D-Scythe

That may be true, but the missile under a certain range would probably able to to reject chaff on the basis that the LOS rate generated by the chaff cloud would be way too great - aircraft can't decelerate from Mach 1 to zero airspeed in an instant like the super light particles of chaff can. Furthermore, I don't think I understand this "scattering" RF energy concept - the missile should be tracking the target through its doppler signature, not RCS characteristics. Can you elaborate? Anyway, the idea that radar missiles can be fooled 100% of the time by notching + chaff seems a bit ridiculous to me. If that was true, radar missiles are a failure - the AIM-ACEVAL exercise would've produced a datalinked IIR missile, not an active radar AMRAAM.

Yes, please explain. Cause if this was true, then notching + ground clutter should probably also gaurantee a lock onto the ground.

Actually, I'm more worried about the performance of the radar seekers in the end-game as opposed to anything else. Lock On's current system is probably the most sophisticated seeker model ever put into a modern jet sim - however, because ED modelled some things well (apparently all the limitations) while modelling other things not was well, or omitting them altogether (i.e. all the advantages) actually puts it behind Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4.0. Sure, F/A-18 and F4:AF seeker models are not really accurate, but they don't attempt to model *everything* realistically, instead making a few simplifications that in the end turns out pretty well. In the end, it's all about how you use your PC sim to execute valid, realistic combat tactics, how you fly your plane in a simulated combat environment. Falcon 4.0 for one has got many things wrong, but in the end, *real* BVR tactics like A-pole, F-pole, etc. are crucial to winning an engagement. In Lock On, even though certain aspects (considered individually) may be more realistic, the pieces don't come together in a realistic way - I can't fly my jet the way I read about it from pilot accounts, tactics textbooks, etc. I'm forced to fly unrealistically, and that's the worse type of unrealism I can think of. Obviously, the civilian population (us) is going to know more about the hows and whys of the faults of a weapons system rather than the hows and whys of its strengths. I mean really, is Raytheon really gonna tell people how its engineers crafted the AMRAAM to track targets trying to hide in its doppler notch? Obviously not - if such a measure exists, then it's classified. However, any civilian who has ever worked a radar would know about the doppler notch, and how it's a fundamental weakness of a doppler radar. Does that mean the AMRAAM should be modelled without any ability to attack targets attempting to notch it simply because we don't publically know how this is accomplished? I don't get the logic in that. Yes, you're completely right. My point is that there does seem to be something going on, but whatever it is, it can't really be considered significant - the range increase/decrease is minimal, almost invisible to the shooter and the target. Again, you might squeeze a couple miles out of your missiles by flying high, but most of the time I find that it's not worth it, considering you're actually more vulnerable higher up.

EDIT: Look at it this way - missiles lose speed at approximately the same rate whether diving or climbing at low altitudes. Against an evasive target, a missile shot from a higher altitude has to spend a lot more time in the higher density air when attacking a target at low altitudes. Conversely, a missile shot from below at a high altitude target spends only a few seconds at low altitude and then spends the rest of its flight at high altitudes. Without modelling any significant speed retention in the missile while diving, the increased time spent at low altitudes by a missile shot from high altitude is devastating on its range. You can measure and plot charts on the numbers PRIOR to the end-game all you want, but the fact is that missile range is getting decimated in the end-game, not anywhere else. To explain, a lot of times, I don't even rely on the Rmax values - if a lower altitude target performs evasive manouevers, chances are any range increase is mitigated by the fact that the missile spends more time in Lock On's thicker low altitude air (which is realistic). However, what's NOT realistic is the fact that gravity and momentum effects are not modelled, so despite diving from above the missile loses velocity as quickly as a normal "straight" shot. Contrast that with shooting from below. Your HUD might give you a shorter Rmax than you can actually obtain, since your missiles spend only the first initial seconds at low altitudes before climbing higher to thinner air. Again, this is realistic, but the fact that the missile isn't significantly slowed down due to climbing (again, cause gravity is either not modelled or undermodelled) ensures that it's range is more or less equal to a high altitude shot. In fact, with the high altitude shooter unable to beam an incoming missile plus is not able to manouever as effectively, it is actually far more likely that he will end up the loser in the engagement. What's indicated in your HUD may not always be right.

