this should actually work in sim... test dropping 1 chaff at the time... and this chaff won't have enough RCS to overshadow the aircraft RCS (for aircraft that have RCS higher than 3 for that aspect)... but now drop 5 chaff in very quick interval... you should create, what will be in FoV of the radar and missile and appear as single larger chaff cloud which will have larger RCS... and with this larger RCS you mill/might have lore RCS in chaff cloud than that of an aircraft... that's how it should work in reality and I am confident this is how it works in game, and I'd like you to try it.

My main point (again) is that I am certain now that missiles lose track so easily because the RCS of the aircraft set in game is too low (for some aircraft). AI always keeps dropping 1 chaff at time right? So if they can do this at closer ranges (say 1/2 the R-max of the ER missile) and missile still goes for this single chaff then that means this single chaff has more RCS that aircraft... or actually aircraft being in the beam (low doppler effect) radar filters it out more easily.

Now you could reduce RCS of the chaff, but if leaving same RCS for all aircraft then you still don't have relative ratio of the RCS of the CM and target aircraft.

look, the radar return signal is what is used to locate, lock on and therefore track an object. The stronger the signal return the easier will be for radar to locate, lock and track that object at same distance, or locate, lock and track further out. And since RCS contributes to this signal return, this is not a guess, it's how it works - proven - to which if you still don't believe I don't know what to say... isn't the whole concept of stealth to do with RCS reduction?... if you can't get enough signal return you can't "see" me or lock me or track me... is this hard to accept? You know all this and you still continue to argue that RCS has nothing to with it... well it does.

 

 

Well think a little bit... single chaff is now RCS of 3... chuck 4 of them out in one go where are they going to be? Right over each other... separated but close enough to create single RCS object with RCS 4x times of that of single chaff cloud? So I'm saying that this should actually work in sim... test dropping 1 chaff at the time... and this chaff won't have enough RCS to overshadow the aircraft RCS (for aircraft that have RCS higher than 3 for that aspect)... but now drop 5 chaff in very quick interval... you should create, what will be in FoV of the radar and missile and appear as single larger chaff cloud which will have larger RCS... and with this larger RCS you mill/might have lore RCS in chaff cloud than that of an aircraft... that's how it should work in reality and I am confident this is how it works in game, and I'd like you to try it.

 

My main point (again) is that I am certain now that missiles lose track so easily because the RCS of the aircraft set in game is too low (for some aircraft). AI always keeps dropping 1 chaff at time right? So if they can do this at closer ranges (say 1/2 the R-max of the ER missile) and missile still goes for this single chaff then that means this single chaff has more RCS that aircraft... or actually aircraft being in the beam (low doppler effect) radar filters it out more easily.

 

Now you could reduce RCS of the chaff, but if leaving same RCS for all aircraft then you still don't have relative ratio of the RCS of the CM and target aircraft.

I thought as yours Kuky that RCS differences already were introduced where mig-29/F-16/mig-21 have smaller RCS then F-15/Su-27/F-4. Is that not the case GG?

.

Oh God, why such things still happen in DCS that my pretty R-77 successfully tracks down an F15 down to 15m close, and then just flies by near it and don't explode? I don't fly much these times but I thought this was forbidden since "new fancy missiles" era. Don't we have proxymities now?

Oh God, why such things still happen in DCS that my pretty R-77 successfully tracks down an F15 down to 15m close, and then just flies by near it and don't explode? I don't fly much these times but I thought this was forbidden since "new fancy missiles" era. Don't we have proxymities now?

There are proximity fuses already, might just be it was just not near enough to trigger and explosion.

Proximity fuses are definitely there. Most of the times that I get hit, I can fly back to base for repair. That means that the missile that hit me, was ignited far from my airframe.

I follow this post for quite some time now, and I would like to propose something.

Since AA radars, airframe signatures and other things are not modelled at the moment, and the main platforms that AA missiles comes from (FC3 planes) are not high fidelity at all,

why is it so difficult to bring a ''sence'' of equality to the missiles that we use at the moment, and when other things are modelled, like radars, high fidelity lunch platforms ( SU27-F18 ), then ED can show off their simulation programming abilities.

At the moment, AtoA fights are done between airframes of VERY low fidelity (FC3).

Why bring high fidelity weapons (which will bring confusion and frustration) with low fidelity lunch platforms (no radars, half working TWS for Russian planes, low fidelity radars in general, broken EOS).

All the talk is about online AtoA which at the moment is just an online airquake and nothing more.

When you say ''WHEN IT IS READY, or, WHEN IT IS DONE'' just FOLLOW it.

High fidelity missiles without high fidelity radars and launch platforms and radar signatures, is far from READY.

AA Missiles are not a system by themselves. They are just a subsystem. Simulating a subsystem in high standards without simulating the rest of the system is not only useless but will bring problems like what we have.

