no wonder nobody's CIWS works well

no wonder nobody's CIWS works well

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >target drones exist so CIWS is bad
    huh?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How much velocity does the thing have at the end of that?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But I don't understand, if the pattern is random, wouldn't the missile lose too much energy?

          It doesn't matter if the pattern is random or not, pulling Gs increases drag and slows the missile down. There are some missiles like YJ-18 with a solid fuel booster activated in the terminal phase, it could give them a lot of energy to spare and could get interesting

          Depends if the maneuver is equilibrated or not.
          If it is, same velocity as before. If not, less velocity.
          Usually, max acceleration is given for equilibrated maneuvers if it is a cruise missile.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        imagine the last thing you do before you die is trace a ballsack with your eyes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Projects a wall of flak at you
        Instead of firing 300 rounds a second lets just fill the skies with 50 airbursting 40mm shells a second and see how well these missiles do. Modern ships are under gunned as frick which is the real issue.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >He doesn't know about higher order derivatives
    >He doesnt know about Taylor series
    Found the turd worlder.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      homie this stuff is made to mess these up, changing the path quickly makes them spike in value, but this is some meme solution because CIWS ODA loop is short and they are meant to saturate the area anyway

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bro, did you seriously just call me homie?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      k

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >thinking you can analytically solve these functions in realtime while the missile is screaming at you at 500mph
      found the highschool midwit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >what is kalman filtering
        >what is principle component analysis
        You only need to capture the most energetic parts of the signal to get close enough, anon-kun. There's a reason why most theoretical work is done with worst-case bounds - and it's not only because it's usually easier.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    NATO anti-missile systems (which train against these drones) would work

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Soviet and Russian AShM targets just fly straight at 300 feet altitude

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Guy who plays milsims and Ace Combat here. Missiles have a hard time predicting the position of objects that are accelerating in the X and Y axis perpendicular to the approach vector. If a missile is coming for you, and you're spiralling in a helix, the missile will literally shit itself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I always wondered why a spiral pattern wasn't enough to evade ciws like systems

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It is, though. No missiles do it for some reason.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I always wondered why a spiral pattern wasn't enough to evade ciws like systems

          The reason missiles don’t use it is because it’s easy to predict.
          There are mathematical techniques that can recognise simple patterns such as circles, spirals etc.
          To make the missile hard to intercept, you need an element of randomness. I.E. not a clear pattern.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But I don't understand, if the pattern is random, wouldn't the missile lose too much energy?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It doesn't matter if the pattern is random or not, pulling Gs increases drag and slows the missile down. There are some missiles like YJ-18 with a solid fuel booster activated in the terminal phase, it could give them a lot of energy to spare and could get interesting

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            However, missiles predict where a target will be by looking at the acceleration and velocity, then running equations to predict where the object will be when the missile's own distance to the target is zero. Think about how you predict the location of an object accelerating in a straight line, now add a Y component to that acceleration. You'll think the object will follow the path of the blue line, but in reality it follows the red line.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Well, missiles with their own homing (active or semi-active) don't actually predict where the missile will be. They use proportional navigation, which is basically looking at a target and determining when you don't see it moving as it gets closer. If two objects are moving and they see each other not moving but getting closer they are on a collision course. So essentially the missile "sees" the target moving across its FOV and actuates the servos until it stops moving.
              In that case, the missile isn't looking at the blue line, it just sees the target not moving once its on the correct intercept path. When an Y component is added to the acceleration, the seeker will see the target moving across its FOV again and actuate servos again.
              Control guidance missiles will have an impact prediction calculated by the launcher and controls issued to it via radio link.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                proportional navigation isn't the mainstay of missiles anymore anon. We've got far more advanced algorithms these days, dedicated processors are small enough and efficient enough such that we can implement model predictive control algorithms. Even with proportional navigation there can be an algorithmic predictive element added. The whole field of missile guidance nowadays is about providing accurate predictions of target position at intercept, which includes behavioral analysis.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >providing accurate predictions of target position at intercept, which includes behavioral analysis.
                That's fricking moronic, because either you don't have any behavioral data from your opponent until the war starts, or you behaving according to behavioral data will cause the target pilot to change his behavior in response.
                Meanwhile "crash into target and respond his his moves" is extremely efficient with tuned algorithms while reading the tea leaves is a coin toss. Just shooting a missile to force the enemy into going defensive and then firing the kill shot is better than your missile zigging instead of zagging because the "behavioral analysis" told him to.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You do you anon, I'm just telling you what the field is evolving towards. You can read the papers yourself if you want to. And behavioral analysis isn't just limited to analysis of past data, you can analyze the target's current maneuvers to determine patterns. It's challenging but it provides a far more efficient intercept.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you can analyze the target's current maneuvers to determine patterns
                You have seconds. At most the target will perform one maneuver, and a last moment jink.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You have seconds.
                That's why intereceptors have twice the maneuvrability of the missile they want to intercept
                Also, that's why you need attitue control motors like on PAC-3 or ASTER

