FoxAlfa

+1

They were incresed in 2.7.1.6430 if I am not mistaking...

Can than we have the missile RCS reverted to pre-patch values then till there is proper system to simulate this? It is quite annoying having sparrow launched toward the target and radar switching the lock to my missile and effectively wating it half of the time.

Yes, but the big requirement for Iron Dome was a unique warhead and fuse. Most of AAM vs AAM scenarios would involve a tail chase scenarios (due to midposition of the fuse and warhead) so behind, for warheads created to expand forward and to the side. Like I said even if everything happened in .01 sec, a 13.7 m difference would mean hitting a ~basketball on 344 m2 court.... statistically possible but highly unlikely.... best bet would be closing so close to trigger the other missiles fuse... but all the maneuvering errors and radar errors #notlaserbeam, we know that is also make that highly unlikely

Just an idea, could you have the hit probability be closing speed dependent? Like at 3-4 mach closing speed seams highly unlikely (due to many factors, filtering, fusing, speed of explosion expanding etc) but at lower speeds like 1-1.5 mach one can see it being doable Just to give context at mach 4, or 1372 m / s, just a delay of 0.1 sec or 0.01 sec atributed to fuse delay (mid body), igniter lighting, explosion happening and pellets traveling those few meters would mean a difference of 137, 2 meter or 13.7 meters respectively

So what is information on air-to-air missiles interceptions, is it 'as intended' or still 'work in progress'?

Not to be rude, but if we have MIT professor, an ex-Assistant for Weapons Technology in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, after analysing all the evidence, testifying under oath in front of US congress that the effective interceptions of missiles were minimal, as well as well know Israeli dissatisfaction with its performance of the sistem actual built to perform such interceptions. And on the other hand, we have sistem in our simulation of similar vintage, preforming 100% effective interceptions on much smaller, less pretictable and maneuvering target, I find that unusual ...

I know this gif was floating on the net, I am not sure of the author. https://imgur.com/OX30rhV We are talking about 20 nm amraam 100% intercepts Although picking up missiles on radar is a thing RL, regardless I have my concerns regarding this ... The pick-up range would be extremely small due to small RCS, TWS would also probably disregard track due to big position changes ... also, for interception of maneuvering AAMs if we are talking 90's the fusing is also the big issue .... there are well documented issues with patriot interceptions during Gulf War with fusing too late or not doing any damage due warhead construction ... and we are talking about Truck sizes missiles on ballistic trajectory, not small super bikes constantly maneuvering in the sky. https://web.archive.org/web/20021228134420/http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407p.htm

I agree, the issue it is that the Fulcrum and Flanker are penalised for having EO instead of performing better. Also, the real-life planes have ability to swich EO support off as well a flood mode if lock is lost. So not turning off the radar would be a good start.

this +1, thank you so much and please just this last one!

+1

I think there is a misunderstanding ... I am not talking about missile labels (icons) in the 3d world, I am talking about visibility of the missiles in the F10 view. I currently it is not possible to turn off missiles not to show ... its ether full 'fog of war' or 'none / everything visible'.

Can we get a server option for Combined Arms to turn-off Missile visibility in F10? CA is often used for GCI in many servers, but ability to see missiles ruins the immersion. P.S. Variably/Setable refresh rate would be nice too, but I can image that is too much to ask.

A bit of shameless self-promotion.... I did a Blue-Green Iranian skin for MiG-29 while a ago... I hope you like it. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313772/

Agreed

I am aware, but feel the effort for that is unlikely to be put in for FC3 ...range change must be a variable somewhere so substancial smaller effort. I would also like autolock disable buttor for Flanker but feel that is also unlikely.

Any new information or timeline for the EO / Chaff bug, also increase of min range for LOFT of Aim-7 (5nm to 13nm) on Eagle?

Not at longer ranges we were discussing

And Aim-54 targeted big non manuvrable bombers, not fighters... different RCS, flight profile, possible defence etc....

First, I do agree CFD are not the silver built to solve everything. But if the CFDs are done the same way for all missiles, they do provide a good foundation and baseline to compare the models, since the same approximate laws of simulation are applied to all the models equally. Unfortunately, here the time is the issue since if they are years apart it is hard to do it exactly the same way.

In my humble opinion, and I expect many will disagree, I actually find the aero of Aim-7, Aim-120, and R-27's quite near what I would expect. I don't think a full CFD will bring any significant changes to the R-27's (but I could be wrong). I think now the effort should be on guidance/seeker performance both for Aim-120 (instant pick up, seeker antenna power) and R-27 (chaff/EO bug) etc. And of course, R-77 needs a full overhaul. Apart from that as other stuff modeling improves (less reliable TWS, RWRs, ECMs, CMs, etc) we will get closer to RL balance and performance.

Exactly

Not exactly, to quote a guy who fired them and got a kill with them in combat, and to quote him "They're not hittles, they're missiles" ..... and their hit rate is around 60% precent according from him...

You have to have flaps up for it to work. Real life aircraft limitation.

True, it got fixed