During the making of this video there were a couple patches to DCS that moved the notch window a few degrees to the side. This happened twice with one of them hitting right as I recorded the radar screen videos. So it is slightly off from the diagrams I used later on (by about 5 degrees). However, in all cases the notch window was about 20 degrees wide. Other than that everything else should be accurate. Apologies for that discrepancy.
7:27 Unfortunately, ED has unrealistically nerfed ARH missiles so that this isn't true in-game. You can be caught completely unaware that you're in an enemy's WEZ and (even if he has held a good, clean, high update rate radar track on you for the entire missile flight duration) the missile will *always* give its target an early enough warning so that a simple, instinctive beaming split-S is guaranteed to save you if it was launched at a BVR distance. ED's justification is that the missile requires 8-10 seconds of active radar illumination to home in on the target, however this doesn't match what is publically said about American ARH missiles (that the target has less than a second of warning) when they are launched at unsuspecting targets. Even when you actually go and calculate the linear approximation for the downrange and crossrange uncertainty of the mothership's radar, illuminating a 1m^2 non-maneuvering target at a conservative F-Pole of 25nm, assuming a standard X-Band radar with a 2GHz bandwidth and a 2.5 degree main lobe FWHM; then assuming the missile has an endgame velocity of Mach 1.5 and the ability to turn at ~15g, versus a target velocity of Mach 1.0, the minimum amount of active terminal maneuvering time required to compensate varies with target aspect (closure velocity varies between roughly Mach 0.5~2.5), but is almost always less than 1 second (a beaming target maximizes the uncertainty and requires ~1.31s at 15G, but only ~0.76s at 30g). 1:20 This also doesn't make any sense as implemented in DCS, since even the very first fighters with analog Pulse Doppler radars used gates to isolate sections of the radar data cube (for example, in addition to the cross-range or azimuth gate, there would be a down-range gate, a velocity gate, an altitude or elevation gate, etc.), the *only* IRL circumstances where the ground clutter returns would even get to the notch filter together with the real target return, would be when the target is close enough to the ground so that the clutter extends into the same RDC element. Even worse is how DCS makes notching just as effective over large bodies of water, as if the water produces anywhere near the same magnitude of clutter (just look at satellite ISAR images of airports or airfields near the ocean; the contrast between aircraft landing/taking off and the inky black water makes them easy to pick out).
@@ethanmckinney203 What, specifically, are you referring to? Creeping wave returns to the illuminating radar? Multipath effects when over a flat ground plane?
" instinctive beaming split-S is guaranteed to save you if it was launched at a BVR distance." I have to disagree on one thing, because it's not true anymore, someone who flies into a Fox3 unsuspectingly and the missle arrives with good energy 2-3mach it's almost impossible for the target to escape this missle. and i'm talking about 40-60nm shots here. when the target is over 20-30,000 feet and gets a warning it becomes critical if it's not prepared and I'm talking about PVP experience "ED's justification is that the missile requires 8-10 seconds of active radar illumination to home in on the target, however this doesn't match what is publically said about American ARH missiles (that the target has less than a second of warning)" could you give me the names of the public docs so that I can read them?
Great content, thanks Mike. At the 4:00 mark there is the comment that when the motor burns out the missile cannot generate more *kinetic* energy. Physicist here so I'd like to point out that the missile cannot generate more *total* energy (ignoring tailwinds which are not a factor in this discussion), but the missile can exchange potential energy (increased by higher altitude) for increased kinetic energy. Lofting missiles diving down can do this at least until air density really has an effect on drag. The point you are making is perfectly valid, most missiles in DCS have short burn motors and this can be used to defeat them. I'm just being precise with the physics terminology. Please keep these videos coming, they are great.
The problem in DCS is with fox3 missile guidance on terminal phase, if you can get into a 2.5deg notch near the ground (under 100f agl), that missile will miss you 90% of the time, reliably and repeatably. it's not kinematic defence when the missile flies over your canopy or tail plane
@@BMD8 Na that is just a skill issue, at close range it is just a very small time window. The only thing that could happen is you get a desynced missile but that is online only.
I think you've highlighted an interesting difference between people playing a game and real world combat pilots: a 10% chance to die is a terrifyingly high chance of dying. The F-105 suffered such high losses in Vietnam that it was phased out in favor of the F-4. What was that attrition rate? Less than 2%.
@@wmouse yea in DCS you can practice notching with the same parameters every time unlike in the real world where the parameters are not necessarily known or can be simulated close enough.
8:08 The target disappearing from the attacker's scope does not necessarily defeat the missile. If the attacker continues illuminating and somehow manages to keep the target in-beam without seeing it (or by seeing it with a different sensor), the missile will still get reflections, and the doppler shift it sees will be dependent on its own intercept geometry, not the attacker's.
You are correct that theoretically it is possible. However, we're talking about semi-active radar homing missiles at that point of the video. Those missiles require a narrow beam of energy to illuminate the target. Wide beams run the risk of illuminating something else in the air and sending the missile off course. With that requirement you need the launching aircraft to maintain a good lock. How do you maintain a lock on the target if the target has faded? You don't. So the launching aircraft can't accurately guide a semi-active missile that it can't see. But I suppose if you want to go to an extreme you can say that some random radar waves could hit the target and that would be enough. However, I've never heard of this happening in DCS or from any of the real life fighter pilots I've worked with.
