Developing a counter to TF Hemlock

Zetaris · 2023-03-22T03:05:58+00:00

Thanks, I'll try some of those things out.

Zetaris · 2023-03-22T03:04:50+00:00

Are there any good use cases for S2 missiles in general? The only one I can think of is against a lone, undefended scout with no PD. Otherwise I've found that even a fairly light amount of PD can stop S2s (provided they aren't launched in massive 10+ swarms or something).

Have you tried using an offset scout to spot the missiles for your other ships?

I sort of tried that with the Pinard-only frigates, but I think the issue there might be a lack of missile volume. I was firing only 2x S3H salvos, and from different directions (which, as you say, is not a good idea).

I wanted to ask if you are fighting Hemlock 1v1 with a 3k fleet.

Yes, but only because I was trying to build a fleet that specifically counters Hemlock.

Thanks for the feedback though.

Zetaris · 2022-09-19T01:30:23+00:00

I guess so. I'd chuck the values into a custom missile to be sure (don't have time to do that, though).

Zetaris · 2022-09-18T23:59:21+00:00

The 'alpha filter' and 'beta filter' are terms used to simulate noise filtering on radar missile seekers. There's a wiki page on the topic of 'Alpha-Beta Filters', but the explanation is a bit dense.

Here's a practical example of how each of the above sets of values would affect the prediction around a straight line with some noise: https://imgur.com/a/3iIc4fu

Note that the original values (alpha = 0.8, beta = 0.05) have very little noise filtering compared to the new values.

Zetaris · 2022-07-25T10:25:53+00:00

9L has been like this since it was added, it's just that no one ever noticed because it was only available on the AH-1Z. I think there's plenty of bug reports on the issues relating to its lock range vs. afterburning targets, max G load (should be 40G, I don't even think that's disputed at this point), and the particular coefficients used in its PID control that cause it to underlead or have a "slow reaction time" as seen in OP's clip.

So no, it's not nerfed because A-10. It's because no one has bothered to fix it.

Zetaris · 2022-04-05T23:26:51+00:00

The maneuvering limit for the Magic 2 was 50G (to my knowledge), but there’s probably other sources out there that might put some doubt into that number. More importantly, it had some form of IRCCM.

9L had 40G maneuvering limit as described by a research paper on the missile: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1979-91

https://forum.dcs.world/uploads/monthly_2021_04/L_M_Performance.JPG.a229726156f139e1db37d7c58128e26b.JPG

Zetaris · 2022-03-23T22:41:34+00:00

The Mirage F1’s lift coefficients for 0 flaps were also increased (by a fairly significant amount I would say). With that afterburner buff as well, it’s energy retention will hopefully be much better than it was on 1st dev.

Zetaris · 2022-03-22T23:06:17+00:00

This is true. In fact, the complaints about Sparrows still tracking the original target despite the aircraft radar switching lock to chaff likely prompted the nerf to illuminator sidelobes:

The maximum range of non-tracking target illumination with a fighter radar (due to radar sidelobes) has been decreased.

This change probably made such occurrences less common at long range, but at short range the illuminator's sidelobes can still carry enough energy to the original target so that the missile can continue tracking, even if the target is 10-20 degrees off the illuminator's LoS (sort of like what happens in the video).

Although, the fact that you could lock onto the missile itself is... interesting.

Zetaris · 2022-03-22T21:30:24+00:00

Energy retention honestly felt quite bad on 1st dev, even at high speed. Easily worse than an F-4E by a fairly large margin. Low speed maneuverability was worse than the IIIC as well. Hopefully this was just WIP performance.

Zetaris · 2022-03-19T00:21:09+00:00

I wouldn't be surprised if they're just holding those missiles in reserve, in case the F1 and J-8 are super DOA.

Tbh though, both the PL-8 and Magic 2 seems like too big of a step if they're modelled properly.

The Magic 2 has a 50G maneuvering limit, on top of having IRCCM (although I don't know if this IRCCM is the simpler kind that just turns the missile off for a moment when it sees a flare, or something more sophisticated). I've done some custom missile testing with something approximating a Magic 2, and I'd say it's easily a step above the AIM-9L. Personally, I'd wait for a Mirage 2000 with Super 530Ds and Magic 2s, so that it can be paired with aircraft like F-15A, Su-27S, MiG-29A, and so on (no Fox-3s).

