Ракеты в DCS

[Breakshot]

3 hours ago, Chizh said:

Yes

Why? Shouldnt 73 seeker fall somewhere between 9M and X? It is a more advanced weapon compared to earlier 9s...

[nighthawk2174]

The 9M has dedicated CCM circuits where the RMD1 does not.

[BlackPixxel]

8 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

where the RMD1 does not.

 

Says who?

[nighthawk2174]

It is my current understanding of the missile.

 

Also @Chizh what are some of the new A/A missile RCS's?  Seems they've been changed.

[BlackPixxel]

MiG-29 manual says that the 73 can be used with active enemy countermeasures.

[Hunter2.1]

В чейнджелоге прочитал интересную строчку касаемо модуля томкета а именно ракет феникс и аим-7 - 

• Increased AIM-54 and AIM-7 RCS as per request from Eagle Dynamics. 

это значит что их проще обнаружить?

[nighthawk2174]

31 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

MiG-29 manual says that the 73 can be used with active enemy countermeasures.

Yes and that's more of a consequence of its seeker being a modern cooled seeker with a small fov (giving it the ability to see skin heat reducing the amount flares pull the aimpoint) rather than any dedicated CCM circuits as per my current understanding of the tech in the RMD1.  

[Teknetinium]

EOS bug seams to be sorted, appreciate the time putted in ED. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Teknetinium

[Chizh]

2 часа назад, Breakshot сказал:

Why? Shouldnt 73 seeker fall somewhere between 9M and X? It is a more advanced weapon compared to earlier 9s...

Why do you think so?

1 час назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

MiG-29 manual says that the 73 can be used with active enemy countermeasures.

Any modern missile can be used with countermeasure conditions. The whole question is only in the hit probability.

[Teknetinium]

Why would R-73 be worse then 9M? 

[Chizh]

1 час назад, Hunter2.1 сказал:

В чейнджелоге прочитал интересную строчку касаемо модуля томкета а именно ракет феникс и аим-7 - 

• Increased AIM-54 and AIM-7 RCS as per request from Eagle Dynamics. 

это значит что их проще обнаружить?

Да. У многих радарных ракет мы немного увеличили ЭПР за счет того что сама антенна ГСН является отличным отражателем излучения.

[Max1mus]

The AIM-54 seems to have significantly improved CCM abilities now - it reaquires from chaff much better than the AMRAAM. Could you (ED) check this out?

If i report this to HB, they will just ignore it again.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

4 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

The 9M has dedicated CCM circuits where the RMD1 does not.

The R-73 RMD-1 Does have CCM, it just does not benefit from digital IRCCM techniques like introduced in the AIM-9M

Introduction to Modern EW Systems, Second Edition

By Andrea De Martino mentions this on page 324

 

This link also explains the mechanics of non digital IRCCM in a reticle seeker missile

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/10981/Modelling_ultraviolet_threats-2016.pdf;jsessionid=B6D4D03ACE8ED17A9B57F792EDE4767E?sequence=3

the RMD-1 being around the AIM-9L / AIM-9M-2 CCM wise is a rather reasonable assumption

 

From what has been said from Russian SME's the 1995 RMD-2 did have better IRCCM capabilities and other sources say the only differences aside from improved gimbal limits are greater seeker lock range and slightly increased weight

(I assume this picture is from NASIC)

I don't believe this to have been as a result of a bigger motor, more CCM Circuits seem most likely

Edited June 16, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[nighthawk2174]

4 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

The R-73 RMD-1 Does have CCM, it just does not benefit from digital IRCCM techniques like introduced in the AIM-9M

Introduction to Modern EW Systems, Second Edition

By Andrea De Martino mentions this on page 324

 

This link also explains the mechanics of non digital IRCCM in a reticle seeker missile

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/10981/Modelling_ultraviolet_threats-2016.pdf;jsessionid=B6D4D03ACE8ED17A9B57F792EDE4767E?sequence=3

the RMD-1 being around the AIM-9L / AIM-9M-2 CCM wise is a rather reasonable assumption

 

From what has been said from Russian SME's the 1995 RMD-2 did have better IRCCM capabilities and other sources say the only differences aside from improved gimbal limits are greater seeker lock range and slightly increased weight

(I assume this picture is from NASIC)

I don't believe this to have been as a result of a bigger motor, more CCM Circuits seem most likely

 

Right maybe I should clarify I don't consider the secondary effects of the linear array the R73 has to be directly comparable to dedicated CCM measures such as directly filtering out flares by various means.  It has a higher natural resistance than say a spin-scan seeker due to it having a small I-FOV but while the flare is in the I-FOV it is still just a susceptible as older seekers as it lacks any way to filter them out inside the fov.The RMD-2 though should be added to the game imo and should probably be in the ball park of more modern 9M's in terms of flare resistance.

