Sharpshooter

Nah, I had Su-30s defeating AIM-120s in 1.1 last night between 3-6 nm range. As always, decoys, altitudes, maneuvers and approach aspects mean there is no such thing as a true 'no-escape zone'. No escape zone menas for me that if launched head on to a target that is not currently maneuvering at the moment and is same altitude as you, it will hit 90% of the times. To sum up, fired in optimal conditions. If however you try to fire them to recceding targets or targets not exactly in front of you, but rather 45 degrees or more to your left or right the chances of kill are likely to drop. Particulary I think that firing multiple AMRAAMs is not the best tactic, if thats what you are doing. Maybe the AIM-120 is undermodeled, but I still think that is a missile that in the game has an above 65% Pk if it`s fired correctly. You see that I agree with you when you said, it`s not the missile but the pilot who is responsable for the kill. Though with this kind of missiles, it doesn´t take much of a pilot to make a kill.

I'm not sure this would work - you would have to bypass the radar filter circuits electronically in the look-up situation. The original APG-63 retained a pure pulse mode for this purpose, but I think it was deleted in later radars when they realized chaff can mask a low-closure target look-up just as effectively as ground clutter does look-down. Not sure though. When it swings away, it is no longer looking at you and cannot detect you regardless if you are beaming or not. You only need to notch the radar beam when it is pointed directly at you. The problem is mainly, what to do when you are painted by multiple beams from different directions - it's usually only effective to beam one radar at a time. This is where wingman tactics become useful. -SK I guess we`ll never know, nothings infalible, though the look up does work in LockOn, I use it a lot. Radar lock lost to chaff is not modeled at all in LockOn AFAIK.

Manual states it`s TAS. But then, it also states the the speed read on the tof left of the VSD on a target locked on STT is TAS, when it should be IAS.

Oh no, not this again... :cry: We had a huge debate over this a year ago on the UbiSoft forum, I had to draw all these pictures and stuff... it wasn't pretty. Lock On has this correct. You notch the radar by flying perpendicular to the radar beam. You cannot take a target out of the notch by turning your own aircraft - while this does change the closure of the target, it also changes the closure of the ground behind the target by the exact same amount. To a Doppler radar, he's now a different-colored snowman in a different-colored blizzard, but still just as invisible. -SK This means, the only way to not be notched is looking up with your radar.

But you know, we can upgrade the sim without overloading everything, at least you would have said the same thing about the AFM... and there it is... it is not overloading my processor at least, and it`s pretty realistic over the old FM, don`t you think ? I think the same could be done with missile physics and logics. ED just has to find an equilibrium between realism and processing time, so we don`t end up waiting an hour for a missile to hit a target.

From what I know you can notch the radar when the closure rate read by the Emitters radar is equal to the Emitter Speed. You can only notch when the Emitters Radar is looking down into ground clutter. What I do so they can notch my radar is launch a long range SARH from high above, R-27RE for example, and get below the targets altitude. That way you make sure your radar can´t be notched. It also ocurred to me that since the radar beam is conical-shaped, the maneuvering target should have more trouble trying to notch the radar, especially if the encounter isn´t pure head on, ie there is some considerable angle off from the target. Anyway that the target could make the closure exactly equal to you aircraft´s speed the lock is droped. As I understand notching the radar takes advantage of the method employed to reject ground clutter. Since the radar sees the ground as a target that moves at the same speed as you do, towards you, all the signals with closure rate that equal your speed are filtered. In look up enviroments the radar is not expecting any ground clutter, clouds aren´t detected, so it doesn´t filter those kind of signals anymore and is able to keep the lock on the target. This is the way I understand it, it´s not a very technical explanation I know.

Interesting, I really didn´t pay attention to this because I thought that it was correctly modeled, even if scripted. You´d be the ones to judge if it is correctly modeled or not. Quoting this phrase: "The more realistic a simulation, the slower it gets.", I would like to add the inmersive it gets, the challenging it gets.

