Should the F-15C Get JHMCS

Part of the improvement program of the 9X was to reduce a deficiency in performance against aircraft employing countermeasures (flares). Increased flare rejection performance doesn't equate to immunity, not what i'd call a death ray with no counter like you seem to believe at least.

The only publicly know CM that works against imaging seeker is a big dense smokecloud (created by flares) that obscures the target long enough for the target to fly out of the missile FOV before the missile has flown past the smoke screen.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4783/4ec45f24453d1263b94f633aa6e6bc7e2387.pdf

The only publicly know CM that works against imaging seeker is a big dense smokecloud (created by flares) that obscures the target long enough for the target to fly out of the missile FOV before the missile has flown past the smoke screen.

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4783/4ec45f24453d1263b94f633aa6e6bc7e2387.pdf

Conclusion from the article:

The goal of this study was to determine if spatially distributed flares could be used in the protection of fast jets against surface-based imaging IR-guided threats. The results demonstrated that at medium and long range, the distributed flare had no effect on the imaging tracker. However, the results suggest that if the target aircraft can maneuver into a tail-chase engagement geometry, there exists a flare effectiveness region (cone shape) of approximately 30° wide in azimuth, 40° in elevation and 600 m long where the successive deployment of distributed flares could cause a break-lock from the tracking system.

So, effective only in a tail chase scenario, where the spatial geometry between the seeker and the target is such that the flare would obscure the target completely, additionaly the target would have to remain obscured or maneuver out of range of the seeker before the missile passes through the flare cloud, or it dissipates. These are all very specific edge cases, so even these types of flares (which are unavailable in DCS) offer very limited protection.

Conclusion from the article:

The goal of this study was to determine if spatially distributed flares could be used in the protection of fast jets against surface-based imaging IR-guided threats. The results demonstrated that at medium and long range, the distributed flare had no effect on the imaging tracker. However, the results suggest that if the target aircraft can maneuver into a tail-chase engagement geometry, there exists a flare effectiveness region (cone shape) of approximately 30° wide in azimuth, 40° in elevation and 600 m long where the successive deployment of distributed flares could cause a break-lock from the tracking system.

 

So, effective only in a tail chase scenario, where the spatial geometry between the seeker and the target is such that the flare would obscure the target completely, additionaly the target would have to remain obscured or maneuver out of range of the seeker before the missile passes through the flare cloud, or it dissipates. These are all very specific edge cases, so even these types of flares (which are unavailable in DCS) offer very limited protection.

If you use that idea then according to this paper R-73 and R-27ET/T shouldn't be getting spoofed by DCS flares either, certainly not as easy as they do.

But I think it is pretty clear that FPA seekers are not immune to flares.

If you use that idea then according to this paper R-73 and R-27ET/T shouldn't be getting spoofed by DCS flares either, certainly not as easy as they do.

 

Im sorry, does the R-73 use a gated video tracker? What about the R27ET? Are they employing 4th generation focal plane array of detectors in their seeker heads?

 

But I think it is pretty clear that FPA seekers are not immune to flares.

How is that clear?

Why is the 9x immune to flares? Everyone seems to agree on this, but I can't find anything that would validate that claim.

Why is the 9x immune to flares? Everyone seems to agree on this, but I can't find anything that would validate that claim.

Check the youtube link I posted earlier. Also Bushmani's link to an article demonstrates the technology that allows the AIM9X to do just that.

Why is the 9x immune to flares? Everyone seems to agree on this, but I can't find anything that would validate that claim.

Sensor resolution and immense processing power compared to previous seeker generations.

Where con/spin/rosette scan seekers see blobs that may or may not be distinguishable from aircraft and they have a limited number of targets that they can process (so a certain number of released flares in the fov guarantees seeker seduction), the modern FPA seeker has no such issues:

It sees flares and aircraft very distinctly and the amount of memory required for fast processing of the seekers image gives it a large amount of target memory of necessary.

It is able to process details in the image that other seekers cannot, eg better tracking of the target blob, rejection of small distinct points (flares) etc.

The only counter known to us right now is a laser to blind that seeker, though I'd expect some other decoys to be in development to help deal with these seekers.

And to address the good point point that Frostie made:. Correcting algorithms to ensure the missile can't be distracted by flares is part for the course. Weaknesses are discovered in testing and fixes must be funded.

The point is that it is demonstrated that in main engagement scenarios you can't hope for flares to save you. There are undoubtedly scenarios where flares work (I've read the same study mentioned above, too) but they're too narrow to employ in the vast majority of situations. That study also demonstrates how the rejection algos work. I believe the same peeps wrote the study demonstrating how easy it is to guarantee seduction of a rosette seeker and everything that came before it.

Why is the 9x immune to flares? Everyone seems to agree on this, but I can't find anything that would validate that claim.

AFAIK the AIM-9X has an IIR(Imaging IR) seeker - this means that the seeker is not just homing on the intensity of thermal energy alone, but is also capable of distinguishing between the "shape" of sources.

Whether its completely immune to flares is another question - IIR requires quite a lot of processing compared to "basic" IR homing and I could imagine that this could be a limiting factor - at least for a small a2a missile.

Edit: sniped by GGTharos.

Im sorry, does the R-73 use a gated video tracker? What about the R27ET? Are they employing 4th generation focal plane array of detectors in their seeker heads?

I think that Frostie is pointing out that the western aircraft as currently modeled in DCS have simple point flares, possibly with spectrum matching, and that the CM rejection of the R-73 should be able to reject them quite handily in most cases post lock. At least in small amounts.

For the IIR seekers, at present, if you want to use a flare the thing to do would be to use the ultimate flare, which of course only works during daylight hours and above the cloud deck if the weather isn't clear.

In cloudy weather, if the clouds are thick enough, then I suppose you get to play 3D hide and seek.

The physics of the article are pretty much what you'd expect. Make a hot screen between you and the missile, hide behind it, and if it's a gate based track get as much clutter as you can in the background.

The other interesting approach would be to put a cold cloud between you and the seeker. Water mist, IR tuned chaff, or something along those lines. Likely to be a bit heavier than pyrotechnics though, and you'd still have all the tail chase hide-behind-a-bush sorts of constraints that a volumetric flare approach would have.

Sun, clouds, element of surprise, and stay behind their 3-9 line. Looks like the AIM 9X hasn't really advanced air combat much beyond what the guys flying Sopwiths and Fokkers were doing. ;)

Hell, just pop the canopy and throw a brick at the offending 9X platform.

The idea that a certain amount of flares will 100% spoof any non FPA seeker is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, the flares deployed have to match the filter that is placed in front of the seeker that is to be deceived. These filters are there to block out background noise like the sun or ground clutter but also to specifically home in on certain wavelengths of IR light from the engine exhaust that a flare might not produce.

It's a cat and mouse game, but one can't guarantee that any number of flares greater than x will deceive a specific seeker, they might not work at all.

Secondly, con/spin scan seeker don't see blobs, they're non imaging. They see something or they don't, on or off. They can however discriminate between point targets and clutter. Depending on what IRCCM techniques the seeker is employing they might be able to reject any number of flares deployed by the aircraft as long as certain criterias are matched (aircraft flying in a straight line, non maneuvering, not changing throttle).

It's a very vague subject to discuss but simply saying any non FPA missile will be decoyed eventually doesn't do it justice.

Everything sees blobs; thank blooming effects and other fun stuff. There are filters to try and compute/mark a point as a/the target, and they can be overwhelmed. This is very obvious from any one number of studies/papers, and demonstrated in reality.

I'm all for simulation schemes that may force incorporating maneuver and specific ways of deploying CMs - both against IR and RF seekers. I'm also in favor of decoying seekers pre-launch.

Most people imagine scenarios like this, but they don't bother imagining how this scheme can be defeated:

Not everything sees blobs. A spin/con scan-seeker "sees" targets as sine waves. The don't have pixels nor anything else that would create an image.

The seeker you're referring to is a rosette-scan seeker. Specifically the one from the FIM-92, given that that is a IR/UV design as well, as depicted in your image.

A spin/con scan seeker usually locks something, then tries to hold lock on that target, doesn't matter if that's a flare or an airplane.

I know, they have a single pixel or maybe a couple, depending. The blob doesn't need to be made of real pixels - physics does it for you; it can change the shape of that sine wave, the simplest change being the intensity ie. height to the peak. I recall some countermeasure examples for those and how they work also.

I know I'm depicting a rosette scan seeker with two colors as well - as it is the most often mentioned reason for making the R-73 more resistant to flares (though IIRC it is not a two-color seeker).

You are right that it is a complex discussion with many details - I don't know what you know about it; all I know is that the effectiveness of flares is demonstrated in reality.

The R-73 seeker is tricky.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.200600001/full

Here it is stated as CAT seeker with either mono- or dual-colour detector. All I know is that the R-73 sparked the development of the IRIS-T, ASRAAM and AIM-9X and had some progressive features for its time like shifted aim-point to hit more vulnerable parts like the pilot etc.

For flare rejection, it is a pointless topic to discuss, really. There are so many variables that go into it. The most important being flare detection, most con and spin scan seeker have a "switch-response" logic, meaning when the flare detection goes off the response is initiated. There are many detection and response methods, some may work for one flare but not at all for another.

Good example for non FPA-seeker rejecting quite a lot of flares:

Ah, I see - I'm onboard with what. I mean multiple targets in seeker fov. Different scenario. Some with someone who has deep knowledge of the 73 and apparently it has an 8 target memory. Give it more and it's liable to delete the aircraft from the target list. This was corroborated indirectly by other sources including a fairly serious study that's available publically. I believe bushmanni cited that same paper.

Regarding the 73 seeker, it appears that the two color option OR FPA is slated for a 2010's or 20's variant, but I'm not confident of the source.

Likewise it appears that papers describing a lot of two color techniques are recent, and describe countermeasures as being highly effective against heat seekers in general.

As for 9x hitting the pilot, I don't buy that and you shouldn't either ... Just based on algos that are in use and image processing knowledge :)

It might be a coincidence based on trying to hit one end of the blob vs another.

Well, some IRCCM techniques are designed to specifically reduce the number of flares in the seekers FOV or reduce the time the seeker is exposed to them by moving the seeker forward along the vector of the target. This would be done as soon as the flare detection is triggered, so consequential flares wouldn't have any effect on the seeker until the flare detection is timed out.

I'm far away from saying those older seeker design are immune to flare, they absolutely aren't, but it's more complicated than "x number of flares=seeker deceived every time" ;)

As for 9x hitting the pilot, I don't buy that and you shouldn't either

Really? I was talking about the R-73 by the way, which just shifts the DMPI to avoid hitting the exhaust plume and hit more critical parts of the airplane (i.e. canopy).

I've seen telemetry of the IRIS-T in endgame against a MiG-29 (If I can dig it out, I'll post it here) and there was enough detail visible to target specific parts (especially because the canopy is much colder than the rest of the aircraft).

I'd gladly pay ED price of new module for the F-15C to get JHMCS and Aim-9x ...

I would definitely buy the high fidelity C or E model 15. the version with the 9X and JHMCS. Seems inevitable as DCS World evolves.

I think the F-15C is in a good place now as it is. People here is comparing it to the Hornet while it should be compared to the Flanker. And yes, the Flanker gets HOBS missiles and HMCS, but it doesn't get Spamraams, while the F-15C does. Ideally "You shouldn't be getting into the merge, because that's making too many errors". I don't know exactly, but I think the F-15C we have now is not an improved one prepared to carry HMCS, just like the Flanker we have is still an old SK variant and not the new SM ones with R-77 capability. In my opinion, having these 2 aircraft be inside the same timeframe is pretty nice, because it lets the mission creators who wish to do so create somewhat balanced PVP Red Vs. Blue scenarios. Now I'm not an F-15 expert, so I may be wrong and the F-15C that we have is much more modern than the Su-27SK that we have, in that case I think it should be upgraded to its actual, IRL standard, because this is a simulator after all. But if we happen to have a contemporary F-15C, we should stick to it. An option would be leaving the FC3 C version as the 1980s one, then making a clicky F-15C from 2007 like the Hornet and the Viper, that would satisfy both worlds.

Of course I mostly see this from a Red perspective and I got to say, having to fight planes that are much more modern, and mostly more capable, than yours in PVP matches sometimes gets frustating. I blame myself for not being up to par, but there's also a big gap in capabilities between the competing aircraft. Thus, I'd like to have a plane that I can actually compete against. It would be very cool to have a modern F-15C, but I fear we would be starting to go way past the "Red is just a piñata at this point" line

Personally I'd prefer DL above all else for the Eagle. Knowing is a power.

Ideally "You shouldn't be getting into the merge, because that's making too many errors".

That's certainly optimistic. F-15s have been getting into merges often.

Now I'm not an F-15 expert, so I may be wrong and the F-15C that we have is much more modern than the Su-27SK that we have,

It's a couple of decades ahead in technology, yep. There's no 1980s F-15C simulation, rather the stated radar capability is quite undermodeled. Evern for an 80's radar.

It would be very cool to have a modern F-15C, but I fear we would be starting to go way past the "Red is just a piñata at this point" line

Nothing is stopping the mission maker from removing 120C/9X from the inventory.

Nothing is stopping the mission maker from removing 120C/9X from the inventory.

That's certainly a solution, but if we are going to have JHMCS and 9X I'd rather have just a clicky module rather than an FC3 one, properly modelled and all.

About the block, if it's a 90s one then it surely didn't have JHMCS, then I say it shouldn't have it. But if it's just a frankenmodel then I don't know.

 

...

 

Now I'm not an F-15 expert, so I may be wrong and the F-15C that we have is much more modern than the Su-27SK that we have, in that case I think it should be upgraded to its actual, IRL standard, because this is a simulator after all. But if we happen to have a contemporary F-15C, we should stick to it. An option would be leaving the FC3 C version as the 1980s one, then making a clicky F-15C from 2007 like the Hornet and the Viper, that would satisfy both worlds.

 

...

 

I would like it.