[Teknetinium]

Chiz mentioned that AIM-9m has same value as R-73 in DCS, I would say that it is reasonable. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Teknetinium

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

22 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Right maybe I should clarify I don't consider the secondary effects of the linear array the R73 has to be directly comparable to dedicated CCM measures such as directly filtering out flares by various means.  It has a higher natural resistance than say a spin-scan seeker due to it having a small I-FOV but while the flare is in the I-FOV it is still just a susceptible as older seekers as it lacks any way to filter them out inside the fov.The RMD-2 though should be added to the game imo and should probably be in the ball park of more modern 9M's in terms of flare resistance.

While what you said is correct, its a more apt description of how IRCCM works in single colour Con Scan Frequency Modulated detectors. Take for example the AIM-9M/L (And broadly all late Sidewinders sans 9X) would use things such as flare deceleration (through LOS Rate change) to discriminate between the target and counter measures in the IFOV.

 

More processing and software obviously goes a long way with IRCCM in nutating seekers since its just as important to be able to accurately process what it sees.

 

But the R-73 family takes a slightly different approach, it is commonly described as a two colour pulse position seeker. I like to draw parallels between signal processing and power in radars (in this case a better missile 'front end' or seeker set up), one solution isn't nearly as good pound for pound but still does provided results.

 

Academically it has many different names, dual band seeker and Spectral Distribution Discrimination among other technical sobriquets.

I found that this paper "Expendable Countermeasure Effectiveness against Imaging Infrared Guided Threats C. R. Viau Tactical Technologies Inc., 356 Woodroffe Ave., Ottawa, ON Canada"

 

Explained it best simply as

 

"Spectral distribution discrimination is commonly referred to as two-color discrimination. Seekers equipped with dual mode detectors can view a scene in two separate bands of the spectrum. The seeker compares the spectral distribution ratio of the various targets in the field of view to a predefined threshold. If a target does not meet the two-color ratio criteria, it is classified as a flare and rejected as the true target. Early generations of flares produced a much different signature ratio than aircraft plumes and as a result were susceptible to two-color discrimination."

 

So while a wholly non digital IRCCM set up in the RMD-1 & 2 it was wholly adequate, actually beyond that for the flares of the time and era and Tek isn't exactly wrong to say in some ways it was a better seeker for the time.

 

The paper on its own is interesting as well as it covers the effectiveness of different types of flares working on slightly different principles to pull off seekers

[GGTharos]

Great find, I recall reading this before.

 

Key words 'early generations of flares', and 'appropriate response'.

For example, for the sidewinder the intensity-rise-time technique would cease tracking (or coast) until the flare left either the FoV or part of it.  Effective but also defeatable by a good flare drop interval and maneuver as an example.  (Incidentally, if you recall the 'dirty flares' anecdote, this was apparently the problem - intensity-rise-time of them dirty flares was too slow - the IRCCM was corrected quickly to cope)

 

So, we can theory-craft all over the place but the fact is that we won't know flare effectiveness for real.

Edited June 18, 2021 by GGTharos

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

4 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Great find, I recall reading this before.

 

Key words 'early generations of flares', and 'appropriate response'.

For example, for the sidewinder the intensity-rise-time technique would cease tracking (or coast) until the flare left either the FoV or part of it.  Effective but also defeatable by a good flare drop interval and maneuver as an example.  (Incidentally, if you recall the 'dirty flares' anecdote, this was apparently the problem - intensity-rise-time of them dirty flares was too slow - the IRCCM was corrected quickly to cope)

 

So, we can theory-craft all over the place but the fact is that we won't know flare effectiveness for real.

 

Yes it is one of those aspects of DCS where the current system in some ways is good enough

[Chizh]

R-73 missile has a single-spectral seeker MK-80

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

7 minutes ago, Chizh said:

R-73 missile has a single-spectral seeker MK-80

Out of curiosity what is your source on that

I've only seen one Ukrainian source say this but countless war colleges say otherwise

Edited June 18, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Chizh]

Ukraine is the developer of the seeker this missile. The original seeker is called MK-80, it is single-spectrum from 1980th. The modern Ukrainian modification 2017 is equipped with the MK-2200 seeker, but is not supplied to the Russian Federation.

 

 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I've seen this thrown around but I find these posters like this one tend not to be all that reliable sources

Like talking about things like R-27AEs or radar upgrades not purchased by anyone

 

Do you have something like a mention in the manual?

 

These war colleges tend to not use murzilka

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Chizh]

I do not quite understand what fact you are questioning.
It is known that there is an MK-80 seeker on the R-73; it is also known that it operates in the one spectral range.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I am questioning your source, do you have a more reputable one you can show me?

 

Sources like the one you post tended to be the source of much confusion and disinformation

 

Something like a manual would be far more authoritative

 

if it is so well known this shouldn't be a problem

 

 

[Chizh]

5 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

I am questioning your source, do you have a more reputable one you can show me?

 

Sources like the one you post tended to be the source of much confusion and disinformation

 

Something like a manual would be far more authoritative

 

if it is so well known this shouldn't be a problem

 

 

By and large, it doesn't matter to me whether you believe me or not. I will not prove more.