USAFMTL

I will pay money to see that! :D

Thanks for the response. I got what I was looking for. Even better I now have a pool people who I can pick their brains if needed. Again thanks to all that PM'ed me.

That I know Trev, but my questions are kind of deeper and long winded. Now there's a shocker, a USAF guy who is long winded....who'd a thunk it? :D

Any current and or former armor guys around? I have questions about TO&E. If you could PM that would be great. Thank you.

Crack that mission open in the mission editor and look at all the triggers etc. I will check it when I get home. Maybe PM grimes to see what he thinks to since he is all things Mission Editor.

The Omsk Central Design Bureau of Automation's L006 (also known as the Beryoza and/or SPO-15 system) The SPO is the model number.

I use Who Flung Poo on You? :D

Well they are foolish if they do. Very foolish.

Fixed. Lol

Your girlfriend? :D :P

I never said the AIM-120 is as good as the R-73 at close range. I said it can engage at 2km. I know about the CM rejection the AIM-120 has. I do know the R-77 is a good missile but its not in the same class as the AMRAAM C...yet. My opinion of the AIM-120 in the sim is terrible. I have yet to get a lock on anything beyond 10 miles. The AIM-9M is even worse. I have hit 3 planes with it out of 20 shots. Now this BS I hear constantly about western bias and Russian bias is getting old. If this sim was done with FULL realism, AIM-120 would kill everything in the air. The R-27 series would be extremely ineffective, the AIM-9M would get owned by the R-73. If we went a step further and modeled the current era i.e. with the A-10C. We would be using the Block 30/32/40/42 F-15C's with AESA radar, JHMCS and the AIM-9X. That would put the edge clearly in the favor of the US forces. Then the complaints would be worse. Everyone would fly the F-15 online and no one would be happy still. Get my point? FYI in FY 2014/2015 the F-15C will be getting an IRST. The SPO for almost every aircraft in the USAF inventory is here at Wright Patterson AFB. So I get good info on a regular basis on the non classified stuff. I never thought being at this base would be so cool as its a AF Materiel Command but you get to see and be part of some cool stuff.

First its USAFMTL.... :) 2nd this is not an opinion. If you can read I said I did missile maintenance my first 4 years. I started working ICBM's and ended up on A2A types. (thanks to a screw up at AFPC but that's another story all together). So my experience is not an opinion. I own a Galaxy S3 too, but I never worked on them, so anything I say about is my opinion. See the difference? But there is no convincing you.

I'm not a TV program, I did my job for real. You're just ignorant.

Your problem is that you need to get off the landing issue. I mean really an AIR COMBAT SIM and you are worried about landings. LANDINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really? You have been harping on that for so long that it is nauseating. I'll make you a deal, I will send you your $40 back if you just quit boring us about the "landing issue". Send me your PayPal info in a PM. If you do not want it back, then fly the sim and have fun. Deal?

E You aren't going to convince Kenan of anything. His entire simming experience depends on the landing physics.. So while we are dodging SAMS and dogfighting he'll be landing three or four hundred times seeing if the landing Physics are right.

20 years USAF, 4 years of that was missile maint. I was also AWACS and also did TDY's to the 83rd FWS for FOT&E on AMRAAM's.

I don't see how "scripted" landings or taxing physics and "scripted" A2A refueling are such show stoppers for a sim about air combat? I have to land it all the way, A2A refueling is not easy at all. I don't get it. I'm worried about the A2A combat being good. If I want to play taxi and landing simulator I would fly FSX. Just my 2 cents.

Incorrect sir, the AIM-120 can engage anything from 2km, to 50/70km depending on the model. At that range mid course corrections are not need from the shooting aircraft and it goes right after the target on its own.

