[HN Gopher] How fighter jets lock on, and how the targets know (...
___________________________________________________________________
How fighter jets lock on, and how the targets know (2014)
Author : ushakov
Score : 373 points
Date : 2021-06-12 10:34 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.quora.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.quora.com)
| oehpr wrote:
| If you happen to have a VR headset and are looking to play around
| with the toys described in the article, I recommend VTOL VR. It
| has pretty low system requirements, and takes advantage of VR to
| create a virtual hotas (It is much more effective than you would
| expect). The physics simulation is, to my understanding, very
| good. And everything described in this article is present in the
| game to be played around with.
|
| VTOL VR taught me about "Radar Notching". The article briefly
| mentions how radar can actively detect the doppler shift of
| targets. If you think about it, the doppler shift of the ground
| would be neutral, right? Or roughly the speed of the aircraft. So
| lets say you've been locked on by a fighter at high altitude and
| they've fired a radar seeker at you. Your backdrop is the ground,
| it can pick you out because you're moving so fast. So what you do
| is bank your aircraft to fly at a 90 degree angle to the oncoming
| missile. Now your doppler shift is the same as the ground and you
| blend in, the radar filters out the ground because of it's
| expected speed, which is now the relative speed you are moving.
| You get "notched out", and the missile will lose track.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Radar is also very good at distance measurement so I guess this
| won't work for a real life rocket fired at a fighter jet.
| Because it's so easy to defeat this trick in the software.
| angry_octet wrote:
| Notching definitely works, it is used routinely in air
| combat. It is more effective at greater range because it's
| hard to maintain the same distance to a radar that is closing
| on you.
|
| The principal use is to break missile lock. It's less useful
| for disguising position, especially against opponents with
| AEW&C and data link. Breaking lock means reducing the doppler
| return to below the range gate threshold, and changing
| bearing to escape the Kalman filter that is predicting your
| position based on prior kinematics.
| oehpr wrote:
| I'm to understand that tricks like this are much less
| effective against more modern A2A missiles, so you might be
| right.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| A missile will generally not care about distance. What
| matters is direction/angle. Distance is irrelevant. Just keep
| pointing at the target and eventually you will get there,
| assuming you are faster. So the direction to the strongest
| reflection, or greatest doppler shift, or combination of
| both, will suffice to get the missile to the target even
| without range data.
| nradov wrote:
| That was true for earlier radar guided missiles. The latest
| ones are smart enough to account for distance and calculate
| an energy optimized intercept course rather than just
| pointing straight at the target.
| [deleted]
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Missile _systems_. Such complex approaches are calculated
| and controlled by the launching platform. A radar-guided
| missile will normally not "see" the target on its own
| until long after launch, until near endgame. Whether the
| actually missile has the brains to make such calculations
| is different than whether the entire system has the
| ability.
| dvtrn wrote:
| The missile knows where it is by knowing where it isn't.
| raviolo wrote:
| For the confused (or to get more confused!):
|
| https://youtu.be/bZe5J8SVCYQ
| avereveard wrote:
| Say derivative without saying derivative
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where
| it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it
| obtains a difference, or deviation.
| klodolph wrote:
| It's been a long time since homing missiles aimed
| directly at the target. The AIM-9 Sidewinder entered
| service in 1956, and it aimed at where the target _will
| be,_ not where it is.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Some early IR missiles do aim slightly ahead of the
| target's bearing, but they don't really 'know' where they
| or the target are located in time and space. It is one
| thing to tell a missile to aim 10% to the left of a
| target bearing (which isn't simple in 3d space) another
| for that missile to understand its relative position. The
| early sidewinder used a single IR sensor behind a
| spinning reticule made of slots. This wasn't a camera
| with multiple pixels. It was one big pixel. The "brain"
| would alter the missiles course according to the position
| of that spinning reticule and the blinking signal from
| the lone sensor. There was no concept of range. At best,
| the brain could keep the target at a specific angle. This
| was achieved through literally re-drawing the reticule to
| include a solid band at the appropriate angle. So long as
| the target was behind this dark band the sensor would not
| blink and the missile would fly strait. Should the target
| move, the blinking would start and the missile would turn
| to put it back in the blank/dead zone.
|
| https://images.app.goo.gl/N3mTpDUeeJW6W7wu9
| wyager wrote:
| > Just keep pointing at the target and eventually you will
| get there
|
| Surely they can't use this poor of an optimization
| strategy? If the target is moving perpendicular to you, you
| want to point slightly ahead of the target so you intercept
| them as quickly as possible.
| jameshart wrote:
| 'Pointing at' in this case means maintaining a constant
| bearing to target, with decreasing range. If anything
| it's _easier_ for a moving guidance system to achieve
| that than to point at the target.
| giva wrote:
| Link for clarification:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_bearing%2C_decreas
| ing...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Except that, in the case of a missile, you cannot assume
| decreasing range. We assume that the missile knows to aim
| ahead of the target, but determining which way is ahead
| and which behind is tricky. If it is chasing a hotspot, a
| single point, getting that wrong means worsening your
| approach. A strait/boresight approach might not be ideal
| but it avoids the question over which offset is ahead and
| which behind the target.
| thrill wrote:
| Continuously pointing directly at the target tends to
| result in the missile being unable to generate the needed
| turn rate at the conclusion of the intercept. If the
| missile has a large warhead, that might not matter so
| much, but air-to-air missiles tend to be small.
| jameshart wrote:
| If you're a missile seeker, all you have as input is a
| two-dimensional forward view of where in your forward
| cone the target is - either deflection and azimuth, or x
| and y offset - it's like a dot on a scope. Let's assume
| cartesian x and y input for simplicity.
|
| So as you track, you can measure where it is, and how
| fast it's apparently moving in those two degrees of
| freedom - so you know x, y, dx and dy (and I guess you
| know higher degree deltas too).
|
| To hit it (assuming it's in front of you) _all you need
| to do is make control inputs to bring dx and dy to zero_
| - you don 't care what x and y are. If dx and dy are
| zero, if you're faster than the thing you're tracking,
| you're going to hit it - that's constant bearing,
| decreasing range.
|
| Making control inputs to bring x and y to zero _as well_
| as dx and dy is a harder problem! You need to control
| four degrees of freedom to do that.