We talked about all the versions. He stated that the A model has a couple of "idiosyncracies" concerning what had to be done to launch one, but he refused to go into detail, as there are still A models in the inventory. He stated that the old models were fantastic, just had the "idiosyncracies" that he wouldn't extrapolate on. He said the newest versions were out performing the old ones by quite a margin, but that the modeling we have didn't seem to be representative of the first "A" model. He flew F4's before he flew F16's, so I don't know how long he's been flying, and he was in the first Gulf War. Seems he's more important to the brass training new pilots now. I spoke to him at length about the community here. He was impressed that we all know about notching, beaming, WEZ, PK, etc. He said he'd love to get me and a couple of guys up in a '16 and he thought that we'd do very well. He said his students have a hell of time w/instruments and simulators. I told him the story about how I finally figured out how to calculate the heading needed to properly beam an opponent. I explained that I used to do the addition or subtraction before I realized the HSI was there to "do the math" for me. He laughed at length and stated that a couple of weeks ago he had explain to his students the exact same process. He also said that he'd probably suck bad if he tried to fly any of the sims on the computer as they have no tactile input. He said he can feel what the airframe is doing, and what he can do just by the G's on his body. I'm thankful that this guy is a fantastic human being and that when he has time that he'll chat w/me. I thank him often for that and for his service. I'm going to put a bunch of LOMAC vids on a DVD for him so he can see what "fun" we have. He was also impressed w/the TrackIR technology. He had no idea that was available. It´s great to see some actual proof. There´s always progress in everything, the missile couldn´t just be born on the drawing board and be a killer. I appreciate that you share this with us. When he said this: "He said the newest versions were out performing the old ones by quite a margin, but that the modeling we have didn't seem to be representative of the first "A" model" Did he mean that the model we´ve got is an undermodeled A version or a overmodeled A version ? Probably when he heard of TrackIR for the first tiem he went: "How could that be !!! The same technology as the Helmet Mounted Targeting System on civilian hands !!!" :)

Of course all the seekers have their problemas SARH and ARH, otherwise why would there be upgraded seekers ? Even if seekers don´t have to do anything with that, I would like to see a more natural effect on missile logic, not just, you know, scripting 5% chance that the missile will eat some chaff. Also I would like radar locks lost to chaff, I`ve been told that this happens. If you can back up your statement, what are you waiting for ! You know I will ask you everytime, if I talk I specify my sources (except if common knowledge) otherwise I specify that I don´t.

Of course the interaction is more complicated, but as it is more complicated is more classified that info so we are speaking in general terms. I don´t know about SARH missiles outperforming ARH missiles but I know that due to the method employed to guide the missile to the target they should have more natural resistance than ARH to chaff. The AMRAAM had to be updated against contermeasures like a thousand times, so it could not have been a killer missile all the way, it went through a process that took it there. You are not born invincible but made. The test could have gone perfectly, but the real world and the real targets are not the same as drones, if they were you´ll still have the AIM-120A in production. I´d really like missile ballistics implemented as well as the AFM, and I want it even more than modelling AFM on all flyables. But the best would be if they can model the seekers in a less scripted way. I´m against ED getting the 120C better it´s already killer, I get only but kills in no escape zone. I personally think they should model AIM-120A, it´s the best way to balance Flanker, and MIGs against the F-15C. The 120C would be used against MiG-29S fighters. Otherwise the mission maker has no choice but the 120C and the older fighters with older missiles are somewhat behind the mighty 120C. I think F-15Cs FM is fine, I really don´t know nothing about that subject realistically, but at least it is not overwhelming nor behind the Russian Fighters.

It is a submode of RWS, it works like this: You scan on RWS see a target designate it and you will get the targets vector, and launch information, while the radar keeps scanning for targets in RWS. Designate it again and you enter STT.

Could you tell us when he started flying the F-16, what version of the F-16 or what type of AMRAAM he talks about ? I´m not argueing that the AIM-120C is not a killer, I´m saying that the AIM-120A version should be modeled. With all the updates the AIM-120 got I have no doubt it´s a hell of a missile, but maybe it is a hell of a missile -now- or five years ago, but how about 15 years ago ?

