Вопросы к разработчикам

[Chizh]

Бонусная система работает не для всех модулей и не на всех этапах жизни продукта.

8 часов назад, FoxAlfa сказал:

So what is information on air-to-air missiles interceptions, is it 'as intended' or still 'work in progress'? 

We plan to reduce the hit probability so that it is about 0.3

[FRus]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Бонусная система работает не для всех модулей и не на всех этапах жизни продукта.

Не понятно шас я вижу что при покупке ми 24 начисляется а у меня нет я как бы обойдусь но все же

Edited June 1, 2021 by FRus

[Gierasimov]

9 hours ago, FRus said:

Has the bonus system been removed? I bought a Mi-24, but   they didn't give me Miles ))

 

[Silver_Dragon]

есть ли планы добавить морскую зенитную артиллерию к Второй мировой войне и современные корабли с двойными средними и большими пушками (57, 76, 100, 127, 130, 152 мм) по сравнению с самолетами и ракетами с взрывателями VT?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-purpose_gun

 

есть ли планы добавить на корабли ECM / ECCM (AN/SLQ-32) / буксируемые ложные цели (AN / SLQ-49) и автономную систему противодействия помехам и запуску ложных целей (Mark 36 SRBOC / Nulka) для завершения модуля Super Carrier?

Edited June 1, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Chizh]

1 час назад, Silver_Dragon сказал:

есть ли планы добавить морскую зенитную артиллерию к Второй мировой войне и современные корабли с двойными средними и большими пушками (57, 76, 100, 127, 130, 152 мм) по сравнению с самолетами и ракетами с взрывателями VT?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-purpose_gun

Мы делаем на кораблях все артиллерийские системы что есть.

Естественно на кораблях WWII работать будут все артиллерийские установки.

 

1 час назад, Silver_Dragon сказал:

 

есть ли планы добавить на корабли ECM / ECCM (AN/SLQ-32) / буксируемые ложные цели (AN / SLQ-49) и автономную систему противодействия помехам и запуску ложных целей (Mark 36 SRBOC / Nulka) для завершения модуля Super Carrier?

Пока нет, поскольку тема противодействия очень сложная и закрытая. У нас не хватает информации и специалистов способных это реализовать.

[FoxAlfa]

7 hours ago, Chizh said:

The bonus system does not work for all modules and not at all stages of the product's life.

We plan to reduce the hit probability so that it is about 0.3

Just an idea, could you have the hit probability be closing speed dependent? Like at 3-4 mach closing speed seams highly unlikely (due to many factors, filtering, fusing, speed of explosion expanding etc) but at lower speeds like 1-1.5 mach one can see it being doable 

 

Just to give context at mach 4, or 1372 m / s, just a delay of 0.1 sec or 0.01 sec atributed to fuse delay (mid body), igniter lighting, explosion happening and pellets traveling those few meters would mean a difference of 137, 2 meter or 13.7 meters respectively 
 

Edited June 1, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[Harlikwin]

On 5/30/2021 at 5:18 AM, Chizh said:

I see here that the missile interceptor launch range was about 10 nm. Nothing unusual.

 

No offense, but can you show us  in ED parlance a "track-file" i.e. a real world example of someone shooting down an incoming AAMRAM or other AAM using a mech scanned early 2000's era radar?

Edited June 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Chizh]

43 минуты назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

No offense, but can you show us  in ED parlance a "track-file" i.e. a real world example of someone shooting down an incoming AAMRAM or other AAM using a mech scanned early 2000's era radar?

 

From Su-27 combat manual at 20th century

 

Цитата

2.5.5. Firing countereffort against medium-range guided missiles

 

Medium-range guided AA missiles in their reflective surfaces (RCS) correspond to cruise missiles. Their radar antennas, directed in the process of homing towards the target, increase the RCS for oncoming radiation. This feature should be used in group air battles with a head on and intersecting courses.

 

The technique of shooting down enemy guided missiles is as follows.