|
| And making control inputs just to try to bring x and y to
| zero without controlling dx and dy is a good way to miss
| the target completely - obviously if you get x and y to 0
| but dx and dy are nonzero, the target is going to move
| away from zero, requiring more control input, which might
| _increase_ dx or dy, causing you to need even stronger
| control input...
|
| So the upshot is: you don't have to back out the target's
| absolute trajectory, figure out its true velocity and
| your own relative velocity, determine range to target and
| offset where you're pointing to compensate for time of
| flight - just get it to stay on the same bearing from
| your perspective, and you're done.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| It can be easier in terms of getting to a far away
| target, of maximizing range, but pointing strait has an
| advantage. As the target moves forwards the missile will
| be dragged behind, which reduces the relative angle at
| intercept, reducing the targets ability to make a last
| second maneuver. An direct approach IR missile can
| literally fly up the tailpipe of a fast target.
| klodolph wrote:
| Yes, even old ordnance like the Sidewinder, which entered
| service in the mid-1950s, would aim ahead of the target.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| But which radar to you beam against? The radar in the missile
| or the radar in the launching aircraft? Beam against one and
| you are not beaming against the other. You are probably dead so
| long as one of the two has you.
| nradov wrote:
| During the initial fly out the missile will usually either be
| flying toward a set navigation point, or receiving data link
| guidance from the launching aircraft, or cueing off radar
| signals reflected by the target from the launching aircraft's
| radar (passive homing). You want to keep the missile's own
| radar switched off until fairly late in the engagement
| because it has limited battery power, narrow field of view,
| and will alert the target's radar warning receiver.
|
| With modern data links it's now possible in principle to
| provide target tracking updates from a different sensor (like
| IRST) or even a completely different aircraft. If done
| correctly the target won't even realize a missile is on the
| way until it's too late to evade.
| angry_octet wrote:
| It's sadly different to Top Gun, when lock on would involve
| switching to a different PRF and/or revisit rate. Now, if
| they don't turn away after you've launched it could be
| because their missile is already on the way...
|
| At closer range there is still the UV flare of the missile
| solid rocket burn, but detecting it depends on weather and
| aspect.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Or they could be cranking and that turn away is evidence
| that they have already launched against you.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Since the missile is coming from the launching aircraft, both
| of them will be on roughly the same bearing; certainly early
| on.
|
| Flying perpendicular to that bearing will thus (hopefully)
| result in _both_ sets of radar electronics filtering you out.
|
| Should the two bearings diverge at some point, I'd recommend
| notching against the one armed with the explosive warhead
| with your name on it.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| sloshnmosh wrote:
| My father was a navigator and EWO officer in the C130 Hercules
| during the Vietnam war.
|
| He didn't talk much about the war but one of things he told me
| was that while he was that their aircraft had several stubby
| antennae around the aircraft that monitored the radar from ground
| to air weapons.
|
| He said they had various jamming equipment and would send back
| radar signals out-of-phase so that ground radar would receive
| strong signals where they should be weak to throw off the
| targeting.
|
| He said at one point over Cambodia his equipment was overloaded
| by being locked on by multiple Chinese made weapons.
|
| Later analysis showed at least 3 different "Firecan" radar locked
| on.
|
| Luckily they were not fired upon.
|
| Edited to add that Wikipedia shows that Fire Can as Russian made.
| But my father did state he thought they were Chinese made
| everyone wrote:
| I have ABP yet I saw ads on this page? Are they doing something
| dodgy?
| cs2733 wrote:
| Adblock PLus will let in some ads. Check
| https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads
| opportune wrote:
| Most adblockers rely on crowdsourced detection, there are ways
| you can report ads so the rest of the community can all block
| it. It's possible you ran into a new ad.
|
| Also ABP allows some ads it deems not intrusive. Ublock origin
| is stricter and better in my experience.
| everyone wrote:
| Tx for explaining! I switched.
| frkloovb wrote:
| What does "closure rate" mean?
| j4yav wrote:
| How fast they are approaching each other
| sokoloff wrote:
| Indeed. The rate at which the gap between them is closing =>
| closure rate.
| thrill wrote:
| Even more fun, since closure rate was often written as Vc (Vee
| sub See), pilots often spoke in terms of "opening" Vc (getting
| further away) and "closing" Vc.
| Saint_Genet wrote:
| This is largely off topic, but one of the most fascinating things
| I've ever learned about fighter jet HUDs is the reason they still
| look like early computing interfaces and avoid using color and
| graphics to signify important information is that human ability
| to detect color goes down when in high stress situations.
| esaym wrote:
| How radar tracking worked in the good ol' days [0]
|
| [0]http://www.donhollway.com/foxtwo/crusader.mp4
| dang wrote:
| Discussed at the time:
|
| _How does a fighter jet lock onto and keep track of an enemy
| aircraft? (2013)_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8439560
| - Oct 2014 (85 comments)
|
| Also, we changed the url from https://gizmodo.com/how-fighter-
| jets-lock-on-and-how-the-tar... to the quora.com page it's copied
| from.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Given quora is registrationwalled and Gizmodo is not, I'd
| support reinstating the submitted URL.
| bdefore wrote:
| 2014
| avipars wrote:
| This is an old article and i'm sure electronic warfare has
| improved since then (the IDF invests a lot into this)...
|
| But it's really cool to read about!
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/OHCwT
| sobriquet9 wrote:
| This part looks rather dated:
|
| > A digital signal processor looks for recognizable radio
| "chirps" that correspond to known radars, and displays their
| azimuth on the scope. A chirp is a distinctive waveform that a
| radio uses.
|
| These days it should be pretty easy to use pseudorandom
| waveforms, unique each time. LPI radars existed for a while.
| angry_octet wrote:
| Yes it's a tech appreciation from the SLQ-32 era. But at the
| same time receiver memory and sensitivity has massively
| increased, and many properties can be analysed, including the
| response to deception signals (delayed repetition of various
| strategies, sidelobe injection). LPI doesn't work for tracking
| as well as for searching. In the past it would take months for
| new waveforms to be analysed and platform libraries updated,
| now it happens in hours.
| j4yav wrote:
| Really interesting content, but its almost even more amazing how
| many ads they were able to squeeze in there at least on mobile.
| aleken wrote:
| Annoyed me as well. I changed to reading mode (icon on right
| side of Firefox mobile address line). Think that got rid of
| them.
