PE_Tigar

On guidance - I did that many times, and the missile guides to target as if it received mid-course guidance from the launch aircraft. But that doesn't mean it's active, since it doesn't, for example, lock on to targets it encounters along the way... I don't think you know what active guidance really means, but that doesn't matter, devs know and it's up to them to fix it. As for the tracks - I see what you mean, but that's only one of the issues with the missile. Plus, the AI notches the missile perfectly - I've rarely seen humans able to pull that off.

Well, maybe you know something I don't, but I haven't seen any other weapon "fire and forget" weapon in the game act like that. Why do you think it's ED's responsibility?

Did anyone look into this? I can confirm these issues with the missile.

Also: Rb-15F self-destructs upon launching aircraft destruction.... For example.

It's not active on launch. It flies like it's receiving mid-course updates - those are two different things. If the missile was active on lofted long-range shots you'd start getting missile warnings in target airplane much earlier than is the case now. I understand the effect might look similar, and it should not act like that, but the cause is not what you think it is. Also, even if it was active off the rail, it could never track the target, because the target is not in the basket during the loft phase. As for chaff effectiveness - I have no tracks out of 40+ PvP AIM-54A shots I've viewed since the last update where the missile goes for chaff - it does have two issues with terminal guidance, as outlined in the video I posted and linked. If you have Tacview ACMI files, or tracks where you can positively say the missile started guiding on chaff, please provide some, I'd be genuinely interested to see that. In all misses we've recorded the missile increases the lead until it looses the target from the "basket" (which is a bug) and then turns away from the target to reacquire (which is another bug) - it never goes for chaff. In yesterday's session I viewed, however, there were three cases where the missile either goes through the target with no effect, or passes very close (33ft for example) - that seems like a desync issue, very bad for MP.

AIM-54 has flawed terminal guidance. See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270169. You're guaranteed to miss, unless firing at a very short range, or the target pilot gets confused/overwhelmed. Chaff has no observable effect really.

Not that simple. The missile is not under direct positive control of the launch aircraft radar. It receives mid-course guidance updates that change the way the missile's autopilot flies the missile. When these updates stop (for any reason) the missile will/should continue flying to the last calculated intercept point. If the target maneuvers aggressively (change course, altitude, etc.) so it's out of the missile radar's acquisition cone ("basket") when missile goes active, and there are no other targets in the basket, it will miss. If not, the missile will continue guiding on an acquired target (which may or may not be the intended target). There are two stages of mid-course guidance. First, when the target can maneuver out of the missile's basket, and second, when it can't. If guidance is broken in the first stage, the missile will most likely miss a maneuvering target. If it happens in the second stage, the missile will guide to the target, but will not be as effective as in "mid-course guidance to active" case. I've read in one source that with AMRAAM launch pilot should get indication whether the missile is in the stage 1 or stage 2 of mid-course guidance, no idea whether it's the case with AIM-54A or C. I have analyzed some 30+ PvP AIM-54 shots recently, and certainly the missile guides as if having mid-course guidance all the time even with launching a/c going cold - no doubt about that. What I'm hoping for is more realistic behavior, along the lines described above.

Thanks Chizh - 80 seconds it is then. Hope you and other devs are being as rigorous with other weapons in this regard.

AIM-120C behavior is seriously flawed in all phases of flight. - loft angle can increase above 45 degrees when shooting retreating target. Loft angle should never exceed 45 degrees, because it severely impairs maximum range. See below: - mid-course guidance: missile turns towards last known target position when losing mid-course updates. Should (at least) continue flying toward last calculated intercept point. - terminal guidance: missile turns towards last known target position when losing target in the notch momentarily. This leads to a series of short violent turns which bleed energy quickly. Should (at least) continue flying toward last calculated intercept point. - terminal guidance: missile very susceptible to notching. Public sources all point to various methods to prevent this. Suspect issue: - terminal guidance: missile limited by 80s battery life. I don't know whether this is correct, maybe devs could look into this. P.S. I didn't have enough time and patience to make videos about all of the issues, so I've attached Tacview files that illustrate this. AIM-120C Errors.zip

Can confirm this - 80s, then it goes limp. Have no idea how long it should last realistically, but would be odd to have a missile with this good kinetic performance die before reaching the target because of short battery life. Anyone from ED side care to comment?

