Radar guided missiles ALWAYS know where the target is during INS stage

In the attached tackview and trackfile you see:

-me flying with an AI wingman trailing me with a distance of 800m with the same speed, altitude and heading

-an F-15 that fires an Aim-120C at me and then gets deleted when the missile is 65 km from me

-I will maneuver after the F-15 has been deleted to be below and behind my wingman

-the AI will not change its initial course

What is the expected behaviour of the missile in this case?

-as the F-15 is deleted, the missile is no longer receiving updates via datalink

-the missile should predict the target movement based on the known data and fly to the last known intercept point

-this last known intercept point would be the point if I flew straight ahead without changing my speed, altitude and heading, because I flew straight when the missile was still supported by the F-15

-the missile would go active 15km from the last known intercept point and try to find me

But I am maneuvering away from my initial course. What should the missile continue to do?

-the wingman did not change its course, so it flies exactly where I would have flown if I did not change my course

-the missile would not find me, but it would find my wingman at the expected interception point

-as the wingman has exactly the same parameters that I would have had if I did not maneuver, the missile would not have been able to tell the difference and should happily detect and track my wingman

What is happening in DCS when the datalink support is dropped?

-the missile completely ignores my wingman, even though it flies almost straight towards him

-the missile "goes active" exactly 15km from my location and instantly finds me, even though I am far away from the expected point of intercept

-the missile is tracking me now

Conclusion:

In DCS the missiles always know where the target is even when radar support is dropped. They will track the target movements very slightly due to this bug: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258817.

As soon as their distance to the assigned target is less than 15km (and the target is inside the seekers large FOV), they go active and instantly track the target.

No matter how much the target maneuvered away from the last known intercept point.

No matter if there is another target that is much closer to the last known intercept point.

Another important aspect that is completely ignored due to this bug:

The radar gimbal speed of the missile seeker is not affecting the missile.

Right now the seeker points directly to the target once it goes active due to the missile knowing exactly where the target is.

But when the target is not exactly on the expected intercept point, then the seeker should have to start searching. Like a radar on a fighter it would do a scan pattern. For example close to the expected intercept point first and then wider and wider. As the angular speed of the seeker and radar processing power are limited, the missile needs needs more time to find the target the more angular separation it has to the expected point of intercept. And even more, there could even be the ability of the target to not be acquired by the seeker at all even when it is within the seekers FOV when it maneuvers in such a way that it is never hit by the actual radar beam.

While SARH missiles in DCS propably have the same issue, they do not benefit from this issue due to another bug (will it ever get fixed?):

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=253434

They will always go for the chaff at the movement the lock has been lost, and then they are trashed forever.

Tacview-20200125-121128-DCS-radarMissile.zip.zip

radarGuidedMissileBug.trk

good find

Sadly, the "combat" part of Digital COMBAT Simulator was always the weakest part. ED seems to put very low priority on developing actual combat simulation as opposed to avionics and procedure simulation.

As it is now, air to air engagements are very "low fidelity" and unrealistic. We can only hope they find interest in developing this part further, right now it has some laughable oversimplifications.

Just one question, do all fox3s exhibit the same behavior?

Yeah, the missile guidance logic has always been pretty flawed. Another example are missiles that are tracking through mountains, because they just know where the target is.

It's great that you now went ahead to get this written down and provided some evidence. Maybe that changes something! :thumbup:

Also this:

Conclusion:

In DCS the missiles always know where the target is even when radar support is dropped.

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

Almost seems like they guide like SARH, without a launch warning and without the need for a radar lock, until they get close, then the enemy gets an active missile warning. Although will see if they ever fix it it' been years and years and years that they've behaved like this. Probably an artifact from the LOMAC days.

Thats lame

I really hope that you will have enough power and will to continue fight for better DCS. Also i hope that ED understand you and will react with some fixes ASAP. @BlackPixxel

Good luck!

Its always been like this. You should see what you can do with the aim 54. Dcs is far from perfect, a lot of it is illusion and simplification. Things like the chaff model the ecm model the radar model can be poked at.people are upset when they see these things for the first time, but the more you deep dive the more you find its just a simulation.

FC3 (Flankers and MiGs) airplanes are just targets for "Full Fidelity" toys. That's the concept of this "sim".

Missiles? Every time when we start discussion about missiles, Russian for example - they said no info. But where they find info about AMRAAM's? Who care, let's make it so deadly because a must be. People leave server and their missile still chasing us and on other side if we launch ER bank/roll is not allowed or radar is OFF. Apple can't kill Robin Hood (ok, can but sometimes for fun...), only conlusion. ;)

FC3 (Flankers and MiGs) airplanes are just targets for "Full Fidelity" toys. That's the concept of this "sim".

 

Missiles? Every time when we start discussion about missiles, Russian for example - they said no info. But where they find info about AMRAAM's? Who care, let's make it so deadly because a must be. People leave server and their missile still chasing us and on other side if we launch ER bank/roll is not allowed or radar is OFF. Apple can't kill Robin Hood (ok, can but sometimes for fun...), only conlusion. ;)

CFD is a powerful tool:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnCsA6-d5ZzV1uL7UeaNgyg_E66vGt6A/view?usp=sharing

CFD is a powerful tool:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnCsA6-d5ZzV1uL7UeaNgyg_E66vGt6A/view?usp=sharing

CFD cannot explain why Fox 1 go for a chaff when the lock is lost for a splitsecond or the radar switches OFF for a moment

CFD cannot explain why Fox 3 will always find their initial target when they are 15km from it even without any support.

CFD cannot explain how smart or dumb a missile seeker is.