So as far as illuminating the target without having a good lock, I believe most of the gen 4 aircraft in DCS actually do this. The mirage 2000 has a memory mode for the last known trajectory, that can both illuminate a target for the s530d, and regain the lock if the target fails to maintain the notch. The f-18 also has a memory mode which is programmable, to attempt to regain lock after missing multiple sweeps of the radar. I'm also pretty sure both can force illuminate a cone in front of them, in special cases where either a lock is lost, or difficult to acquire. This would be your illumination through "other sensor", the sensor being your mk1 eyeball. I'm not sure if any of the IRST planes in DCS can direct the radar and it's beam without also having a radar lock. I feel like that's a feature that should be there.
@@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom So Jon is right the missile could still hit even if the host radar loses track so long as it's still emitting guidance signals that are reflecting off the target. The missile gets continues to track via its own internal speed gate which is fully independent of the host radars tracking loops. If the speed gate was already established on the target whether or not the host radar is tracking is irrelevant. So long as CWFM/CWI signals are still being emitted the missile will not lose lock. And, so long as it doesn't lose the targets doppler in the near 0 doppler clutter relative to the missile. To go off course in the case of another target said target would need to be in the missiles main beam, in the host radars CW/CWI beam, and close enough in doppler to impact the speed gate, and have a strong return, and to not be filtered out by ECCM (in such a situation I could see a new signal in the filters tripping ECCM logic). Speed gates are generally 15-30 knots wide in total. With the return strength entering the speed gate falling off exponentially as you approach that +- 7.5-15kts. This is a possibility in DCS right now, but it's really only fully modeled on the M2K and F4.
DCS tactic : notch to defeat missiles by visually tallying them as DCS renders a missile at least a single dot whatever distance it is at. BMS tactic : Skate / Short Skate / Banzai.
@@freakmusicaddict you can but still not like in DCS...in BMS I remember I could notch defeat ARH if you completely make relative closure velocity almost 0 like making the plane stall vertically.
Mike, i really appreciate your hard work in explaining these tactics and knowledge. It surely takes a lot of effort and time. Kudos to you for all this great stuff.... keep up the great work bro
Great video. In DCS (not IRL) "notching" may work "most of the time". Skating outside of MAR works 100% of the time. I know what I am going to be doing. The detail/data behind the video was very informative. As another RUclipsr I know likes to say, "In God we trust, all others bring data". You brought the data. I am still waiting to see good data that indicates notching is a better tactic.
Great video! I just have a small nitpick at 4:23. The lift vector is always perpendicular to the incoming air, it's defined as such. Therefore, it does not affect the speed of the missile at all. Only drag can affect the speed, which is defined to be pointing in the direction of relative airflow.
Lift that is pointing backwards, relative to the direction of flight, IS one of the components of drag. Angle of attack for example causes it to tilt backwards.
@@cmptohocah The backwards component of the total reaction is drag, and the other is lift. Lift and drag are perpendicular, but yes the total reaction is pointing slightly backwards. Lift and Drag are defined like this, because Lift becomes unable to add/remove energy (does not affect your speed), while Drag can only slow you down, it can't make you change direction like lift does. Now this means that stuff like the Lift/Drag ratio equal your glide ratio, among other very useful things. Look at the wikipedia page for Lift-to-drag ratio, and the image on the right side.
@@silience4095 I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say here, but all I wanted to point out to you is that when the lift vector, produced by the lift surface(s), is tilted the component of the lift that is acting in the same direction as the drag, becomes a part of the drag. That is one of the reasons you need to add power in a level turn, 'cause extra lift you need to produce in order to stay level is also increasing the total drag force.
@@cmptohocah It's just a terminology thing. Lift is always perpendicular to the relative airflow at infinity. Drag is always parallel to the relative airflow at infinity. Lift doesn't tilt back, because it's defined that way, it's more useful if it doesn't. What does tilt back is the total reaction, or total aerodynamic force.
when i try to notch in fox 3 combat, i generally try to notch the missile itself, rather than the launching emitter. that should work just fine in that case yes? of course i know this makes it easier for the opponent to make follow up shots, but i should able to save myself from a missile in otherwise kinematically lethal ranges like this i think.
In dcs it's incredibly easy to notch a fox 3 missile and that's what you should be doing. There is specific type of bvr fight called notch fighting. Since notching in dcs is is a 100% tactic(if the miasile is in the notch window it will 100% get notched) the ranges of the fight can get up to 2-3 miles close if both fighters are experienced.
That was my exact thinking. If I put a fox3 on my 9 o clock and not the firing jet I should be able to notch it. Of course the closer the missile the harder to get the right notching angle? Can someone clarify?
Yeah absolutely. It can work. But it can also fail. So you always take a risk when trying a notch. I've always viewed a notch defense as something you would use when there's no other choice. My preference is to follow the guidance I've talked about in the rest of the BVR series and work a plan that keeps you outside the enemy's effective range.