| navbaker wrote:
| The thing that most irritates me about those sites is the video
| box about halfway down the page that becomes sticky for a bit
| after you pass it on mobile. I have to scroll down until it
| goes away, then slowly scroll back up until just before it
| appears again to continue reading. It's absolutely maddening.
| amelius wrote:
| Looks like the ads have locked onto you. Perhaps try some
| evasive manoeuvres.
| gxs wrote:
| I came to say the same thing - at one point only 10% of the
| screen was article text.
|
| What a god awful website.
| laegooose wrote:
| there are adblocker apps for both iOS and Android. Highly
| recommended
| swebs wrote:
| Yeah, I always just go straight to an archive site when I see a
| Gizmodo link.
|
| https://archive.is/MGCOA
| fogetti wrote:
| On Android you can use a private DNS service, for example
| nextdns.io which will block all advertisement on the page for
| you. I wouldn't be surprised if iOS would have the same option.
| Ueland wrote:
| I run PiHole (DNS-based ad-blocker) on my home network, as
| the DNS is given out trough DHCP all my devices gets less
| ads, including iOS.
| FabHK wrote:
| And furthermore, the content was from a guy (Tim Morgan) who
| answered a question on Quora (linked at the bottom of the
| article). So Gizmodo just copies it and puts lots of ads around
| it. I don't understand the modern internet.
|
| https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-fighter-jet-lock-onto-and-k...
| azalemeth wrote:
| If anything, I think it's worth asking Dang to change the
| link on the page to be this one - it's rather bad that this
| person's work appears to being just ripped off.
| nkurz wrote:
| I sent email asking him to change it.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've changed the URL to that from
| https://gizmodo.com/how-fighter-jets-lock-on-and-how-the-
| tar.... Thanks all!
| the_gipsy wrote:
| iOS to be specific. On android we have proper adblocking with
| uBlock origin. So much about apple and privacy.
| marderfarker2 wrote:
| I had this concern before I switched to iOS. Turns out you
| can install content blockers for Safari. Plus iOS supports
| DoH natively so ads are pretty much non existent on my iOS
| devices.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| It's very helpful. Firefox on Android with ublock origin is
| still the best as blocker on mobile but it's nice to have
| eg wipr on Safari.
| avh02 wrote:
| How does DoH help you avoid ads?
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Did you not get ads on the article? I'm on iOS and every
| other paragraph had one. Checked on android with uBlock and
| there aren't any. I installed "Firefox focus", supposedly
| blocks ads, I guess on the network level. Which iOS
| adblocker do you use?
| shoto_io wrote:
| I run a newsletter. We swore to find the least ad spammed
| website when we cover current news and link out. It's getting
| more difficult by the day.
| StavrosK wrote:
| This is a very interesting article, but I was kind of turned off
| by the ease with which it described killing people. "To get a
| solid kill, just put the plane in the dot and squeeze the
| trigger, super simple!"
|
| I've seen detergent bottles that were more apprehensive about
| their process of use.
| throwanem wrote:
| This is the business that fighter pilots consider themselves to
| be in, and that shows through in the way they talk about it - I
| had a history teacher in high school who had previously flown
| fighters in the Marine Corps, and while he rarely entertained
| much discussion on that subject, his approach on those
| occasions was similarly matter-of-fact.
|
| I didn't check to see if the article referenced any sources,
| but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a primary one was a
| conversation with an F-16 pilot.
| [deleted]
| StavrosK wrote:
| Yeah, I'd expect pilots to talk like that, it just had an
| impression on me because I didn't expect a journalist
| explaining something to have the same vernacular.
| throwanem wrote:
| Fighter pilots are also, by all accounts including my own,
| very much among the most confident human beings anyone is
| ever likely to meet - that teacher I'm thinking of
| certainly was. It can easily make a strong impression; most
| of the guys in that class had a huge crush on the idea of
| growing up to be like him, while many of the girls (and I!)
| just had a huge crush _on_ him.
|
| There is no reason to assume this sort of thing only occurs
| among high schoolers, or in any case that a Gizmodo writer
| would be more likely to embark upon a serious consideration
| of the moral weight of aerial combat than to focus on its
| literal and figurative whiz-bang, wow-cool-robot aspects,
| of which there is no shortage.
| gostsamo wrote:
| The article is a copy of a Quora answer. Not even sure if
| there was a journalist involved.
|
| https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-fighter-jet-lock-onto-
| and-k...
|
| Edit: Quora link.
| throwanem wrote:
| Ah, written by a pilot and fighter nerd, this also checks
| out.
|
| Fighter pilots are kind of the ultimate cool kids from the
| perspective of a milstuff nerd, and there is an unusual
| degree of hero worship among that cohort already.
| luma wrote:
| Anyone flying a fighter jet in aerial combat with other fighter
| jets knows what they signed up for and are facing opponents who
| signed up for the same thing.
|
| War is terrible, but this is one of the very few situations in
| modern combat where there is a clear line between civilians and
| the combatants. Everyone engaged is a willing participant.
|
| In this situation I'll apply Doug Stanhope's logic:
|
| > As long as the people who kinda wanna go kill other people
| are going to go kill other people who kinda wanna go kill other
| people, you're killing all the right people and opening up all
| the best parking spaces.
| weswpg wrote:
| > opening up all the best parking spaces.
|
| Funny quote, but I don't think front-line infantry have the
| best parking spaces. That would be the flag officers.
| luma wrote:
| Not sure what country you are from but in most air forces,
| front-line infantry aren't flying fighter jets.
| throwanem wrote:
| Close air support blurs the line a little, especially
| inasmuch as (in US forces at least) those pilots are both
| uniquely beloved among the infantry they support and with
| whom they share many hazards, and also much differently
| regarded by "real" combat pilots as halfway to being
| ground pounders themselves.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Well, that's sound logic and a great quote, thanks!
| rascul wrote:
| > Everyone engaged is a willing participant.
|
| Conscription is a thing in many countries. Not sure how many
| conscripts are flying, though.
| fb13 wrote:
| Well, living in a highly militarized US city that sees vendors
| come in for various presentations regularly, not only is
| "lethality" a word that businesses use to sell, but also one
| everyone gets excited to hear. It's definitely weird at first
| as a civilian. But I see how it quickly becomes CAC/LTV.
| throw10293847 wrote:
| Lock on target: "Snowflake"
| scottLobster wrote:
| At the end of the day the military is primarily there to
| achieve various ends through killing or the threat of killing.