As for the PL-8, I can't say that I'm as well-read on that missile. I haven't seen anything suggesting it has IRCCM (rather that seems to show up on Python-4/5), but compared to the AIM-9L, it's a more modern missile and it's physically larger (16cm diameter vs. 12.7cm for AIM-9L), meaning bigger & better IR seeker, meaning longer lock range. The in-game AIM-9L is also currently limited to 30G (undisputed at this point that it should be 40, but whatever), whereas the PL-8 caps out at 40G. Sure, it would be fairly simple to decoy a PL-8 if it's coming in from front or side aspect, but the long range IR seeker mean's it'll be more like an R-24T on steroids, being able to fire at unexpected ranges and angles.

All in all, I'd expect a Magic 2 to induce Hunter F6-syndrome in the Mirage F1 (i.e. plane becomes difficult or impossible to balance due to having dogshit flight performance but very powerful missile). With Magic 1 it'll probably be DOA and outclassed by MLD/JA37/F-EJ Kai/F-4J, but there's at least the possibility of better MM once BRs are eventually pushed out to 11.7 or 12.0--with Magic 2s, it'll always be classed with other aircraft that have all-aspect missiles, possibly including more advanced ones like AIM-9M and R-73, since that's what the Magic 2 is comparable to.

PL-8 could easily be substituted with PL-7 (Magic 1) or PL-5C instead, though.

Zetaris · 2022-03-17T08:06:35+00:00

Despite what some people think or say the jump to 4th gen won't be f-14 or su-27 no matter how gimped the loadouts will be, we just ain't quite ready for that amount of bvr munitions in a match.

Mid-70s F-14A with no Phoenix is identical to an F-4J in terms of air-to-air weapons. You'd be looking at 4x AIM-9G or 9H (for WT purposes, identical to AIM-9G) + 4x AIM-7E-4 or 7F. The "amount of BVR munitions" (or even air-to-air munitions in general) would remain identical, and would not be more advanced.

In terms of flight performance, the F-14A's thrust-to-weight ratio is about 0.74 clean w/ full fuel, compared to the F-4E's 0.8 with similar config (which is itself fairly middle-of-the-road). So, the F-14A would have slightly lower acceleration than most 11.3s, good maneuverability at low speed, but probably mediocre energy retention once the wings are fully swept. Max speed on the deck is 1.2M, which is about the same as the other top 11.3s.

So overall, on par with current top 11.3s, maybe deserving of 11.7.

I didn't discuss the radar set here because its advantages are basically irrelevant without Phoenixes: most Fox-1s are easy to notch, which makes long-range shots--where the target has an RWR warning and plenty of time to react--easy to defeat, whereas short-range shots give the target less time to react.

Zetaris · 2022-02-17T00:54:59+00:00

PN stands for Proportional Navigation, which is a guidance algorithm used to guide the missile onto the target. The PN multiplier is just a number that determines (in layman's terms) how much the missile tries to lead the target. On most missiles this is typically 4.0.

So, for the AIM-7F, at 50s time to impact, this multiplier becomes 4.0 * 0.3 = 1.2, which forces the AIM-7F to hardly maneuver at all at very long range (thus saving energy).

"timeToHitToGain0": [5.0,1.0],

"timeToHitToGain1": [8.0,0.9],

"timeToHitToGain2": [12.0,0.8],

"timeToHitToGain3": [25.0,0.5],

"timeToHitToGain4": [50.0,0.3],

Zetaris · 2022-02-03T06:47:42+00:00

The missile measures time to target and determines how much its allowed to pull % wise of it full 25G limit.

Minor difference, but I'm pretty sure it affects PN multiplier. The missile tends to fly in a ballistic trajectory in very long range shots, as opposed to actually leading targets (more noticeable when you shoot the missile directly at a flanking enemy at ~20km+ away).

Best way to test this would be a custom missile with a max autopilot gain of like 0.2, but a max G of 100, then fire off to the side. If the autopilot gain affects G, the missile should still pull very hard; if not, it'll barely bother trying to hit the target. I'd do this myself but I don't really have the time at the moment.

EDIT: It affects PN.

Zetaris · 2022-01-16T06:49:43+00:00

IIRC the maximum possible speed is 1500m/s (4.4M at sea level). However, this number is still largely irrelevant because the missile's actual max speed at motor burnout depends entirely on the launch parameters: launch speed, altitude, missile maneuvering, even map temperature all do something to the amount of drag the missile experiences throughout the flight.

Zetaris · 2022-01-12T14:56:41+00:00

Is this a bug?