It's the missile's ability to see the target that's relevant to a kill, so yes, notching the missile is what you need to do for a pitbull Fox 3. It should also work for a Fox 1 or a non-terminal Fox 3, but since a Fox 1 isn't emitting anything itself, you'd have to identify the missile visually to notch it, so notching the illuminator is the better bet in general. In principle, the illuminating radar could be steered by another sensor, though. In this case, the illuminating radar itself wouldn't see you, but as long as the other sensor kept it pointed to illuminate the target, the missile would still pick up the reflections, and they'd have a different doppler shift than the ground clutter if you didn't have the missile notched, so you'd have to notch the missile. I'm not sure if any aircraft (especially those likely to be limited to Fox 1's) have this capability, however.
is there an technical explanation why the Aim120 treshold increases in DCS? At the moment the Aim120 treshold is 30kts, if a target goes into the notch and falls below it, it often happens that the missle's treshold increases 2-4 times and so the target has an easy time holding it.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but I feel the assertion that you can only notch in a specific range of angles off of the attackers nose is inaccurate. Theoretically, theres no reason you couldnt notch from anywhere within the entire radar arc, so long as you fly 90 degrees relative to the radar pointing at you. If an attacker has their radar deflected 50 degrees, and you fly 90 degrees relative to the radar (40 / 130 degrees relative to their nose), you should still be notcbing just fine, no?
I don't think so, because both aircraft are moving with their own velocities. So the target is still moving relative to what the radar sees as the ground, thus allowing it to see the notching aircraft. It works nose on because your relative velocity to the radar is the same as the grounds velocity to the radar. Any difference between those two figures will make you visible
@@Generic_Name_1-1 The radar isnt looking for movement relative to the enviroment, it's looking for the dopler effect. The whole reason notching works is because you trick the radar into filtering you out because your relative speed is low enough that it thinks you're the ground.
@@Nevan_Nedall that's literally what I said. And yes, in effect it is looking for relative velocity to the ground. Because the doppler gate is calibrated to the ground so it can filter the return out. If you aren't presenting the same relative velocity to the radar as the ground you will be visible to the radar
@@Generic_Name_1-1 From what I understand there is a theoretical notch circle where your relative velocity to the radar will be minimal. Mike just had the targets fly in a straight line, hence why they entered-exited the notch.
@@cmptohocah that would work if you were stationary, but since the target aircraft is also moving even if the radar signal is on the 3-9 line because you're off axis to the nose of the radar aircraft, the radar will still see you. Like I said both aircraft still have velocities, unless you're flying cold with the radar notched you're neither the same velocity to the ground or the same velocity as the radar itself.
The MLC filter window (notch) is not caused by a zero radial velocity condition. That is the zero doppler condition. Furthermore if the author modifies his test to have aircraft flying roughly perpendicular to the radar, they will stay in the notch regardless of antenna train angle. There is no limited forward cone for the notch.
The notch by definition has non-zero closure except at the 3:00 and 9:00 position wrt the transmitting aircraft. So aircraft remaining in the notch will be closing or opening range unless near those positions. Anytime the range is staying the same, they're in the zero super Doppler condition. Except at the 3/9 positions, zero Doppler and notch conditions do not line up.
Please continue the air supremacy series. Especially other types of air missions like oca and airstrike missions. But also seen from the operational level.
There will definitely be more in the Air Supremacy series. Also, I will be doing a dedicated air-to-ground track as well. There's a lot more in store for this channel. I hope you are enjoying the videos.
Yeah, I mentioned this in the pinned comment. During the making of the video there were some patches that shifted the window slightly. I'd already changed things twice and it was minor enough that I felt a comment would cover it. Hopefully that helps.
While that's how DCS treats it, it's not how western radars IRL would. Remember, radar doppler filtering is just that, a filter applied after receiving a return. IRL, things like range gating, signal strength analysis, and rate tracking all defeat this tactic. With missiles, the INS is going to guide to the last computed intercept point when it loses lock... especially true with range gating where it ignores things like ground clutter outside the range bin the target is in.
So what happens is a little more complicated but you have the jist. Essentially notching only works if your in a situation where clutter returns fall into the radars speed gate (which is very narrow often 15-30kts wide) and are intense enough to overpower the targets return. And as such you cannot notch in lookup situations especially at high altitude.
@@nighthawk2174 Thanks ++ So the radar speed gate is like a filter to remove slow moving objects and to reduce noise? Its width having "zero" absolute kts in the middle? The intensity being a result of losses that basically increase w distance? and in a lookup situation there are also less return surfaces making the target very distinguishable. Am I understanding it correct that the main issue was(/is) return signal processing and not (absent/inadequate) modulation schemes to identify them?
You actually might want to look into the term BEAMING. It a term actual fighter pilots use to be undetected by Doppler radar. DSC seems to have dropped the ball on that one if one flies 90 degrees from a oncoming Doppler radar system one will have no signal to a Doppler radar. That's because Doppler radar looks for speed differences to find a target
Speaking of witch at 4:25 about drag increase on the missile due to AoA. Heh..., I've spent some weeks of analyzing and studying the drag coefficient vs AoA or simplier resulted drag vs AoA through the deceleration rate of all AA missiles in DCS and do you know what I've found? A pathetic simulation of missiles drag, that's what I found! The base drag is way too high to be realistic, and even after some latest updates, ED has indeed started to understand that the zero AoA drag coefficient was very exaggerated, so they've tweaked that down a bit, but not enough as the AA missiles still decelerate like crazy at low AoA. At critical AoA however, in case of the AIm-120C, close to 29...30 degrees, you're not gonna believe it probably, the drag only increases by some 1.5 to 2 times=)))), when according to real common sense data analysis of missiles or aircraft, the drag or drag coefficient should be at least 7..8 times higher at critical AoA, not to mention that above critical, the drag increases more drastically! Also the way the moving fins on the missiles in DCS in relation to the rotations of the missiles in pitch and yaw are like very off-track and not correctly simulated, like they are for aircraft! They've only made a visual effect with those fins moving as the missile's movement is not synchronized correctly! So the zero lift drag of the missile is too high, but the drag increase due to AoA is too low. DCS...! And the same plague is upon all DCS AA missiles, especially the russian ones which are like done so badly on purpose, in terms that their base drag was still left much higher than for the Amraam. Did they wanted to give the Amraam the upmost advantage? Could be, as they control the numbers behind the simulation as they desire, so I wouldn't wonder!