Hey Kuky I found this. There has been a lot of arguments over the performance of A2A missiles here -- some of which are well backed by facts, some are so far out there it is like claiming that they fly on hyperdrive. I want to take this opportunity to introduce everyone to a very simple formula that can be used for estimating the performance of a missile. It goes like this:- Change in Velocity (Delta V) = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN (initial weight / final weight) m/s This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity. In otherwords, it assumes an all-boost motor not a boost sustain motor. For example, let'a take a look at the AIM-120A AMRAAM which we have some decent info on... Launch weight = 335 lbs (Published stats) Motor weight = 156 lbs (WPU-6/B HTPB rocket motor weight as per Raytheon) Approximate specific impulse = 245 seconds (typical of HTPB solid motors) Approximate fuel fraction of motor = 85% (typical of robust aluminum cased aerospace rocket motors) OK... if 85% of the motor's mass is the fuel, we have about 132 lbs of fuel in the AMRAAM-A -- roughly a 39.4% fuel fraction (sounds about right). So let's run the numbers... Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN(335/(335-132)) = 1227 m/s The formula predicts that the AMRAAM will go about 1227 m/s (~Mach 3.7) faster than it started. If it is launched at say Mach 1.5 it'll be going Mach 5.2. In reality the AMRAAM doesn't go that fast. The reason is that not all the fuel is used to get it as fast as possible. The AMRAAM's motor is a boost-sustain design. It is probably grained to take the weapon to abut Mach 2.5~2.8 faster than it started at (Mach 4+ in a typical Mach 1.5 release). The rest of the fuel is shaped to burn much more slowly to keep it's velocity at or near the achieved maximum out to a longer range before the motor burns out. Well, for any given fuel fraction and specific impulse, a designer can decide how fast he wants to go and how long he wants to stay at or near the peak velocity achieved. For instance, if a missile carries 40% of its launch weight as fuel and uses the typical a modern HTPB propellant motor, it can:- (1) Spend 25% to get an approximate Mach 2.1 delta V and 15% on sustaining that speed for a relatively long while. (2) Spend 30% to get an approximate Mach 2.7 delta V and 10% on sustaining that speed for a shorter while. (3) Spend 40% to get an approximate Mach 3.8 delta V have no sustain burn time at all. BTW, in reference to the above comment on deceleration... it doesn't really work that way. If a missle starts at Mach 4 at burn out and decelerates 25% to Mach 3 after 10~15 seconds, it WILL NOT decelerate to Mach 2 (another 33% from Mach 3) after 20~30 seconds. This is impossible because aerodynamic drag (Fd = Cd x A x 0.5 x P x V^2) is a function of the square of velocity. As velocity decreases, drag force decreases exponentially in relation to it. Hence, if the drag for at Mach 4 causes a 25% loss in velocity in 10~15 seconds, there is no way a much lower drag force at Mach 3 will cause a 33% loss in velocity after another 10~15 seconds. What happens is that deceleration is non-linear; you start off steep and the slope flattens out over time as velocity and hence drag drops. It'll take a missile a heck of a lot longer to decelerate from Mach 4 to Mach 2 compared to say Mach 2 to Mach 1 for instance. Actually it also depends a heck of a lot on altitude (air density)... Let's plug some numbers shall we? Question: How much thrust is needed to sustain Mach 3.0 in an AAM like the AMRAAM? Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A P = Density of Air (kg/m^3) ; ~1.29 kg/m^3 @ sea level; ~0.232 kg/m^3 @ 12,000 m V = Velocity (m/s) ; Mach 1 = 340 m/s @ sea level; ~295 m/s @ 12,000 m Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ; ~ 0.6 to 0.95 for rockets depending mostly on finnage, nose and tail profile A = Sectional Area (m^2) ; ~ 0.025 m^2 for a 7" diameter missile. For an AMRAAM like AAM going at high altitudes (40,000 ft)... Drag Force @ Mach 3 = 0.5 x 0.232 x (295x3)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 1590 Newtons = 357 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 2 = 0.5 x 0.232 x (295x2)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 707 Newtons = 159 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 1 = 0.5 x 0.232 x 295^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 177 Newtons = 39.8 lbs The same missile going Mach 3 at