I did what you said, if the AMRAAM is decoyed by any chaff it is unnoticeable it instantly reacquires. In that setup the F-15C always wins, at least the 5 times I tried it did. I know how to fly every plane in LO:MAC and though I may not be as skilled as a dedicated pilot I know well the ups and downs of almost every aircraft. I have flown the F-15C and I have always beat the Flanker, the AI just does not have any good tactics against it and chaff seems to do nothing for them as they do nothing for me. I have not dogfighted against a human player nor did an F-pole Fight ini the F-15C. This is coming from someone how fires AIM-120s and from one that is constantly trying to dodge them, though I still deploy chaffs. The AMRAAMs that I can dodge, are launched outside the "no escape" zone. The ones launched in the no escape zone require better tactics and there is a slim chance that you will dodge them. Perhaps you could hint me on how to evade an AMRAAM with chaff, maybe I will learn something new. I can understand how the SARH missiles are not decoyed easily by chaff, because the seeker is searching for an especific signal and it will not be mislead easily by huge RCS. ARH in contrast are searching for an specific target in an area, with maybe an specific RCS passed on by the launching platfofrm. I can understand how that missile could be decoyed by a huge RCS. But I am just firing blind on this one.

I do not know what do you do, but I have far more success beaming, outmaneuvering or outrunning the AMRAAM than decoying it with chaff. If anything the AMRAAM tracks, that is what it is best at, I have never seen the AMRAAM drop a target, only running short or failing to detonate near the target. But being decoyed by chaff, never, and I have tried.

I think the disadvantage only exists insofar as the "advanced capabilities" of the later versions are actually modelled. -SK I particulary consider the AIM-120C as an Advanced version. Even if it is the AIM-120C-1. The R-27RE entered service according to the 1.1 Manual in 1985, and the AIM-120C-1 entered service in late 1996 according to the link I posted. I think that if ED labeled it AIM-120C it is because they modeled it at least to the earliest AIM-120C that entered service. The AIM-120C has numerous advantages compared to the AIM-120B and A, including better countermeasure resistance, and in Lock On it is practically inmune to it. But, still there is confusion. The AIM-120 in Lock On is labelled AIM-120C but the model is an AIM-120A or B. You see the AIM-120C has clipped, ie shortened, wings and fins as seen in this photograph: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/aim-120c.jpg This allows the missile to be fitted in the internal bays of the Raptor. I think I exaggerated a bit with it being a big disadvantage because the Russian Fighters still have range advantage, but I still think that it leaves them in inequality.

Here is my take on Lock On missile logic: The Datalink should be also removed from the R-24T. My sources indicate that the only IR missile with Datalink is the R-40T Acrid carried on the Mig-25 and Mig-31. Also I`ve noticed that the R-33E performance is very bad, it hardly hits a fighter plane, even if it is in level flight, the only thing the fighter pilot has to do is dispense some chaff and the missile will be decoyed. So much for the powerful radar of the Mig-31 and it´s predilected weapon. But I´m saying this with no source backup. I´ve noticed that ARH missiles trigger RWR alarms on both NATO(R-77) and Russian Aircraft(AIM-120C). According to my sources and Falcon 4 ARH missiles guide on Datalink until they go Active and then they can be detected by the RWR. Still the question is if the RWR on Russian Aircraft will be triggered because the RWR(SPO) will detect an airborne radar and not a typical signal fighter radars send to targets for guiding SARH missiles. On the other hand F-15C RWRs will detect an active missile radar an will crearly display it on the RWR (I think the F-15Cs RWR is advanced enough to do that, F-16s RWRs can). Moreover if the R-27R and R-27RE have Datalink, wouldn´t they guide on Datalink, and then when the missile is close enough the Fighter Radar will send a signal, so the SARH missile could guide directly to the target ? This will trigger the enemy`s RWR only when fully necessary(ie the missile needs more constant updates so that it can hit the target accurately) and will give him very short notice and thus possibility to evade the missile. Also I would like to know your opinion of implementing on older version of the AIM-120: I feel that AIM-120 early versions should be considered. According to this source: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html AIM-120A was the one deployed in 1991 in small quantities and was not fired during the War. It was not until late 1994 that AIM-120B was deployed and AIM-120C earlier version where first deployed in 1996. Futhermore AIM-120C has about 7 subversions, and the earliest should be considered the ones modeled in LOMAC. Since from version to version the AIM-120 has been considerably improved, several versions should be modeled in LOMAC especially for earlier conflicts against missiles such as R-27R and R-27T. Otherwise Su-27 and MIG-29A are in big disadvantage against AIM-120C fitted F-15Cs. At least I reccomend modelling AIM-120 A, B and an early C version, considering that the C version is way better than the B and A versions according to my source.

