Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
can someone tell me what is chaff program settings for molnibalage BMS4-test for the first encounter, the one with chaff chance 0.99
my video player I can’t see it too good.thanks
-
Blimey…haven’t thought about this one in ages (think circa 2009).
Once upon a time, a slammer was subject to a significant vulnerability to chaff decoys if there was some beam aspect to the target in view. Around about the time that the HPRF/MPRF modeling was added, input from knowledgeable real world sources who are in a position to know described that decoy modeling as BS for current inventory slammers. As a result, the code was changed to better reflect the reality of that situation. The factors that affect that beam magnifier effect are and always have been internal to the code, not directly related to the chaff chance in the radar data, although those factors do operate on the chance value for the “dice roll” calculation.
Net upshot?? Yep, slammers are very nearly but not totally immune to chaff.
This is by design, not a bug. Absent hard data to the contrary, there’s no plan to change this.
Nuance… So there is no modeling for block or national variants of the slammers really. As a result, we’re led to believe that in some cases, slammers fired from national variant F-16’s might be a little better at countermeasures avoidance than they should be versus real world inventory expected performance. That’s a criticism that would be hard to defend. It’s also one that would be hard to calibrate since we have no more data/detail on the differences (for obvious reasons) beyond that anecdotal comment. In the same way that support for older viper blocks is being added to future code, we may split out modeling of older missile blocks but as with all things future, no promises.
-
This is by design, not a bug. Absent hard data to the contrary, there’s no plan to change this.
Nuance… So there is no modeling for block or national variants of the slammers really. As a result, we’re led to believe that in some cases, slammers fired from national variant F-16’s might be a little better at countermeasures avoidance than they should be versus real world inventory expected performance. That’s a criticism that would be hard to defend. It’s also one that would be hard to calibrate since we have no more data/detail on the differences (for obvious reasons) beyond that anecdotal comment. In the same way that support for older viper blocks is being added to future code, we may split out modeling of older missile blocks but as with all things future, no promises.
So if I understand this correctly the only ARH behaviour supported, by virtue of hard-coding, is one AIM-120 model?
-
As far as the decoy effectiveness is concerned, and that’s all we’re talking about here remember, there has only ever been one code path for all ARH missiles. That code path reflects best understanding of slammer behavior; it does now, it did before. The difference compared to older versions is that the current one is less susceptible to chaff; this effect is more pronounced the more beam aspect is involved. In the older setup, missile seekers looking at targets near beam aspect would be significantly more susceptible to chaff. Now they aren’t as much.
-
As far as the decoy effectiveness is concerned, and that’s all we’re talking about here remember, there has only ever been one code path for all ARH missiles. That code path reflects best understanding of slammer behavior; it does now, it did before. The difference compared to older versions is that the current one is less susceptible to chaff; this effect is more pronounced the more beam aspect is involved. In the older setup, missile seekers looking at targets near beam aspect would be significantly more susceptible to chaff. Now they aren’t as much.
So can you tell whats best time / tactic to use chaff if ARH missile is coming ?
Beam aspect is bit hard to undestand for my limited english
Thanks
-
So can you tell whats best time / tactic to use chaff if ARH missile is coming ?
Not really In practice, chaff doesn’t work well against slammers so it’s only a last ditch chance anyway so might as well pump some chaff but keep your expectations low.
Beam aspect is bit hard to undestand for my limited english
By target at beam aspect what I mean is looking towards the target from the nose of the missile, if you are looking at the side view of the target then it is at beam aspect…in other words, if the longitudinal center line of the aircraft is at right angles to the longitudinal center line of the missile then the target is at perfect beam aspect.
-
Wow this went even faster than I thought…
18 pages allready, closing fast to 30 and NO ONE tested the AIM54 to compare.Anyone actually read the last 5 pages? :rolleyes::D
Don’t worry guys. By the time we are at 50 pages I’ll be at home.
When we’re at 53 pages I tested it with other missiles than the AIM120. -
Boxer,
do you think that the best range to missle for chance to defeat with beam/chaff is still 4 miles to 8 miles?
-
Mathematically, yes.
-
-
Wow this went even faster than I thought…
18 pages allready, closing fast to 30 and NO ONE tested the AIM54 to compare.I also tested the AIM-54, AIM-120 and R-77. Results were the same.
-
Wow this went even faster than I thought…
18 pages allready, closing fast to 30 and NO ONE tested the AIM54 to compare.Anyone actually read the last 5 pages? :rolleyes::D
Don’t worry guys. By the time we are at 50 pages I’ll be at home.
When we’re at 53 pages I tested it with other missiles than the AIM120.the whole thread is 5 pages…
-
In default forum settings its 19 pages.
@molni
Roger. Then this thread better be closed -
In BMS4 regardless what you set ARHs are immune to chaff.
Nearly immune yes. This is quite correct and realistic.
-
Nearly immune yes. This is quite correct and realistic.
I strongly disagree.
- Because of gameplay aspects and also RL. Saying that a late '60s AIM-54A - because it was developed in late '60s - is immune to any EW activity is simply funny even for late '70 / early '80s of AIM-54C. Same case for early AIM-120s, R-77 and other missiles.
- They are not nearly immune they are immune because ARH code is buggy. I have shown how it looks in case when the code is working. In current BMS4 you cannot break the radar lock permanently. the missile relock you instantly. Period. Should I install AF to show how it works besides the video with FF4…? I have never checked OF but I can test also that Falcon variant…
Why is so hard to admire that the code is simply broken…? :roll:
If you set 0.99 chaff chance to SARH missiles they can be defeated 1-2 chaff. If you set the same for ARH regardless of distance - because of modifier which is explained in RP5 manual - they always hit you. Always. If you set 0.99 to IR missiles it is piece of cake defeat them. Translating into practical usage ARH are immune to chaff. Period. From my aspect this is insane…As long this code exist I cannot recommend to anybody to play with BMS4 in AMRAAM era because it is simply not fun playing and environment where holy and undefeatable weapons are exist. Yes, you can defeat them kinematically but a major modeling part is simply broken… This modeling issue is one of the major reason why I started to MOD Falcon.
-
I would recommend a serious research on how and how well “chaffs” work as countermeasures. I have an impression, that they are a little bit overrated as “wunder-waffe”.
Besides, too well working chaffs (simulated) can have an ugly effect on the BVR scenario too. -
They are very far from winder waffe in Falcon world. Against just semi advanecd radars and missiles (MiG-23 + R-23R) the chaff alone is way too few to be sure. Many times I have explained. In current DB literally there is not “middle” category. Weapons are very sensitve of literally instensitive to chaff/flare or EW countermeasure. There are only a very few exceptions…
-
Afaik, right now it doesn´t matter in what intervall or quantity one releases chaffs and flares. No difference on impact.
On the other side, 4.32 is 4 years old Molni… wait for 4.33. Rumors go, it will be better -
@A.S:
Afaik, right now it doesn´t matter in what intervall or quantity one releases chaffs and flares. No difference on impact.
Well … I will ask Amraam if he alows me to share his chaff seq for AIM-120 … but by using it, I was able to break a lock (no manœuvre … not working all the time of course and actualy rare.)
I strongly disagree.
Because of gameplay aspects and also RL. Saying that a late '60s AIM-54A - because it was developed in late '60s - is immune to any EW activity is simply funny even for late '70 / early '80s of AIM-54C. Same case for early AIM-120s, R-77 and other missiles.
Those AD are working with doppler treatement right … IRL, chaff have very poor or no effects on missile AHR AD.
You have your informations … I have mine
-
@A.S:
Afaik, right now it doesn´t matter in what intervall or quantity one releases chaffs and flares. No difference on impact.
It as a impact ;).
Deejay: it will not work on 4.32 for fox3. Issue as been confirmed long time ago ;).
But honestly, chaffing a fox3 is a non-sense. I never heard such tactics for this kind of missile because the missile will be able to reaquired the target as soon the coast time is finish. IRL, only one solution for fox3 shooter: turn & run.