Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
I launched AIM-120 with TWS and dofight STT radar lock either. Yes, missile was active because I tested not only against AI I was target either during all tests.
-
Does it matter how you deploy chaff or is it just the fact that you deploy them that make the radar to loose lock?
In my mind i think that you have to get the chaff between yourself and the missile to have any effect.
Do you know?
Cheers
-
Does it matter how you deploy chaff or is it just the fact that you deploy them that make the radar to loose lock?
I do not know the effect of release iterval but I have tested many times sensors. Even if RI has effect the relative position is much more importand. During a hard turn seems to me more effective the chaff as in level flight. This is also true for flare.
-
Try without any a/c radar lock please. (try BORE)
-
Try without any a/c radar lock please. (try BORE)
Just launch the missile toward to a possible target? I can try but in all other Falcon version AI did not reacted missile which were launched without radar lock.
-
Just launch the missile toward to a possible target? I can try but in all other Falcon version AI did not reacted missile which were launched without radar lock.
Try MP
-
Try MP
I will ask some guys to do it. I tested against AI, same dumbness as in other versions there is only a minor difference. When radar on missiles are turned on use the dispenser only once, but perfom 0 evasive actcion, in BVR simply continue the approach. â-> Maddog mode should not be used against AI, another bug.
-
Iâm guessing itâs quite possible with the new ARH missile mechanism introduced in BMS4 that the missile radar no longer obeys the countermeasure laws introduced in RP5. Maybe the radar data section in .rcd file simply no longer has any effect⌠(given the correct tests are done that is.)
reason, an example: according to BMS-34, the range gate for MPRF and HPRF are defined in missile FM dat file, and for AIM-120 theyâre in code. Obviously the AIM-120 goes HPRF well above 10nm, but the onboard radar range in falcon4.rcd #4 is only ~9nm. So HPRF radar, hence probably MPRF radar property is defined elsewhere if at all, and maybe without a chaff chance in that data field. Or maybe the chaff chance is indeed linked but something is preventing it to have any effect, and since the chance is so low to begin with nobody ever notices it. Just my guess tho apparently.
Some time ago I loaded the F-16 with 1000 chaffs and a countermeasure profile of 50 chaffs per slap switch smash. I was never able to break the lock of an AMRAAM while in openfalcon there was some 50/50 chance. But I didnât change the radarâs chaff chance and forgot about the issue later on. Although I did get my desired learning objective: when âMâ visible, run and save the chaffs
-
Amraam is way to good in this sim, and way bad in FC3 Maybe something in between those would be nice.
-
Amraam is way to good in this sim, and way bad in FC3 Maybe something in between those would be nice.
Even if somebody fix this bug likely the chaff characteristics of ARH - which was defined by RP5 - still remains which means hard to set a balanced model for ARH.
-
Amraam is way to good in this sim, and way bad in FC3 Maybe something in between those would be nice.
From what is based your theory?
Real F-16 driver as already report that even AIM-120B is much more deadly IRL. The simple fact that AMRAAM is bugged to high altitude launch is well know (real one have much more kinetic range). -
Real F-16 driver as already report that even AIM-120B is much more deadly IRL.
In RL combat so far has not been faced with advanced enemy which has ECM, huge quantity if dispensers, SOJ support, etc⌠How you can translate the âmore deadlyâ? Kinematic range of AIM-120B is very similar to AIM-7M. Burn time of engine is smaller, but drag of AIM-120 also small, the brunout speed is very similar, but total engine running time of AIM-7M is 5+11 sec and not ~7.5 sec. Deacceleration of AIM-7M is faster but happens later.
What bout sensors? Because the kinematics + sensor capabilites represet the quality of the missile.
-
well if anything thereâs no mechanical/electrical malfunctions modeled, as well as complicated ecm stuff. but again in RL thereâre no bugs and CTDs so i digressâŚ
-
I donât speak about ECM, ECCM, SOJ ectâŚ
I speak about the FM of the missile. Currently above 25.000 ft, you donât have any significant advantage of range. Falcon is not so far of real data in low level and medium level range. But above 25.000ft, you have a well know issue. IRL you can increase the range between 50% and 75% above 30.000 ft. And I speak only for the AIM-120B. -
real one have much more kinetic range
iâd guess the bms amraam does have the range just the DLZ is off⌠because with correct atmosphere modelling and correct med-low alt performance, no reason for it to be off up high, simple physics/math. so at least the aerodata and engine thrust section in the FM (the most important part) is OK, only need to fix the DLZ.
another possibility is real missile uses some more advanced guidance like dynamic loft. for example, when firing at 5k, no need to loft the missile much, youâre only increasing travel distance. but when firing at 30k, no reason not to loft the thing up to 55k and come back down to use the much thinner air up there. that BMS ofc doesnât modelâŚ
a conspiracy theory⌠in OF aka MLU M2 avionics, we had a loft cue between Raero and Ropt. in BMS4 aka MLU M3 avionics, the loft cue was gone. maybe just maybe something changed in the amraam guidance to incorporate the lofting itself
-
youâd guess huh?
I recall hearing that the atmospheric modelling does not take into account the difference in the size of the rocket plume at different altitudes, nor the difference in thrust it makes.
IMO (unqualified ofc) its not the DLZ that is at fault.