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only true of the shitty guidance algorithms they implement. Real world guidance algorithms are much much smarter.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only true of the shitty guidance algorithms they implement. Real world guidance algorithms are much much smarter.

      Advanced anti-ship missiles operate with an unpredictable trajectory, which means high maneuverable subsonic missiles are more likely to hit the target than supersonic anti-ship missiles which basically can just fly a straight line.

      The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. 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. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
      In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
      The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah anon that has been a normie meme for months

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The pilot is trying to force the missile to bleed energy as much as possible with so many turns as possible. That's the reason why Meteor is such a big deal with its ramjet.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not necessarily. When a missile is coming straight for you doing a barrel roll will not change the amount of energy required as you're still going into the missile's path and you cannot rely on the missile running out of energy at this stage.
        What a barrel roll does is use radar rotation/nutation against itself. The tracking in ARH and SARH uses the strength of radar return as the antenna or feed horn spins to detect which direction to turn into. But performing a barrel roll, you're fricking with the strength of the signal on both axis at the same time.
        This will not work against beamrider or command guided missiles. So it has nothing to do with energy. Oh and monopulse radars, AESA, etc are not vulnerable to this maneuver.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Guy who plays milsims and Ace Combat here
      hahahahahahahahahahahaha. this is like when a flight attendant ask if there's a doctor on board and you tell them "I watch grey's anatomy!"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I read rant of one Russian flight instructor who flies Yak-52.
        He flew some Russian sims enthusiasts who wanted to try real flight. He mentioned he never had better pilots that flew his Yak. All future pilots of commercial aviation were sloppy even in the end of initial training course. Blind flying (only using instruments) was always a scare, him thinking trainee gonna kill them.
        Sim pilots? Flew rock solid starting from the first flight, holding plane on course like they are autopilots. Both in visual and blind flight.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          sims model basic avionics and mechanics of flight well, the argument was about weapons

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          well, congrats on your bullshit story, but as someone who has 4 licensed pilots in his family I can tell you physically flying the plane is 1% of what a pilot needs to do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I got 4 truck drivers in my familly so i must be an expert in f1 races and for sure yak got a glass wienerpit
            KYS homosexual

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >pfft playing a flight sim is nothing like flying a plane
            >t. hasn't even touched a flight sim but talked to some relatives

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I have 300 hours of DCS as well, but it's not relevant to the discussion as sims are just glorified games. they encompass barely 1% of what you need as a pilot

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the 99% is fricking paperwork and money, dude

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no, it's situational awareness and multitasking plus ATC communication

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >situational awareness
                flying the plane
                >multitasking
                flying the plane
                >ATC Comms
                verbal paperwork

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >hmmm cylinder 6 is hot and tower just vectored a 737 to run me over on final. I hope there isn't a student pilot turning final on 28L when he's supposed to extend his downwind.
                everything is fine until it's not. just hope you luck out and the cheese gets in the way.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes, that sort of paperwork is very important

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you also have to keep up with it at all times or you'll die.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I thought it was not slamming into the ground at high speed and killing everyone. Seems like that should be at least half of what pilots do, but I'm not one so I guess landings are piss easy after all.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                any aspect of flying the plane is piss easy and can be taught quickly. There are plenty of videos on youtube of passengers landing a plane with simple ATC help. Hell, any airliner nowadays can land itself under VFR and IFR conditions.
                look at vid rel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBw6eghPRCo
                literal novice without help yet he manages to land it.
                With my brother as a copilot I have landed a cessna 3 time taking control from final and I did just fine, and I barely had 20 hours of DCS at the time.
                If you want the difficult of flying start with land navigation or 0 vis IFR in a cessna

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              He's right to a degree. Flight sims teach you very little about actually managing a complex mission. Falcon BMS when flown with a large group of other players gets it the closest, but even it is relatively lax.

