Possible active radar missile bug (very serious issue)
-
I’ve fired on targets within kinematic range and they managed to dodge them, so I don’t understand this 100% kill thing.
Human or AI? inside NEZ?
for a human at least, you can dodge the AIM-120 with little effort. when you see the M on your RWR, break for the deck and burn….
-
IMHO:
Even AIM-7s or other semi-active missiles should have some way to hit, now they are quite useless. Why airforces even today use those if it is this easy to break lock?
And i have to say that DCS is failing because they underestimate gameplay side so much, let’s not make Falcon same. :drink:
-
Why so angry?
I’m not angry. I’m disappointed, very disappointed. You posted your latest comment as the previous ~80 did not exist… Since the first post was plenty of time repeat my test and prove that I was wrong. I did not see any evidence that chaff has such an effect on ARHs what should be.
If you (we) want to improve things, than we need a basis to work from first. Just crying out loud, that things are broken will not help fixing it.
I have proven. If you do not believe me repeat the test and show me at least one cases where by using only chaff you can brake the lock as can be done against SAMs and SARH missiles. No turn, no ECM just dropping chaff.
So, i recommoned researching (at best as it is possible of course) and construct a better reasoning.
What can be better than a video? It works in FF4 as has to do and does not work in BMS4. Only problem that I do not find the video. Did I forget to record and upload? In this case I have to install again FF4 and make the test. Only question, is it worth my time…? Some people simply deny the bugs of BMS4. I have no idea why…
BTW: The chaffs work beautifully versus the emitter plattform and its already a “joke” to defeat missiles imo (have shown that in a previous post - breaking R-77 from the rails + chaff).
Against ARH it is a who cares issues that the radar lock of launch platform can be jammed. Yes, becaues of magic accuracy of RWR you can dodge ARHs if the missile KE is enogh low and you are in a good position. But I do not understand how comes this to my observation that ARHs cannot be defeated by chaff even if you set 1 chaff chance value or any…
I simply do not understand why I so hard to believe that I found a bug what was not discovered by anybody.
(Today I also check another major bug about the red vs blue tanks.)
-
@A.S:
Why so angry?
If you (we) want to improve things, than we need a basis to work from first. Just crying out loud, that things are broken will not help fixing it.
Project much?
-
AFAIK chaffs should be dropped in such a manner that they form a curtain between you and the emitter. Just popping them as a flare is not the way to go.
Im not sure to what degree this really is modelled…I do have ACMI tapes of heaters being obiously distracted by flares of aircraft other then they targeted.
Amazingly I have one ACMI where an AIM-9P is targeted on an F-4, pops flares, Aim9 goes for the flare, other F-16 passes the flare and the Aim9 starts to track this F-16 and kills is. (I was the poor guy getting shot)
Netstat was the Wingman fireing the Aim9…I stillAnyway…
If the Chaff is modeled as accurately as the flare. It may be the way/procedure used for dropping it which gives the bad(no) effectiveness of the Chaff. -
AFAIK chaffs should be dropped in such a manner that they form a curtain between you and the emitter. Just popping them as a flare is not the way to go.
Im not sure to what degree this really is modelled…I do have ACMI tapes of heaters being obiously distracted by flares of aircraft other then they targeted.
Amazingly I have one ACMI where an AIM-9P is targeted on an F-4, pops flares, Aim9 goes for the flare, other F-16 passes the flare and the Aim9 starts to track this F-16 and kills is. (I was the poor guy getting shot)
Netstat was the Wingman fireing the Aim9…I stillAnyway…
If the Chaff is modeled as accurately as the flare. It may be the way/procedure used for dropping it which gives the bad(no) effectiveness of the Chaff.what type of radar is onboard the AIM-120?
-
-
A very small one!
doppler? would the chaff’s GS of roughly 0 ms^-1 mean that the chaff would be completely ignored?
-
You tell me?
Are you trying to say that chaffs won’t work anyway. So the whole discussion is void? -
well, if it uses a PD radar, then chaffs traveling at about 0 GS will be ignored as “ground clutter”… the chaff is effectively beaming.
IF it is a PD radar, then yes, chaff is pointless IRL.
thats why I ask, I have no idea what type of radar the AIM-120 uses (though its an important question for any missile seeker radar really)
-
I really have no clue.
Neither has Google as far as I can see. -
Regardless if the chaff is ignored as ground or not, can the aim120 radar see through the chaff “cloud” and keep the lock on the ac on the other side? If the chaff is between the ac and the aim120 that is.
