AIM-120 and R-27 homing

I'm sure you know this but the EOS system is always operating as the slave/backup system when radar is selected as the primary. So when the radar loses its lock, the backup IR system maintains the contact if it can...which is what you're seeing. Yes, your radar missile is trashed but not by the system. It was already trashed, when EOS took over as primary. You should have seen the solid radar launch cue start flashing just before the changeover. That's the indication that its no longer maintaining lock.

True. It goes to memory track (flashing cue) and then tells me where to go! :)

It seems like it's easier to make the Flanker drop STT than the Eagle, which I suppose is quite realistic. I probably could've worded that better, too; didn't mean to imply the system is screwing me over...its really the bandits maneuvering! Wanted to point it out, though, since they were talking CMs and defeated missiles.

An interesting thought is if the FCR should be able to guide the missile via M-link while tracking the target via EOS.

That's an operational detail we don't know, and it could very easily go either way, but I think it leans to 'no' because:

1) The lock is dropped for the radar, which is what's generating the M-Link

2) There's no guarantee that the radar is able to measure anything in a useful manner

3) There's no evidence that range measurements are being passed to the radar from the EOS

4) M-Link isn't a reliable way to hit your target. Otherwise, you wouldn't need a homing seeker.

I think it doubtful that it could guide all the way to a hit but it could keep the missile heading in the general 'ballpark' of the target till such a time that radar lock is re-established. From a design point of view this would be tactically sound since as you are continously closing in on this notching target staying in the notch becomes more difficult or its likely the target will drop oput of the notch and run/re-engage.

I think it doubtful that it could guide all the way to a hit but it could keep the missile heading in the general 'ballpark' of the target till such a time that radar lock is re-established. From a design point of view this would be tactically sound since as you are continously closing in on this notching target staying in the notch becomes more difficult or its likely the target will drop oput of the notch and run/re-engage.

That, the m-link is unlikely to provide accurate enough angle tracks to generate a sufficient miss-distance. The AIM-120, I understand, "ignores" the m-link after the seeker has taken over, question is whether it would switch back to it after loosing track.

I think it doubtful that it could guide all the way to a hit but it could keep the missile heading in the general 'ballpark' of the target till such a time that radar lock is re-established. From a design point of view this would be tactically sound since as you are continously closing in on this notching target staying in the notch becomes more difficult or its likely the target will drop oput of the notch and run/re-engage.

My thought exactly!

What is the range of the EOS laser in RL? 8-10km if that?

What is the range of the EOS laser in RL? 8-10km if that?

The OLS-27 laser range against airborne targets is referenced as 4 km (or 7, I can't recall).

This is what radar memory is for. We don't know the mechanization of this on the Su-27 in conjunction with the EOS; I just know what's described in the -34 for the F-15C. After the radar memory runs out, the system gives up. The amount of time that MEM mode is on for has a maximum and minimum, and the inbetween depends on distance. The closer you are, the shorter it is.

By all accounts, the EOS can only slave the radar antenna, waiting for re-acquisition. That's not an issue because the missile itself should already sort of be 'on course' and might be able to re-acquire. Or it might just eat chaff when the proper evasion is performed (it probably should) - certainly won't look fun for the guy under attack though.

Also, IIRC Chizh mentioned that the missile itself will give up after a couple of seconds without a target. That still leaves questions though.

I think it doubtful that it could guide all the way to a hit but it could keep the missile heading in the general 'ballpark' of the target till such a time that radar lock is re-established. From a design point of view this would be tactically sound since as you are continously closing in on this notching target staying in the notch becomes more difficult or its likely the target will drop oput of the notch and run/re-engage.

I believe M-link could be used to guide ET-27 in opponents face.

Jokes a side, It is great with all the info and technicality's but the bottom line is that missile guiding is not as well modeled as it was before. Modern Heaters can be spoofed with full afterburner where you dont need to go idle, MP community who fly online and events dont respect a heater lunch or SARH lunch.

I dont agree that AIM-120B/C would have better tracking from 8km then ER-27, neither would it be better in rejecting countermeasures from that range, that is my opinion based on logic.

So the underlying problem is not that we dont have all systems in a missile modeled, rather then that SARH and Modern HEATERS eat countermeasures to easy compare to ACTIVE missiles.