Notching is relied on so much in DCS for the last 2 years to hide the lack of skill in actual BVR combat. Anyone can spend a couple of hours perfecting notching especially in F16 and suddenly be able to win fights easily. Its such a shame such a low level skill allows you to control fights.
Good to know :) Is a vertical notch followed by either cover if there is any or by a low level horizontal notch going cold a sound strategy or is simply a long U-turn preferable?
Not quite but yes notching AESA would be essentially impossible but not because of that but because of far more advanced techniques such as STAP and others who's names escape me.
I don't like how much this video undersells the efficacy of the notch. There's some key points that I think are missing if the idea is to present accurate information as to how notching works specifically in DCS. I think this is great otherwise for a general information type video.
I'd be glad to hear some of the points if you don't mind sharing. Also, I do hear a lot of people share some wild stories about notching. But I only wanted to cover the things that I could personally recreate. And I fired a ton of missiles to make sure none of those were a fluke. But if you have more to share I definitely want to hear it.
@@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom I genuinely think there's a lot to learn from this and your other videos. They are very good for introductory knowledge as that is the aim. I just think there are some elements, that many others also never mention, such as taking into account how repeatable things are in DCS since it's a game. How things are programmed very binary at time. Notching is extremely easy, almost comically so. Things can obviously change, and I prefer your method of attempting to make a more or less timeless piece. I just thought the title of this video in particular struck me the wrong way with the information you provided.
If you can see enemy notching your fox 1 shot and if you have his flight direction you can just adjust your plane to keep him out from that 90 dgrs, its easy. When ai tries that its extremely funny with both planes turning like stupid as it gets blasted anyway. Honestly with dcs i am more bothered by chaff when using fox 1s and notching mainly fox 3s.
The doppler is not affected by ground, only the pulse does! Why are you saying that the doppler sees ground clutter, when it only sees targets that are either closing or moving away from the radar beam above a relative speed. That's the only reason why those targets weren't appearing directly in front of your radar, NOT because of ground as you confuse things up! Only the pulse mode sees clutter, be it ground or from dispersed chaff and when the targets were above the horizon, it was the pulse mode seeing your targets and you misinterpreted that as the doppler not being affected by ground!
well its not actually only at 20 degrees thats just cause thoes planes only entered the notch for the amount of time it took to travel 20 degrees. if the planes held the notch they shouldnt show up on radar as they reach the sides
We do have some longer range missiles represented in DCS. The F-14's Phoenix and the MiG-31's R-33/AA-9. Real world those both have extreme ranges. So those might be good to train against if you want to see what it might be like.
Please for any of you who want DCS to be more like WT don't use DCS. For many of us we fly in DCS because it isn't like WT. We enjoy flying period. There is a reason that things like Falcon BMS, DCS etc are niche and we want it to stay that war. Comparing WT to titles like this for us makes no sense. Maybe we call WT a game because 90% of the videos show no systems and external views when fighting - not very realistic. This is not a complaint of this video the data provided was interesting but that is one thing modeled in DCS over the hundreds of other things modeled. IF you just want to shoot people down and don't enjoy the long 300 mile flight to attack SAMs in South Atlantic or Fly into Syria to take out Damascus then yes DCS is not for you. I would argue that if you fly in DCS and use Flaming Cliffs you might be better off in WT. Everyone wants something different. I have been a part of a group in DCS for more than 5 years and people come and go because guess what .... Everyone wants something different form the software.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
During the making of this video there were a couple patches to DCS that moved the notch window a few degrees to the side. This happened twice with one of them hitting right as I recorded the radar screen videos. So it is slightly off from the diagrams I used later on (by about 5 degrees). However, in all cases the notch window was about 20 degrees wide. Other than that everything else should be accurate. Apologies for that discrepancy.
7:27 Unfortunately, ED has unrealistically nerfed ARH missiles so that this isn't true in-game.
You can be caught completely unaware that you're in an enemy's WEZ and (even if he has held a good, clean, high update rate radar track on you for the entire missile flight duration) the missile will *always* give its target an early enough warning so that a simple, instinctive beaming split-S is guaranteed to save you if it was launched at a BVR distance.
ED's justification is that the missile requires 8-10 seconds of active radar illumination to home in on the target, however this doesn't match what is publically said about American ARH missiles (that the target has less than a second of warning) when they are launched at unsuspecting targets. Even when you actually go and calculate the linear approximation for the downrange and crossrange uncertainty of the mothership's radar, illuminating a 1m^2 non-maneuvering target at a conservative F-Pole of 25nm, assuming a standard X-Band radar with a 2GHz bandwidth and a 2.5 degree main lobe FWHM; then assuming the missile has an endgame velocity of Mach 1.5 and the ability to turn at ~15g, versus a target velocity of Mach 1.0, the minimum amount of active terminal maneuvering time required to compensate varies with target aspect (closure velocity varies between roughly Mach 0.5~2.5), but is almost always less than 1 second (a beaming target maximizes the uncertainty and requires ~1.31s at 15G, but only ~0.76s at 30g).