A pair in battle formation, an open front, is brought into combat with enemy aircraft, as a rule, on a head on position. By the decision of the leader, one of the pilots searches for the target, the second in the automatic lock-on mode controls the most dangerous sector of the airspace in relation to the enemy's missile attack. When a guided missile appears in the searching area of the radar screen, it will be lock first of all as the most dangerous target, since the approach velocity of the missile with plane is in the range of 2000-3000 km/h.

 

The automatic lock-on of a guided missile, as shown by the experience of practical firing, occurs at a range of 15-30 km, when the missile is in the DLZ, which ensures the launch of the R-27ER missile from a range of 12-20 km.

 

The task of the defending crew is to press the combat button in time. It is advisable with this to additionally perform for maneuverable counteraction (f-pole, snake, etc.).

 

[Chizh]

1 час назад, FoxAlfa сказал:

Just an idea, could you have the hit probability be closing speed dependent? Like at 3-4 mach closing speed seams highly unlikely (due to many factors, filtering, fusing, speed of explosion expanding etc) but at lower speeds like 1-1.5 mach one can see it being doable 

 

Just to give context at mach 4, or 1372 m / s, just a delay of 0.1 sec or 0.01 sec atributed to fuse delay (mid body), igniter lighting, explosion happening and pellets traveling those few meters would mean a difference of 137, 2 meter or 13.7 meters respectively 
 

 

Yes, we are already thinking about it. Unfortunately, the DCS explosion damage distribution system does not depend on the closing speed, which needs to be done in the future. At high closing speed, damaging a target with a conventional warhead becomes problematic.

[Harlikwin]

30 minutes ago, Chizh said:

From Su-27 combat manual at 20th century

 

 

 

Ok, fair enough I assume this if for a N001 or something? I'm just having some trouble with actually intercepting and hitting the missile. As you likely know its not a particularly easy problem with fuzing and so forth. Also, I'm a bit surprised by how big the RCS of a modern A/A missile is in this case, yes I get that the missile antenna pointing at a target has a decent return/reflection. Are there actual examples of this being tested? Or in actual combat? I'm just having a bit of skepticism the effectiveness on airborne "iron dome". 

 

Also you are using data from a Russian radar manual to model the APG-73? I guess the other question is what other radars will have this functionality? RP-23? RP-21? APG68?

Edited June 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GGTharos]

The requirements for Iron Dome are completely different - the projectiles it is intercepting must be deflected by a large amount or obliterated because they are on a simple ballistic path to their target.   By comparison, just about any damage at all caused to an AAM will cause it to miss.

[Harlikwin]

11 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The requirements for Iron Dome are completely different - the projectiles it is intercepting must be deflected by a large amount or obliterated because they are on a simple ballistic path to their target.   By comparison, just about any damage at all caused to an AAM will cause it to miss.

 

Sure, I'm just having some difficulty with the workflow of this, and the detection range being that high, I mean I guess it might be, but I figured missile RCS is fairly small. I mean we know ground based defenses can shoot down incoming missiles i.e. TOR and other systems specifically designed to do it but again at short range. I mean to target/track/react to a incoming missile and then have it actually hit, when its not highly automated seems "optimistic" thinking.

Also, is there any actual real world evidence of it working? I.e. the recent Indo-Pak air exchange, did it happen there? Or say in any of the gulf wars? I mean if Mover says hey, yeah we totally trained to do that in the F18 that would be one thing, but I've never even heard of it. 

 

Also, it seems really questionable to include this "feature" when the radar model we have is so basic anyway, I'd rather ED work on more realistic track files, and things like position errors with radar modes (i.e. range uncertainty in HPRF) or altitude uncertainties etc.

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GGTharos]

This radar detects a 5m^2 target at 100km.   To halve the distance you need to divide that RCS by 16 giving you 0.3125m^2.   So, an AAM is very detectable.

The capability to intercept this missile exists, but the missile is small and so the cumulative probability of guidance, fuzing etc is relatively small, and also requires correct fuze/target RCS settings where available.