| What good would it do to obscure that? Not all killing is bad
| tome wrote:
| I believe in the vernacular "kill" refers to destruction of the
| enemy aircraft not ending the life of the crew (they are
| correlated, of course).
| StavrosK wrote:
| I agree, but still...
| usrusr wrote:
| Would it be better or worse if they stuck to an euphemistic
| verb like "down", as if it was a given that the occupant
| walked away? I don't know the answer.
| [deleted]
| belter wrote:
| It is rumored the French OTH-Radar Nostradamus can clearly see
| all current stealth airplanes.
|
| https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1631867
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jp-Molinie/publication/...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| We've had radar that can "detect" stealth since the 40s.
|
| Radar is a huge field and HN's simplistic view is humorous.
| Saint_Genet wrote:
| And almost all stealth measures can be defeated by using
| multiple sensors.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Stealth is not perfect and not about never being detected,
| it's about shooting first. You are going after a military
| aircraft that is trying to kill you. By the time you lock a
| B2 it has released its bombs. By the time you lock an F35
| you're dead.
|
| These aircraft don't just fly around and let you take your
| sweet time killing them.
|
| If you manage to lock one you have to deal with this as
| well:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception
|
| Some of these are quite sophisticated, example:
|
| >Digital radio frequency memory, or DRFM jamming, or
| Repeater jamming is a repeater technique that manipulates
| received radar energy and retransmits it to change the
| return the radar sees. This technique can change the range
| the radar detects by changing the delay in transmission of
| pulses, the velocity the radar detects by changing the
| Doppler shift of the transmitted signal, or the angle to
| the plane by using AM techniques to transmit into the
| sidelobes of the radar. Electronics, radio equipment, and
| antenna can cause DRFM jamming causing false targets, the
| signal must be timed after the received radar signal. By
| analysing received signal strength from side and backlobes
| and thus getting radar antennae radiation pattern, false
| targets can be created to directions other than one where
| the jammer is coming from. If each radar pulse is uniquely
| coded it is not possible to create targets in directions
| other than the direction of the jammer
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Jamming AESA radars is basically impossible.
|
| "Find the F35 and you're dead" is just wrong and
| simplistic. Head to head anti-air fights aren't what's
| gonna happen. The F-35 in every mission it's supposed to
| do is going to go heads up against multiple different
| detection platforms.
| angry_octet wrote:
| "Jamming AESA radars is basically impossible."
|
| This is so incredibly wrong.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Ok
| bitL wrote:
| Yeah, but how precise it is? Even the old WW2-style radars can
| see all stealth planes, but can't really guide a missile
| towards them. There was also Czechoslovak Tamara radar in the
| '80s that was supposed to detect them as well. And Russians are
| supposed to have a mesh of mobile radars that can detect small
| anomalies in their plane and combining them together should
| show some imprecise location of a target. The question is how
| useful any of these are?
| topicseed wrote:
| Wouldn't air friction on a flying stealth airplane cause it to
| be detected due to the heat generated?
|
| It must obviously be more complicated than that but that should
| be doable nowadays?
| graderjs wrote:
| They ionize the hull in some way to reduce friction I guess
| that reduces the thermal signature.
| dotancohen wrote:
| What do you think "ionize" means in this context?
|
| Or, for that matter, hull? These aircraft have many layers
| of material between the traditional tensioned skin of the
| aircraft and the outside air.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Wouldn't air friction on a flying stealth airplane cause it
| to be detected due to the heat generated?
|
| Stealth coated airplanes are supposedly flying very slow on
| missions to avoid infrared detection.
|
| It will probably still not do anything against astronomy
| grade infrared sensors.
| ranger207 wrote:
| Yes, there's a lot of work in infrared search-and-track
| (IRST) for detecting stealth aircraft. But the atmosphere is
| a great absorber of IR so it's not a panacea.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| The frequency of emitted IR isn't what radars use.
| anfractuosity wrote:
| Would it be possible to pick up modern OTH radar signals out of
| curiosity using amateur radio equipment, such from the
| Nostradamus one you mention?
|
| I believe it was possible to pickup the Russian Duga system.
| Nokinside wrote:
| Almost certainly. But they can't keep track accurately and the
| location of the aircraft is not accurate. The inaccuracy can be
| several km.
|
| Stealth is still 80% of shaping. Specular reflection can be
| reflected away from the radar receiver. In the resonant
| scattering region, where the signal amplitude matches the
| object sizes, you remove radar return by removing all parts
| that are a similar size to the wavelength, like the tail.
| Coatings and Absorbers reduce radar even return more but only
| after the shaping works.
|
| If you can get radar into an angle that the shape was designed
| for, or transceiver and receiver are in separate locations
| stealth advantage decreases dramatically.
|
| Chinese are probably the first to deploy long-range air-to-air
| missiles that have dual sensors. Both radar and IR. (Stunner
| missile has that already, but it's ground-to-air missile).
| Traditionally IR is used only in short-range missiles. You
| direct the missile to approximate position and then it uses IR
| and radar together to remove stealth.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The launch platforms can feed the necessary positional data
| to the missile, which can switch to IR search mode as it
| approaches the area of the target. Most newer US platforms
| use a mix of inertial and IR imaging guidance. Even the
| longer range radar-guided missiles typically don't turn on
| their radar until they are relatively close to the target;
| effective long-range radar has power requirements that don't
| fit in a missile very well.
|
| The dual-mode terminal guidance on the Chinese missile may be
| a response to the fact that the US has very good
| countermeasures for IR terminal guidance. IR guidance is
| cheap but it may not be reliable against some advanced
| targets.
| angry_octet wrote:
| The diameter of the missile also imposes significant
| limitations on the RADAR. IR sensors couldn't be in the
| nose cone, it's hard to see them being very sensitive or
| capable against active decoys.
|
| In contrast, the AIM-120D has bidirectional data link, so
| it can feed it's RADAR picture back to the launch platform.
| p_l wrote:
| Or it could be something they picked up from Soviet defense
| forces, where the doctrine was to fire long range missiles
| in pairs - first an IR seeker then radar one p
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> and then it uses IR and radar together to remove stealth.
|
| So what happens when the dual seekers give different results?
| If there were three seekers then you could ignore one, but
| with only two you cannot check one against another. What if
| the radar says turn left but the IR says turn right? Having
| two seekers may make the target's life easier: defeat either
| seeker and you defeat both.
| nradov wrote:
| It's like any other sensor fusion problem. You take a
| weighted average of the detected target bearing based on
| whatever data you have. Even if the target manages to
| completely "defeat" one sensor by somehow becoming
| invisible it doesn't mean that sensor will report a totally
| spurious bearing; you just won't get any meaningful data at
| all from it and thus ignore it.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Left + Right /2 = Strait = Miss.
|
| Small errors count. A few degrees off and your missile
| doesn't get to the target. Any averaging will probably
| result in a miss. In such cases a single sensor would be
| better, or two different sensors on two different
| missiles.
|
| This comes up in all manner of flight systems. Take
| altitude. If one sensor says you are at 1000feet and
| another says 10,000, the one thing everyone should agree
| is that you aren't at 5500. One of the sensors is wrong
| and needs to be ignored, but how do you pick between the
| two?
| nradov wrote:
| That's not how modern sensor fusion algorithms work. It's
| never a simple average calculation. The inputs from
| various sensors are weighted based on confidence levels.
| In extreme cases sensors reporting bad or inconsistent
| data are ignored.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| > One of the sensors is wrong and needs to be ignored,
| but how do you pick between the two?
|
| What did the sensors say one minute ago? There's no
| reason this has to be Markovian.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Because, in a jamming/deception scenario, the jammer
| acting on a sensor won't just introduce a false reading.
| It will gradually transition from a true to false state
| in a manner that looks natural. The jammer will attempt
| to capture the sensor's attention and then shift its
| attention away from its target ("seduction"). In such
| cases it is very difficult/impossible to tell which is
| true based on past readings from the sensor. Google
| jamming and "capturing the gate" or "doppler pull",
| techniques specifically to defeat countermeasures
| dependent on past readings. With two sensors against a
| jamming target, the sensor with the clearest signal/most
| confidence is probably the one being most jammed. (IR
| flares do similar things too.)
| rocqua wrote:
| For others, OTH is Over The Horizon. It uses stratospheric
| scattering, much like extra long range radio.
| sobriquet9 wrote:
| You don't need to go to HF to detect stealth aircraft. Even VHF
| will work. But it's not going to be accurate enough for
| targeting.
|
| Another approach is to passively listen for reflections of cell
| tower or FM radio signals. Stealth aircraft do not reflect much
| radio energy straight back at the source, but they do reflect
| it in other directions.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| VHF is now accurate enough for two-stage targeting. Basically
| you guide the missile close enough for its own
| radar/camera/ir sensor to lock on.
|
| VHF is inherently too inaccurate for a lock either. It just
| scales with how big the radar is.
| touisteur wrote:
| So called 'passive' radars. FM radio, cell towers, and also
| dvb-t. Wonderful tech. Is there an actual (not toy or PoC)
| operational system deployed anywhere?
| sobriquet9 wrote:
| There is no way to know. An actual operational system
| deployed anywhere would be impossible to detect. It does
| not transmit anything, and can use existing antennas for
| receiving the signals. Can be as simple as software update.
| milanmio2 wrote:
| anecdotal: friend serving "mandatory" (last) year in Slovak
| army during NATO "humanitarian" bombing of Serbia operating
| Czech passive radar Vera in east Slovakia could locate B-2's no
| problem.It was banned by US to export to China.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Define locate.
| belter wrote:
| Interesting. It seems the US "took over" the radar.
|
| https://www.army.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=6159
| hawski wrote:
| Interesting, but what does "took over" mean?
| totoglazer wrote:
| I think it means they bought a set.
| _kbh_ wrote:
| I thought most OTH can see stealth planes because they usually
| aren't optimised for being scanned from the top, but rather
| more front, back and bottom face scanning.
|
| I don't know much about stealth though so I could be completely
| wrong.
| WJW wrote:
| There are many variables involved in radar target detection
| and usually "stealth" planes only have the possibility to
| optimize for a few of them. As a simple example, radar
| absorbing paints usually only work well in a few frequency
| bands so using a radar outside that band gives a much higher
| chance of detection. Using "blocky" designs reduces the
| chance of detection from one angle (typically the front,
| since that is where the target is) but at the cost of higher
| detectability from another angle. And finally you will almost
| always have problems with infrared visibility from some
| angles, for a jet airplane it is almost impossible to hide
| the exhaust plume when looking from the rear of the aircraft.
|
| In any case, you are right that OTH skywave radars like the
| Nostradamus usually have a pretty good chance to detect
| stealthy planes. However due to the frequency bands involved
| such detections are typically more of the "there is something
| in this cubic kilometre" type and not of fire-control
| quality. You need much more accurate systems to actually
| guide a missile. Still, it is pretty cool. There are also
| "passive" systems which use the reflections of waves from
| normal civilian radio stations and a phenomenal amount of
| signal processing to determine the position of thousands of
| targets simultaneously, although I'm not aware of any in
| active service yet. Like fusion power, this type of
| "multistatic" radar seems to be perpetually 30 years away
| from practical use.
|
| Source: Used to be a weapons engineer for the Dutch Navy, at
| one point specializing in advanced radar systems.
| [deleted]
| noir_lord wrote:
| Wouldn't surprise me - it's the eternal cat and mouse game
| between defense and offence and stealth as a concept isn't
| _new_ anymore.
|
| It's not about been totally hidden (sans a cloaking device that
| is never going to happen) it's about been _less_ detectable
| after all.
|
| If the distance the stealth platform can see you from is
| greater than the distance you can reliably detect them from you
| are already dead - the missile simply hasn't arrived yet.
| deathhand wrote:
| So then this logic brings us to space platforms, anti-space
| platforms, and observservations of space platforms.
|
| Everyone is probably already arming space to the teeth. I
| guess it's better than mutually assured destruction?
| the_duke wrote:
| And stealth space platforms.
|
| There might already be stealth sats in orbit.
|
| A curious case was the Zuma satelite [1].
|
| Classified payload. Ostensibly failed to detach from the
| payload adapter, as claimed by anonymous sources... Lot's
| of speculation that this was a media charade to sow
| confusion about a stealth sat.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuma_(satellite)
| nradov wrote:
| There are no stealth satellites. It's impossible to hide
| in orbit due to power and cooling requirements.
|
| http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardete
| ct....
| wyager wrote:
| This is a funny claim to make given that the US literally
| has stealth satellites.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)
|
| Just because it's physically challenging to avoid having
| some blackbody emissions or whatever doesn't mean you
| can't evade modern sensors in practice.
| nradov wrote:
| What's your point? Those satellites were detected. They
| weren't actually stealthy in any meaningful way. Very
| minor signature reductions at best.
| angry_octet wrote:
| While amateurs can do an amazing job of detecting
| satellites, I think it is pretty likely that there are
| smaller satellites which are operating in extreme low
| power mode, waiting until a conflict where they are
| required. Whether there are enough to replace GPS and
| comms lost due to anti-satellite attacks and resulting
| debris is a bigger question.
| nradov wrote:
| It isn't physically possible to get useful GPS service
| from a small satellite. This is just basic physics.
| Calculate the power required to transmit the necessary
| signals. You need some fairly sizable solar panels. No
| way to hide those.
| mlyle wrote:
| I get crummy GPS fixes inside my house with 30dB+ of
| attenuation of the signal by structure and parts of the
| sky absolutely masked, while using absolutely crummy
| antennas.
|
| To me, this seems to imply you could make a useful system
| today with orders of magnitude less transmit power.
| orestarod wrote:
| Maybe I do not understand something. But you get these
| readings, through all these conditions, with the help of
| the present, powerful and energy hungry satellites. A
| mini, less powerful satellite would not perform the same
| under the same conditions.
| sciurus wrote:
| The military doesn't need GPS to work from inside a
| house.
| wyager wrote:
| "That launch deposited a payload into geosynchronous
| orbit but, given the stealth/deception hypothesis, there
| remains the possibility of other, undetected payloads"
| nradov wrote:
| There remains a "possibility" that dinosaurs aren't
| extinct and they're hiding somewhere. Just because
| civilian astronomers haven't found such payloads doesn't
| mean those payloads actually exist. And hypothetically
| even if those payloads do exist it doesn't mean other
| nations haven't tracked them.
|
| Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for this stuff. Look at
| the basic physics involved.
| simonh wrote:
| Space based weapons are extremely limited in practice. The
| problem is that at any given time 90% or more of your
| orbital assets are over the pacific ocean, or the arctic,
| or antarctic, or anywhere other than where you want them to
| be and you can't change that very easily.
| the_duke wrote:
| A LEO sat at 300 km altitude does a full orbit every ~90
| minutes.
|
| Put a few hundred missiles in orbit, give them enough
| spare fuel to travel a decent distance on their own, and
| you have a pretty substantial worldwide strike
| capability.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Meanwhile opponent straps nuclear hand grenadines to a
| few thousand drones and flies them to your bases. At a
| fraction of the cost.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| And they are not doing that now, because...
| catillac wrote:
| This handwaves a lot of stuff. The least of which is that
| with the way satellites orbit, even though they orbit in
| 90, they're not over the same ground track again for like
| 12 days. It's not the case that a weapon used satellite
| would have a firing solution every 90 minutes.
| nradov wrote:
| What's the point of that when you can have an even more
| substantial worldwide strike capability at far lower cost
| with ground-based missiles.
| laverya wrote:
| Do you know what the difference is between an ICBM and a
| warhead predeployed in orbit?
|
| The ICBM can hit anywhere (instead of just where the
| orbit track happens to pass), in less time (or at most
| the same time, since deorbiting takes around half an
| orbit) with a better mass fraction (since it doesn't have
| to reach orbit and then deorbit afterwards) while being
| more accurate (you know exactly where the launch platform
| is, while satellites are harder to locate) and less
| vulnerable (you can harden an ICBM silo far more
| effectively than a satellite).
|
| Really, it's hard to think of something that satellite
| anti-ground weaponry does _better_.
| rocqua wrote:
| Detection?
|
| There is a lot of icbm detection. Unplanned rocket
| launches could lead to global nuclear annihilation. What
| happens if something seems to deorbit above the US? How
| much early warning and procedure is there?
|
| Especially if you want to deliver conventional munitions
| to a non-nuclear power, a system like this seems better
| than an ICBM.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Tungston rods. Would you even detect the deorbit burn?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| A/K/A "rods from God" / orbital kinetic kill.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
|
| Possible, though problematic.
| [deleted]
| hawski wrote:
| I guess it is a question of what type of warhead is there
| and how many of them are there.
| imtringued wrote:
| It's actually about capability inflation. You can counter any
| tech but new tech makes old tech obsolete.
|
| An army consisting exclusively of F-35 vs old generation jets
| could decimate all enemy jets without losing a single F-35.
|
| It's the same with modern tank vs old tanks. Those old tanks
| can't penetrate the armor of modern tanks.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> An army consisting exclusively of F-35 vs old generation
| jets could decimate all enemy jets without losing a single
| F-35.
|
| Maybe ... in the air ... if the numbers are the same ... if
| all of those F-35s are able to fly ... if the other side
| doesn't have a significant SAM capability ... if if if. In
| a realworld battle between armies the air-to-air capacity
| of fighters is a small part of the battle. Most will try to
| defeat the other's aircraft using ground assets,
| missiles/manpad. Ideally you take out aircraft in their
| hangars. A single well-placed artillery shell can take out
| a dozen F-35s in a hangar. A single frogfoot can destroy
| any F-35 that is low on fuel/ammo/speed after engaging a
| couple flankers. Realworld combat is messy. A pack of crows
| can take down an eagle.
| belter wrote:
| You sure about that ? Because at least in dogfights the 40
| year old F16 seems to win..
| https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2015/07/disas...
| [deleted]
| wil421 wrote:
| The F22 would probably be the one engaging F16s.
| Regardless if you are dogfighting in an F22 or F35
| something else has gone wrong. The stealth planes sneak
| in and shoot enemy planes from far away.
| belter wrote:
| I am afraid they tried that also.The F22 lost against
| German pilots on the Eurofighter Typhoon:
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fight
| er-...
| wil421 wrote:
| The article hits on my point about dogfighting. I don't
| think most US modern planes except the F16 were designed
| for it. IIRC they weren't even going to include guns on
| the F22.
|
| > while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air
| combat
| gpderetta wrote:
| Any scenario in which American F22s would participate in
| combat action against European Eurofighters is far
| fetched, dogfighting or not.
|
| In fact I would say if such an encounter were ever to
| happen, due to rule of engagements, a dogfight would be
| more likely than a BVR engagement (and likely to end
| without a single shot fired).
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| "Old school dogfighting" is just that - a thing of the
| past.
| elygre wrote:
| The premise was "consisting exclusively of F-35". you
| might have wanted F22s, but they are not available in the
| scenario.
| stouset wrote:
| This is irrelevant. The exercise was dogfighting, a phase
| which the F-16 would never be able to reach against an
| F-35 in combat without a multitude of things going wrong.
|
| The F-35 can see and shoot down the F-16 with radar-
| guided missiles in BVR well before the latter is even
| aware the F-35 is in the area.
|
| Dogfighting is minimally relevant to modern air combat
| for nuclear-armed nations. Things would have to be going
| extraordinarily badly in a war for the brass to start
| deciding to send their exceedingly expensive fifth-gen
| stealth fighters into dogfight coin tosses.
|
| Hell, even an A-10 is a surprisingly effective dogfighter
| against modern fighters. The fighters have speed but the
| Warthog has an extremely tight turning radius and far
| better low-speed maneuverability, both of which allow it
| to stay inside the opponent's "bubble" (the area inside
| which a turning jet can't ever manage to point its nose).
| If the A-10 can keep it to a one-circle fight it will win
| handily. A fighter will often have to rely on a "boom and
| zoom" tactic (where it disengages, gains distance, and
| turns back around for a guns pass) but that can be quite
| low probability of kill and still be relatively risky if
| the A-10 has friendlies in the area feeling it location
| information.
|
| But just like the situation already being discussed, this
| is for all practical purposes completely irrelevant. A
| flight of F-16s would engage and destroy a flight of
| A-10s from miles away with AMRAAMs and it would never
| have a chance to transition to an up-close dogfight.
| valec wrote:
| > The F-35 can see and shoot down the F-16 with radar-
| guided missiles in BVR well before the latter is even
| aware the F-35 is in the area.
|
| what's stopping the f-16 from turning around and going
| cold as soon as it hears a lock or senses enemy radar?
| orestarod wrote:
| I believe missiles have a certain range at which, when
| fired, the kill is ensured. The F35 would not need to
| fire the missile at the absolute possible range the
| missile can fly to, but at the range the kill is
| guaranteed.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Sort of. You can get to a range where kinematically
| defeating the missile is unlikely / impossible, but it
| still might fail due to any number of problems that can
| happen during the intercept.
| wearywanderer wrote:
| The rules of the wargame, which are invariably rigged for
| the most expensive toy.
| [deleted]
| tynpeddler wrote:
| The linked article is out of date and cites "War is
| Boring" which is notoriously anti f35. Here's something a
| bit more recent. The english translation is at the botom:
| https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/fagprat/f-35-i-
| nae....
| canadianfella wrote:
| Been?
| aparsons wrote:
| Cat and mouse games lead to very surprising innovations.
|
| During the Sri Lankan civil war about 10 years ago, the Tiger
| rebels had acquired Zlin Z 43s, modified them to carry
| several bombs [1], and were bombing targets left and right,
| including the country's capital.
|
| The populace was increasingly pondering why the country's
| well-trained air force, with modern fighter jets with years
| of scrambling experience [2] could never seem to shoot these
| slower planes down. In fact, there were no confirmed kills
| during the conflict.
|
| It was later revealed that the rebels knew the capabilities
| of the enemy Chengdu J7 and MiG 29 interceptors, and had
| modified their own aircraft engines with anti-IR capabilities
| [3]. Complex IR jamming equipment was suspected, but the
| country's PM later said that the rebels had simply redirected
| the exhaust fumes from the back of the aircraft to the front,
| throwing "unlockable" heat signatures [4].
|
| By the end of the war, the rebels had actually "won" the war
| in the skies by destroying over 30 aircraft and losing 2,
| despite ultimately losing.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zl%C3%ADn_Z_43
|
| [2] The government's prized jet fighters were stationed in
| the capital, about 400 km from the main conflict zone. In
| 2000, the rebels launched a devastating offensive and the
| government held on by a thread due to their ability to
| scramble ground attack craft to battles in 7 minutes. It's
| said that had they lost that battle, all hopes of winning the
| war would have been lost.
|
| [3] http://www.sundaytimes.lk/081102/Columns/sitreport.html
|
| [4] https://www.dailynews.lk/2020/01/18/local/208783/slaf-
| most-e...
| jFriedensreich wrote:
| would have loved to have audio examples for the article. as it
| reads the audio feedback to pilots is not a database of warning
| tones but a direct translation of the received radar spectrum to
| something audible. if someone has a good link it would be
| appreciated.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| The info in this article mainly applies to mech-scan radars; many
| fighters from all over the world now use AESAs[1] (This includes
| 5th gen, and upgraded 4th gen). These don't have the distinction
| of "track" and "search" modes; the radar maintains high-quality
| tracks of multiple targets in the radar coverage, and the crew
| can select which ones to target.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_...
| dogma1138 wrote:
| AESA radars very much do have track and search mode, it's just
| not mechanically controlled so they can track more targets
| however once you lock on a target(s) the beams are still
| focused on them which is why you still have a limit and that
| limit is dependent on the size of the target you track as well
| as it's range and not just the radar itself.
|
| An AESA radar that can track up to 5 targets for example might
| still be limited to a single target with a low RCS because more
| of the array has to be focused on it.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| All valid points. In practice for non-stealth fighter-size
| targets, (Depending on the software/UI) you can park the
| radar in a general-purpose mode, and get decent-quality
| tracks for many contacts. Turning them into higher-quality
| "weapons-quality" tracks (eg for shooting) taxes the radar
| more. The more you ask of the radar (More wpns-quality
| tracks, SAR mapping etc), the poorer its performance.
| ilovwindows wrote:
| I have always wondered, wouldn't it be pretty easy to create a
| missile that follows a radar wave to it's source? A fighter plane
| could use this very missile to shut down a fighter plane chasing
| it or a ground radar scanning it.
| kop316 wrote:
| Yep!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel
| byteofbits wrote:
| This is essentially how HARM (Anti-Radiation) missiles work
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM]
| mardifoufs wrote:
| It already exists! Also works against ground radar. It's
| actually one of the best ways to clean up enemy air defenses
| before an invasion
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile
| scottLobster wrote:
| Yes, term you're looking for is anti-radiarion missiles,
| they've been around for a little while
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile?wprov=s...
