Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
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
During AF at least one MiG-29 at least once beamed and defeated AIM-120 with combined chaff usage…
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.
You miss the big picture. In complex tactical situation can happen that missiles does not come froom 11/1 direction and you can turn and beaming quickly while you dive into ground cultter even you are the edge of the NEZ. It happened me in FF many times…
… So I can tell you that chaff will have no effect (as decoy’s speed is decreasing almost instantaneously AHR (doppler) will reject it.)
Aham… If it was so easy can you explain why aircraft onboard radars and SARH missiles can be defeater with chaff…? You simply forget the effect of beaming in ground clutter… In the era of ARH AAMs and SAMs can you explain to me the existance of chaff on AC…?
-
Arf … I give one clues : relative speed missile/defender and ARH’s PRF (relative speed ambiguity).
I will certainly not explain everything Molni … I say this, then, do what you want with it.
Believe or believe not.
Do not forget that chaffs are not made for defeating missiles, but to disrupt radar acquisition, maybe, with luck, break the lock. But chaffs, just like flares, can be totaly ineffective if not released at the right time … Can even have a negative effect on defensive manoeuvres.
Can’t tell you more … More details would be rather confidential.
During AF at least one MiG-29 at least once beamed and defeated AIM-120 with combined chaff usage…
… Certainly … Poor or “immune” dosen’t mean ever never. The beam could have been enough … Or can also be against a defailant AD which would have missed anyway. Who knows.
But basically and in a rule of thumb … Chaff = not useful against ARH.
That said, nothing or anyone prevent you to drop some anyway. I do … With luck it will be the 0.X% of sucess!
-
Do not forget than chaffs are not made for defeating missiles, but to disrupt radar acquisition, maybe, with luck, break the lock.
That´s how i learnt it and that´s how i use it in Falcon, combined with displacements within the “radar gates” of the bandit in order to delay the bandits lock i.e - even back in AF days.
Sometimes, if i do break into ARHs (3-9 line) …i put few chaffs out anyways, but this is more for “cosmetic” purpose or a low probability countermeasure tbh.Versus SARHs the chaffs are more effective, exactly because of this reason (breaking the lock of emitter plattform and screwing up the guidance so to speak).
@Molni:
If “chaffs” would be so effective, imagine what would happen to an ARH, if the bandit would have a wingman. The missile would hit the wrong plane, because
a plane has much more RCS than stuipid “chaffs”. Maybe they are effective if the missile itself lost track earlier on, so the requiring become obscured, but they are for sure
not “strong” enough to “hard-break” the lock of the missile itself (ARH). -
As for chaff being useless against ARH. If existed an ARH missile that’s not immune to chaff, no DB change would help. Code’s wrong, as stated already.
So let’s not rationalize a code mistake as something proper. It’s irrelevant to the discussion whether some of ARHs are immune to chaff or not, only that no DB value of chaff resistance can have a sensible effect.
-
Who says, that all DB entries or DB entries alone have a direct impact on the human 3D expirience? Nope
I assume chaff resistance value changes in F4browse have as much effect as missile range edits with the same - meaning none for humans. -
If “chaffs” would be so effective, imagine what would happen to an ARH, if the bandit would have a wingman. The missile would hit the wrong plane, because
a plane has much more RCS than stuipid “chaffs”. Maybe they are effective if the missile itself lost track earlier on, so the requiring become obscured, but they are for sure
not “strong” enough to “hard-break” the lock of the missile itself (ARH).And who said that missile will find target enogh soon to lock on another? Who said what is the protol in the missile after lost a lock? Etc.
I simply cannot accept the current ARH code. -
I get your point, don´t get me wrong, but in order to “improve” something first deliver real data how. I have docs on that matter and maybe i re-digg this topic again just out of curiosty.
You still need to evaluate what effects real chaffs have on real ARHs …. only then we can proceed the discussion, compare the picture and look for probable integrations or solutions (in respect to what the F4 environment permits) Molni.
Right now it´s just a report about a discorvery about something which supposidly is not working the way you expected it to. -
The effect of chaff can be controlled via DB values. What I cannot accept that this part simply does not work. When will be fixed it can be talked about other issues. BTW this is a requirement for 3rd party creation…
-
The effect of chaff can be controlled via DB values. What I cannot accept that this part simply does not work.
Maybe there is a reason for that
-
@A.S:
I get your point, don´t get me wrong, but in order to “improve” something first deliver real data how. I have docs on that matter and maybe i re-digg this topic again just out of curiosty.
You still need to evaluate what effects real chaffs have on real ARHs …. only then we can proceed the discussion, compare the picture and look for probable integrations or solutions (in respect to what the F4 environment permits) Molni.
Right now it´s just a report about a discorvery about something which supposidly is not working the way you expected it to.You’re holding opposing side of the argument to a very high standard.
There’s a bug. There’s no talk of data needed from BMS team members. But molny has this burden imposed by you to provide some data.
What gives?
Also, talk of “integrations and solutions”, why are you making a roadmap the BMS team’s members are unlikely to ever adhere to?
-
Nothing to do with “high standards” at all. BASIC FUNDAMENTALS FIRST.
Tell me sthalik, how is anyone supposed to simulate anything properly without even understanding how it works in reality? If those questions are not addressed first then any other debate or attempt to simulate the same is rubbish.
Is there a “bug”? Maybe. Maybe its a “workaround” for the time being, maybe it is intentionally as it is for reasons unknown to the end-user. Or maybe it just doesn´t ****ing work at all.
Or maybe the chaff effectiveness is not defined in the DB afterall, but somewhere else, even if it is present in there? Or maybe you guys just don´t understand how things are simulated globally afterall?Right now it is just an “observation”, that if “played” around with DB values no variable results can be observed…but THAT`S IT - at best.
So, will a suggested “fix” of the so called “bug” make matters more realistic or worse; and what is realistic?
Or how can it be simulated more properly and how is it simulated at the moment? THOSE are questions to be asked first instead of shouting out “it dooooesnt woooork”.I am long enough in this bussiness and have seen many other countermeasure simulation “fails” before with FATAL results, because not many could bother to address basics first while overly confident rushing into editings and moddings based on self-proclaimed expertise and without being evaluated by others.
You guys point to a “problem” or “bug”… that´s fine with me… and i am not interested in arguing about it, but if so, please present well educated reasoning of WHY plus alternatives of better solutions based on FACTS of reality.cheers
PS: And also keep in mind that 4.32 is friggn old, so don´t kill yourself over it. Leave the guys a bit more space with more faith … and wait for 4.33.
-
To be fair to all sides, nobody has provided real-world data on either side of this debate.
-
To be fair to all sides, nobody has provided real-world data on either side of this debate.
And nobody will, otherwise, I close thread and delete it.
Real word data are not public on this specific area.
-
I simply cannot accept the current ARH code.
This is actualy another point. My initial remark was about chaff effectiveness on ARH seekers and your statement about their immunity to chaff.
-
This is actualy another point. My initial remark was about chaff effectiveness on ARH seekers and your statement about their immunity to chaff.
What I cannot accept is the buggy state. That is all nothing else…
-
What I cannot accept is the buggy state. That is all nothing else…
But now, since we “know” that immunity is not a bug, what are the other the problems?
-
Does this mean that what I experience is inentional that chaff chance value in DB ARH is just an ornament while in all other ever Falcon version have purpose. In this case the value of BMS4 is strongly reduced me in AMRAAM era… I planned to make '90s variant of my MOD but in this case I never will do because totally pointless. I cannot accept holy weapons in any simulator. Anyway it is quite “funny” that small and very limited capability radars on missiles are immune to chaff wihle far more capable aircraft radars are not…
It is also funny to hear that something cannot be jammed or 100% resistant while the RL have proved the opposite…
-
IMO better wait for the next release… and check again.
But basically yes, ARH must be nearly totally immune to chaff. (No information about how it is modelled in the code and what is the relation with the database.)
-
Does this mean that what I experience is inentional that chaff chance value in DB ARH is just an ornament while in all other ever Falcon version have purpose. In this case the value of BMS4 is strongly reduced me in AMRAAM era… I planned to make '90s variant of my MOD but in this case I never will do because totally pointless. I cannot accept holy weapons in any simulator. Anyway it is quite “funny” that small and very limited capability radars on missiles are immune to chaff wihle far more capable aircraft radars are not…
It is also funny to hear that something cannot be jammed or 100% resistant while the RL have proved the opposite…
I agree, even aesa radars are not immune for jammers …
-
But basically yes, ARH must be nearly totally immune to chaff. (No information about how it is modelled in the code and what is the relation with the database.)
“Must” be? From DB perspective? I don’t see why 0.0 can’t mean totally effective chaff and 1.0 no effect. And linearly on that interval.
Back that up, no offence intended but code and modelling complex chaotic events with many unknown variables in reality according to some idealization isn’t your area of expertise.
The fellow with a grudge against me, @Mav-jp is the expert here.