 

And now we come to a practical question which is, should you be shooting at the incoming AAM(s), or taking shots at the aircraft carrying them?   When you attack the incoming missile, and you can only attack a single one, you leave your opponent free to do whatever it pleases - so, training to shoot at the AAMs is probably not a great idea.

 

As for Mover?  Who cares, he's operating a radar with even shorter range and thus even lower response time.  And the tactical consideration remains the same as well - maybe someone is thinking you'd monkey with the 120 fuze settings real quick and TWS a bunch of missiles at your targets and their missiles, but I have doubts.

[Krippz]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

As for Mover?  Who cares, he's operating a radar with even shorter range and thus even lower response time. 

 

Yeah but neither are modeled in DCS.

[FoxAlfa]

30 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The requirements for Iron Dome are completely different - the projectiles it is intercepting must be deflected by a large amount or obliterated because they are on a simple ballistic path to their target.   By comparison, just about any damage at all caused to an AAM will cause it to miss.

Yes, but the big requirement for Iron Dome was a unique warhead and fuse.

Most of AAM vs AAM scenarios would involve a tail chase scenarios (due to midposition of the fuse and warhead) so behind, for warheads created to expand forward and to the side.

Like I said even if everything happened in .01 sec, a 13.7 m difference would mean hitting a ~basketball on 344 m² court.... statistically possible but highly unlikely.... best bet would be closing so close to trigger the other missiles fuse... but all the maneuvering errors and radar errors #notlaserbeam, we know that is also make that highly unlikely  

Edited June 1, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[Harlikwin]

19 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

This radar detects a 5m^2 target at 100km.   To halve the distance you need to divide that RCS by 16 giving you 0.3125m^2.   So, an AAM is very detectable.

The capability to intercept this missile exists, but the missile is small and so the cumulative probability of guidance, fuzing etc is relatively small, and also requires correct fuze/target RCS settings where available.

 

And now we come to a practical question which is, should you be shooting at the incoming AAM(s), or taking shots at the aircraft carrying them?   When you attack the incoming missile, and you can only attack a single one, you leave your opponent free to do whatever it pleases - so, training to shoot at the AAMs is probably not a great idea.

 

As for Mover?  Who cares, he's operating a radar with even shorter range and thus even lower response time.  And the tactical consideration remains the same as well - maybe someone is thinking you'd monkey with the 120 fuze settings real quick and TWS a bunch of missiles at your targets and their missiles, but I have doubts.

 

Right, I get that the radar can "see the missile" and maybe generate a track-file/firing solution in time, unless it happens to be filtered out, for reasons of not cluttering up the display (do we know anything about that?). But its more the practical ramifications of actually tracking, engaging, and actually hitting the oncoming missile is where I'm having some questions. 

 

The only reason I brought up a western SME is that they might be able to call BS on it or not. Especially since he flew hornets right? Or if I have that wrong, lets ask one of the guys that did. 

 

I'm doubly wondering why include this "detail" in DCS when so many other areas of Radar modeling need improvement. I mean lets spend some time on how stores effect RCS instead, that would be a much more useful thing to model to improve the "realism" of DCS rather than some robotech level missile on missile stuff.

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GGTharos]

You're both grasping for straws.  Detecting, tracking and intercepting high speed targets isn't a problem, nor are we looking to completely destroy these projectiles because it isn't necessary.  Nor is there a reason to filter anything out - why would you filter out something that essentially has the characteristics of an HFF that you really want to shoot down?

 

The problem is caused in its entirety by the size of the missile both for triggering the fuze and the density of the fragments for hitting the missile.  Therefore a successful  intercept is a lot more sensitive to miss distance.

 

And would Mover have something to say about the capability of intercepting an AAM?   Was he perhaps shot at so that he could observe what the radar has to say about it, has he had to engage an incoming AAM?  I figure that the best he can do is say is that such tactics aren't trained for, with good reason - but yeah, that's just IMHO.

[Chizh]

1 час назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

Ok, fair enough I assume this if for a N001 or something?