Sea Level... Drag Force @ Mach 3 = 0.5 x 1.29 x (340x3)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 11,744 Newtons = 2640 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 2 = 0.5 x 1.29 x (340x2)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 5,219 Newtons = 1173 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 1 = 0.5 x 1.29 x 340^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 1,305 Newtons = 293 lbs Assuming that there is no sustainer, the deceleration experienced at Mach 3 by the 203 lbs (empty) missile is Deceleration @ Mach 3 = -F / mass = -1590 / (203 x 0.454) = -17.3 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.059/sec @ 40,000 ft Deceleration @ Mach 2 = -F / mass = -707 / (203 x 0.454) = -7.67 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.026/sec @ 40,000 ft Deceleration @ Mach 1 = -F / mass = -177 / (203 x 0.454) = -1.92 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.0065/sec @ 40,000 ft Deceleration @ Mach 3 = -F / mass = -11744 / (203 x 0.454) = -127 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.39/sec @ sea level Deceleration @ Mach 2 = -F / mass = -5219 / (203 x 0.454) = -56.6 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.17/sec @ sea level Deceleration @ Mach 1 = -F / mass = -1305 / (203 x 0.454) = -14.2 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.042/sec @ sea level OK... enough of the math and the formulas... what does all these mean? Well, it means that while coasting at Mach 3 an AAM is going to lose about less than 2% of its velocity a second at high altitudes while it stands to lose about 13% of its velocity at sea level! Huge difference isn't it? Remember though that the rate of deceleration actually DECREASES as the missile's velocity decreases. It is easy to see that one can claim that a missile can burn out burn out its booster and sustainer and be effective out to over 100 km at high altitudes or be useful only against helos after 10km on the deck! Also, we can make a pretty educated guess as to how much thrust the sustainer has to make. An AMRAAM class missile with a 400 lbs sustain thrust will be able to stay above Mach 3 at high altitudes and stay about Mach 1.2 at sea level. An AMRAAM class missile carrying about 10% of its launch weight as sustainer grained propellant will be able to keep this level of thrust lit for 20.5 seconds in addition to whatever the boost time was using the 30% of its fuel to get a roughly Mach 2.7 Delta V after launch. A missile like this when fired at Mach 1.5 will reach Mach 4+ and keep above Mach 3 for the duration of the sustainer at high altitudes. It will also reach about Mach 2.5 and keep above about Mach 1.2 at sea level. A motor grained for this thrust profile can have a 10 second boost at ~ 2460 lbs thrust and a 20 second sustain burn at 400 lbs thrust -- this is a 5:1 boost sustain ratio. This is also about right for thrust profiles of star grain vs core burn solid propellant burn rate profiles. Another rough rule of thumb:- The time it takes for a missile to lose 25% of its velocity after burn out at supersonic speeds. Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space ~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft) ~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft) ~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft) ~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft) ~5 seconds @ Sea Level Remember, fractions over time are not additive. In otherwords, if a missile loses about 25% of its velocity in 10 seconds, in the 10 subsequent seconds (t =20s) the missile loses approximately another 25% of the remaining 75% not a 100%. Total velocity loss is ~43.75% not 50%. This is highly collated to the fall in air density. Drag = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A. Holding everything else constant Drag falls proportionally to density. Drag also falls exponentially with Velocity which accounts for the loss in velocity in the given time slices being about 25% instead of closer to 40%.

But they are easier to spoof and avoid than the AIM-120C series. So its a good trade off.

+1

Hmm not what I thought it might be then.

I know, I was just throwing that out there. In regards to chaff the AIM-120 has sidelobe clutter rejection.

Not to mention that some missiles have modes that when ECM goes active, it can be by passed by a change in trajectory to avoid said source. That's called ECCM.

GG Are you suggesting that A2A missiles migrate? :P