R-27ER Experiment & Findings

I think the video shows a range closer to 2-3km, not 1km. Re-watched it and it looks something like a medium/long range defensive setup. The defender pops chaff on the turn in and until he Rmins the threat weapon (I assume they're simulating 120s or 7s for MRMs).

I think it is definitely relevant to the discussion. If an F-18 loses lock at ~6,000ft range, 15-18,000ft altitude, medium aspect target, seemingly no jamming, and no look down...

...How's the Flanker gonna do at 3-15nmi with look down?

I'll say this again: The game takes shortcuts to get to the correct goal. At least where CMs and missiles are concerned. The CM-missile "issue" is something that only an EW overhaul can seriously "fix".

And so back to DCS: Sit and Wait I go! :book:

Ive seen that video and the F18s radar cone is practically being showered by chaff deployed from the F18 infront. Its not surprising that at 1km range a chaff shower will play havoc with a system designed to track and engage and reject chaff from targets up to 100km away. It really has no bearing about the discussion here.

 

The point is the way its been modelled for the last few years has meant that its very easy to exploit and 'game' the chaff susceptibility issue. The result is that either everyone flies the platform that can be least exploited (F15s loaded to the gills with 120Cs) or Active missiles are disallowed in the major MP servers and events.

 

You only have to look at the current status of DCS MP. For the last few rounds Blue Flag has run SARH only. Many 104th missions are SARH only now and it appears the next red flag events are transitioning to SARH only competitions.

 

Its not an ideal situation but MP hosts have to work with what theyve got.

Well put. I think we'll see the SARH-only in competitive play situation (and it's no bad thing) for the foreseeable future, certainly until either the R-77 achieves some form of parity (if that's realistic of course) with early AIM-120's, or until the R-27ER is made effective.

This is an old topic now. Hopefully the missile guidance review that ED have in the works will do something to improve the situation.

The only thing I'll add is that an evaluation of SARH missile performance from the 1st gulf war, and the same sort of review carried out for the now-defunct British Sky Flash AIM-7 derivative (AIM-7 body with a home grown seeker head) both show that SARH missiles, when used properly, are significantly more effective than we currently have modelled in DCS.

I think the video shows a range closer to 2-3km, not 1km. Re-watched it and it looks something like a medium/long range defensive setup. The defender pops chaff on the turn in and until he Rmins the threat weapon (I assume they're simulating 120s or 7s for MRMs).

 

I think it is definitely relevant to the discussion. If an F-18 loses lock at ~6,000ft range, 15-18,000ft altitude, medium aspect target, seemingly no jamming, and no look down...

 

...How's the Flanker gonna do at 3-15nmi with look down?

For the most part you cant make out range or aspect from that hud tape except that its almost point blank range. This is a BVR discussion.

Again it has no relevance in this discussion. Im talking about missiles that see chaff so far behind the target that it isnt even being illuminated by the guiding radar with seekers that are not even turned on yet. The end result is missiles come off the rail dead at 30km.

The only thing I'll add is that an evaluation of SARH missile performance from the 1st gulf war, and the same sort of review carried out for the now-defunct British Sky Flash AIM-7 derivative (AIM-7 body with a home grown seeker head) both show that SARH missiles, when used properly, are significantly more effective than we currently have modelled in DCS.

Id love to read that Skyflash assessment. Do you have it? Id love a DCS F3 with Skyflash:)

Id love to read that Skyflash assessment. Do you have it? Id love a DCS F3 with Skyflash:)

Sadly I don't no. I've never read the original assessment and I suspect that it may still be classified. The 1978 US performance review of the AIM-7F & Skyflash seeker heads appears to still be classified:

http://gao.justia.com/department-of-defense/1978/2/performance-of-the-monopulse-seeker-and-active-fuse-for-the-aim-7f-missile-and-the-british-sky-flash-missile-program-psad-78-59/

The results of early Skyflash testing at China Lake with at F4J launch aircraft apparently resulted in a >50% hit rate, alluded to in this Flight International article:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1977/1977%20-%200950.PDF

The UK report doesn't seem to be in the national archives so it's probably not been declassified yet sadly. I agree that having an F3 (or even better a GR4) in DCS would be awesome!

Apart from the above, I distinctly remember reading somewhere that the RAF had also tested the Skyflash over the North Sea and found that the seeker head was capable of achieving hits or within-kill-zone misses under "challenging" conditions. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this so take it with a pinch of salt.

For the most part you cant make out range or aspect from that hud tape except that its almost point blank range. This is a BVR discussion.

On the tape, homework, guesswork, and a watch.

And yes, this is a BVR sensors/systems/weapons discussion. Nobody's denying that.

Again it has no relevance in this discussion. Im talking about missiles that see chaff so far behind the target that it isnt even being illuminated by the guiding radar with seekers that are not even turned on yet. The end result is missiles come off the rail dead at 30km.

(Added some emphasis)

That's not quite the end result -- The end result is that the missile misses.

I think the focus is too much on one probable inaccuracy, to the point where we've lost sight of the larger picture.

