Ракеты в DCS

[...] AIs give different variants of evasive maneuvers with different radial velocities [...]

Which is why the gap in the results is so small. 60/66 between 120C and 120B is not representative of the actual efficiency in DCS, and neither is 98/100 between the ER and AIM7M (Both missiles have the same chaff resistance but ER is much faster and gives way less time to turn defensive).

If an AI Su-25 gives you a large radial velocity and stays at a high speed (i never saw the AI go below mach 0.55-0.6), only dropping very little chaff, both an ER and 120C will track almost every time. And it gets itself into these bad spots most of the time, even if it has enough room left to get into a proper position and bleed more speed. Not a single time have i seen the AI use the maneuvers used in my .TRK which defeat the 77 and ER 100% of the time. Maybe its because their behavior has not been reworked in years, i dont know.

If i run tests where i just fly hot into the missile or stay cold while dropping chaff and keeping the speed high, any radar guided missile will kill me almost every time and the result would also not be diverse enough.

To see the real difference, you need the aircraft to get into those critical spots near stall speed where all missiles are the most likely to go for chaff (or guaranteed in case of R27ER and R77 without ECM, as seen in my tracks). The better the target defends, the further the results will go away from small differences like 60/66/68 towards mine with 120B being multiple times better.

Even if you take the middle between the not so effective defense of the AI and the extremely aggressive defense in my tracks, the 120B is still way more effective than the 77 and in no way only 1 generation ahead of 7M/27ER.

Chizh, the complaints are almost never against the AI but either way, testing against human opponents (or AI that behave almost like human opponents, if possible) are very important to deal with.

Right now I personally dislike how incredibly easy it is to decoy just about any player-launched SARH with a little maneuver and a little chaff. It's actually quite bad, but I don't think it's truly solvable without changing how the CM rejection works in DCS.

I think chaning ccm_k0 would help as a stop-gap. I'll do some testing and try to provide concrete values later.

But TBH, if the calculation is known one could just produce graphs to prove the point rather than having to do all of these cumbersome tests in-game :)

Why do you think that the reality is different? According to some reports, two dozen P-27s were fired in Africa without any hit.

Pk is contextual and shouldn't be conflated with Pwe

Otherwise on numbers alone one could think that an AIM-9H is a better weapon than say an AIM-9L or AIM-9X...

It would be interesting too if we knew how many of those missile shots were used for posturing or for achieving mission kills

If I am not mistaken we don't have nearly enough footage of those air to air duels as we do with say desert storm or southern watch

Regardless of that in testing I think that graphs or testing against Players (though I lean more towards the former if possible) is going to be more useful.

Even Nick Grey has commented at how lack luster the current combat AI implementation is in DCS. Not to mention the sim is supposed to a realistic depiction on the difficulty of avoiding modern missiles for players on both the shooting and receiving end

Why do you think that the reality is different? According to some reports, two dozen

может быть и так только чтоб уйти от р-27р в эфиопии атакуемый самолёт применял только один манёвр разворот на 180градусов и это не идёт в сравнение с аим7 применяемой израилем в 1982 где после пуска аим 7 обе стороны входили в бвб

Why do you think that the reality is different? According to some reports, two dozen R-27s were fired in Africa without any hit.

I am well aware of the E-E conflict history, but it is also not a reliable history. Russian missiles do have a record of hitting things when given the chance (ie. R-23 hitting F-16's in Bekaa valley), so I don't believe R-27 would be worse. We do not know the warning equipment or what evasive actions were used, if any and we don't really know the tactics.

While I agree that there is a 'better' and a 'worse', the ease with which these missiles are consistently evaded causes unrealistic (IMHO, but I think informed) evasion actions to take place.

One of the big problems that plagues SARH missiles is the definitive way SARH are decoyed for a long distance, visibly - the trajectory change is huge and visible because of the contrail, so both shooter and target know that the missile has missed.

Specifically, a pilot can turn 90, dump chaff and turn back in, certain that the SARH missile is decoyed.

There are two parts to this:

1) The missiles ARE too reliably decoyed, thus not really forcing defensive action

2) It is easy to identify that the missiles are decoyed, thus not forcing defensive action due to uncertaintly.

#2 is because the missile doesn't fight the chaff (Speaking specifically about RF missiles now) but rather it's just a probaility and then it's changed target or not.

My earlier suggestion was to cause the radar target to drift behind the aircraft (I know this is not how DCS does it - it just targets an object ID right now), here the chaff is effective but the missile is still able to:

1) Fight it, and possibly pass within fuzing distance

2) Even if it is decoyed, it will not be easy to recognize because the missile will not make a large trajectory change, thus ensuring that the pilot is 'taking his chances' if he decides the missile has gone for chaff.

So the process for the missile would be this IMHO, for 80's and later missiles:

Chaff appears or is already present in FoV:

1) Use Vc (doppler) to reject (requires modeling of chaff bloom and actual slow-down physics instead of assuming that it slows down instantly - likewise, chaff has a lot of scintillation due to the rotating motion of the fibers). Rejection is easy and almost guaranteed as long as the Vc difference is relatively large

2) If Vc cannot be used (target near/around the beam) the missile will try to 'lead' but chaff dropped behind the target will cause the centroid to drift back. The missile will resist any large changes in speed but the aiming point may be too far behind to pass within fuzing distance. Still, this point is moving (following the actual target aircraft) because the missile is resisting large target speed changes that would be seen as noise, compared to the capabilities of an aircraft.