Well, my opinion is better to stay fast and low(er) than your target. Past experience has taught me that you're actually more vulnerable at higher altitudes, since there is no range advantage (yes, any return shot from a target at 20K ft is just as kinematically capable as your shot from 40K, or for that matter 500 ft vs. 15K), it's harder to manouever up there (while missiles manouevers just as well at any altitude) plus the whole no beaming from above thing. The major factor in Lock On's current missile FM is the target's altitude, not yours. Of course, there's still nothing stopping you from shooting missiles at max range to put your target defensive, and you can maybe squeeze an extra mile or two out of your missiles from staying high - but contrast that to reality where flying high and supersonic gives your missiles 50% more kinetic energy in the end-game on a lower altitude target. Thus, we have a single inaccuracy affecting both missile performance and player tactics. That bugs me.

Um, not quite. You do know that flying high doesn't really give you extra range right? A missile fired from 20K ft at a 30K ft target has the same approximately the same range as a missile fired from 30 K ft down at a target at 20K ft. Yes, I'm well versed on the tactic of just shooting missiles at a target with the intention of putting him on the defensive - I do it all the time, even when I'm in my missile's NEZ.

First of all, I said "basically" no NEZ - I guess I should've said there's no point to it. If you know what you're doing, there is no difference between evading a missile fired in its NEZ, and one fired outside of it. Second of all, yes, the point that "there is no NEZ" is also true in the respect that you *can* outmanouever air-to-air missiles fired in their NEZ, without using chaff, if you know what you're doing. For example, a simple beam + pull up manouevre is usually sufficient to defeat any radar missile without the use of chaff. And these manouevres work 100% of the time, whether the missile is fired within its NEZ or outside of it. I may be oversimplifying things, but a good pilot in Lock On can literally swim through waves of radar AAMs without fear of being shot down.

Haha, well it is a question that has been debated for centuries by athiests and religious scholars. And although the AMRAAM is in no way divine, it was born out of the very same exercise that fathered all modern missile evasion maneuvers. Can't say Donald Rumsfeld has *quite* the same case there... EDIT: Unless this study is actually full of BS, it's not like there is nothing a radar missile can do to "try" to track a target through a notch. http://forum.lockon.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=8189&d=1161719834 Abstract: Referring to the application of missile-borne Pulsed Doppler radars...having a monopulse tracking processing is considered in scenarious with low altitude flying high-manoeuvering target. During target tracking the Seeker has to solve situations when clutter signals occupies the target frequency positions and tracking can be lost...The algorithm that will be presented shows how to...reduce clutter disturbing effects and to maintain stable target tracking.

Thanks for answering GG. No problem with your post. And for the record, I'm not asking for "total" realism - yes, the point of a sim is just for fun, but the BVR missile modelling in LOMAC has reached the point where the proper implementation of even remotely realistic tactics is impossible. For example, the standard tactic of getting higher and faster to give your BVR missiles the extra energy/Pk is useless in Lock On. The fact that any target at a lower altitude than you are can beam your missile 100% effectively renders this very realistic tactic completely useless - in fact, being higher than your target will probably get *you* killed since any return radar shot cannot be beamed (which is also false - if you release chaff, you should have a chance to beam anything). The radars are designed for different purposes - such comparisons between the -63 and the AMRAAM seeker can only get you so far. And besides, both of them are badly simulated in Lock On, but the AIM-120 is easier to fix. The question isn't whether the AMRAAM's seeker "can do well," it's a question of whether the AMRAAM's seeker "is good enough for the missile to accomplish its mission." And in LOMAC, it *isn't* good enough, contrary to *everything* that we know. There is basically no NEZ in LOMAC - the NEZ is defined as the envelope where the target cannot kinematically defeat an incoming missile, but in LOMAC NEZs are useless because people could care less about out-running a missile. Just pop a couple chaff and you're safe. The whole point is that IRL, pilots are conditioned to STAY THE HELL OUT OF the enemy's NEZ, but in LOMAC, there is *none* of that thinking going on. So this one little issue is affecting realism in terms of missile performance and player tactics.