| muro wrote:
| Some loitering ammunition also do that. It waits in the area
| until SAM battery turns on their radar, then it knows its
| position and destroys it.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| After going down the rabbit hole of combat flight simulators
| (Falcon BMS), I learned about Suppression of Enemy Air Defense
| missions. Fly to a spot, fire off a few radar seeking missiles
| at an area, the missiles are programmed to hit any radar they
| detect. The missiles go in a straight line for several minutes
| watching for radar, and will quickly fly towards any detected
| radar and blow it up. So, to support nearby missions you just
| put out a few of these missiles over and area and then nobody
| dares turn on their ground radar.
| skhr0680 wrote:
| I recall Serbia having some success baiting anti-radiation
| missiles with tactical microwave ovens
| varjag wrote:
| It's a successful urban legend.
| abandonliberty wrote:
| Like carrots being good for your eyes.
| des1nderlase wrote:
| This statement is quite on spot, as carrots were used to
| cover radar tech.
|
| https://www.livescience.com/38861-carrots-eyesight-myth-
| orig...
| magicsmoke wrote:
| Seems like this could be mitigated by having a network of
| radar emitters that periodically turn on and off while
| sharing targeting information through the network to non-
| emitting missile launchers. Maybe the emitters could also be
| mobile and drive away to deter inertial-based targeting.
| Seems almost like a shoot-and-scoot artillery system except
| with radar instead of rounds. The concept would also work by
| networking the radars of a flight of fighters together so
| none of them would have to continuously transmit while also
| allowing fighters to illuminate targets from multiple angles.
| stouset wrote:
| This is precisely how modern IADS (Integrated Air Defense
| Systems) work. You have long-range search radar deep in
| your territory which can alert to contacts entering your
| airspace and feed that information to tracking radar
| located nearer to the front lines. Tracking radar only
| needs to fire for as long as necessary to get a lock, fire
| on an aircraft, and allow the radar-guided missile to
| establish its own lock.
|
| Missile launch sites are located separately from radar
| sites so they can't be targeted (since they have no radar
| emissions themselves) and so that pilots don't know ahead
| of time where to look for missile plumes for visual
| indicators of a launch.
|
| All of these sites are networked so can feed information
| across a large region and back to a hardened command center
| far away. Sharing information this way allows minimizing
| the amount of time between a vulnerable front-line system
| revealing its location and launching a missile at its
| target. Tracking radar and missile sites can even wait to
| become active until a hostile aircraft is over or even past
| them to defeat wild-weasel style tactics.
|
| Both tracking radar and missile sites are also often mobile
| so once they've disclosed their location by using radar
| and/or firing a missile, they can quickly move to a new
| location to avoid retaliatory strikes from anti-radiation
| missiles and regain the element of surprise.
| parsecs wrote:
| This is pretty much what they do nowadays. Look at patriot
| or S-400: the launcher, fire control radar, acquisition
| radar, are all mounted on trucks that can drive around. The
| radars do indeed share information with other assets like
| that. However anti radiation missiles ("ARM") are still a
| threat as the system won't function if all the radars are
| out
| stouset wrote:
| This is the principle behind anti-radiation missiles like the
| AGM-88 HARM. It's impractical for A2A combat because in this
| situation, the enemy missile is _already_ fired at you and all
| else being equal will hit before yours does.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
| belter wrote:
| Already exists. Meet the AGM-88:
|
| https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The British ALARM is more interesting as it has a loiter mode
| where it can fly up, deploy a parachute, and wait for a radar
| site to turn on.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARM
| imtringued wrote:
| It's basically a flying naval mine with an active tracking
| mode.
| Tycho wrote:
| The way the target can "hear" the radar lock seems very
| equitable. As if the nature of arial combat is the product of
| balanced gameplay mechanics.
| nazka wrote:
| Or you can use the thermal mid range missile for Sukhoi that
| the Russians love and you never have any detection warning
| ever. From lock to impact :)
|
| I love those in DCS.
|
| https://youtu.be/YCrrmL8GlSY
| vmception wrote:
| Would be interesting if computer games accurately did lock on
| and detection
|
| Right now it just seems like aiming reticule edge detection
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| falcon 4.0 is unmatched. they actually had too much and were
| forced to redact and simplify some mechanics before release
| nazka wrote:
| Was about to say it. Get Falcon 4.0 then do the Massive!
| Free! update named Falcon BMS. They really coded the radar,
| emissions, warming detectors, etc.. Not just a if locked
| then give a pin/warning lock to the target type of logic.
| Super impressive stuff and we are not even talking about
| the dynamic campaign and how all ground radar and ground to
| air missile platforms work together for instance. There are
| so many things. And I play DCS a lot. But Falcon BMS is
| unbeaten for that.
| kortex wrote:
| I played Descent in the 90's and there was missile lock. It
| would trigger when a homing missile had a line of sight to
| your ship, and the frequency of the beeps indicated
| proximity. It's not the aiming reticle, cause bots could get
| you around corners with homing missiles.
|
| The homing is probably done exactly like graphics, with ray
| tracing.
| zokier wrote:
| Simulators, DCS in the forefront, have somewhat reasonable
| radar modeling, both in terms of radar warning systems and
| target acquisition.
| LightG wrote:
| Microprose F-15 Strike Eagle in the early 80's did a decent
| lock on and detection!
| scottLobster wrote:
| There are simulators that do that, but it does take away from
| the "Maverick/Top Gun" escapist fantasy most games with
| fighter jets strive for when you can't even see your target,
| so it's a much smaller market
| m12k wrote:
| I guess the "gameplay" is somewhat self-balancing in the sense
| that as soon as one strategy becomes dominant, there's that
| much more incentive to come up with a strategy that counters
| it. For that reason alone, in nature, and our mimicry of it,
| "it's a tradeoff" or rock-scissors-paper-like scenarios are
| much more likely than "one strategy to beat them all".
| wyager wrote:
| That's why it's so interesting that only humans came up with
| the absolutely game-breaking OP strategy of being smarter
| than everything else.
| des1nderlase wrote:
| Not sure that it's game-breaking, depends on how you define
| the game. For example, I think that humans can't
| exterminate all insects [1], or bacteria[2] alive. However
| the other way around I'm not so sure.
|
| 1. https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos
|
| 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991899/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-12 23:00 UTC)