1:20 This also doesn't make any sense as implemented in DCS, since even the very first fighters with analog Pulse Doppler radars used gates to isolate sections of the radar data cube (for example, in addition to the cross-range or azimuth gate, there would be a down-range gate, a velocity gate, an altitude or elevation gate, etc.), the *only* IRL circumstances where the ground clutter returns would even get to the notch filter together with the real target return, would be when the target is close enough to the ground so that the clutter extends into the same RDC element.
Even worse is how DCS makes notching just as effective over large bodies of water, as if the water produces anywhere near the same magnitude of clutter (just look at satellite ISAR images of airports or airfields near the ocean; the contrast between aircraft landing/taking off and the inky black water makes them easy to pick out).
Second-time-around returns. It's a thing.
@@ethanmckinney203 What, specifically, are you referring to?
Creeping wave returns to the illuminating radar?
Multipath effects when over a flat ground plane?
" instinctive beaming split-S is guaranteed to save you if it was launched at a BVR distance."
I have to disagree on one thing, because it's not true anymore, someone who flies into a Fox3 unsuspectingly and the missle arrives with good energy 2-3mach it's almost impossible for the target to escape this missle.
and i'm talking about 40-60nm shots here. when the target is over 20-30,000 feet and gets a warning it becomes critical if it's not prepared
and I'm talking about PVP experience
"ED's justification is that the missile requires 8-10 seconds of active radar illumination to home in on the target, however this doesn't match what is publically said about American ARH missiles (that the target has less than a second of warning)"
could you give me the names of the public docs so that I can read them?
Nerd
Great content, thanks Mike. At the 4:00 mark there is the comment that when the motor burns out the missile cannot generate more *kinetic* energy. Physicist here so I'd like to point out that the missile cannot generate more *total* energy (ignoring tailwinds which are not a factor in this discussion), but the missile can exchange potential energy (increased by higher altitude) for increased kinetic energy. Lofting missiles diving down can do this at least until air density really has an effect on drag. The point you are making is perfectly valid, most missiles in DCS have short burn motors and this can be used to defeat them. I'm just being precise with the physics terminology. Please keep these videos coming, they are great.
That's a great point. Thanks for sharing.
top notch content
as usual
Is that a pun?😂😂
Okay that was a good pun.
The problem in DCS is with fox3 missile guidance on terminal phase, if you can get into a 2.5deg notch near the ground (under 100f agl), that missile will miss you 90% of the time, reliably and repeatably. it's not kinematic defence when the missile flies over your canopy or tail plane
You can do it 100% of the time. Just gotta practice also pretty sure you can do it a little higher too.
@@freakmusicaddict nothing is ever 100%, especially inside ed code
@@BMD8 Na that is just a skill issue, at close range it is just a very small time window. The only thing that could happen is you get a desynced missile but that is online only.
I think you've highlighted an interesting difference between people playing a game and real world combat pilots: a 10% chance to die is a terrifyingly high chance of dying.
The F-105 suffered such high losses in Vietnam that it was phased out in favor of the F-4. What was that attrition rate? Less than 2%.
@@wmouse yea in DCS you can practice notching with the same parameters every time unlike in the real world where the parameters are not necessarily known or can be simulated close enough.
8:08 The target disappearing from the attacker's scope does not necessarily defeat the missile. If the attacker continues illuminating and somehow manages to keep the target in-beam without seeing it (or by seeing it with a different sensor), the missile will still get reflections, and the doppler shift it sees will be dependent on its own intercept geometry, not the attacker's.
You are correct that theoretically it is possible. However, we're talking about semi-active radar homing missiles at that point of the video. Those missiles require a narrow beam of energy to illuminate the target. Wide beams run the risk of illuminating something else in the air and sending the missile off course. With that requirement you need the launching aircraft to maintain a good lock.
How do you maintain a lock on the target if the target has faded? You don't. So the launching aircraft can't accurately guide a semi-active missile that it can't see. But I suppose if you want to go to an extreme you can say that some random radar waves could hit the target and that would be enough. However, I've never heard of this happening in DCS or from any of the real life fighter pilots I've worked with.
So as far as illuminating the target without having a good lock, I believe most of the gen 4 aircraft in DCS actually do this. The mirage 2000 has a memory mode for the last known trajectory, that can both illuminate a target for the s530d, and regain the lock if the target fails to maintain the notch. The f-18 also has a memory mode which is programmable, to attempt to regain lock after missing multiple sweeps of the radar.
I'm also pretty sure both can force illuminate a cone in front of them, in special cases where either a lock is lost, or difficult to acquire. This would be your illumination through "other sensor", the sensor being your mk1 eyeball.
I'm not sure if any of the IRST planes in DCS can direct the radar and it's beam without also having a radar lock. I feel like that's a feature that should be there.
@@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom So Jon is right the missile could still hit even if the host radar loses track so long as it's still emitting guidance signals that are reflecting off the target. The missile gets continues to track via its own internal speed gate which is fully independent of the host radars tracking loops. If the speed gate was already established on the target whether or not the host radar is tracking is irrelevant. So long as CWFM/CWI signals are still being emitted the missile will not lose lock. And, so long as it doesn't lose the targets doppler in the near 0 doppler clutter relative to the missile. To go off course in the case of another target said target would need to be in the missiles main beam, in the host radars CW/CWI beam, and close enough in doppler to impact the speed gate, and have a strong return, and to not be filtered out by ECCM (in such a situation I could see a new signal in the filters tripping ECCM logic). Speed gates are generally 15-30 knots wide in total. With the return strength entering the speed gate falling off exponentially as you approach that +- 7.5-15kts. This is a possibility in DCS right now, but it's really only fully modeled on the M2K and F4.
DCS tactic : notch to defeat missiles by visually tallying them as DCS renders a missile at least a single dot whatever distance it is at.
BMS tactic : Skate / Short Skate / Banzai.
@@chihirobelmoable I bet you could also defeat missile reliable in BMS with notching but because only extreme larpers play that game they don't do it.
@@freakmusicaddictI play BMS because DCS is hot dogshit
@@freakmusicaddict you can but still not like in DCS...in BMS I remember I could notch defeat ARH if you completely make relative closure velocity almost 0 like making the plane stall vertically.
Mike, i really appreciate your hard work in explaining these tactics and knowledge. It surely takes a lot of effort and time. Kudos to you for all this great stuff.... keep up the great work bro
Great video. In DCS (not IRL) "notching" may work "most of the time". Skating outside of MAR works 100% of the time. I know what I am going to be doing.
The detail/data behind the video was very informative. As another RUclipsr I know likes to say, "In God we trust, all others bring data". You brought the data. I am still waiting to see good data that indicates notching is a better tactic.
Thanks, Yappy. I appreciate it.
Great video! I just have a small nitpick at 4:23.
The lift vector is always perpendicular to the incoming air, it's defined as such. Therefore, it does not affect the speed of the missile at all. Only drag can affect the speed, which is defined to be pointing in the direction of relative airflow.
Lift that is pointing backwards, relative to the direction of flight, IS one of the components of drag. Angle of attack for example causes it to tilt backwards.
@@cmptohocah The backwards component of the total reaction is drag, and the other is lift.
Lift and drag are perpendicular, but yes the total reaction is pointing slightly backwards.
Lift and Drag are defined like this, because Lift becomes unable to add/remove energy (does not affect your speed), while Drag can only slow you down, it can't make you change direction like lift does.
Now this means that stuff like the Lift/Drag ratio equal your glide ratio, among other very useful things.
Look at the wikipedia page for Lift-to-drag ratio, and the image on the right side.
@@silience4095 I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say here, but all I wanted to point out to you is that when the lift vector, produced by the lift surface(s), is tilted the component of the lift that is acting in the same direction as the drag, becomes a part of the drag. That is one of the reasons you need to add power in a level turn, 'cause extra lift you need to produce in order to stay level is also increasing the total drag force.
@@cmptohocah It's just a terminology thing. Lift is always perpendicular to the relative airflow at infinity.
Drag is always parallel to the relative airflow at infinity.
Lift doesn't tilt back, because it's defined that way, it's more useful if it doesn't.
What does tilt back is the total reaction, or total aerodynamic force.
when i try to notch in fox 3 combat, i generally try to notch the missile itself, rather than the launching emitter. that should work just fine in that case yes? of course i know this makes it easier for the opponent to make follow up shots, but i should able to save myself from a missile in otherwise kinematically lethal ranges like this i think.
Notching a fox 3 before it goes pitbull/active would be kind pointless I would think.
In dcs it's incredibly easy to notch a fox 3 missile and that's what you should be doing. There is specific type of bvr fight called notch fighting. Since notching in dcs is is a 100% tactic(if the miasile is in the notch window it will 100% get notched) the ranges of the fight can get up to 2-3 miles close if both fighters are experienced.
That was my exact thinking. If I put a fox3 on my 9 o clock and not the firing jet I should be able to notch it. Of course the closer the missile the harder to get the right notching angle? Can someone clarify?
Yeah absolutely. It can work. But it can also fail. So you always take a risk when trying a notch. I've always viewed a notch defense as something you would use when there's no other choice. My preference is to follow the guidance I've talked about in the rest of the BVR series and work a plan that keeps you outside the enemy's effective range.
It's the missile's ability to see the target that's relevant to a kill, so yes, notching the missile is what you need to do for a pitbull Fox 3. It should also work for a Fox 1 or a non-terminal Fox 3, but since a Fox 1 isn't emitting anything itself, you'd have to identify the missile visually to notch it, so notching the illuminator is the better bet in general. In principle, the illuminating radar could be steered by another sensor, though. In this case, the illuminating radar itself wouldn't see you, but as long as the other sensor kept it pointed to illuminate the target, the missile would still pick up the reflections, and they'd have a different doppler shift than the ground clutter if you didn't have the missile notched, so you'd have to notch the missile. I'm not sure if any aircraft (especially those likely to be limited to Fox 1's) have this capability, however.
Excellent video, thank you for these!
is there an technical explanation why the Aim120 treshold increases in DCS?
At the moment the Aim120 treshold is 30kts, if a target goes into the notch and falls below it, it often happens that the missle's treshold increases 2-4 times and so the target has an easy time holding it.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but I feel the assertion that you can only notch in a specific range of angles off of the attackers nose is inaccurate.
Theoretically, theres no reason you couldnt notch from anywhere within the entire radar arc, so long as you fly 90 degrees relative to the radar pointing at you.
If an attacker has their radar deflected 50 degrees, and you fly 90 degrees relative to the radar (40 / 130 degrees relative to their nose), you should still be notcbing just fine, no?
I don't think so, because both aircraft are moving with their own velocities. So the target is still moving relative to what the radar sees as the ground, thus allowing it to see the notching aircraft. It works nose on because your relative velocity to the radar is the same as the grounds velocity to the radar. Any difference between those two figures will make you visible
@@Generic_Name_1-1 The radar isnt looking for movement relative to the enviroment, it's looking for the dopler effect. The whole reason notching works is because you trick the radar into filtering you out because your relative speed is low enough that it thinks you're the ground.
@@Nevan_Nedall that's literally what I said. And yes, in effect it is looking for relative velocity to the ground. Because the doppler gate is calibrated to the ground so it can filter the return out. If you aren't presenting the same relative velocity to the radar as the ground you will be visible to the radar
@@Generic_Name_1-1 From what I understand there is a theoretical notch circle where your relative velocity to the radar will be minimal. Mike just had the targets fly in a straight line, hence why they entered-exited the notch.
@@cmptohocah that would work if you were stationary, but since the target aircraft is also moving even if the radar signal is on the 3-9 line because you're off axis to the nose of the radar aircraft, the radar will still see you. Like I said both aircraft still have velocities, unless you're flying cold with the radar notched you're neither the same velocity to the ground or the same velocity as the radar itself.
The MLC filter window (notch) is not caused by a zero radial velocity condition. That is the zero doppler condition. Furthermore if the author modifies his test to have aircraft flying roughly perpendicular to the radar, they will stay in the notch regardless of antenna train angle. There is no limited forward cone for the notch.
Only if speeds are exactly matched so the second plane stays at the same distance
The notch by definition has non-zero closure except at the 3:00 and 9:00 position wrt the transmitting aircraft. So aircraft remaining in the notch will be closing or opening range unless near those positions. Anytime the range is staying the same, they're in the zero super Doppler condition. Except at the 3/9 positions, zero Doppler and notch conditions do not line up.
@@idahlke1 notching at 90 degrees only works because radar can't distinguish target from chaff
Please continue the air supremacy series. Especially other types of air missions like oca and airstrike missions. But also seen from the operational level.
There will definitely be more in the Air Supremacy series. Also, I will be doing a dedicated air-to-ground track as well. There's a lot more in store for this channel. I hope you are enjoying the videos.
Great stuff! Thanks again, Mike!
Impressive video as always! Love it.
Love these videos.
Is the 20 degrees centered on radar's pointing direction? It seems offset to one side in the graphics.
Yeah, I mentioned this in the pinned comment. During the making of the video there were some patches that shifted the window slightly. I'd already changed things twice and it was minor enough that I felt a comment would cover it.
Hopefully that helps.
Good stuff Soly
So notching doppler radar is/was possible because there is no detectable velocity difference to distinguish the target from the background?
Essentially, thats the basic idea.
While that's how DCS treats it, it's not how western radars IRL would. Remember, radar doppler filtering is just that, a filter applied after receiving a return. IRL, things like range gating, signal strength analysis, and rate tracking all defeat this tactic. With missiles, the INS is going to guide to the last computed intercept point when it loses lock... especially true with range gating where it ignores things like ground clutter outside the range bin the target is in.
@@Whiskey11Gaming Thank you, this is excellent information.
So what happens is a little more complicated but you have the jist. Essentially notching only works if your in a situation where clutter returns fall into the radars speed gate (which is very narrow often 15-30kts wide) and are intense enough to overpower the targets return. And as such you cannot notch in lookup situations especially at high altitude.
@@nighthawk2174 Thanks ++
So the radar speed gate is like a filter to remove slow moving objects and to reduce noise? Its width having "zero" absolute kts in the middle?
The intensity being a result of losses that basically increase w distance? and in a lookup situation there are also less return surfaces making the target very distinguishable.
Am I understanding it correct that the main issue was(/is) return signal processing and not (absent/inadequate) modulation schemes to identify them?
Weird question but do you have a link to the skin in the thumbnail?
IIRC that's one of the aggressor skins that come with DCS. If you set the faction to USAF Aggressors it should show up as an option.
@@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom Oh cool, ive some how never seen it? probs because I mostly fly the Mig-29S but still damn
Thank you Mike.