Just ranting here. The more I think about it, the more it seems that the current radar+clutter system seems to be wrong to me. A couple of things to consider: - the whole "beaming from above vs. beaming from below" thing is starting to make less sense. Currently, you cannot beam anything targetting you from below - if you release a lot of chaff, then you should be able to because to a doppler missile, there is little difference between ground clutter and chaff clutter. Chaff has a huge RCS, portions of the chaff cloud can have varying doppler frequencies just like the ground has varying doppler frequencies, etc. The fact that you can lose a missile by beaming it from below but have to actually spoof it with chaff when above it in LOMAC seems to be wrong; doppler missiles like AMRAAM/R-77 filter clutter from chaff and from the ground in the same way, so it should be treated the same way. - The complete inability of any radar missile in the game to attack a look-down, beaming target. The question is, "just because we can't prove something exists, does that mean it's not there?" Consider that the "dive & beam" maneuver was "discovered" in the late 1970s during AIM-ACEVAL, an exercise that breeded virtually every modern fighter tactic that we know of today. Furthermore, the AIM-120 was a *direct* product of the experiences gained from that very same exercise - even if it doesn't completely defeat every evasive missile maneuver, it should at least be able to deal with all of them. It's like making a driving sim where the cars are stuck in the first gear because the designers "don't know" how the car engine switches gear. All radar missiles are basically stuck in their first gear because that's how porked they are. I mean, come on, the AIM-120 is known as the "Fetch'em Fido" for a reason. And it's not like there are absolutely no guidance algorithms that can be programmed into a radar missile to deal with such targets anyway. - Overall, I think the BVR radar missile modelling in Jane's F/A-18 and even Falcon 4.0 is a lot better than Lock On's. We *know* it's standard doctrine for pilots to avoid the No-Escape zones for enemy AAMs - no sane pilot will willingly enter the enemy's NEZ because they are "confident" that they can evade enemy radar missiles with chaff/dive/beam. Contrast this to Lock On - NEZ's overlap all the time, with little fear of being shot down. And if someone's going to bring up the argument that the Pk of AMRAAMs in combat as being only about 60%, I'll counter that all the misses were fired when the targets were well outside of it's NEZ. Three AMRAAMs were fired long-range at supersonic, fleeing Iraqi MiG-25s in Operation Desert Fox, and two more were fired by a USAF F-15C from 30 miles at a Serbian MiG-29 - that's all 5 misses right there. Two more AMRAAMs were wasted when an F-15C and an F-16CJ double targetted their MiGs in Allied Force. That's 7 AMRAAMs in total that didn't find their mark, accounting for all the "misses" in the AMRAAM's record (10 for 17). Taking away the two MiGs that were double targetted, guess how many AMRAAMs it took to kill each of the other 8 targets? Anyone know what SSK stands for? ;) The other popular counter-argument is that we get a lot more practice dodging missiles in Lock On than RL pilots. Simple counter-point: if real pilots are conditioned to avoid the enemy's NEZ, than Lock On should do the same to condition Lock On pilots to execute realistic tactics. Keep in mind I'm talking about ALL doppler radar missiles - the R-77, the R-27 series, R-33, the AIM-7, AIM-54 and the AIM-120. I'm just using AMRAAM examples because it's the most publically glorified one.

You can add the R-27EA through LOPE, but it's useless - ED made it so that it can only maneuver at 1g, so basically it can't turn at all.