I read carefully all this post day after day, all conversation have already hit the wall of ''not enough information available'' to further simulate missile behaviour, yet none of you have mentioned that ALL this things are happening on FC3, not dcs world.

It is like talking about why you cannot get the World Cup in football, I ll tell you why:

1: You do not have the players

2: You do not have a proper place to train the players

The only thing that we really have at the moment is a well made leather ball.

Dnt get me wrong, I am just proposing to introduce the AA missile system when it is ready as a ''system''.

And once more, AA missiles are a system (radar, launch platform and a guided rocket).

WE ONLY HAVE THE ROCKET

Sorry for the long post

(you can start shooting at me, at 3........2........1.....:bash:

Well to improve things and model them better you have to start somewhere... ED has started with missiles AFM. It won't happen that you fix everything (radar, ECM, CM, missiles etc) in one go... you do them one by one... and in the end they will never be modelled to perfection.

 

I read carefully all this post day after day, all conversation have already hit the wall of ''not enough information available'' to further simulate missile behaviour, yet none of you have mentioned that ALL this things are happening on FC3, not dcs world.

Other way around, AtoA missile are a DCS World thing, not FC3.

All airplanes capable of firing an R27ER, regardless being them an arcade or full on DCS module, would have to fire the same R27ER.

To prevent the R27ER of the arcade plane actually being better then the one of the full DCS module.

Well to improve things and model them better you have to start somewhere... ED has started with missiles AFM. It won't happen that you fix everything (radar, ECM, CM, missiles etc) in one go... you do them one by one... and in the end they will never be modelled to perfection.

It is always going to be that way (this is the correct way)

My point was that multilayer AA airquakes are done with low fidelity FC3 planes.

There is no reason to put such high fidelity simulation on a ''part'' of a system and bring ''dissatisfaction'' to the community.

I truly admire the effort that goes in programming this simulation but for me, it doesn't quite feat in FC3 fidelity gameplay, and at the end spoils it. (the main reason for this thread)

FC3 is not ready for this kinf of simulation, and nobody asked for it at the end.

Plus no real profit for the producer. They could really put their effort on producing a DCS:fighter first and then start the long trip on simulating AA missiles. People would have been very busy learning the systems (no time to judge missile behaviour) and enough time for the developer to produce a good AA missile simulation.

Other way around, AtoA missile are a DCS World thing, not FC3.

All airplanes capable of firing an R27ER, regardless being them an arcade or full on DCS module, would have to fire the same R27ER.

 

To prevent the R27ER of the arcade plane actually being better then the one of the full DCS module.

I disagree because the AI is arcade modelled aswell. so there is no use of it. AI will always be AI

Real players launching the missiles are the real deal (my own opinion though)

Because AI is some kind of scripted behaviour that everyone can study and at the end you get bored to it.

Having a high fidelity missile fired from a stupid AI is actually worst than having the same missile fired from an FC platform.

EDIT:

Sorry for derailing your very informative conversation (i just added an ''arcade'' opinion )

Well don't call FC3 fidelity aircraft systems/switches modeling reason not to model/improve missiles and radar etc. While flipping switches is good in its own way radar will not work any different if you need to flip 10 switches to get it setup, and having this done for you in FC3 fidelity... modelling switches to their full real life counterpart will not make any difference if radar (and by this I don't mean different modes of it) is modeled to good extend of physics behind how it operates, and to model this you don't need cockpit full of working switches.

The air combat and tactics also are not based on working switches either... they are based on what you need to know to defeat the radar that is targeting you, to get into firing position and to know what conditions are good for you firing that missile... this is what most people want and to get this you need to model those laws that govern how radar and missiles work... not switches

I disagree because the AI is arcade modelled aswell. so there is no use of it. AI will always be AI

Real players launching the missiles are the real deal (my own opinion though)

Because AI is some kind of scripted behaviour that everyone can study and at the end you get bored to it.

 

Having a high fidelity missile fired from a stupid AI is actually worst than having the same missile fired from an FC platform.

 

EDIT:

 

Sorry for derailing your very informative conversation (i just added an ''arcade'' opinion )

I never mentioned AI, i mentioned ARCADE.

But lets go the other route. Maybe you get the point then.

So i am in my FC3 SU-33 firing an R-27ER at target X from parameters Y

Now, i am in DCS SU-27SM firing an R-27ER at the same target X whit the same parameters Y

Both missiles should behave EXACTLY the same, cause there both an R-27ER.

Or would it be ok for the R-27ER launched from the DCS SU-27SM have 3 times better tracking and 10 km less range compared to the one launched by the FC3 SU-33 ?????

Sure hope not.

As such, there behavior is not bound to a given module, but to DCS World as a whole.

All this talk about fidelity reminded me of what i want most to be aded to DCSW wich is realistic jammers, electronic warfare.I know this is probably top secret or something and very hard to implement.

But a missile fight without realistic jammers is unrealistic imho.