Yes

 

1 час назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 I'm just having some trouble with actually intercepting and hitting the missile. As you likely know its not a particularly easy problem with fuzing and so forth.

Yes, there are problems

 

1 час назад, Harlikwin сказал:

Also, I'm a bit surprised by how big the RCS of a modern A/A missile is in this case, yes I get that the missile antenna pointing at a target has a decent return/reflection. Are there actual examples of this being tested? Or in actual combat? I'm just having a bit of skepticism the effectiveness on airborne "iron dome". 

Yes, I also have enough skepticism for 20th century technology. But if the Su-27 could do this, then all modern fighters should be able to do it.

 

1 час назад, Harlikwin сказал:

Also you are using data from a Russian radar manual to model the APG-73?

No

 

1 час назад, Harlikwin сказал:

I guess the other question is what other radars will have this functionality? RP-23? RP-21? APG68?

The APG-68 has more advanced technology than the N001 and can do so theoretically.

[Chizh]

26 минут назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

I'm doubly wondering why include this "detail" in DCS when so many other areas of Radar modeling need improvement. I mean lets spend some time on how stores effect RCS instead, that would be a much more useful thing to model to improve the "realism" of DCS rather than some robotech level missile on missile stuff.

 

This was not done on purpose. We just adjusted the lower threshold of the radar sensitivity and it began to lock-on missiles. 

Probably it will also lockon large bombs.

[Chizh]

22 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

The problem is caused in its entirety by the size of the missile both for triggering the fuze and the density of the fragments for hitting the missile.  Therefore a successful  intercept is a lot more sensitive to miss distance.

You're right. Hitting a small, fast target is a big challenge. We are now thinking how to simulate this the most, since we do not yet have a realistic model of the spread the damaging effects of the explosion.

[Harlikwin]

36 minutes ago, Chizh said:

This was not done on purpose. We just adjusted the lower threshold of the radar sensitivity and it began to lock-on missiles. 

Probably it will also lockon large bombs.

 

I see. But I also see this is opening up a huge can of worms, even if it may be realistic, also this seems to only effect the F18 radar at the moment, is there some plan to bring ALL radars up this level of modeling soon?

[FoxAlfa]

48 minutes ago, Chizh said:

This was not done on purpose. We just adjusted the lower threshold of the radar sensitivity and it began to lock-on missiles. 

 

42 minutes ago, Chizh said:

You're right. Hitting a small, fast target is a big challenge. We are now thinking how to simulate this the most, since we do not yet have a realistic model of the spread the damaging effects of the explosion.

Can than we have the missile RCS reverted to pre-patch values then till there is proper system to simulate this? 
It is quite annoying having sparrow launched toward the target and radar switching the lock to my missile and effectively wating it half of the time.
 

Edited June 1, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[Chizh]

1 час назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

Я понимаю. Но я также вижу, что это открывает огромную банку червей, даже если это может быть реалистично, также похоже, что в данный момент это влияет только на радар F18. Есть ли какой-то план в ближайшее время поднять ВСЕ радары на этот уровень моделирования?

Perhaps it will be on the F-16 in the near future.

1 час назад, FoxAlfa сказал:

 

Can than we have the missile RCS reverted to pre-patch values then till there is proper system to simulate this? 
It is quite annoying having sparrow launched toward the target and radar switching the lock to my missile and effectively wating it half of the time.
 

 

We have not changed the missiles RCS. We will reduce the effectiveness of missiles against missiles.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Chizh said:

Perhaps it will be on the F-16 in the near future.

We have not changed the missiles RCS. We will reduce the effectiveness of missiles against missiles.

 

But the larger question remains what of the other modules? Sure the F16 you are developing, but what of other radars on upcoming or existing modules, the F15E, the Mirage 2000, the Mirage F1, the mig29?, mig23, JF-17? Is this part of a larger API, or is each radar modeled independently in this regard?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[FoxAlfa]

3 hours ago, Chizh said:

We have not changed the missiles RCS.

 

They were incresed in 2.7.1.6430 if I am not mistaking...

Edited June 1, 2021 by FoxAlfa