AIM-7M sparrow & the RWR
-
He is not saying that amraam is weak to chaff irl, he is saying that he can’t make it weak to chaff like other missiles(still in sim).
And if he can’t make it weak with database changes its either coded that way or a bug. -
I don’t understand Molni why you continue to think that the Amraam is so weak versus chaffs?? Do you have access to real documentation? Because if not, FreeFalcon is a crap of sh@t and not a reference point to compare anything.
And believe me, the -120 C5 / C7 has minimal changes to be decoyed by chaffs in real… D has 0.
You still not get the point…? Amazing…
The problem is not the chaff chance value itself. The problem that code does not respond to any changes which means the effect of value is simply ignored. If you change the value for SAM or aircraft based radar it has effect as well as if you change the IR seeker flare chance also has effect the only exception the values for ARH missiles. The chaff chance does not have any effect regardless the value. This is the problem not the value itself. I changed the value only for testing purpose to show the bug. Because the original value is so low that is hard to show the effect of chaff but in you give such value which in all older Falcon version caused almost immediate lock brake you can examine very easily the respond of the code.
So saying is nothing wrong with ARH code is simply not valid from may aspect and accoring to test result. Just imagine what you feel in case SA-2 - or any SAM - would be immune the chaff because of code or R-3S (AA-2A) - or any IR missiles - to flares. For ARH this is the case, no matter what you do they can be defeated only kinematically.
-
He is not saying that amraam is weak to chaff irl, he is saying that he can’t make it weak to chaff like other missiles(still in sim).
And if he can’t make it weak with database changes its either coded that way or a bug.Exactly.
-
End of the story.
Unhappy? … Revert to FF which is bug free.
You and the Team should be to be offended, BMS4 is wonderful except this bug and some other minor strange feature which likely will be solved in 4.33. Only problem that the modeled Block 50/52 acts in AMRAAM era… I simply do not understand why is so hard to accept that something does not work as worked for 10+ years in every other Falcon version…
-
The problem that code does not respond to any changes which means the effect of value is simply ignored.
Sorry … not true.
We already were able to break a lock of an AIM-120C by using the right chaff sequence at the right time and maybe the right aspect … and certainly with a lot of chance (statistical).
But I was able to do it at least two times.
@Amraam … please, send to Monli you chaff sequence that you have elaborated and used for those tests.
-
You and the Team should be to be offended, BMS4 is wonderful except this bug and some other minor strange feature which likely will be solved in 4.33.
I know Monli. But I f we can’t find anything … even by deeply looking at it … you can’t ask us to code a hack for it!!!
Maybe consider your process and maybe consider that you were not using the good chaff sequence (amount/spacing) … maybe (?)
-
Well, can some one tell what is good amount of chaff and interval for ARH missiles for 4.32 U7 bms ? I may have time to do some test with tacview (time is rare with 2 months old kid)
-
I don’t understand Molni why you continue to think that the Amraam is so weak versus chaffs?? Do you have access to real documentation?
This is a valid point. However, given that access to real documentation is going to be followed by a visit from undesirables like the FBI a la kim dotcom’s arrest, I suspect some compromise has to be made in this area.
Indeed, we already have one. Surprise, some people are not happy with the compromise made.
And believe me, the -120 C5 / C7 has minimal changes to be decoyed by chaffs in real… D has 0.
This I suspect is an oversimplification of the process of countermeasures. against very very old sidewinders, they would be decoyed by flares, as the flare source would be the brightest (hottest) signature to follow, and the seeker was simple enough that a picture to discriminate what it followed was just a dream (albeit one that would eventually be REALISED in the AIM-9X). In general, you can consider flares as decoys - in a similar way that the ALE-50 operates - there is a chance that the missile will go for the flare instead of the target.
From what open source documents there are on chaff, chaff does NOT function as a decoy. Against old radars it acts to blind them entirely in the area it is deployed for the duration that it is in the air, giving multiple shifting returns, depending on the length of the chaff cuts and the frequency of the radar. Against newer ones, it acts to drag gates off of the target location against targeting radars, giving them temporary false solutions. Against newer ones this is quite time limited as the chaff slows to the same speed as the ground return and disappears from the doppler (one of several actually - the others are not modeled, likely never will be) notch. If the aircraft is notching or beaming then chaff can be somewhat effective against newer radars, but in a drag or hot aspect it will be much less useful, acting to make pursuit solutions less accurate, but not in any way acting to decoy the missile. Constantly having the radar seeker break lock on you as it transfer lock to the chaff, then dropping the chaff and relocking you, will still make big differences to the missiles amount of energy. Chaffing the notch can result in a decoy type situation, where the missile does not drop lock on the chaff as its doppler frequency is the same as the target aircraft.
It is doctrinally accepted that a combination of repeater jamming, maneuvers, and chaff dispensing IS an effective countermeasure to active radar missile seekers.
-
How much sun block do I need for a super nova
-
you want a block of the sun as your new supper?
-
It would make cooking supper quick
Sorry Blu3 you guys don’t cook your dingos like we do in the east.
oregano, carrots, onions, 2 cups of water and a pinch of Free Falcon
Sorry, don’t forget the taters precious.
