D-Scythe

The only thing I'm oblivious to is what you're trying to say. That is the first time I've read a sentence where "obviously" is used 4 times, "were" substitutes "where", "stemmed" is mis-spelt and the word "oblivious" is used with two "know"s. I'm not saying you couldn't lock the guy because he was blinking. All I was that if you can see the contact on your scope, but you can't lock him, it's not because of beaming. If the guy was notching you he would disappear (or fade, in the case of fighters like the F-15) off your radar page.

Obviously you missed something obvious me thinks. If you can see a contact on your scope, you should be able to lock it - don't know what radar you're using. You getting confused with IR perhaps?

Um, if the guy is beaming you, you wouldn't even have a contact to lock on your radar - he would completely disappear from your scope. So...if you can see a guy on radar, but can't lock him...I can tell you it's not because the guy has "supreme beaming skill."

Listen to Goya. It's not a simple matter of adding velocities - drag increases in an exponential fashion as velocity increases. And while it is true that the AMRAAM does obviously underperform in LO, it's not to the point where it can reach out and tag a MiG-29 that split-s's the other way at the moment of launch.

Well, realistically, the Rtr range for the AMRAAM doesn't extend out to 20 miles, so IMO it's actually a good thing that the MiGs can run if they want to. Although, the -29 seems to be awfully over-powered from what I've seen. But yes, you're right in that the Slammer is consistently underperforming - you should more than double the AMRAAM's effective range if you're going so high and fast.

Super Hornet? High speed? Wha? :D

LO's AIM-120 doesn't travel at 3500 kmph until you get high enough (~10 000m IIRC). Moreover, at 10 000+ m, Mach 1 is roughly 1000 kmph.

It's fixed at Mach 3.5 for the AMRAAM I think.

What's wrong with Mitch's skins? http://www.lockonfiles.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=ns_dl_auth_full_list&author=Mitch_Janssen#auth

No, that was a design requirement - to be equal or better to the F-16 in every respect. It would be more correct to say that the F-35 is equal to or better than the F-16 at ACM.

Haha, well, when that day comes, your chances in the Viper aren't that great :D

No, I know. I wasn't being serious - I know that the point of Red Flag isn't so much "winning." I understand what Red Flag is and I respect that.

But Ma, they have the ET! :cry:

When they fix radar missiles :)

4.4 seems to be okay to me? In the AIM-9X videos, the MK-36 motor (the same one used in the AIM-9M) burns out ~4-5 seconds after launch.

Why all boost? I would've thought it would be advantageous to have some "sustain," so the X-ray can retain use of its TVC longer.

It's not that bad. Obviously, there are some unrealistic issues with Falcon 4.0, but in terms of the overall outcome, the game still forces the player to execute proper BVR tactics in order to win. Lock On, on the other hand....let's just say it let's people be as unrealistic if they want to and live.

Just out of curiosity, what task did you set the MIG-25 up for? Because if you have it on "CAP" or "Fighter Sweep", if it detects you it's still going to fly straight at you, and right into your AMRAAM too. In any case, I wouldn't look too much into it. BVR combat in Lock On is pretty arcade-ish right now, and hopefully the entire thing just gets redone from the ground up in the future. In this respect, Falcon 4.0 is far more realistic, IMO.

Um, the information is RIGHT there. On the VSD, and the HUD. Anyway, I did my own test. Scenario was that me and a Su-33 are head on, 20 nm away, I turn to the left a bit, and fire the AMRAAM at 15 miles, and break lock right after. I think the screens speak for themselves. And the result is exactly what I said it would be - the AMRAAM doesn't even come close.

No, I didn't mean like that - I'll come up with a track or something later.

So what if the radar activates right when you break lock? The missile is gonna try to turn on its seeker to find the target if you cut the link and force it to go autonomous early. However, just because its seeker is on doesn't mean that it has locked onto the target 20 miles away and is tracking it. In your tests, I think it's just a matter of the target flying a straight and predictable profile, RIGHT into the missile. Modify your tests. Place the target as high off boresight as possible and shoot the AMRAAM. Make sure you break missile lock before the missile completes its turn into the bandit. Don't give the AI a waypoint so that it starts looking for an airbase and doesn't fly in a straight line.

You're tests don't indicate anything. Using the AI as a test subject in this case is meaningless - it literally flies RIGHT into the AMRAAM. And you do know that once you break lock, the AMRAAM still searches out for the target out on its own - and the AI is making this ridiculously easy by flying right into its acquisition box.

Are we playing the same game? The AIM-120 in Lock On activates its seeker when it gets within 7-8 nm of the target. If you break lock before then, chances are your AIM-120 would just loft into the sky. Again...are we playing the same game? BTW, the point isn't that the AIM-120 is under-modelled - rather, it's the fact that all missiles with a monopulse doppler radar seeker (AIM-120/7 and R-27/77) are undermodelled. Doppler effectively means that such missiles should have no problem with chaff/clutter rejection so long as the target isn't trying to hide in the notch. Why would you think it's range sucks? Any sources/facts to back this up? And that's how it is in Lock On. Don't know why you felt like you needed to bring this up.

You probably did. The F-15E with F100-PW-229 engines can supercruise without CFTs and LANTIRN. The Eurofighter can supercruise at Mach 1.3 if it afterburns to that speed first.

Considering that the F-35's engine is based heavily on the F-22's F119 technology, this statement seems a bit silly don't you think?