Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
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. –-> Maddog mode should not be used against AI, another bug.
-
I’m guessing it’s 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 they’re 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 didn’t change the radar’s chaff chance and forgot about the issue later on. Although I did get my desired learning objective: when “M” 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 “more deadly”? 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 there’s no mechanical/electrical malfunctions modeled, as well as complicated ecm stuff. but again in RL there’re no bugs and CTDs so i digress…
-
I don’t speak about ECM, ECCM, SOJ ect…
I speak about the FM of the missile. Currently above 25.000 ft, you don’t 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
i’d 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, you’re 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 doesn’t model…
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
-
you’d 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 “track-angle” 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 (“look down” 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 “snaking-maneuver” 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 better…the 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 chaffs…the 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 chaffs…the 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 effect…
-
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? -
n BMS the Infrared Sig values (DB) are all the same…
No, they are not the same, simply are not used. If you check for ex. A-10 and Su-25 you will find 0.66 and 0.698.
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?
I haven’t tried in MP but even if it works in human vs human - I doubt - how helps in the rest of cases…? As I have said I tested on myself and on AI too. If you set 0.99 for any SAM or AC radar missile will be very vulnerable to chaff regardless the target AI or human controlled. If you set this for ARHs simply nothing happen.
I do not understand why is so hard to believe me. This is not the first time when I found this bug…
-
I do not understand why is so hard to believe me. This is not the first time when I found this bug…
We just want to dig tests for more info and feedbacks…
-
I will do MP test too but I can arrange only at weekend.
-
I will do MP test too but I can arrange only at weekend.
No prob Monli … take all the time you need. (If issue is confirmed, it will not be looked at tomorrow anyway )
-
I did some tests, using a different approach (not editing db). I assumed that the chaff mechanism is unchanged since RP5 (not that I’m convinced this is true, but it’s all I have to go on). If that is true, then each chaff bundle you release, has a certain chance of breaking the radar’s lock. Let’s say it’s 0.05, or 5%. So there is a 0.95, or 95% chance that the radar will maintain its lock. Now if you release 2 bundles, the chances are compounded. The radar lock will only remain if the first bundle fails to brak the lock (95% chance) AND the second bundle as well, so the chance of the radar lock not being broken is 0.95 x 0.95 = .90, or 90%. Release 10 bundles and the chance the radar lock is not broken is 0.95^10=0.60. I used this to make the chance I break the lock almost 100%, by programming the EWS to release 99 sequences at 0.5s intervals, of burst of 99 bundles at 30ms intervals. Obviously, I set unlimited chaff and flares in setup. This huge amount of chaff will result in a very low chance the radar lock is not broken as 0.95^(some big number)=0.00 (rounded). I’ve used the same method in the past with AF.
I tested first an overfly of an SA-2. No problem. Multiple SAM’s were launched and they all missed.
Then I tested an overfly of an SA-10. The first SAM launched hit me.
Then I tested an F-16 firing an AMRAAM. It also hit me.
This corroborates the finding of Molni: chaff is ineffective against ARH missiles.
There is one mechanism I left out of my explanation above, which is that the effectiveness of chaff used to be also affected by the range of the radar to the platform emitting chaff. So chaff would have almost no effect at large ranges, then increase effectiveness, then reduce to zero again at close range. There used to be two profiles for this: one for SARH missiles, and one for ARH. Perhaps the profile for ARH missiles was somehow broken, and chaff effectiveness is now multplied by zero at all ranges?
-
No, they are not the same, simply are not used.
My bad… confused IR sigs with VIS sigs.