I was under the impression that the EOS / laser rangefinder has (in reality) the capability of directing the radar in missile guidance mode at a target if the radar itself can't achieve a lock. I guess the effectiveness of this would be entirely dependant on how accurately the radar beam could be maintained on the target. Good enough for a proximity fuse activation?

I was under the impression that the EOS / laser rangefinder has (in reality) the capability of directing the radar in missile guidance mode at a target if the radar itself can't achieve a lock. I guess the effectiveness of this would be entirely dependant on how accurately the radar beam could be maintained on the target. Good enough for a proximity fuse activation?

My impression is that these systems, radar/eos, are not fully integrated. Surely this eos is limited and just slaves the ET seeker to the heat source rather than guiding missiles to a heat source. Or am I misunderstanding you?

You can slave the missile seeker to the sensor LOS, and then launch it. That's the extent of its function for employing weapons.

The question rests with what goes on when the radar is slaved to the EOS LOS with a missile in flight. We don't know, it isn't described in any manuals that I've seen, one way or the other. And no, not good enough for a prox fuze. Which is exactly why missiles have homing seekers. This is no different than using FLOOD with the F-15 (at close enough ranges). If you defeat the missile seeker, it's still defeated.

EOS maintaining the beam on target is probably a reasonable countermeasure to a track-breaking jammer ... it might well cause a track-break against your missile, but at least it isn't completely defeating your entire system.

I was under the impression that the EOS / laser rangefinder has (in reality) the capability of directing the radar in missile guidance mode at a target if the radar itself can't achieve a lock. I guess the effectiveness of this would be entirely dependant on how accurately the radar beam could be maintained on the target. Good enough for a proximity fuse activation?

Jokes a side, It is great with all the info and technicality's but the bottom line is that missile guiding is not as well modeled as it was before. Modern Heaters can be spoofed with full afterburner where you dont need to go idle, MP community who fly online and events dont respect a heater lunch or SARH lunch.

Heaters can be spoofed just like that, and there are RL examples of this.

I dont agree that AIM-120B/C would have better tracking from 8km then ER-27, neither would it be better in rejecting countermeasures from that range, that is my opinion based on logic.

AIM-120B/C have advantages in processing power, the very antenna itself, the type of PRF used and re-programmability, as well as many extra years of technological know-how going into them. You can't say you used logic ignoring all that.

So the underlying problem is not that we dont have all systems in a missile modeled, rather then that SARH and Modern HEATERS eat countermeasures to easy compare to ACTIVE missiles.

The underlying problem is that the systems in the missile are not modeled. If you want to get away from 'just rolling the dice', you need to model systems.

If you drop chaff head-on and do a little roll or snake, would it matter that what's attacking you is an R-27 or AIM-120anyversion?

No, it probably shouldn't. So what happens in the regimes where it should matter? What are those regimes?

To represent these things better, you need to change modeling/model more stuff etc.

Heaters can be spoofed just like that, and there are RL examples of this.

Yes they can... but not 100% of the time like modeled in DCS, hell at least a 50/50 chance would make people react to a heater launch, not just fly straight and depend on purely releasing flares.

The underlying problem is that the systems in the missile are not modeled. If you want to get away from 'just rolling the dice', you need to model systems.

 

If you drop chaff head-on and do a little roll or snake, would it matter that what's attacking you is an R-27 or AIM-120anyversion?

No, it probably shouldn't. So what happens in the regimes where it should matter? What are those regimes?

To represent these things better, you need to change modeling/model more stuff etc.

Exactly what I'm trying to say in my earlier post. But at least in the meantime, the "dice" values can be tweaked to better represent tracking. What we have now is Death Ray on one end of the coin, and a complete Dud on the other...

Yes they can... but not 100% of the time like modeled in DCS, hell at least a 50/50 chance would make people react to a heater launch, not just fly straight and depend on purely releasing flares.

All examples (that are known to us) of pre-emptive flares show spoof. There are studies that show circumstances where flares are 100% and 0% effective - they're for old missiles and a single flare only, both pre-emptive and post-launch. The target is not maneuvering.

Even if the probability was turned down a bit, it wouldn't/shouldn't be anywhere near 50/50 - again, the training for fighting a target that's using pre-emptive flares is flat-out don't launch. And we know from RL that flares can be very effective post-launch also - there is at least one combat example of this, and the evidence also comes in the form of MWS with automatic flare dispensing.