Afaik the chaff is not a decoy as the flare meaning that the chaff is not a “new” target for the missile?Cheers
-
Hell, even war SHIPS use chaff to evade incoming anti ship missiles and those have much bigger radar on board and ship is huge target… it is BS that Aim-120/AA-12 small radar ignores chaff cloud front of it. Period.
-
Ok, I started record again. Just for sure I make the same test first what I have done 5+ years ago with FF4. Even with original modeling value if you set 0.050 BI and 10/20/30 or simlary big BQ and release all chaff withit 2-3 sec you can defeat R-77. From 5 attempts 2 were successful even AI launched two R-77s. Both was defeated by chaff. Yes, with original values.
Just try the same in BMS4…
I will show what happens in FF4 if you set high chaff chance for ARH.
In BMS4 I wil show only the high chaff chance because the other is pointless and of course I will show the SARH missile to see which is working is which is not.
Stand by for the video.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/watch/9wfngt63w4cm1sw/FF4-test.mp4
You can see these events in case the ARH code works.
-
Regardless if the chaff is ignored as ground or not, can the aim120 radar see through the chaff “cloud” and keep the lock on the ac on the other side? If the chaff is between the ac and the aim120 that is.
Afaik the chaff is not a decoy as the flare meaning that the chaff is not a “new” target for the missile?Cheers
easily, if it is PD radar then all it needs is the return pulses at a different frequency.
the chaff does not block all signals, its just intended to confuse the return - which if the return has different frequencies, at different times… one is ignored for being ground, one is classed a target.
pretty sure we did this topic a while back, and even referenced that doc that DeeJay posted about fundamentals of Electronic Warfare…
-
Human or AI? inside NEZ?
for a human at least, you can dodge the AIM-120 with little effort. when you see the M on your RWR, break for the deck and burn….
Various AI, just outside R^TR. MiG-25s will turn and run once the missile goes active and outrun it every time. A few times I have seen F-16s pass the AIM-120 head-on and just magically dodge it.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/watch/ov4s65dzwk1kdra/BMS4-test.mp4
Test with BMS4. Is it enough clear what the problem is? IHMO have to be blind not to see the problem…
-
Test with BMS4. Is it enough clear what the problem is? IHMO have to be blind not to see the problem…
Since I read this thread and BlueWolf triggering me to dive into the world of radars, I found the AIM120 is (supposedly) using a Monopulse radar, which is supposed to be harder to jam. Monopulse is distantly comparable with conical scanning, where the beams are at an offset with the targets. Having a better return on one side, means the target has moved and the radar instantly has a means of tracking.
The internal computer of the AIM120 is able to calculate lead pursuit using all the data that is fed into the computer and give it a homing solution.The Conical scanning and this monopulse (this in lesser degree) can be confused by other objects moving through the beam.
However I’m sure missile designers are much smarter than me and would have figured out some software to make the missile try to ignore clutter and very very sudden changes in velocity vector. Making the missile ‘smart’.
There must be limits though!In the video you put the missile on the beam and pump your chaffs.
Given the theory above, about Mono Pulse, this would mean a VERY sudden change in flight direction of a radar return due to the chaffs. The designers would very likely be able to filter such things. So the missile would ignore such a change and keep tracking it’s original target.Try the following (And I will do the some thing btw…this subject really caught my attention):
- Make exectly the same setup as you did
- Setup your Chaff program to make a constant stream of chaffs for atleast 6 seconds
- Put the missile on the beam
- Start the chaffs program
- …wait ONE second
- make a HARD level turn away from the missile (DO NOT CLIMB IN THE TURN)
This will put you relative speed to the sensor to 0
A whole cloud of chaffs blocks the sensor from left to right
There is no relative movement of any object
Missle will go straight of atleast maintain it’s ‘former’ turn to track you
You get a chance to surviveLike with Flare…just popping them in full AB won’t work that well. Cutting the power and popping has a greater effect in falcon. So I expect (and hope) a similar modelation of the chaffs.
IF this effect of the chaffs is modeled in falcon, it should theoretically work.
Otherwise…you did convince me.
Ill post my findings ASAP aswell.Disclaimer:
I came up with this simply by connecting the info I found on the Web. I have no real knowledge about the AIM120 whatsoever. -
100% pointless what you posted. In BMS4 chaff does not work agains ARH. It is clearly seen in videos what I posted.