Look at what is missing from the simulator in terms of countermeasures: We don't have expendables vs FCRs and we don't have defensive jamming vs FCRs or missiles.

So the "expendables vs missiles" element is doing all the work, here. The means of generating a hit or a miss are unrealistic, but the results are pretty good.

This talk of competitive/PVP stuff makes me wonder, though -- Is the discussion more oriented towards realism or gameplay? :)

The means of generating a hit or a miss are unrealistic, but the results are pretty good.

Good results indeed if you are an F15 pilot with active missiles:megalol:

This talk of competitive/PVP stuff makes me wonder, though -- Is the discussion more oriented towards realism or gameplay?

Indeed! Why are the F15 advocates so afraid of realistic SARH modelling:smilewink:

 

 

Good results indeed if you are an F15 pilot with active missiles:megalol:

 

 

 

Indeed! Why are the F15 advocates so afraid of realistic SARH modelling:smilewink:

Who said they're afraid?

Honestly I wouldn't expect any missile in DCS to hit at the ranges in those videos. Does the result change if you decrease launch distance?

Decrease ?

You are really looking the video?

The first volley is at 20 KM, and then 10-8-6-4-3 Km. Do you really think a 10 Km range launch is very far away?

Decrease ?

 

You are really looking the video?

 

The first volley is at 20 KM, and then 10-8-6-4-3 Km. Do you really think a 10 Km range launch is very far away?

I watched it. An enourmous amount of chaff has already been released by the time the closer missiles are fired. Just a thought.

Ahh yes let's cherry pick Tacviews and claim that the "other side" (FYI, I don't do competitive stuff anymore) supports the same point of view.**

BRB beating a a dead horse with an R-27. :megalol:

Anyway, I'll post an anecdotal bit and leave it alone after: I don't really have problems with R-27ERs in practice. I mostly fly the Flanker in PVP stuff nowadays...Though it's pretty "light" stuff (not high intensity like 104th or BF), I guess. But like I said, it's more about realism and that's really ED's call IMO.

**Edit II: If that isn't clear enough, the "point of view" is one where that person puts their desire to win in a competitive environment ahead of wanting a realistic simulator.

I wonder how difficult it would be to simulate a radar set calculating a target centroid based on what it can 'see' at any given moment, to include any chaff clouds that are within the center emission lobe? Having that much capability would likely increase the realism of missile guidance to a considerable degree and would help alleviate the problem with RNG chaff effectiveness.

 

Honestly I wouldn't expect any missile in DCS to hit at the ranges in those videos. Does the result change if you decrease launch distance?

I'd like to see that DCS AIM-120 or R-77 that regularly misses a target that continues to fly head on from 10nm, also a look up shot at a beaming target flying over 30k ft.

Eagles development will certainly have an impact in this area if they are serious. The FC3 modelling of this is quite legacy and folks are applying a very much more serious theoretical modelling attempt at it. Whilst the modules are applying a serious level of effort in modelling a flight model/cockpit/avionics, the base game is still based on a very old framework that's not standing up to any half decent analysis. I'm not even sure if the level of realism we can achieve in our heads is practical for a multiplayer game, but I'd like to think we can get it progressing because it really is fundamentally important to a framework system that so much development time is spent on. Or in other words, the base DCSW doesn't stand up to the level of complexity the seperate modules are based on, which is detracting.

Eagles development will certainly have an impact in this area if they are serious. The FC3 modelling of this is quite legacy and folks are applying a very much more serious theoretical modelling attempt at it. Whilst the modules are applying a serious level of effort in modelling a flight model/cockpit/avionics, the base game is still based on a very old framework that's not standing up to any half decent analysis. I'm not even sure if the level of realism we can achieve in our heads is practical for a multiplayer game, but I'd like to think we can get it progressing because it really is fundamentally important to a framework system that so much development time is spent on. Or in other words, the base DCSW doesn't stand up to the level of complexity the seperate modules are based on, which is detracting.

You make a good point here: hopefully the fact that ED have in some ways 'sub contracted' module development to the 3rd party dev teams will mean that they have more time to concentrate on the core DCS World framework, to include things we'd all like to see such as new maps, better core features (accurate ground unit LOS, ground mapping radar etc) and more of the nice progress we've seen on the Normandy map recently.

I'm far from being an expert on the subject, but I'm still not convinced that our gaming computers have the horsepower to compute accurate electronic warfare simulations for anything other than the most simple of missions. There's also the issue that EW techniques are usually one of the most closely guarded and most secret areas of military capability, which would impact DCS if we have the objective of making the sim as accurate to real life as possible, which ED clearly do.

Anyway, hopefully improvements will come from the missile guidance work that's underway.

There'a a video of F-18s doing 1v1 BFM on Youtube. The defender pops chaff and the other guy's radar/gunsight goes crazy. That's an F-18 with an APG-65 or -73 at 1km!