Exactly what I'm trying to say in my earlier post. But at least in the meantime, the "dice" values can be tweaked to better represent tracking. What we have now is Death Ray on one end of the coin, and a complete Dud on the other...

 

Even tweaking the values up won't help - you'll want it upped until it's like the 120 because otherwise enough chaff = decoy. And then there'll be no differentiation. The CM code needs to change, tweaking the values isn't even a good stop-gap IMHO. Of course, nothing's stopping people from tweaking the value and testing it until they believe they're satisfied, and then presenting that.

But if you are in the notch, should releasing more chaff make it more likely to decoy an older missile IRL?

If you are talking about releasing chaff in a position where you have done nothing but crank I can see chaff shouldn't do anything instead of just requiring a lot more chaff to decoy the missle.

But couldn't things like that be fixed by turning down (to practically nothing) how likely chaff would decoy in that aspect?

Really like these discussions btw.

But if you are in the notch, should releasing more chaff make it more likely to decoy an older missile IRL?

Both in-game and IRL it is difficult to stay in the notch. The proper maneuver is to see-saw around the notch and dump chaff. This presents different closures and targets for the radar's tracking gate/memory to deal with.

If you are talking about releasing chaff in a position where you have done nothing but crank I can see chaff shouldn't do anything instead of just requiring a lot more chaff to decoy the missle.

But couldn't things like that be fixed by turning down (to practically nothing) how likely chaff would decoy in that aspect?

 

Really like these discussions btw.

Right, if the algorithm actually worked that way. I don't believe it does - it tries, but it's not quite there. And that's why I'm saying that a code change is the better way of dealing with this. Huge bonus points if:

* Requires CM + maneuver in most cases

* Can handle seeker fighting to acquire/keep target in the above situation with success depending on platform performance

* Filters based on closure (for RF at least), centroiding algos etc.

* Affects carrier radar

Also please keep in mind that the Rmax defined for R-27's is at 0.7k vs a non-evading, non-decoying target.

Why should chaff do nothing in a crank, though?

I think what GG is trying to say is that no matter what value other that '0' you set, you will see a missile go for chaff it you dump enough of them, regardles of maneuvers, aspect or what have we.

What you need is for the radar to bait the chaff and that way trash the missile instead of what we have now where you can have a steady lock on a target but a missile that for no apparent reason (dice roll) decides to go for chaff even tough they should not even be illuminated by enough radar energy to cause any problems.

EDIT: was meant as an answer to #67

It's based on the amont of doppler shift, crank or no crank don't matter.

Edit: What SD said.

Why should chaff do nothing in a crank, though?

I see... missiles in game do take a LOT more chaff in a head on situation though.

Whatever modifier does this I would think you could just adjust it until no amount of chaff would help. Or at the very least the amount of chaff it would take to get a chance of a trashed missile would be so insanely high that it would never be worth it.

It's based on the amont of doppler shift, crank or no crank don't matter.

 

Edit: What SD said.

Also leading edge tracking pretty much nullifies chaffs head on.

in mig29 manual it says that chaff can drop lock in look down from rear hemisphere... rest should not be a problem. And the R27R1 only needs to have proximity fuze settings on medium size target, to lessen chance of fuzing on chaff cloud. So if you have lock, there is no way R27 should go for anything else but locked target.

It is perfectly vulnerable to chaff in a fairly large number of circumstances including the obvious one - on the beam or near it, like most PD radars. This applies to the seeker itself as well.

Fuze target size settings set sensitivity. You know the size, you set the signal strength that will trigger the fuze. So, sensitivity is:

Small - HIGHEST

Medium - MEDIUM

Large - LOWEST

So actually setting your fuze to medium makes it easier to detonate on chaff than setting it to large. On the other hand, what concerns you is correct detonation against your fighter-size target, so you ignore what chaff does to your fuze and set it to what's needed to effective fuzing against your target.

@Black Swan: It won't work like you want it to work, unless you want it to work like a 120C, which is 'just no' :) Like I said, nothing's stopping the community from tweaking the value and testing, and presenting something but that's work that may or may not be rewarded with action. The proper solution is not tweaking of these values.

in mig29 manual it says that chaff can drop lock in look down from rear hemisphere... rest should not be a problem. And the R27R1 only needs to have proximity fuze settings on medium size target, to lessen chance of fuzing on chaff cloud. So if you have lock, there is no way R27 should go for anything else but locked target.