              The amount of planning the goes into a single real mission, and the actual complexity of getting that mission accomplished, isn't able to be simulated. Flight sims can teach you how to fly aircraft but they can't teach you how to be a pilot.
              >no flight sim teaches you the intricacies of managing, loading, and utilizing cryptographic keys for your radios.
              >no flight sims teach you how to get a corridor created, most don't teach you how to utilize it.
              >no flight sim properly portray how missions are received and created.
              >no flight sims give you a realistic experience with radios, they rely on ATC comm menus.
              etc...

              That being said, flight sims can absolutely improve your aircraft control and your understanding of systems. Certainly gave me a leg up when I started flying.

              t. pilot

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >no flight sim teaches you the intricacies of managing, loading, and utilizing cryptographic keys for your radios.
                irellevant for discussing air combat
                >no flight sims teach you how to get a corridor created, most don't teach you how to utilize it.
                literally had many missions with strike packages mixed with sead and air superiority missions
                >no flight sims give you a realistic experience with radios, they rely on ATC comm menus.
                try srs mod in dcs its not perfect but its nice

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>no flight sim teaches you the intricacies of managing, loading, and utilizing cryptographic keys for your radios.
                >irellevant for discussing air combat
                It's already a fricking pain in the ass to do it in the real life, I wouldn't want to do it for a game ffs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >irellevant for discussing air combat
                It's relevant to the discussion of sims not accurately depicting what is involved with being a pilot, both in the aircraft and out. That is just one example, they compound.
                >literally had many missions with strike packages mixed with sead and air superiority missions
                Not what I was referring to, and your mission planning was likely non-existent compared to reality.
                >try srs mod in dcs its not perfect but its nice
                DCS is dogshit and SRS is only as strong as the people you're communicating with. It's not possible to model a large enough environment in DCS with all the players needed to replicate the complexities of real missions. There aren't enough people that play the game to do that. BMS gets closer with AI but the comms are more limited because of that.

                >>no flight sim teaches you the intricacies of managing, loading, and utilizing cryptographic keys for your radios.
                >irellevant for discussing air combat
                It's already a fricking pain in the ass to do it in the real life, I wouldn't want to do it for a game ffs

                I'm not advocating for it, just pointing it out as one of the many tiny things sims don't show. Filling crypto blows

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Filling crypto blows
                Especially when it decides to shit the bed and lose the fill.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >manual input
                design issue honestly

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I know, I'm just ragging on him because his total denial that sims have any positive effect whatsoever is nonsense

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >spinning IS a good trick
      wtf

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Guy who plays milsims and Ace Combat here
      >Spiraling is best

      This is true. Gotta get close but maintain transversal.

      .t EvE player.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This works in vidya because the missiles don't actually compute a perceived velocity vector for the target or do 2D propnav or anything, they just track a point off of the aircraft's nose. IRL the missile can pull more Gs than you can and will kill you in the terminal phase

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Propnav has been used in games for 30 years, probably more.
        It's not difficult to code nor expensive to run, and it's also more robust than pure pursuit given that games work with discrete time.
        As far as the flying in a spiral IRL, I heard the Israeli did it against some old SAMs and on paper the kinematics check out, and in theory they can also be effective against very fast missiles such as the R-77M or whatever the russian A2A hypersanic meme is called, but I absolutely wouldn't want to bet my life on it when there's the option to just go cold.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >just go cold.
          >Against hypersonic
          Not sure that would work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The russian one seems to have enough drag to make it viable, still a frickhuge MAR but that's to be expected.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Advanced anti-ship missiles operate with an unpredictable trajectory, which means high maneuverable subsonic missiles are more likely to hit the target than supersonic anti-ship missiles which basically can just fly a straight line.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what's a pc based weave pattern anyway?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      weave planner, you can program a custom weave pattern with a tool

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just like in muh macross

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Try dodging a laser.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why would that be hard? It's like saying "try dodging this stick I'm swinging at you".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >moving faster than the speed of light
        Durrr

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "Moving faster than the speed of a swung stick"
          Durrr.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dodging a thrown stick is possible, dodging the speed of light is impossible. Even covering your missiles in mirrors won't help since mirrors don't block the right wavelengths and heat up anyways.