 

So the AIM-120s puny radar is superior to APG-65. :megalol:

You're right, the radar rebound signal when chaff is deployed should affect the aircraft radar! (as is IRL, but not in DCS), and yes is an AN/APG-65

And for everyone else for a long time when chaff is in the air (hours) by blocking the radar and causing echoes.

It would be nice when a MP chaff behavior would get fixed by people realising that chaffing would bkind everyone in the air....

But now when a chaff is like a flare, it doesn't work.

What would really be nice is people pushing for realistic implementation instead of wanting to get the upper hand in multiplayer on their favorite jet.

Most of the threads always devolve into that. The thinly veiled "objectivity" is always so easy to pierce through. I for one would like to have the most realistic simulation of missile combat possible & let the chips fall where they may.

With all of that said, I don't mind the missile combat as it is right now. Yes the ER is terrible. But so is pretty much every other missile in the game. Yet somehow, people manage all sorts of kills with them. It sort of evens out.

So the AIM-120s puny radar is superior to APG-65. :megalol:

I found the troll in the chaff! :thumbup:

I'm far from being an expert on the subject, but I'm still not convinced that our gaming computers have the horsepower to compute accurate electronic warfare simulations for anything other than the most simple of missions.

That's debatable from two points:

1. DCS couldn't multithread to save it's own life, and

2. There is substantial overhead on the GPU front with most mid-level and enthusiast cards, if ED considers what is being modeled and how it parallels

In this day and age, with the number of base and virtual cores starting at four as a minimum, the lack of multiple thread optimizations is a travesty. And on the second, if you consider that specular lighting and HDR effects are simply the result of reflectivity in the visible electromagnetic spectrum, well, you could do a damned sight serious amount of that work if you were willing to let the card drive.

As to what is understood and can be modeled, I'd invite anybody to get themselves an associate membership over at crows.org and take a look at the lectures and documents- this isn't really anything outside of the realm of what someone who wants to learn the math can get a really good grasp on.

With all of that said, I don't mind the missile combat as it is right now. Yes the ER is terrible. But so is pretty much every other missile in the game. Yet somehow, people manage all sorts of kills with them. It sort of evens out.

If you did any testing of the missiles at all or even flew a decent amount of PVP you would know how wrong you are.

DCS has great flight model etc.. but air to air combat it still bit arcade feel.. Sim that name is not allowed to say here has much better BVR combat.

Maybe 2.5 will show us light end of tunnel..maybe.

Least i hope so because this is only sim with good RIFT support.

And this is my opinion only, so no need to whiteknights to come to rescue :)

-edit- and sorry if this message breaks rules (again) , limited english :)

DCS has great flight model etc.. but air to air combat it still bit arcade feel.. Sim that name is not allowed to say here has much better BVR combat.

 

Maybe 2.5 will show us light end of tunnel..maybe.

 

Least i hope so because this is only sim with good RIFT support.

 

And this is my opinion only, so no need to whiteknights to come to rescue :)

 

 

 

-edit- and sorry if this message breaks rules (again) , limited english :)

I think you have a good point with 2.5, Haukka - Once ED gets all that stuff (engine/terrain engine/whatever) worked out, maybe they'll be able to work on all the components of the combat side of things.

I believe that the fact that we're discussing PVP in this thread brings another problem to light: The MP mindset. It's all PVP/air quake/etc. nowadays. IMO things can be done to change that a bit and that might affect what we're seeing with missile combat.

What would really be nice is people pushing for realistic implementation instead of wanting to get the upper hand in multiplayer on their favorite jet.

 

Most of the threads always devolve into that. The thinly veiled "objectivity" is always so easy to pierce through. I for one would like to have the most realistic simulation of missile combat possible & let the chips fall where they may.

 

With all of that said, I don't mind the missile combat as it is right now. Yes the ER is terrible. But so is pretty much every other missile in the game. Yet somehow, people manage all sorts of kills with them. It sort of evens out.

+1 to the first line, agree 150%. :thumbup:

Let the realistic simulation dictate the gameplay and not the other way around!

And as for the last line, yeah - I don't really have a huge problem with the Alamo as it stands (I fly Red Air, mainly, in various aircraft). If it's low alt or look down, I know what the odds are for any radar weapon...But in that public PVP environment everybody loves, people will defend a low threat/low Pk weapon, point that sensornose away, and then my element* controls the fight. If that doesn't work, best possible merge entry or separation and try again.

*Fighting as an element/flight/package helps a LOT, too.

As above, the mindset used and scenarios played definitely affect the outcome with missiles.

P.S. - For the thread, try taking *less* R-27ERs. For my average sweep, I bring two ERs and six Archers. Works really well for element/flight tactics...Why? Because you're forced to fight the Flanker's real fight: the merge/merge entry. Also you're a lot lighter/less draggy and that helps for various things (*cough* acceleration for first launch *cough*).

With all the talk of realism surely you'd expect the missiles being fired to get some respect, currently they don't, that is the point.

With all the talk of realism surely you'd expect the missiles being fired to get some respect, currently they don't, that is the point.

And this just what i mean :thumbup: