Flare-spam not always effective vs. R-73

[D4n]

See trackfile. (Su-27 launching on Harrier) https://ufile.io/s47l8jvd

[Coxy_99]

:megalol: like my R-73 from 22km please ED please nurf

Edited June 8, 2020 by Coxy_99

[D4n]

:megalol: like my R-73 from 22km please ED please nurf

trackfile would help :P

[sora_061]

trackfile would help :P

R-73 is really good missile, if you can't defeat it try pre-flare (anticipate enemy missile launch, start flaring before he fires), or run.

Git gud, Aim 9x is also same, you don't here people talking about it.

[dorianR666]

R-73 is really good missile, if you can't defeat it try pre-flare (anticipate enemy missile launch, start flaring before he fires), or run.

Git gud, Aim 9x is also same, you don't here people talking about it.

does preflaring have any effect in dcs?

[sora_061]

does preflaring have any effect in dcs?

Well I first seen it in GS's videos, it seemed to have effect. I have tried it also, it works but nothing is guaranteed 100%. You can also turn to sun and flare and turn off AB. Why not try yourself.

[sora_061]

does preflaring have any effect in dcs?

Well here is GS's video. See both of them pre-flaring

[Oceandar]

R-73 performance is acceptable IMO. Its effectiveness in my experience also depends on range and target aspect. Closer range need much more flares to spoof it. Pre flare also helps alot. I dont see why R-73 need correction just based on one case because I could also provide a track to show that how inneffective R-73 is. Should I also ask ED to buff it ?

[D4n]

Hm, I remember ED said either on Reddit or in forum that they want to focus to get more close combat in DCS (can't find the post atm). This R-73 performance thing isn't helping, on the contrary :P

[nighthawk2174]

The 73 model we have in game is an early one and should be incredibly susceptible to flares. As far as I’m aware it has no ccm irl.

[D4n]

another example, this time even only 78% engine RPM. https://ufile.io/qnz3urt3

[BlackPixxel]

I hope ED does not take this thread serious.

 

You got killed by a heatseeking missile, and instantly made this thread so that the next time you can have it easier.

 

Imagine if everyone did that after they get killed by Aim-120, Aim-54 etc... ("OMG chaff spam did not work, ED please fixx!!!")

 

Instead you could focus on how to properly defeat a heater in DCS, which would include not showing the rear of your aircraft to the seeker for example.

[Shadow KT]

Less spamming (less Daniel), more profficiency

[D4n]

("OMG chaff spam did not work, ED please fixx!!!")

Depending on angle... if chaff-cloud is between aircraft and missile, missile (afaik) should prox-fuze upon getting real close to the chaff. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=266373

 

and instantly made this thread so that the next time you can have it easier.

No, I just care that either R-73 becomes realistic, or that AIM-9M also is fixed to be realistic (I'm assuming it to have a seeker performing quite similar to DCS R-73 seeker)...

Edited June 10, 2020 by DanielNL

[Fri13]

The 73 model we have in game is an early one and should be incredibly susceptible to flares. As far as I’m aware it has no ccm irl.

 

All the materials I have read about it, are complete opposite, that it has extremely good flare resistance that made it very deadly, especially if you got it locked from other direction than where flares would fly between the target and the missile at proper speed and direction so missile detects their vector proper one and gets blocked from the actual aircraft and goes for the flares. Like example how Su-25 flares pop-up in excellent manner from the rear and flies while with the aircraft and then starts dropping.

[Mars Exulte]

I'm assuming

 

See, that's the problem ) Evidence, boy, evidence. And since when is ''spam'' ever the ideal solution to anything?

[Max1mus]

The 73 model we have in game is an early one and should be incredibly susceptible to flares. As far as I’m aware it has no ccm irl.

 

As far as youre aware no russian missiles ever have anything.

 

The R-73 in DCS had a CCM of 0.5, the AIM-9M which is 2 years older has 0.4 (i.e is better in terms of flare rejection)

 

ED just implemented a new flare logic at some point in the past months which requires you to roll and pull G + drop flares instead of just dropping a few flares to effectively trash it. Original poster of this thread does not know this.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

In the game files the AIM-9M has an IRCCM coeff of .5 as does the Archer

 

 

Something worth mentioning which is often forgotten is that there are many sub-variants and small software improvements to missiles particularly the AIM-9M and R-73

 

 

 

Its not that difficult with the AA-11 as there seem to really only be 2 versions (If one chooses to ignore different proxy fuses) but there are up to at least 10 sub variants of the AIM-9M its hard to tell which one we have in the game or which people are talking about

 

 

 

Some 90s documentation explicitly mention IRCCM improvements

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/aim-9m.pdf

Edited June 10, 2020 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Fri13]

Depending on angle... if chaff-cloud is between aircraft and missile, missile (afaik) should prox-fuze upon getting real close to the chaff. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=266373

 

Yes, chaff should trigger the radar proximity fuze, but it is questionable for the laser proximity fuze that R-73 uses as well as the radar one.

 

And chaff does not just disappear from the radar because it falls from the aircraft, as it gets scattered around and it starts reflecting radar emissions from large wide distance simultaneously, so you get high speeds and large target on radar, that jams your radar effectively for hours if nor days depending weather conditions as it is reflecting back your own radar emissions.

 

No, I just care that either R-73 becomes realistic, or that AIM-9M also is fixed to be realistic (I'm assuming it to have a seeker performing quite similar to DCS R-73 seeker)...

 

Currently chaff and flare works same way. When you release either one, it is a invisible dot in the sky with a few second timer (IIRC the Heatblur developer told that it was 3-5 seconds lifetime) and then it is gone.

