Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: Semi active CMS profile

  1. #31
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    United Kingdom
       United Kingdom
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,185
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    421
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    252
    Thanked in
    171 Posts
    Well, it only bloody WORKS!

    Some issues I've come across so far though:

    - Any radar contact removed from the 'threat list' triggers the next unmapped CMS program alphabetically (program C in our case)
    - Any pop up IR missile always triggers CMS program M
    - I can't get the system to identify specific missiles (either radar or IR)

    I figure that A-L is for radar missiles and M-Z is for IR but I'm not sure how to get the sim to 'identify' different IR missiles.

  2. #32
    Member JayPee's Avatar
    Netherlands
       Netherlands
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    490
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    144
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    78
    Thanked in
    60 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Howie View Post
    Well, it only bloody WORKS!
    don't piss yourself just yet. I'll try and see what I can come up with.. By that time Eddie has probably also taken a look at it.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Howie View Post
    ..but I'm not sure how to get the sim to 'identify' different IR missiles.
    To be fair, that is rather difficult in reality as well, not impossible, but certainly impractical.

    The biggest limitation with this, as nice as it is, is the limited programmability of the expendables programs in the first place. Not having salvo quantity/salvo delay is quite a big limitation when it comes to making multiple expendables programs based on the threat. Especially as semi/auto just run the program repeatedly until the threat disappears.

  4. #34
    Member JayPee's Avatar
    Netherlands
       Netherlands
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    490
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    144
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    78
    Thanked in
    60 Posts
    What is the disadvantage of not having intervals between bursts? Why is it more practical in countering incoming missiles? I do have a thought or two about that I just would like to hear it from those who know.

    EDIT1:

    For what it's worth I too have notice that defining more programs than A, B, and L works, at least for the threats mentioned in the original unedited CMSC_param.LUA. However, I did not find that any other missile without a corresponding RWR threat automatically selects program M. I had MANPADS (nothing else) in the area firing at me and it just stuck to program A in semi-auto mode.

    EDIT2:

    OK, my bad. Ran some tests again and I too notice now that missiles (tested MANPADS and SA-13) with no RWR indication somehow seem to trigger program M. Even while I had program M specifically mapped to a Tunguska and there were absolutely no Tunguskas in the area.

    I think our take home message for now is that we can map whatever program we want to the threats which are already mentioned in the original CMSC_param.LUA except for program M. Mapping it to a threat would not be wise as you will want to set up program M for pretty much every IR type missile except for the Tunguska's missile because you are likely going to make map a program specifically for that unit.

    If you don't mind I'll take off my Sherlock coat for tonight and I'll go and have some gun fun on the range before going to bed. Now that we know we can make dispense programs per individual threat, it may be more effective to make tailored programs than to summarise everything as either 'old generation' or 'current generation'. I'd say give it some thought.. If you need me to dig into certain things further, let me know!

    Jp out
    Last edited by JayPee; 19Dec14 at 19:03.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    United Kingdom
       United Kingdom
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,185
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    421
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    252
    Thanked in
    171 Posts
    Yeah, after having played with it I can see there are some limitations.

    The only real plus this gives is the ability to have semi auto ECM programs and tweak profiles more specifically for certain SAM's.

  6. #36
    GOMER 2 Noodle's Avatar
    United States
       United States
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,572

    Awards Showcase

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    606
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,947
    Thanked in
    682 Posts
    I'm glad to see you guys taking the initiative to work with this, because it is indeed possible to increase the realism and effectiveness of countermeasures employment through the methods that you're exploring.

    However, since the question was asked about the RL efficacy of expendable salvo quantities and delays, I'll say this:

    I'm the first one to call bullshit when people try to shut down conversations on topics such as radar, ECM and IRCM using the flawed rationale that they are taboo classified subjects. Poppycock! The vast majority of concepts are open-source and easily researchable in academic textbooks. However, the things that ARE classified deal with specific techniques used against specific threat systems, or the specific capabilities of a particular piece of equipment or software. So, feel free to ponder, guess, suppose, assess, deduce, etc., to your heart's content; there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't be surprised if asking certain questions result in "non-answers". It will be easier if we focus on what's effective and applicable in the DCS world, rather than the real world.

