R-73 Major Tracking Bug (DCS 2.5.4)

I have just noticed that for some reason my R-73 was navigating and hit an on coming AIM120-C that finished its booster phase of flight long time before the impact.

Unless I am badly mistaking, this is a major bug in R-73's tracking. I see (and please correct me if I am wrong) no reason/way how can an IR missile confuse a flying cylinder to a fighter jet.

I am providing the video of the incident as an attachment. Please note that last few seconds of the video are in slow-motion for better view.

The missile does not differenciate between a plane and a missile. If it sees heat, it goes there. And both missiles and planes emit heat.

If it sees heat, it goes there. And both missiles and planes emit heat.

15s after burning the fuel?

I’ve gotten EOS locks on terminal Phoenix missiles, I think it’s certianly possible. Nothing more badass than shooting all your opponents missiles down!

I’ve gotten EOS locks on terminal Phoenix missiles, I think it’s certianly possible. Nothing more badass than shooting all your opponents missiles down!

Even if I did get an EOS lock on an incoming A2A (which I doubt is possible), how did it track the AMRAAM which had no booster operating?

In real life, it would be due to remaining heat and friction and maybe other stuff too. But of course only to a certain degree at a certain angle.

In DCS, it's because it's an unit/object.

Edit: I just came across this here again:

While I understand the R-73 seeker is called infrared, I do not know it’s exact used spectrum, but I do know that the OLS-27 is slightly in between infrared and visual, allowing it to lock onto shapes with contrast.

15s after burning the fuel?

Yes. The missile is not cold one.

When you start flying, the air will cause tredenmous friction to everything in the aircraft, including missiles you are have hanging from pylons.

That is one thing that is seriously limiting the missile designs as faster you want to fly, the missile needs special treatments for itself as well, as it will be there hanging through the whole flight time exposed to same heat and other forces as the aircraft itself.

Then when you launch the missile, sure there is few second rocket motor burn and then possible burn to maintain speed, but the missile has just accelerated from long period flight speed to few machs speed.

And now if you happen to fly against sky, it is hot missile flying with cold background.

But the problem really is in the DCS way to simulate missile seekers. They polls every X times a second a change to lock on something in their overall seeker head gimbal limits. Even if the IR seeker would have just 2.5 degree FOV, but if their gimbal is +/- 30 degree, then the missile can lock on a counter measurement in that. That is what makes these things just awful, as you can predict the missile launch and deny the lock by simply dropping CM before the launch.

There was a thread about R-27 and how the missiles catched the CM even when it was kilometers away from the target or way outside the seeker or radar beam etc.

The same thing is with R-73, it just totally forgets the target it has locked if there is something like 15 degree off from the target.

And missiles in DCS are generating heat, so you can lock and launch against them a another IR seeker.

AIM-9X is such that you don't need to worry anything about AIM-120 or AIM-54 as you can defeat those by flying straight and just launch AIM-9X at them and destroy them. The AIM-54 is tricky one as it is so fast that your time window to launch AIM-9X is extremely short and its explosive radius is so big that you can easily get blown anyways.

Yes. The missile is not cold one.

 

When you start flying, the air will cause tredenmous friction to everything in the aircraft, including missiles you are have hanging from pylons.

 

That is one thing that is seriously limiting the missile designs as faster you want to fly, the missile needs special treatments for itself as well, as it will be there hanging through the whole flight time exposed to same heat and other forces as the aircraft itself.

 

Then when you launch the missile, sure there is few second rocket motor burn and then possible burn to maintain speed, but the missile has just accelerated from long period flight speed to few machs speed.

And now if you happen to fly against sky, it is hot missile flying with cold background.

 

But the problem really is in the DCS way to simulate missile seekers. They polls every X times a second a change to lock on something in their overall seeker head gimbal limits. Even if the IR seeker would have just 2.5 degree FOV, but if their gimbal is +/- 30 degree, then the missile can lock on a counter measurement in that. That is what makes these things just awful, as you can predict the missile launch and deny the lock by simply dropping CM before the launch.

 

There was a thread about R-27 and how the missiles catched the CM even when it was kilometers away from the target or way outside the seeker or radar beam etc.

 

The same thing is with R-73, it just totally forgets the target it has locked if there is something like 15 degree off from the target.

 

And missiles in DCS are generating heat, so you can lock and launch against them a another IR seeker.

AIM-9X is such that you don't need to worry anything about AIM-120 or AIM-54 as you can defeat those by flying straight and just launch AIM-9X at them and destroy them. The AIM-54 is tricky one as it is so fast that your time window to launch AIM-9X is extremely short and its explosive radius is so big that you can easily get blown anyways.

 

 

 

Links fixed, second one is unavailable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing

I'm not sure about the specifics of the R-73, but the most modern systems are much more sophisticated than simply tracking engine exhaust. I don't think that it would be unreasonable, look how well IR works for ground attack, even on shut down vehicles.

The Aim120C is still very hot after the motor burns out. Imagine how hot a piece of metal gets with air friction traveling between mach 1-3

There are actually Missiles out there which are build with the ability of exactly what you see here. The AIM9X is one of them and IRIS-T even more.

The EURODASS of the EF2000 Typhoon is able to choose modern SRAAMs as last stand against incoming missiles when all other defensive systems like Chaffs, Flares and the towed ECM Decoy seem to be ineffective.

The MWS system aswell as the PIRATE EO or the Missiles seeker itself are used for target designation in this Case.

OK heres the Bump … i have no Idea about the current abilitys of the Typhoon. But it is a serious planned EURODASS feature. On the other Hand DIEHL Defence advertises the IRIS-T with this ability.

https://www.diehl.com/defence/en/products/guided-missiles/#iris-t

R-73 with the ability to do so..?!?.. in my personal opinion more like no.

Why are you guys talking about huge IRST sensor ranges? IR Missile seekers have a hard time locking onto the huge signature of a head-on aircraft at any reasonable distance. While a missile might present a more intense signature at some point in its flight, once that rocket motor's done that airframe will cool very quickly, and its heat emission is relatively tiny.

I think a mach 1-4 missile body is going to be very hot, I mean look at SR-71 temperatures on the leading edges, they were hot hot.

The SR-71 flies >2Mach for hours, where as a SRM flies for seconds. Heat takes time to accumulate.

And as GG pointed out, once the rocket is burned there is no internal heatsource.

And as GG pointed out, once the rocket is burned there is no internal heatsource.

That was my reasoning too but guys say the drag alone can make it warm enough for the IR sensor to pick it up from blue sky. Whether R-73 has that much sensitive sensor is where my highest doubt lies.

The drag will make things hot, yes, the question is:

How hot will it actually get (temp) and

what is the seeker's capability for detecting this

There is math and empirical data for both things.

Well then, if all that is true (seeker picks up surface heated missile) then flares are 100% effective decoys. Because if an R-73 can track a maneuvering AIM-120 going at 800km/h heated only by friction, it will certainly not have any issues tracking a super hot flare (or flares) that is slowly falling through the sky.

Well then, if all that is true (seeker picks up surface heated missile) then flares are 100% effective decoys. Because if an R-73 can track a maneuvering AIM-120 going at 800km/h heated only by friction, it will certainly not have any issues tracking a super hot flare (or flares) that is slowly falling through the sky.

Not necessarily. It depends on the emission spectrum of the flare compared to the absorption spectrum of the sensor in the missile seeker head. Also depends on whether the missile seeker head has imaging capabilities or not (IIRC the base model R-73 does not) or whether it's simply a point source seeker. Also depends on whether or not the missile seeker head is programmed to reject targets that bloom instantly, like a flair might, or to reject targets that heat & cool quickly, again like a flare might.

Also depends on whether the flare in question is long or short duration, multi or narrow spectrum emission, low or high drag etc.

Lots and lots of factors to take in to account.

Not necessarily. It depends on the emission spectrum of the flare compared to the absorption spectrum of the sensor in the missile seeker head. Also depends on whether the missile seeker head has imaging capabilities or not (IIRC the base model R-73 does not) or whether it's simply a point source seeker. Also depends on whether or not the missile seeker head is programmed to reject targets that bloom instantly, like a flair might, or to reject targets that heat & cool quickly, again like a flare might.

 

Also depends on whether the flare in question is long or short duration, multi or narrow spectrum emission, low or high drag etc.

 

Lots and lots of factors to take in to account.

Didn't the US find when they got hold of some Russian kit after the wall came down that US IR seekers were quite good at rejecting US flare, but not Russian flares, and that Russian seekers were quite good at rejecting Russian flares, but not US flares....

No, they didn't. That's a famous story but it's not quite correct.