True, but sometimes the propaganda value of an event outweighs the financial cost. I'm sure the US Navy would much rather waste $100K on a X-ray Sidewinder to take out the drone rather than give the Iranians boasting rights that it "penetrated" the layered defenses of the most sophisticated AD system in the world (like what's happening now). 'Cept in this case, it would be during a war. We'd know better, but the people that make up the rest of the general public wouldn't.

Why does this dance have to repeat itself each and every week?

Try AMRAAM/SM-2MR/RAM. CIWS is for all intents and purposes the absolute last line of defense - it has a range no greater than 2 km from the ship.

If the CVBG percieved it as a threat, than that drone wouldn't make it within a hundred miles of the carrier. And if it somehow could slip by AWACs, the Hornets and the Aegis screen, than Tomcats are gonna be useless as well - in fact, Iran might as well become the next super power because NOTHING can slip by all those radars without being detected.

That drone would've been picked up on radar from the other side of the planet. Unless it's some kind of new stealth tech (doubtful), there's no way that thing could be missed by USN radars. The idea that the USN didn't know about the drone is laughable. Even an F-22 can't overly a CVBG without being picked up by Aegis.

Why not drop a PM to Chizh, Han or some other member of ED?

Wow.

Jeez, another one?

And if the software is not updated with the R-77 data, then how would the hardware know *what* kinda data to use to calculate the R-77 firing solutions/targetting data upload? Technically, most of the hardware associated with the weapons system on ANY plane can support ANY weapon - it's just that they don't have the software. The point you're making is, frankly, stupid. By your logic, an F-15C should be able to carry the AIM-54C Phoenix "just because" the F-14 can and the AIM-120/AIM-7 aren't all that different from the AIM-54C apart from the extra range. Give it up.

Lotsa things. First of all, to integrate any new weapon (let alone a new type of weapon), the weapons computer must be updated to accomodate all the "needs" of the weapon prior to launch - i.e. things like downloading targetting information, software compatibility, etc. Second of all, firing solutions are different for every each weapon - the firing solutions calculated for the R-27ER are next to useless for the R-77. The computers/processing units must be configured to provide firing solutions unique to the R-77, and it can't come up with these R-77 specific firing solutions if the missile itself isn't programmed into the computers. Third of all, the R-77 just operates differently as an ARH missile - this raises huge issues in software and hardware compatibility. The radar doesn't need to change its PRFs (like it does for an SARH missile like the R-27), the datalink must be compatible, information being transmitted to the missile's datalink must be unique to the R-77 (can't use the "normal" information that the radar would provide to the R-27ER) etc. I'm certainly no expert, but weapons integration into an airframe is a LOT more complex than you'd like to believe.

Believe me, if the F-15C/AIM-120C was properly modelled, there would be *no spamming* - things will just die (in the hands of a good pilot of course). This combination is about a generation ahead of all the other flyables modelled in the game, save maybe the MiG-29S/R-77 (yay, half a generation ahead). The F-15C has to be the better plane because it IS the best A/A fighter of all the flyables. It's already undermodelled as is for gameplay balance. However, unless ED models the Su-27SM, which is not only an excellent fighter but also can carry PGMs, we're sorta stuck with a porked F-15C and pilots who have to resort to spamming AMRAAMs.

Yes...and? Again, if you had to launch all your AMRAAMs at 8 separate targets, it's ALREADY a bad situation. In such a scenario, where you actually have more targets than you can shoot at, you're sole objective is to survive; the AIM-120s you just launched, even if they were fired with the intention to kill, is merely something to screen/cover your retreat.

If you and your wingman need to shoot all 16 AMRAAMs being carried by your F-15s, why would you risk the merge once you cut the strings to your missiles as they go active? You're winchester, so...RUN!

Who cares if you're unarmed? Chances are you fired all 8 of your Slammers simultaneously because you were vastly out-numbered anyway - you're just trying to survive in such a situation. BTW, the APG-63v1 is a more capable radar than the APG-70. It goes APG-63V0 < APG-70 < APG-63V1 << APG-63V2 < APG-63V3.