-
no, ours tend to be a bit too stringy to cook em like that, Im more partial to grilled kangaroo myself.
-
no, ours tend to be a bit too stringy to cook em like that, Im more partial to grilled kangaroo myself.
Man you cant grill then, stew is the only way, if you cant get any good lamb shanks then roo tail is sooo tasty and really low in cholesterol.
I remember eating roo rump at my sisters place in the sticks, it was yum but couldn’t"t eat much of it cause it was so strong in flavour.
PS: Make a great sausage with other stuff,
-
How can one test the amraam vs chaff?
I guess the question is if it’s possible to break the lock When the M shows on your RWR? And not supported by the ac radar?Is it possible that it can use the launching ac radar even in, is it called terminal?
(In the sim) -
AIM-7M sparrow & the RWR
-
-
You still not get the point…?
I did get the point the first place. But, you also seem to forget that many other minor -value- details are hardcoded to the exe; and do not accept changes in the “db” through F4Browse or simple .dat / .ini values altering… I have encouraged this many times in my (unpublished, only photos in my thread) Mod, not sure why, maybe to prevent ppl like us to changing the status-quo according to “personal” choices, feedback, tests etc, or just because (and more likely) that there are TONS of stuff that will not / might not work right afterwards in the code, that ppl like you and me have no access to examine. Makes me think BTW that “some” values maybe SHOULD be hardcoded this way to future releases in order not to be touched by anyone… Or, a mechanism to check some values to be untouched in their “default” state just before MP connections… For example, if the db had a default value in the AIM-120 effective range of lets say 20nm, and I read in a forum in the internet a statement that it has 40nm, it would not be clever to alternate this value and spread it in a future “My Mod”. We do have to accept here also that devs have all the knowledge and solutions to fix such “values”, so lets wait for future pls.
why is so hard to accept that something does not work as worked for 10+ years in every other Falcon version…
I FULLY AGREE HERE. My friend DJ, please ask the rest dev team to re-activate the FreeFalcon IFF part of the code as and the FLIR implementation of SuperPack’s in future releases… If they were already there working, then they should be Ok. Ok?
It is doctrinally accepted that a combination of repeater jamming, maneuvers, and chaff dispensing IS an effective countermeasure to active radar missile seekers.
Of course. Mainly for older missiles/weapons but yes it is a Standard Act (evasive maneuvers). BTW, the AIM-120A/B is much more sensitive to jamming and chaffs, than the C5/C7/D models.
From the other hand, consider you are a real pilot and have the knowledge that IF/WHEN an enemy fires at you an Amraam, your only solution is to eject fast and inflate your armbands…
-
I FULLY AGREE HERE. My friend DJ, please ask the rest dev team to re-activate the FreeFalcon IFF part of the code as and the FLIR implementation of SuperPack’s in future releases… If they were already there working, then they should be Ok. Ok?
This is either sarcasm so dry it does not itself realise that it itself is sarcasm, or it is a little naive. I do not think you are a naive person, so I assume the former must be correct Given BMS do not use FF code, and given BMS’ multiple statements on the topic of IFF implementation… Someone remind me, was FLIR not broken with the update to DX9?
Of course. Mainly for older missiles/weapons but yes it is a Standard Act (evasive maneuvers). BTW, the AIM-120A/B is much more sensitive to jamming and chaffs, than the C5/C7/D models.
From the other hand, consider you are a real pilot and have the knowledge that IF/WHEN an enemy fires at you an Amraam, your only solution is to eject fast and inflate your armbands
well, I guess that is what it comes down to, no? we differ in opinion as to whether chaff is effective or ineffective. This difference of opinion is a little hard to resolve without missile test data. The missile test data is a little hard to acquire. Assuming it could be acquired, disseminating it so it could be discussed would also be a little difficult.
Perhaps the A model seeker is more susceptible to losing lock due to chaff than the D model. One would have to assume that this would be the case, given the years of improvements to CCM. I refuse to believe that the D model is completely immune to chaff though. Perhaps it will not be decoyed - a permanent loss of lock due to the chaff bloom - but at the least, assuming correct employment such as a quarter aspect shot to maximise RCS ratios and hopefully near or at a notch velocity, one would assume its use would not improve the quality of the missiles pursuit solution.
Some of the counter measures in Falcon could be improved, others could be added… I for one would love to be able to discuss whether BMS’ implementation of cross eye jamming using the ALE-50 works correctly or not. Seems like the CM suite would need an overhaul first though.
-
Took a quick look at DB and calculations.
Stock DB AIM-120 has a base chaff chance of 5%. Even in the best case scenario (notching and optimum range) this is degraded to 3,75%. So, it seems indeed possible to decoy the missile with chaff, but very unlikely.
And, indeed, even if the missile baits the chaff, it re-locks into the aircraft straight away.
-
I did get the point the first place. But, you also seem to forget that many other minor -value- details are hardcoded to the exe; and do not accept changes in the “db” through F4Browse or simple .dat / .ini values altering…
This is correct. Not everything can be fully altered by DB changes. Some values are indeed hard-coded.