3) Chaff stops or constantly enters/leaves the FoV. The missile has to decide who to follow ... it can still try to acquire the real target but it may be too late for the missile to maneuver in order to hit it.

4) Target continues to release chaff but turns far enough out of the 3-9 that the missile is no longer confused about what to hit (Vc filter).

I don't believe any of this is easy to implement, and I don't believe what I have described above is a complete idea. It is just a start.

However, it has the desired effect on human targets: They will have to sit there and defend because they cannot visually verify that the missile will miss, and they cannot turn back in towards their attacker because the missile will re-acquire them.

There are other issues to consider like removing the doppler notch under some circumstances, and the ability of the missile to deal with CMs in this case is related strongly to the above descriptions I mentioned.

Anyway ... I know this is a huge topic, but, please consider it.

может быть и так только чтоб уйти от р-27р в эфиопии атакуемый самолёт применял только один манёвр разворот на 180градусов и это не идёт в сравнение с аим7 применяемой израилем в 1982 где после пуска аим 7 обе стороны входили в бвб

It is also not really appropriate to compare AIM-7F to R-27. The guidance method is different:

AIM-7F uses a CW or PD signal, and uses a con-scan seeker which could have trouble just because another aircraft is targeting another close target and on a similar frequency. This was also a problem in Vietnam.

Ндаааа... Тема превратилась в английскую.

Ндаааа... Тема превратилась в английскую.

Пиши в англ ветке на русском. Вот с какого там писать на англ., если я русскоязычный ?

According to some reports, two dozen R-27s were fired in Africa without any hit.

Какое-то странное доказательство. Тебе известны условия, в которых спускались ракеты? Дальность, высотая скорость? А какие меры противодействия использовались? Лично мне нет, тебе, как мне кажется, тоже. Есть данные, что амраамы мазали по старым советским самолётам, но это не делает его плохой ракетой. От чего же тогда такая предвзятость к р-27?

Ничего не известно.

Но другой информации нет.

 

 

Все ракеты мажут. Вопрос в процентах.

По АМРААМу есть официальные данные по применению как в Ираке так и в Югославии.

По амрааму то есть а вот по Р77 нет и быть не может так как ее ирл не применяли в боевых действиях. И как эффективность р-77 исходя из этого настраивать будете? Также или хуже чем у aim-120?

Имхо голова р77 должна «держать» цель также как и у 120, чтоб никому обидно небыло, пока не появятся хоть какието данные о ней из реала..

Мы с самого начала приравняли эффективность Р-77 к AIM-120B. Это завышенная оценка, на мой взгляд, но тем не менее.

На чём основано мнение о завышенности, можно узнать?

Поправь меня если ошибаюсь, но меньшая дальность Р-77 обуславливается отсутствием навесной траектории, а не тем, что она чем-то прям сильно хуже аим-120В в других областях.

Следующий вопрос такой. В чем Р-73 хуже любой аим-9 вплоть до Х не включительно? Ну или в чем Р-27Р уступает любой аим-7? И та и другая ракеты не уступают перечисленным мной аналогам по летным характеристикам

1. Ракета Р-77 (РВВ-АЕ) старше AIM-120B..

AIM-120B - начало поставок 1993 год

Р-77 -завершение испытаний 1991 год

2. Ракета Р-77 (РВВ-АЕ) имеет меньшую дальность при большем весе.

3. Исторически характеристики советских/российских РЛС, особенно малогабаритных, из-за тотального отставания в элементной части, хуже чем у западных.

Чем там Р-73 хуже AIM-9M? Да и Р-27ЭР по дальности не хуже чем AIM-7

Поправь меня если ошибаюсь, но меньшая дальность Р-77 обуславливается отсутствием навесной траектории, а не тем, что она чем-то прям сильно хуже аим-120В в других областях.

No, it is because of fuel-mass to total missile-mass ratio. It is surprisingly poor for the R-77. I expect the R-77-1 to be much better in this regard because of smaller space required by electronic and other components. A loft trajectory will help, but it's not the root cause.

Следующий вопрос такой. В чем Р-73 хуже любой аим-9 вплоть до Х не включительно? Ну или в чем Р-27Р уступает любой аим-7? И та и другая ракеты не уступают перечисленным мной аналогам по летным характеристикам

How do you mean? R-73 is a HOBS missile, the AIM-9M, while capable, is not. In this case the R-73 is a superior missile, but it's 20kg heavier - the reason for this I don't know, but I can guess. The AIM-9X is superior to both given the new electronics and larger gimbal.

BTW, here I could also imagine that some newer versions of the R-73 will allow for a bigger rocket motor.

Not sure about R-27 vs AIM-7. The AIM-7 was considered a good missile, and the R-27 could not out-range it, but it was faster. The E versions then increased range and speed to a point where sparrow is probably not a very competitive missile.