    So...regarding the question about salvo intervals, how about we see if it makes a difference in DCS? I already started a project a few weeks ago to ascertain the effectiveness of various IRCM programs against DCS threats, starting with the SA-13 GOPHER.

    I tested the effectiveness of both pre-emptive and reactive programs by altering following conditions:

    Altitude - 1,000ft to 10,000ft at 1,000ft intervals
    Airspeed - 200KIAS to Max Level Flight Speed at 50KIAS intervals
    Throttle Position: MAX, and IDLE
    Aspect - Nose, Beam, and Tail
    CMS Program - Dispense intervals from 0.25sec to 1.0sec in 0.25sec intervals

    From TacView, I gathered the following information:

    Missile Max Range (RMAX)
    Missile Probability of Guide (PG)
    Missile Closest Point of Approach (CPA)
    Missile Fuze function - Yes or No
    Aircraft Damage - Yes or No
    Threat System Probability of Kill (PK)

    I haven't had a lot of time to work on it so I'm not finished testing/analyzing yet, but when I am, the intent is to publish data that will familiarize 476th pilots with the DCS SA-13 threat system and provide a basis for developing TTPs and ROTs for operating within the SA-13 MEZ.

    What would be super-cool is if there were more people interested in testing other threat systems and compiling similar data for analysis and dissemination. I suspect that with a concerted effort, we would be able to create something pretty much unprecedented in the DCS community (not sure about F4/BMS).

    One of the obvious results of such a study is determining the most effective expendable programs, which is an obvious dovetail with the work you doing on the CMSP behavior.

    As an aside, someone further up the thread mentioned something about changing the CMS switch behavior. I'm not nearly as familiar with the F-16 as I once was; can someone remind me how CMS works in the F-16?

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Noodle For This Useful Post:

    Eddie (19Dec14), El_Roto (19Dec14), JayPee (19Dec14), Stuka (19Dec14)

  8. #37
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    United Kingdom
       United Kingdom
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,185
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    421
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    252
    Thanked in
    171 Posts
    No idea about how the real CMS switch works in the F-16 but this is how it is set up in Falcon:

    http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergal...tas_aa_ssc.jpg

    I'm not sure about remapping the A-10's though - I'm actually kinda used to it.

    I did some testing yesterday against the Tunguska and found the following:
    - Chaff and flares are both completely ineffective at decoying missiles
    - auto/semi CMS programs are only activated when 'locked' by the gun tracking radar at close range (at which point program B is activated by default - although this can be changed by us now)
    - chaff did not seem to have any effect on the Tunguska's ability to maintain a radar lock for guns tracking although further testing is required to be sure.

    One limitation of the CMS programming is that only an active radar lock or missile launch will trigger the system to switch to a different profile. A solid lock causes auto mode to dump about 90% of your chaff before any missile is launched. CMS aft will not stop the system dispensing. For this reason I think semi auto mode is our best bet.

    Different IR missiles could not be identified using the lua in my experients but your milage may vary. This meant that any IR missile triggers program M so that program must be effective against ALL IR threats.

    I did not try to program any profiles after 'M' but I suspect it could be possible.
    Last edited by Howie; 19Dec14 at 08:26.

  9. #38
    Member JayPee's Avatar
    Netherlands
       Netherlands
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    490
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    144
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    78
    Thanked in
    60 Posts
    I can't find the references anymore on F-16.net so I'll have to stick to the information spread within the F4/BMS community which claims it to be more or less identical to the real world Blk 50/52. In short it comes down to this: http://users.telenet.be/aviator/OF5.htm

    Unfortunately, the 10C dash 1 only describes that there are 4 ways you can tilt the CMS switch and the fifth option is pressing it. Further information is to be found in the dash 34 to which I don't have access. I assume that indeed further explanation of dispense programs and the functioning of the switch is described in the dash 34 so I leave it up to others who do have access to it which part of this bit of inormation is safe to share and possibly implement in the DSC A-10C.

    @ Howie, yes I've also noticed that a Tunguska encounter is a complete mess up for that matter. The CMSP in DCS is a reactive system while it should also be a proactive system if you ask me.

    @ Noodle, if I understand you correctly you are suggesting what we've already discussed very briefly: making a dispense program for every individual threat, instead of for a more or less arbitrary chosen 'cluster' of threats (Old SAMs vs Current SAMs as per DCS' classification). However, since -as you've already pointed out yourself- this is going to take quite some research it might be a good idea to quickly start off with more generic programs per threat and step-by-step replace these with more thoroughly researched programs. Eddie has already come up with programs in the past so I am hoping we could pull off the initial part of making generic programs without too much effort.

    While we're at it we should also consider Howie's approach of distinguishing between search RADARs, tracking RADARs, and possibly also the actual missile launch.

    I think I have a fairly good grip on how to manipulate programs and how to map them to various units/threats but I'd rather leave the matter of which threat requires which countermeasures up to the more knowledgeable.

    EDIT1:

    With the CMSP_param.LUA below, every threat that was already taken into account in the unmodified file now has its own dispense program trigger. The mapped programs range from program P to program Z. Program A to program O are not used with the exception of program M which is used for incoming missiles without an RWR threat present (so IR missiles, but possibly also your flight's AGM/AIM launches and other missiles picked up by the MWS)

    I deliberately put them at the end of the Alphabet so we're still able to use Eddie's or your own dispense programs A to L.

    Code:
    dofile(LockOn_Options.common_script_path..'wsTypes_SAM.lua')
    
    device_timer_dt	= 0.5
    
    JAMMER_SAM1 = 1
    JAMMER_SAM2 = 2
    JAMMER_AAA 	= 3
    
    -- a sequence below in an Alphabet order
    -- DEF_PROG_A		= 0
    -- DEF_PROG_B		= 1
    -- DEF_PROG_C		= 2
    -- DEF_PROG_D		= 3
    -- DEF_PROG_E		= 4
    -- DEF_PROG_F		= 5
    -- DEF_PROG_G		= 6
    -- DEF_PROG_H		= 7
    -- DEF_PROG_I		= 8
    -- DEF_PROG_J		= 9
    -- DEF_PROG_K		= 10
    -- DEF_PROG_L		= 11
    -- don't touch prog M, it seems hardcoded for now to counter unidentified incoming missiles such as MANPADS and SA-13 (and probably every other IR missile)
    -- DEF_PROG_N		= 13
    -- DEF_PROG_O		= 14
    DEF_PROG_P		= 15
    DEF_PROG_Q		= 16
    DEF_PROG_R		= 17
    DEF_PROG_S		= 18
    DEF_PROG_T		= 19
    DEF_PROG_U		= 20
    DEF_PROG_V		= 21
    DEF_PROG_W		= 22
    DEF_PROG_X		= 23
    DEF_PROG_Y		= 24
    DEF_PROG_Z		= 25
    
    
    
    JammersProgramsForSAM =
    {					
    	--Program SAM 1
    	{ JAMMER_SAM1,
    		{ Kub_STR_9S91, Osa_9A33, Roland_ADS, Roland_rdr, S125_SR_P_19, S125_TR_SNR, Hawk_SR_ANMPQ_50, Hawk_TR_ANMPQ_46}
    	},
    	--Program SAM 2
    	{ JAMMER_SAM2, 
    		{ S300PS_TR_30N6, Buk_SR_9S18M1, Buk_LN_9A310M1, Tor_9A331, Tunguska_2S6, Patriot_STR_ANMPQ_53 }
    	},
    	--Program AAA
    	{ JAMMER_AAA, 
    		{ Gepard, Vulcan_M163, ZSU_23_4_Shilka, Dog_Ear }
    	}
    }
    
    ChaffFlaresProgramsForRadars =
    {
    	--Program P
    	{ DEF_PROG_P,
    		{ Kub_STR_9S91}
    	},
    