-
Can we go back to original topic? When the sensor bug has been fixed we can talk about kinematics. BTW here you can find some stuff, FM tweaks of AIM-120. Much more accurate weight and thurst as current, and as I know aerdo data also were recalculated.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?8230-Suggestion-for-database-data-supply/page13
-
I havent done any specific and detailed tests regards Chaff AND Flare resistances yet, but nevertheless an interesting observersation and questions raised here.
Generally i think dodging 120s in BMS is modelled - i would not say quiete easy, but quiete reasonable and playable good actually, despite the chaff question.
Before we investigate further, lets consider the general available methods of how to defeat missiles (SARH, ARH & Heat) first:
- Exploiting Line of Sight (LOS) angles, meaning draging the missile to an extended lead intercept pursuit course where the missiles looses âtrack-angleâ ability by overshooting its own FOV.
- Exploiting Line of Sight (LOS) rate, meaning flying fast 90degrees to the inbound missile to exploit the radar-updating rate (this is where chaffs would matter).
- The Beam or the Notch at possilbe ranges (those are clear in BMS) to break the tracking-guidance aka meaning the planes radar first. To defeat semi-actives as they require
constant lock till impact or to break locks of actives before they enter the terminal stage (this is where chaffs would matter). - Using Groundclutter to confuse the tracking with radar-returns of the ground (âlook downâ of missile radar).
- Geometrically, meaning fighting the missiles maneuverbility due to its exessive speed (Gs and turnradius).
- Kinematically, meaning bleeding the missiles energy by provoking increased drag in its initial or terminal flight-path. Clasic example would be a cold âsnaking-maneuverâ versus a missile with possitive closure i.e.
- The Sun as distraction for heat-seaking missiles.
- Rmin, meaning exploiting the missiles fusing-time by staying closer to the launch-plattform (if possible). This is worth be checked aswell gents!
- and last but not least CHAFFS and FLARES.
- etc etc
Here couple examples with 120s and R-77s:
www.as-private.com/ACMI/breaklockfromtherails.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/FancyOne.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/TheHook.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/Shwiing.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/counter-def.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/funkydonkey.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/omega.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/seriously.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/excuseme.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-1.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-2.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-3.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-4.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-5.acmi
www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-6.acmiComing back to the core-question in this thread (chaff resistance of missiles). There are two apsects to be considered carefully:
- chaff resistance of THE MISSILE
- chaff resistance or distraction of launching-plattform emitter aka PLANE RADAR.
Quesiton is what do CHAFFS confuse more and betterâŚthe missile radars or the plane radars?
As far as i understand Falcon, chaffs are more effective versus plane radars and can be helpfull in order to break locks or to deny early burn-through locks if used additionally with jammers.
They also should have a small but reasonable percentage of confusing missiles radar, but i would highly recommend NOT to make them that strong, that just the fact of puffing some chaffs out
will be already a grant to defeat any inbound missile without the consideration of the general logic methods mentioned about. This logic would be very contradtictive and would result in very unrealistic
combat-profiles (like we have seen in a previous versions of lockon, where one could fly 10m below bandits and defeat 10 missiles headone just by dropping chaffs).CHAFFS AND FLARES can never be 100% waterproof countermeasure methods ALONE !!! One still needs to respect the PRINCIPLES above.
Meaning, chaffs and flares should STILL provide a low percentage, but meaningfull miss-probability chance additionally to confuse missile-seekers and they should have also a re-checked effect (in case of chaffs) on the launching-plattforms aka the plane-radars aswell.
Afaik - correct me if i am wrong - the heatsignatures of planes do not have any effect on heatseekers, nor are flares reasonable moddeled; and also it does not matter if one puffs
2 or 20 chaffsâŚthe effects are the same.I hope this will be improved in future versions, but i really ask heartily to keep an eye on the global picture and what effects those changes might translate into tactically, because if done
too optimistic or wrong it can result very quickly in a completly different BVR/WVR scenario, which can be anything else BUT book-stlye understanding and flying.Desktop errors here and back to Arcadia.
-
Afaik - correct me if i am wrong - the heatsignatures of planes do not have any effect on heatseekers, nor are flares reasonable moddeled; and also it does not matter if one puffs 2 or 20 chaffsâŚthe effects are the same.
Are we speaking about chaff or flares? Yes, all AC have the same IR sig. on the same RPM, but in DB are values which can be used but code not use these values. Qty. of used chaff has effect on any radars except ARH, becuase as I have said, they are immune because the bug. This is the point of the topic.
CHAFFS AND FLARES can never be 100% waterproof countermeasure methods ALONE !!!
Agree, but against ARHs simply does not have any effectâŚ
-
Yes, all AC have the same IR sig. on the same RPM, but in DB are values which can be used but code not use these values.
In BMS the Infrared Sig values (DB) are all the same⌠in AF they are not, thats why i took them from there for Redflag. The thing with the code is correct nevertheless afaik, but they probalby will change that?
Qty. of used chaff has effect on any radars except ARH, becuase as I have said, they are immune because the bug. This is the point of the topic.
I see.
Have you tried the same in MP with human versus human with explicit and specific test-flight profiles and launch conditions, meaning creating conditions where chaffs should have effect
or have you just fired on AIs and looked in externals what happens?