Yeah, it would be great if they could add those AAA units. Also I would like if they could change the Shilka RWR symbol "23" for another one, because when I see that symbol I go "MIG-23, WHERE" Also I would like older SAM systems like SA-2 and SA-5 and MANPAD SA-7. This SAM systems are more likely to appear in 1980s and early 1990s conflicts with nations that could not upgrade their arsenal.

From what I have heard it is something that is hardcoded into the engine somehow like the limited amount of skins on an Aircraft. But yeah too bad they could not overcome it.

Anyone else want to shed some light on my thoughts ? JJ Alfa perhaps, he seems very fond of this kind of issues.

mmm, there is no pass/user recovery system on the page and I forgot mine :P Too bad, it doesn´t accept the same mail it just resets the fields.

I`d rather have various improvements to the current features than a new flyable. Lomac has enough flyables as it is and I think that they should focus on perfecting the sim they now have. LOMAC needs a good mission editor, I`m sick of mission that are just seek and destroy or go destroy that then get back. I would like mission to be more immersive. Like adding aircraft packages that interact between each other to complete the mission. I`d like the AWACS telling me to go help this Flight because it is in deep trouble, I`d like the ATC to divert me to other field, ect.. I`d like my coalition to have a limited amount of fuel, supplies and Weapons, I`d like them to have a real army. To sum it up, I`d like a real battlefield. A dynamic campaign. Something I have not seen in Falcon4 that I`d like getting implemented is the coordination between flights. For example if you are escorting a strike flight, and you see enemy fighters you will tell the strike package what to do, where to move and if they need to go defensive because you can´t get there fast enough. Or at least you can hear them on the radio asking for help. In Falcon4 they just go plain defensive they don`t care if you are engaging them or not. I`ll also vote for realist avionics. I think that with 1.1 we are already getting an avionics update, but I think that there is more improvements to be made to the current ones. I would go as far as modelling everything except of course classified, well not that far :) An example is the CRT monitor in the Su-27, I`ve seen videos that it shows the Aircraft Datum, altitude and speed (at least) The AI needs improvement, they need to be told in what type of mission they are, because there is no difference between A2A tasks and A2G tasks except for the type of ordenance released. Their situational awareness needs to be improved, sometimes they seem to have a sixth sense for finding you, or the IR missiles you fired at them from behind with the EOS. I would also like the AFM implemented on all flyable aircrafts. It is just not right to do the updates to only a few planes, it doesn´t seem even, and frankly it`s un-professional. I completly understand that ED dind´t make it for this release, but please for the next one :)

Yes, this was always taken into account i think, at least I always thought of it being that way. But the question here is if the R-27ET or the R-27T have a datalink at all, because some sources claim they do not. I was really talking about another type of situation. What you say is correct. That happens if you have a SARH missile selected. If you have an IR missile selected, you will want to keep it stealthy if you have not been detected yet. You will want to use the EOS to locate the aircraft and fire when he still does not realize you are there. The AIM-7 is practically a thing of the past, but it is still being used. Plus sometimes SARH missiles are fun, and diversity is cool and adds to the inmersion. I believe they did not put the F-15E not because it is not fun, but because it has MFDs and thus is more complicated to simulate with this engine. I think there are other ways to detect changes in the atmosphere, radar is not the universal sensor. No backup on this just that I have the feeling that there are other ways. You mentioned rear-aspect IR missiles a thing of the past, I think Su-47 is a thing of the future !!! Hey, no problem !