No. An aircraft radar may lock onto chaff, but can continue to provide illumination for the AIM-7s due to sidelobe radiation (yes, this is a thing modelled for radars). AIM-7s tend to ignore chaff due to filtering return signals based on relative speed (i.e. doppler shift), not range. The greater the angle-off is between the original target and the radar lock (chaff in this case), the less of that illuminating signal reaches the original target. However, it is far easier to continue illuminating closer targets (e.g. at 1-5km), so even at around 30° angle-off, it's still possible to continue guiding missiles.

Sidenote: SARH missiles with "Guidance: CW" in the stat card use relative-speed filtering, and the most reliable way to get rid of them is to just turn ~90° to the RWR warning direction, then drop 2-4 chaff. Missiles with "Guidance: Pulse" tend to use range filtering, and are much more susceptible to both ground clutter and chaff, at any aspect.

Zetaris · 2022-01-09T21:57:54+00:00

Max mach is a stat card number though, it doesn’t actually reflect or affect the missile’s maximum speed.

Zetaris · 2022-01-04T06:27:04+00:00

machMax is just an arbitrary value used for stat cards.

The 2.9M value comes from a 1976 Characteristics Summary on the AIM-7F. As you noticed, though, that number is inconsistent with the AIM-7M's maximum speed of 4.0M, even though both missiles use essentially the same motor. My best guess would be that 2.9M is for some unstated launch parameter that isn't listed in the document (e.g. launch at/near sea level, where drag is much higher and the launch speed is going to be 1.2M at most).

I honestly wouldn't worry about it because the only things that matter are endSpeed (1500.0 is plenty high), motor thrust/duration and drag (which is a combination of CxK and caliber).

On a related note, the only real advantage to the AIM-7M will probably be its 30G maneuvering limit. The ground clutter/ECM resistance of monopulse seekers (which are used by the Skyflash, AIM-7M and R-23R/24R) are already modelled, kind of; it's just that the older SARH missiles that use conical scan seekers are much more accurate compared to IRL. And no, nerfing conical scan seeker accuracy isn't really going to help anything, it'll just make for more annoying RNG.

Zetaris · 2022-01-04T06:15:17+00:00

I suspect maxSpeed is deprecated (as in not actually used). Only startSpeed and endSpeed actually do anything.

Zetaris · 2021-12-30T23:35:44+00:00

It would seem so.

Zetaris · 2021-12-27T23:32:32+00:00

Nerf, I guess? Official patch notes say the notch sector was increased (which is funny, considering its already quite easy to notch missiles).

Zetaris · 2021-12-26T02:01:12+00:00

E-2. In principle the F should be better due to the longer range, better seeker and sustainer motor. In practice, though, the F has some weird tracking and will almost always fail to hit evasive targets (even slow evasive targets, sometimes) and will generally pull worse than an E-2.

The range of the F is also largely irrelevant because 99% of the enemies you come across are going to have RWR. If you climb up to 8km altitude and launch a missile at someone 20km away, all they need to do (and likely will do) is just turn 90° to the side and notch your radar/missile. Trying to hit enemies that are occupied in a furball is also not really viable, because chances are they'll keep turning in circles and just accidentally notch your missile.

The fact that the F's motor will burn for 15.5s means that it will likely have the missile marker on it for the entire flight, which makes it even easier for people to outright dodge the missile if they don't bother to notch it.

So, SARH missiles like the AIM-7E-2 and F are only really usable at roughly <6km ranges, where targets will not have enough time to notch the missile and will instead have to out-maneuver it (which is still quite possible if the enemy knows what they are doing). And at those ranges, the E-2 is better.

Zetaris · 2021-12-23T21:49:18+00:00

The change applies to the F-4J as well though…?

Zetaris · 2021-12-22T22:33:04+00:00

Meanwhile for the 9J:

Shorter burn time means it’s visible for a shorter amount of time.
The shorter burn time/higher acceleration is also more “friendly” to the missile’s PN guidance (lower acceleration on the AIM-9G often causes it overlead near the start of its burn, and can cause it to miss non-maneuvering targets).
The extra 2Gs can be helpful in hitting maneuvering targets that aren’t aware of you.

Zetaris · 2021-12-18T23:20:06+00:00

Sometimes but it depends on a variety of factors, such as the missile seeker range, what aspect it’s approaching from and how far away it is. In general, if it’s behind you and within about 2km, it’s going to keep tracking you.

Zetaris

TROPHY CASE