Ракеты в DCS

Is this the expected behaviour?

Does the R-27ER not have a notch filter to filter out the chaffs when engaging hot or cold targes?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=254501

а можно ли об этом где-то прочесть кроме как на этом форуме?

How can it create a screen when it is not a solid object?

The particles will spread out in the air and leave plenty of room for radiation to pass through to the target and back.

The reflected radiation from the chaff will be filtered out by the notch filter, and radiation that passes through will be used for guiding. The R-27ER will easily track the target thanks to its doppler return that differs alot from the chaff that has the same speed as the ground.

If it is really that 100% solid screen, then why does the AIM-120 need SIGNIFICANTLY more chaff to be defeated in this situation? A newer seeker makes no difference when the target is invisible behind a solid wall. Plus the Flankers stronger radar should give the R-27ER a big advantage, as the reflected radiation from the target that passes through the chaff will be much stronger than the return of the small AIM-120 radar.

They will reflect a lot of energy. Even though a bunch of it will make it through and reflect from the aircraft, it will be small reflection compared to the chaff, and if the two are lined up then the smaller reflection can be screened out.

This is a hard question because this sort of screening is less easy to understand (requires knowledge of what actually happens); I think the entire countermeasure rejection system should slowly start moving away from a simple statistical model ... it's not enough to differentiate weapons or the differentiation is too simplistic.

It's a sort of system that maybe worked ok in LOMAC or in games like 'Command', but I think in DCS countermeasures (RF and visual/IR) deserve a somewhat deeper treatment.

The main problem is that the knowledge necessary to understand how to model these is not easy to get for all cases.

The tail-chase scenario demonstrates both problems; there's little data to explain/show how a seeker tries to ignore countermeasures and there's little data regarding actual evasion tactics, even in general.

So, while I'd love a more in depth RF/IR/Visual simulation, I'm not sure what to suggest beyond some simple things like - make shkval/maverick etc susceptible to IR or other visual countermeasures etc.

BTW, regarding your comment about AIM-120 seeker reflected power vs Su-27 reflected radar power ... the chaff will reflect proportionally more of the Su-27's radar energy also. There's no advantage, and you can use your own logic in this, and stick to the topic without making things up that are obviously wrong.

There are no advantages for SARH. You know that, we don't need to argue about it.

In this case it is about having a strong signal to make up for the loss due to the chaffs. The signal level needs to be high enough so that is above the minimum sensitivity of the seeker.

The return of the chaff should be filtered by the notch filter. Why does the notch filter work when the target is notching and the missile is going for the chaff, but not when the target has a big doppler difference towards the ground + slow/stationary chaff?

The usable signal/bad signal ratio does not change of course, but the power of the reflected signal from the target is higher with SARH vs ARH in this case.

По поводу СПБЭ-Д, вы думаете она погоду сделает ? Это лучше обычных РБК только для заранее разведанных целей без ветра. Помню бросал CBU-97 по движущейся колонне с ветром, эффективность невысокая. Пока это медленно спускается колонна уезжает и ветер уносит сильно дальше в бок. Если б ЕД сразу ПБК-500У СПБЭ-К "Дрель" делали, но бросать это нам несчего.

In this case it is about having a strong signal to make up for the loss due to the chaffs. The signal level needs to be high enough so that is above the minimum sensitivity of the seeker.

No, it needs to be above the noise. A strong return from chaff can cause the AGC to tone down its sensitivity. Point is, we don't really know how all this works - we can imagine, we can speculate, but we don't get to observe what the real thing does.

The return of the chaff should be filtered by the notch filter. Why does the notch filter work when the target is notching and the missile is going for the chaff, but not when the target has a big doppler difference towards the ground + slow/stationary chaff?

There is a bunch of reference regarding target returns overcoming the notch - but I don't know how this works exactly. One reference is in the F-16 radar manual (the real one).

The usable signal/bad signal ratio does not change of course, but the power of the reflected signal from the target is higher with SARH vs ARH in this case.

Yep, but here the AGC might fail you and this is a classic ECM technique as well.

In any case, as I mentioned in my mini-diatribe, there's not enough complexity/reality in the signal simulation to make things more varied, and, as you see, somewhere it fails on the realism test as well.

However, do NOT make up things we don't know the answers to. Given the amount of data you have to back up what you're saying, Chizh's conclusion is equally valid.