Concerning the topic I feel that AIM-120 early versions should be considered. According to this source: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html AIM-120A was the one deployed in 1991 in small quantities and was not fired during the War. It was not until late 1994 that AIM-120B was deployed and AIM-120C earlier version where first deployed in 1996. Futhermore AIM-120C has about 7 subversions, and the earliest should be considered the ones modeled in LOMAC. Since from version to version the AIM-120 has been considerably improved, several versions should be modeled in LOMAC especially for earlier conflicts against missiles such as R-27R and R-27T. Otherwise Su-27 and MIG-29A are in big disadvantage against AIM-120C fitted F-15Cs. At least I reccomend modelling AIM-120 A, B and an early C version, considering that the C version is way better than the B and A versions according to my source.

Great News ! This plane deserves an upgrade. I think we are going a bit out of the timeline here, these upgrades are for 2007. Plus it has MFDs something LockOn is not very friendly with. Already the Su-25T(Su-39) is a bit advanced (In the way that it is not a pre-1990 Aircraft)to the imaginary timeline ED is trying to create.

Is the datalink also removed from the R-24T ? My sources indicate that the only IR missile with Datalink is the R-40T Acrid carried on the Mig-25 and Mig-31. Also I`ve noticed that the R-33E performance is very bad, it hardly hits a fighter plane, even if it is in level flight, the only thing the fighter pilot has to do is dispense some chaff and the missile will be decoyed. So much for the powerful radar of the Mig-31 and it´s predilected weapon. But I´m saying this with no source backup. I´ve noticed that ARH missiles trigger RWR alarms on both NATO(R-77) and Russian Aircraft(AIM-120C). According to my sources and Falcon 4 ARH missiles guide on Datalink until they go Active and then they can be detected by the RWR. Still the question is if the RWR on Russian Aircraft will be triggered because the RWR(SPO) will detect an airborne radar and not a typical signal fighter radars send to targets for guiding SARH missiles. On the other hand F-15C RWRs will detect an active missile radar an will crearly display it on the RWR (I think the F-15Cs RWR is advanced enough to do that, F-16s RWRs can). Moreover if the R-27R and R-27RE have Datalink, wouldn´t they guide on Datalink, and then when the missile is close enough the Fighter Radar will send a signal, so the SARH missile could guide directly to the target ? This will trigger the enemy`s RWR only when fully necessary(ie the missile needs more constant updates so that it can hit the target accurately) and will give him very short notice and thus possibility to evade the missile. Regarding IR missiles, I heard someone say that some Russian Aircraft have IR missile warning but none of the flyable Russian Aircraft seem to have it. I heard that it detects the changes the missile does to the atmosfere or something like that. How true is this ? I want to ask if the Russian IR missiles now emit a tone only when they have a positive heat source where they can guide on or they emit a tone that becomes more high pitched when receiving a more potent eat signal, just like the AIM-9 in Falcon4. I´d like to point out that the Helmet Mode with the R-73 is not working right. I´ve seen in a video how a Russian pilot moves his head and then the EOS sensor moves with his head(not really smooth BTW). So the helmet adcquisition mode is limit by the EOS sensor. I see that this limit is respected when trying to lock, but once it is locked it does not respect the EOS gimbal limits anymore. Pardon me if I´m going way offtopic but I´d like to point out that when using EOS mode, and you lose a lock, the radar tries to acquire the target. This is listed as a feature, but isn´t the EOS sensor whole purpose to be stealthy?. If the radar is turned on, your cover is blown and then you are screwed. Thanks for Reading :)