CFD cannot explain why the radar of the DCS Flanker/Fulcrum shuts off when flying inverted at lower altitudes.

Missile kinematics are the least problem, and they are propably not what Falcon wrote about.

Plus a R-27ER/ET with the correct kinematic peformance would be a very nasty surprise for any AIM-120C carrier.

I think Chizh says that this is going to be addressed but it's a really silly bug that's been present for far too long. It's kind of unfair for Fox 1 carriers.

CFD cannot explain why Fox 1 go for a chaff when the lock is lost for a splitsecond or the radar switches OFF for a moment

Imo, its because chaff acts like flares in game not like chaff. Probs a leftover from LOMAC if not the Flanker 2.0 days.

CFD cannot explain why the radar of the DCS Flanker/Fulcrum shuts off when flying inverted at lower altitudes.

- This is accurate behavior for the slotback radars. Their cones can't rotate fully due to the design of the radar cone. And as far as i'm aware this blinds the radar largely due to sidelobe radiation, i'll need to read up on it again to be sure.

Missile kinematics are the least problem, and they are propably not what Falcon wrote about.

Plus a R-27ER/ET with the correct kinematic performance would be a very nasty surprise for any AIM-120C carrier.

Ehh from my own CFD the performance gain for the ER/ET (R/T are quite bad) isn't as much as I think you think it is. Besides the ER will always be fundamentally limited by the fact its a SARH missile compared to the amraam.

Black pixel you don’t remember you’re inverted radar thread? I know the F-15 manual isn’t good enough for you, but it probably came from somewhere credible

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245181

CFD is a powerful tool:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnCsA6-d5ZzV1uL7UeaNgyg_E66vGt6A/view?usp=sharing

Ooof... from DCS missile mod to DCS "improvements". :pilotfly:

- This is accurate behavior for the slotback radars. Their cones can't rotate fully due to the design of the radar cone. And as far as i'm aware this blinds the radar largely due to sidelobe radiation, i'll need to read up on it again to be sure.

The radar does not need to be aligned with the horizon on roll to track a target. In all the modes except for the BVR mode the radar is locked on roll, so there it is never aligned as soon as you roll slightly.

And the F-15C manual clearly says that the sidelobe issue is only for cold bandits. When the targets is hot the compensation antenna can be wherever it wants, because the frequency range of the targets return will always be out of the frequency range of the ground return in this case.

In BVR the R27ER should hit the target before the AMRAAM it fired even goes actve.

But we are drifting away from the topic a little..

What we require is that every missile seeker gets modeled. The radiation strengths, energy reflected by the aircraft attitude, speed and size (RCS) and then get the missile have the seeker FOV, search pattern and logic to select the target. As missiles do not go to first found target or even strongest echo, automatically.

And neither does missiles datalink update target position continually, but periodically or even just once or twice.

This would mostly effect active seekers and TWS launched missiles that gets much lower pK against maneuvering target, while STT would be most accurate.

It would as well make active missiles worse when they have multiple targets in area they are searching for target and they would be more easily notched at the range when they go active.

Currently missiles small radar is more powerful and capable to find an target than a far larger and far more powerful radar in the fighter aircraft itself.

We as well require a chaff to be simulated, create instantly quick cover, that scatters larger and more effective at the time, that stays up for hours even depending weather. And will affect all radars in that area, blocking the visibility to opposite side of it and later causing severe interference to detect anything.

Chaff release would be seriously negative action to do for own troops as for enemy, and shouldn't be used unless really required.

Sure yes it can track upside down, but it does become a problem when it’s compensation horn filter doesn’t rotate with the gimbal and upon reaching the gimbal roll limit can’t rotate more to block the ground returns.

Hopefully new missile API fixes all these guidance woes

Sure yes it can track upside down, but it does become a problem when it’s guard horn filter doesn’t rotate with it and it can’t block the ground returns

Against a incoming target the frequencies of the ground return are in a different spectrum than the frequencies of the targets return.

When the incoming target is already locked there is no way that it will get lost in the increased ground clutter when going inverted, because the radar filters out all frequencies that are not within the frequency range of the current target.

Tell that to Tikhomirov/NIIP:) There’s a reason you’re look down range isn’t as good as look up

Tell that to Tikhomirov/NIIP:) There’s a reason you’re look down range isn’t as good as look up

The look down range is of course less, and that is the case in DCS even for FC3 radars.

But the look down range becomes zero as soon as you are inverted.

Because the gimbal only rolls 120 degrees and the compensation horn filter is fixed. Think of it like sunglasses where the top is made darker then the bottom so it shades the sun. Wear the glasses upside down and you can’t see the ground very well. If it was a bug it would probably happen at any altitude but what we are talking about out only happens at less then 1500m AGL, just as if ground clutter has something to do with it:)

Let's go back to the correct threat for this radar behaviour

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245181&page=5

The seekers on said missiles are monopulse seekers and not the Cassegrain antenna on the slotback radar so they don't have this limitation. Also from my understanding the sidelobe radiation that blinds the antenna at extreme angles does so by increasing the base noise level to a point it can't see anything because the horn that blocks this radiation isn't on the antenna gimbals.

Good find. Missile guidance definitely needs a big overhaul. Both from a detection/datalink standpoint and from a missile guidance profile (not drag curve) standpoint. Some missiles don't lead their targets and some aircraft provide wrong ASE circle cues.

And as another poster said, chaff needs to seriously change as well. Indeed, they just act like flares for radar guided missiles. They should stay up for far longer and potentially mess with radar systems and radar scopes on aircraft as well. It makes no sense, for a missile equipped with datalink, to go for chaff, if the supporting fighter is happily tracking the correct target, for example.