 

Missiles like has a gimbal FOV, so in case of R-73 that is +/- 75 degrees while the target lock is +/- 60 degree (so after launch the seeker can track target at +/- 75 degree angle but you must get locked it inside +/- 60 degree) and that gimbal range is the FOV that missile can find a flare or chaff. DCS doesn't simulate at all the missile narrow FOV or its radar main beam etc. They are all just finding anything that is in their frontal hemisphere.

 

And every second missile performs a check in binary form, YES or NO, that does it lock-on to counter measurement that is proper for its seeker. So flares for IR and chaff for RF.

 

Each missile is given a multiplier to counter counter-measurement, like 1.0 value is 100% and 0.0 is 0%. Each proper CM has a % change to lure missile seeker to it once a second, as long it is inside the missile gimbal FOV.

So example R-73 can have a 0.12 value for flares, while R-60M has 0.33 value. So it means that once a second R-73 performs a check against any flare inside its seeker FOV and range (lets say its seeker lock range is 15 km) by rolling a dice that does the seeker find a flare with 12% possibility. And if the flare is found, missile will lock-on that flare and fly at it. The R-60M would have 33% change on each check to lock-on to flare.

 

And when chaff has just a few second lifetime and it doesn't spread out, it doesn't really help much on what direction you release it or not.

 

The R-27 has fancy videos showing how the missile will clearly suddenly find a CM from far outside of its couple degree seeker FOV, because the CM is inside the gimbal FOV. And the CM was still a live on the moment while completely different direction than the target was flying and the missile locked-on to it and just flies there regardless CM disappears.

 

And this is why spamming CM works, as you are not really blinding seeker, you are just playing a game of probability and more you spam out, more changes there is that once a second one of them is rolled "YES" and missile goes there.

 

Once we start getting missiles seeker FOV modeled, we have actual logic for seeker that it is impossible for target to change a direction so quickly etc, then we start to be in better situation.

 

And the releasing flares before missile is launched is as well biased, because once the missile goes a live on rail, its seeker is victim of searching new targets all around it regardless it should be locked on one and only. But it actually goes out and say "I wonder if there are others that I can play with, there is one.....!".

 

And we do not have the functionality to have IR seekers to lock on hot spots, like flares, reflections etc even when IR seeker would give audible tone when pointed to sun, moon and sun ocean reflection. But we don't get that for flares either or lock on them.

 

As when we are targeting IR seeker and locking it to target, uncaging the seeker gimbal, it should be possible to start tracking a flare if successful pre-flaring before launch. So pilot would see that IR seeker gimbal tracks flare and doesn't launch missile.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Man I wish we had the 60/75 Archer

[Max1mus]

Man I wish we had the 60/75 Archer

 

Eagle Dynamics is not interested in modern russian equipment, as even staff has clearly stated multiple times.

[Fri13]

Eagle Dynamics is not interested in modern russian equipment, as even staff has clearly stated multiple times.

:mad:

Their loss....

 

Think about income with few modern ones like first Su-27M or MiG-27K or Su-22M4....

And not to forget MiG-29 with some newer variant...

 

I am lost interest to modern western fighters, and I am shamed that I purchased JF-17 on weak moment....

 

But we are getting Mi-24P.... So who cares....

[nighthawk2174]

All the materials I have read about it, are complete opposite, that it has extremely good flare resistance that made it very deadly, especially if you got it locked from other direction than where flares would fly between the target and the missile at proper speed and direction so missile detects their vector proper one and gets blocked from the actual aircraft and goes for the flares. Like example how Su-25 flares pop-up in excellent manner from the rear and flies while with the aircraft and then starts dropping.

 

Maybe for the 73M in game we do not have this model the model we have in game I think is the 73E? Which doesn't have a dual band seeker or any CCM, does it even have a FM seeker system? Additionally what I've both heard from pilots and read is that the CCM on even the newer ones still isn't quite as good as the 9M. Hec I actually don't even know if the 73's programmable like the 9M

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

It is a Dual Colour, Rosette Scan, Pulse position seeker if I'm not mistaken

[Max1mus]

Maybe for the 73M in game we do not have this model the model we have in game I think is the 73E? Which doesn't have a dual band seeker or any CCM, does it even have a FM seeker system? Additionally what I've both heard from pilots and read is that the CCM on even the newer ones still isn't quite as good as the 9M. Hec I actually don't even know if the 73's programmable like the 9M

 

All of the above is entirely irrelevant.

 

There are 2 R-73 versions that we know if which are in service. The R-73 RMD-1 from 1984 (DCS one with 45/60 deg, which in DCS due to a bug with LA override has 60/60) and the RMD-2 (60/75 and improved CCM conpared to RMD-1) from somewhere between end of 80s to 1999.

 

I can say with massive certainty that no one here knows anything about the status of R-73M, R-74 or any post 2000s R-73 projects. There is even a chance that the modernized archers were not in service until very recently.

 

And as previously mentioned, the AIM-9M has also had different block upgrades just like AIM-120.

 

There is an interview with a Luftwaffe pilot that flew east german MiG-29 and test fired the R-73. If you want a minimal amount of knowledge, that would probably be a place to start. He explains how both the 9M and R-73 were designed to reject different kinds of flares. The R-73 was good at rejecting flares thrown upwards (like on soviet fighters) but not as good at rejecting western flares that were ejected sideways. The AIM-9M on the other hand was good at rejecting the western ones, but not so good at rejecting the russian ones. If these missiles were not programmed in some way, there would not be such differences.

 

On top of this the 9M/73 comparision makes little sense since in DCS the upgraded AIM-120 has the same off bore capabilities as (and pulls as many G) than the DCS R-73, with the added benefit of being undecoyable in such a turn fight.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Max1mus