Short description: 1) AIM-54A terminal guidance (intercept point calculation) does not take into account the missile's radar cone limits (thus losing contact within terminal guidance). Intercept point calculation should take radar signal cone ("basket") limitations into account. 2) AIM-54A turns to reacquire target after losing contact due to issue #1, but in the wrong direction (away from the target). Should turn towards the last known position of the target. See the following video for illustration: The video shows shots where this effect was the most pronounced, where basically no other explanation is possible. Longer description of the test: We've run four setups with all human pilots 4xF-16C vs. 2xF-14B. Weapons expended - 36x AIM-54A, 33 AIM-120C, 5xAIM-9X. Kills (per setup) 1) 1xF-14B (AIM-120C) 2) 2xF-16C (AIM-54A) 3) 2xF-16C (AIM-54A - no evasive maneuvers) 1xF-14B (2xAIM-9X) 4) 1xF-14B (2xAIM-9X). Most weapons were fired within their kinetic range (i.e. the majority of missiles reached targets, or had enough energy to reach target, go active, and maneuver). Some AIM-120C timed out (battery spent) within their active range. Some AIM-120C went off target because of loft issues. Some AIM-120C were lost due to mid-course guidance issues/lack of TWS guidance. Hit rate per missile: AIM-54A 11.1% (5.55% if we discount non-maneuvering targets); AIM-120C 3.03% (one missile hit, head on, ~10nm range); AIM-9X 80% (100% if we discount one inadvertent Fox 2 shot). Most Fox 3 kills were in the first two setups - none in the fourth. That leads to conclusion that the learning curve for evading missiles by using the flaws described is not steep at all - it takes an average pilot about one hour to master this "technique". This post is related to AIM-54A only, there will be a separate one (unfortunately longer) with AIM-120 issues and questions. Tracks and .acmi files available per request (we'll send them to devs or official beta testers, if they're interested).

If I recall correctly you have to go fast for this to work - like 0.85 mach.

This. BK-90 ideally needs NAV system update immediately before IP.

F-16C TWS also does not provide mid-course guidance for AIM-120. It's supposed to be a "feature" of WIP AIM-120 autopilot.

All fighter jets I've seen Russia operate in Syria are Su-30SM and Su-35S - and what do you know, they still use R-27T/ET or R-27R/ER or here:

I can confirm this - as can many other people. Will ED at least confirm or deny this? Any update?

That's beside the point - AGM-154C is realistically used by the Navy against ships (even moving ones, with terminal IR guidance); I highly doubt that GBU-10 would be a weapon of choice for that, as it provides almost zero standoff capability.

I know that all too well. Yet, a 500lb LGB with GP warhead does more damage?

Can we please have AGM-154C BROACH warheads that actually do some damage as most other 500lb class warheads in the game? Right now hitting Neustrashimyy frigate with four of these weapons produces 10% damage - I guess this is quite unrealistic and easily corrected.

This still continues - is this an acknowledged bug, or do we still pretend it doesn't exist?

I don't understand why speed drops so much and keeps dropping after re-entry. What speed is TS actually? TAS?

Just make a new \Mods\aircraft folder, and then unzip the downloaded A-4E package there. Also, since DCS Open Alpha has been deprecated for some time now, make sure to do all this in either C:\Users\YOURUSERNAME\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta or C:\Users\YOURUSERNAME\Saved Games\DCS folder. Or both.

Errr - Georgia and Croatia didn't exist as independent countries in 1987. If you're trying to have a "real" situation...

Confirm. Also, radar works on the ground - I'd expect WoW sensor would prevent that, but maybe I'm wrong.

BTW if you just type in <ICAO code> and charts into Google you'll get any charts you need pretty much right away... The problem I see is that you need charts from 2011-ish, and things in the Gulf (or UAE at least) change very very fast :).