Setting up counter measures
-
Again you need to chaff a aircraft / sam radar, not the missile itself. That’s pointless.
-
I did some tests and I was hardly ever able to break the lock of any incoming ARH missile. SARH missiles can be done by beaming, chaffing and working into the vertical (making your speed in the horizontal plane technically zero).
If you break the lock of the firing aircraft on a ARH shot AND chaff AND change direction, there is some chance for success if you do it right.
Pop some chaffs when you see the “M” thoughIf you chaff too early, it will re-aquire you. If you chaff too late, your signature is too big already. A good rule of thumb is 3-5 miles out on a ARH missile.
As AMRAAM said … Flares are made to defeate IR missile seekers. Chaffs are optimized to disturb fighter’s radar … NOT missile’s radar (not working on the same frequencies/parameters/resolution …) or very very unlikely.
Monli is gonna say that chaffs are ineffective against ARH … this is true. And correct.
-
Monli is gonna say that chaffs are ineffective against ARH … this is true. And correct.
I dont disagree with you but how can you be so sure? Just like to get some evidence
-
Just like to get some evidence
Join the Air Force of your country and ask your Intel officers if you want evidences (if they have those evidences). I won’t (and can’t) give you any.
-
Ok…
-
As AMRAAM said … Flares are made to defeate IR missile seekers. Chaffs are optimized to disturb fighter’s radar … NOT missile’s radar (not working on the same frequencies/parameters/resolution …) or very very unlikely.
Monli is gonna say that chaffs are ineffective against ARH … this is true. And correct.
The different frequency thing makes sense…
In my tests it looked like it can help to defeat the missile kinematically by “disturbing” the radar for a few seconds (or fractions of seconds). It will correct quick, but it seemed to guide straight for maybe a second or two which helped me completing the last ditch. But it never lost lock.
Last ditch means a sustained 9G turn at 650kts initial speed into the missile… Which is why it has the name “last ditch”- if you are out of possibilities, you choose that last maneuver.It’s like:
Chaff probability to defeat an ARH in active homing (together with last ditch): <1%
Chaff probability to defeat an ARH in the datalink phase by breaking the lock of the launching aircraft: ~5-10% if combined with the right maneuversDon’t know what’s in the code though, but learning from real life experiences from people who know brought me very far in BMS, so I’m gonna stick with that
In the RP5 manual, one can read about the possibilities of chaff. Based on that, you should chaff when the missile is maybe 2-5 miles out. It didn’t tell it would work though.
On ARH missiles, you can spare your chaffs and have the same result.
Using them before the missile enters final guidance is way more effective. -
As AMRAAM said … Flares are made to defeate IR missile seekers. Chaffs are optimized to disturb fighter’s radar … NOT missile’s radar (not working on the same frequencies/parameters/resolution …) or very very unlikely.
Monli is gonna say that chaffs are ineffective against ARH … this is true. And correct.
Different lengths of chaff cuts target different frequencies. Increasing chaff density has little effect above a certain point, benefiting a mix of chaff cuts per bundle.
Only thing stopping anyone from creating such a general use chaff packet is spotty (poor) intel on the victim radars.
@TobiasA - speed in the horizontal plane is irrelevant. The FCR display is mechanized on horizontal display, but the mechanics behind it are 3D and do care about the vertical. Relative speed to the ground on the other hand is very relevant to a doppler radar. On the other hand doppler radars are highly resistant to chaff already, due to chaff being not very aerodynamic.
Beaming and chaffing would be counterproductive. One attempts to hide in the (main) doppler notch, and the other would be increasing RCS (which if in the notch shouldnt achieve anything anyway).
Never going to be a consensus on how it -should- work in BMS though, too many elements that approach sensitive information territory.
-
@TobiasA - speed in the horizontal plane is irrelevant. The FCR display is mechanized on horizontal display, but the mechanics behind it are 3D and do care about the vertical. Relative speed to the ground on the other hand is very relevant to a doppler radar. On the other hand doppler radars are highly resistant to chaff already, due to chaff being not very aerodynamic.
Beaming and chaffing would be counterproductive. One attempts to hide in the (main) doppler notch, and the other would be increasing RCS (which if in the notch shouldnt achieve anything anyway).
Yes, but going into the vertical (pure vertical) will make your ground speed exactly zero. You can break lock a lot of the time when facing older SAM’s by going straight down.
I think i used the wrong words (I’m no native speaker unfortunately).In BMS, I have made good experiences with chaffing while entering the notch or beam. If you break the lock in that phase, the missile might go ballistic and even totally miss you.
You might reverse your notching or beaming too- if it is a cheap shot, it will fly in the exactly opposite direction.
Flying a plain beam maneuver and employing chaff while flying straight all the time will have little to no effect, indeed. Even if you break lock, it would not help you.Facing the AA-12 which has to be supported longer than the AMRAAM, you can achieve ballistic misses by employing a mix of chaff, notching or beaming and reversing the direction of notching or beaming.
Against the Su-27 with its good radar it is hard, but against the MiG-29 it can be done with ECM and a mix of the above.
You need to maneuver in that time when you break the lock. Chaff will only give you a second or two, if any at all. -
Don´t forget…. Chaff may also help to get an early detonation by deceiving the ARH fuze… tricky and of course, not in BMS.
-
Don´t forget…. Chaff may also help to get an early detonation by deceiving the ARH fuze…
Yes … but this is “highly” theoretical and is (for sure) not true for all ARH fuze.
Only thing stopping anyone from creating such a general use chaff packet is spotty (poor) intel on the victim radars
True … but true in a “perfect” world where military research, military development programs, equipements and (to sum-up) money … is not a factor
Never going to be a consensus on how it -should- work in BMS though, too many elements that approach sensitive information territory.
100%