You actually might want to look into the term BEAMING. It a term actual fighter pilots use to be undetected by Doppler radar. DSC seems to have dropped the ball on that one if one flies 90 degrees from a oncoming Doppler radar system one will have no signal to a Doppler radar. That's because Doppler radar looks for speed differences to find a target
Speaking of witch at 4:25 about drag increase on the missile due to AoA. Heh..., I've spent some weeks of analyzing and studying the drag coefficient vs AoA or simplier resulted drag vs AoA through the deceleration rate of all AA missiles in DCS and do you know what I've found? A pathetic simulation of missiles drag, that's what I found! The base drag is way too high to be realistic, and even after some latest updates, ED has indeed started to understand that the zero AoA drag coefficient was very exaggerated, so they've tweaked that down a bit, but not enough as the AA missiles still decelerate like crazy at low AoA. At critical AoA however, in case of the AIm-120C, close to 29...30 degrees, you're not gonna believe it probably, the drag only increases by some 1.5 to 2 times=)))), when according to real common sense data analysis of missiles or aircraft, the drag or drag coefficient should be at least 7..8 times higher at critical AoA, not to mention that above critical, the drag increases more drastically! Also the way the moving fins on the missiles in DCS in relation to the rotations of the missiles in pitch and yaw are like very off-track and not correctly simulated, like they are for aircraft! They've only made a visual effect with those fins moving as the missile's movement is not synchronized correctly! So the zero lift drag of the missile is too high, but the drag increase due to AoA is too low. DCS...! And the same plague is upon all DCS AA missiles, especially the russian ones which are like done so badly on purpose, in terms that their base drag was still left much higher than for the Amraam. Did they wanted to give the Amraam the upmost advantage? Could be, as they control the numbers behind the simulation as they desire, so I wouldn't wonder!
Notching is relied on so much in DCS for the last 2 years to hide the lack of skill in actual BVR combat.
Anyone can spend a couple of hours perfecting notching especially in F16 and suddenly be able to win fights easily. Its such a shame such a low level skill allows you to control fights.
Would going vertical also notch?
Yes actually. Flying straight down at the ground will do it. However, you can only do that for so long. 😃
Good to know :) Is a vertical notch followed by either cover if there is any or by a low level horizontal notch going cold a sound strategy or is simply a long U-turn preferable?
I enjoy your video a lot !!
To me, a large portion of notching is kinematically draining the missile
This is it exactly.
Thanks for video. Against AESA Radar, notch is not effective cause AESA emits simultaneously beams both CW and pulse.
Not quite but yes notching AESA would be essentially impossible but not because of that but because of far more advanced techniques such as STAP and others who's names escape me.
Thanks Mike.
I don't like how much this video undersells the efficacy of the notch. There's some key points that I think are missing if the idea is to present accurate information as to how notching works specifically in DCS. I think this is great otherwise for a general information type video.
I'd be glad to hear some of the points if you don't mind sharing.
Also, I do hear a lot of people share some wild stories about notching. But I only wanted to cover the things that I could personally recreate. And I fired a ton of missiles to make sure none of those were a fluke.
But if you have more to share I definitely want to hear it.
@@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom I genuinely think there's a lot to learn from this and your other videos. They are very good for introductory knowledge as that is the aim. I just think there are some elements, that many others also never mention, such as taking into account how repeatable things are in DCS since it's a game. How things are programmed very binary at time. Notching is extremely easy, almost comically so. Things can obviously change, and I prefer your method of attempting to make a more or less timeless piece. I just thought the title of this video in particular struck me the wrong way with the information you provided.
If you can see enemy notching your fox 1 shot and if you have his flight direction you can just adjust your plane to keep him out from that 90 dgrs, its easy. When ai tries that its extremely funny with both planes turning like stupid as it gets blasted anyway. Honestly with dcs i am more bothered by chaff when using fox 1s and notching mainly fox 3s.
The doppler is not affected by ground, only the pulse does! Why are you saying that the doppler sees ground clutter, when it only sees targets that are either closing or moving away from the radar beam above a relative speed. That's the only reason why those targets weren't appearing directly in front of your radar, NOT because of ground as you confuse things up! Only the pulse mode sees clutter, be it ground or from dispersed chaff and when the targets were above the horizon, it was the pulse mode seeing your targets and you misinterpreted that as the doppler not being affected by ground!
5+ 👏👏
this also works in wt btw
Awesome. I have never tried it. But glad to hear it works there too.
I saw a video where harriers hover and invalidate all AHR missiles.
@@scottl9660 yeah, thats due to the multipathing that happens at 60m, which isnt realistic
well its not actually only at 20 degrees thats just cause thoes planes only entered the notch for the amount of time it took to travel 20 degrees. if the planes held the notch they shouldnt show up on radar as they reach the sides
I wonder how much the METEOR will throw off people who count on the WEZ being easily made smaller
We do have some longer range missiles represented in DCS. The F-14's Phoenix and the MiG-31's R-33/AA-9. Real world those both have extreme ranges. So those might be good to train against if you want to see what it might be like.
Please for any of you who want DCS to be more like WT don't use DCS. For many of us we fly in DCS because it isn't like WT. We enjoy flying period. There is a reason that things like Falcon BMS, DCS etc are niche and we want it to stay that war. Comparing WT to titles like this for us makes no sense. Maybe we call WT a game because 90% of the videos show no systems and external views when fighting - not very realistic. This is not a complaint of this video the data provided was interesting but that is one thing modeled in DCS over the hundreds of other things modeled. IF you just want to shoot people down and don't enjoy the long 300 mile flight to attack SAMs in South Atlantic or Fly into Syria to take out Damascus then yes DCS is not for you. I would argue that if you fly in DCS and use Flaming Cliffs you might be better off in WT. Everyone wants something different. I have been a part of a group in DCS for more than 5 years and people come and go because guess what .... Everyone wants something different form the software.
@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom I would like to connect with you about sponsoring the production of more videos.