    	--Program Q
    	{ DEF_PROG_Q,
    		{ Osa_9A33}
    	},
    
    	--Program R
    	{ DEF_PROG_R,
    		{ ZSU_23_4_Shilka}
    	},
    
    	--Program S
    	{ DEF_PROG_S,
    		{ S300PS_SR_5N66M, S300PS_TR_30N6}
    	},
    
    	--Program T
    	{ DEF_PROG_T,
    		{ Buk_SR_9S18M1, Buk_LN_9A310M1}
    	},
    	
    	--Program U
    	{ DEF_PROG_U,
    		{ Tor_9A331}
    	
    	},
    	--Program V
    	{ DEF_PROG_V,
    		{ Tunguska_2S6}
    	},
    
    	--Program W
    	{ DEF_PROG_W,
    		{ Roland_ADS}
    	},
    
    	--Program X
    	{ DEF_PROG_X,
    		{ Patriot_STR_ANMPQ_53}
    	},
    
    	--Program Y
    	{ DEF_PROG_Y,
    		{S125_SR_P_19, S125_TR_SNR}
    	},
    
    	--Program Z
    	{ DEF_PROG_Z,
    		{Hawk_SR_ANMPQ_50, Hawk_TR_ANMPQ_46}
    	},
    
    
    }
    
    need_to_be_closed = true -- close lua state after initialization
    Last edited by JayPee; 19Dec14 at 10:08.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to JayPee For This Useful Post:

    Howie (19Dec14)

  11. #39
    Member JayPee's Avatar
    Netherlands
       Netherlands
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    490
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    144
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    78
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Semi active CMS profile

    Noodle, could you by any chance elaborate a bit on how you did the testing so the method is reproducible by others? You've summed up quite some variables that you measured/controlled for but how do they lead to an appropriate program setting?

    EDIT1:

    I really do hope we can somehow find a way to make dispense programs efficient because from what I can see now it's basically the more the merrier. In a test setting I've had 7 Strela missiles incoming at the same time while I had my throttle maxed and it seems it's just a matter of spamming as many flares as possible (about a hundred in my case) and all missiles will miss. If that were the case IRL I'd think every AC would simply be equipped with 1,000 cartridges.
    Last edited by JayPee; 21Dec14 at 15:11.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to JayPee For This Useful Post:

    Snoopy (19Dec14)

  13. #40
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    United Kingdom
       United Kingdom
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,185
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    421
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    252
    Thanked in
    171 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodle View Post
    So...regarding the question about salvo intervals, how about we see if it makes a difference in DCS? I already started a project a few weeks ago to ascertain the effectiveness of various IRCM programs against DCS threats, starting with the SA-13 GOPHER.

    I tested the effectiveness of both pre-emptive and reactive programs by altering following conditions:

    Altitude - 1,000ft to 10,000ft at 1,000ft intervals
    Airspeed - 200KIAS to Max Level Flight Speed at 50KIAS intervals
    Throttle Position: MAX, and IDLE
    Aspect - Nose, Beam, and Tail
    CMS Program - Dispense intervals from 0.25sec to 1.0sec in 0.25sec intervals

    From TacView, I gathered the following information:

    Missile Max Range (RMAX)
    Missile Probability of Guide (PG)
    Missile Closest Point of Approach (CPA)
    Missile Fuze function - Yes or No
    Aircraft Damage - Yes or No
    Threat System Probability of Kill (PK)

    I haven't had a lot of time to work on it so I'm not finished testing/analyzing yet, but when I am, the intent is to publish data that will familiarize 476th pilots with the DCS SA-13 threat system and provide a basis for developing TTPs and ROTs for operating within the SA-13 MEZ.
    I'd be very interested to see your results and methodology Noodle, as I'm holding off on testing any further until I know 1) how to conduct tests to the same standard and calculate the figures you mention and 2) whether the missile behaviour in DCS is too simplistic to benefit from this kind of testing or not.

    Even though you have not finalised your report, can you say conclusively if there is a relationship between the missile flare rejection logic in DCS that boils down to anything more than 'more flares = better'?

    In other words, does the pattern of flares have more of an effect than simply the number of flares?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Like our website?

You can help us by donating to cover our costs.

Many sincere thanks!


Search

Follow us

Twitter Twitter youtube iTunes Subscribe to our Podcast