Why does AMRAAM then not care about the chaff that's screening the fighter? Who knows, maybe its processor has enough power to figure out that its target just cut the TTG by half so it'll ignore it. I mean, we can speculate all day :)

(Of course, even if that was the case, at least it would go into search mode again until the target is once more obtainable)

Anyway ... this is a very long subject and the corrections are not simple, is all I'm saying. Chizh is looking into R_27 chaff behavior thanks to you, and also in the AIM-7 chaff behavior.

Also, I would suggest that the behavior we're talking about right now (Chaff screening) is what you have those T/ETs for.

По поводу СПБЭ-Д, вы думаете она погоду сделает ? Это лучше обычных РБК только для заранее разведанных целей без ветра. Помню бросал CBU-97 по движущейся колонне с ветром, эффективность невысокая. Пока это медленно спускается колонна уезжает и ветер уносит сильно дальше в бок. Если б ЕД сразу ПБК-500У СПБЭ-К "Дрель" делали, но бросать это нам несчего.

мультиплееру движущиеся юниты противопоказаны, поэтому всё достаточно статично

вот сейчас все молятся на CBU-97 на вайпере - очень эффективное оружие, даже с ветром

было бы такое у красных - было бы здорово

мультиплееру движущиеся юниты противопоказаны, поэтому всё достаточно статично

вот сейчас все молятся на CBU-97 на вайпере - очень эффективное оружие, даже с ветром

было бы такое у красных - было бы здорово

Может все же на CBU-105 c ИНС ?

This should be similar for older AIM-7, with more modern fuzes including Vc (closure) knowledge from the seeker to filter out chaff.

Older AIM-7 got around this by turning the fuze on when within 1nm of the target, and AIM-7F still does this.

Some missiles use laser fuze to avoid being triggered by chaff - does R-73 use a radio fuze?

We also know another one "wall of chaff" factor. The proximity fuzes of R-27 and R-73 are not have enough guarded capabilities of chaff rejecting and can cause burst of warhead flying near of chaff cloud.

Тема о ракетах,но...

Тема о ракетах,но...

 

 

На DDCS Куча наземки,её строят,ей управляют + конвои...дело в железе сервера и скриптах.

Лагает, но не часто. И в основном по вине горе командиров с маршрутами по 100500 километров.

 

 

 

CBU 97

Раскрытие меняем на меньшее значение.

Кидаем перед колонной. Остальное от опыта зависит.

Как вариант остановить колонну мавериком,который швыряешь заранее и на проходе кидать бомбу....вообще не вижу проблемы.

 

 

 

Ну да бомба с авто наведением и поражением техники с гарантией отличная от 0 у других рбк совсем ничего не даст :lol:

 

Покидайте mk20\cbu 87 и РБК , а потом молитесь что-бы случайно 97\105 не порезали ещё сильнее или на серверах ради баланса не убирали.:music_whistling:

Бросал, много причём. Только что в игре проверил, если ветер более трех м/с то самонаводящиеся рвутся рядом и это без учёта движения колонны. А безпарашютные как раз можно на глазок удачно кидать и при ветре потому что они падают быстрее у них тех проблем нет. Даже меткие боты особого урона не нанесли при ветре ни 97 ми ни 105 ми.

Может все же на CBU-105 c ИНС ?

вайперам их не завезли

вайперам их не завезли

В игре вообще самым продвинутым в этом плане почему то является А-10С. По идее эту самую коррекцию ветра соорудили для сброса с больших высот что скорее присуще истребомберам.

One of Russian chaff PPR-50 from Su-27 can create an solid cloud about 100 square meters of radar cross section.

 

 

No. The chaff cloud is not transparent for radar radiation many seconds.

 

 

Of course the chaff clouds can be quickly rejected by missile seeler by doppler. But those chaff clouds can completely screen the target.

 

 

Su-27 and MiG-29 have a relatively weak radars with very limited digital analisis capabilities.

APG-63 and newer western radars leave them far behind.

Would AIM-120B/C radar not have same problem with chaff from 10km? Dose AIM-120B/C radar have better chaff rejection then Su-27 radar?

Chiz, how is it going with this conformation?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3887106&postcount=263

Может на нашем сайте мы будем по РУССКИ писать ? мы же не пишем на их сайте по Русски !

New aerodynamics of R-27 family placed in the plan for development.

Шел конец 2019 года

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3614242&postcount=6201

Будет в ближайший месяц.