            You're moronee.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >dodging the speed of light is impossible
              That's where you're wrong. The speed of light is not instant, and the motors and tracking of the laser definitely aren't either. Random walk can drastically decrease the amount of time the laser is burning the missile.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The speed of light is not instant
                For light to travel a mile it takes 0.0053 secs.
                >Random walk can drastically decrease the amount of time the laser is burning the missile.
                A laser can track an incoming missile easily and keep it on target. The type of missile or drone coming in that's making these kind of maneuvers are not hypersonic. It only takes a few degrees of movement to keep the cruise missile or drone on target.

                A hypersonic or ballistic missile won't be using terminal maneuvers like in OP. They will just be going too fast and a traditional missile or ciws will be able to shoot them down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >dodging the speed of light is impossible
                That's where you're wrong. The speed of light is not instant, and the motors and tracking of the laser definitely aren't either. Random walk can drastically decrease the amount of time the laser is burning the missile.

                I'm pretty sure they use motors to move the internal mirror of the laser to precisely aim it. This makes them extremely accurate and allows them to track fast moving objects. So even if the missile was banking at 600mph and at 10g's the laser will be able to easily keep it on target by shifting it's curved focused mirror. And the radius of the laser is pretty big so even if it was off by a few inches it'll still burn through the missile.

                Whenever you see projectiles from rail guns and the like in slow motion the camera isn't moving to track it but the mirror it's look at does. This allows them to track objects moving at mach 10 in slow motions.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no actual randomness. Missiles are things with mass flying through dense atmosphere using a simple thrust engine. Maneuvering takes energy and changing directions takes more. Things in the real world have a generally predictable envelope of possible manuevers which is easily calculated using observed and known data about the target. The harder the manuevers the more predictable it becomes. There is no such thing as a missile that can jink and weave it's way through AD. That's for a small increase of penetration odds by exploiting a narrow range of actual randomness based on an element of data unknown by the AD (residual mass and available thrust etc). And of course exploiting very simplistic AD. The thing is...the value of advanced manuevers is so marginal it's probably more beneficial for opfor missiles facing advanced AD to maximize speed in an effort to aid saturation of the system.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Say you can pull 8g max, which is high for a supersonic cruise missile. Brahmos are tough to be around 6-7
      It is possible to program an algorithm making random weaves of different period and amplitude with a maximum of 8g.
      The intercepting system knowq how much you can pull but doesn't know if you'll do it or not, giving uncertainty and thus difficulty to intercept

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both of these are flying straigh and level for the last 20 seconds, CWIS isn't going to fire on anything 20 seconds out.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Both of these are flying straigh and level for the last 20 seconds,
      wrong

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It takes a lot of maneuverability and computing power to run these maneuvers.
    The computing power is mostly just an industrial problem, you need a robust computer industry to make these missiles en-masse.

    The maneuverability issue is an engineering issue and one that never really goes away. Ship killing missiles neeed big warheads and those warheads weigh down the missile. You end up paying more in engines, control surfaces, and structure compared to a smaller missile.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The big engineering challenge is all the energy loss from manuvers like this.
      You can either put in a much larger jet engine at high cost or add a rocket booster for the endgame.
      With how much processing power we can fit in a $200 phone I'm hoping we'll see more hybrid rocket engines with complex burn profiles for high PoK at extreme range.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        True
        Engine and material technology didn't moved as fast as electronics in the past 30 years, even though there's been some spectacular advencement
        In that way, the 3M54K is pretty smart. A turbo for very long range coupled with a sprint motor for the last stretch and the maneuver

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Serpentine!

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The US's works fine. No speculation at this point, either, it's battle proven in the Red Sea. Must suck to be a brown or a yellow.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *