D-Scythe

Radar guided missiles don't snake because of aerodynamic reasons - they snake because of seeker limitations. I'm hoping we get this effect with the advanced seeker model, but ED made no gaurantees.

And all this talk about agility means...absolutely nothing. The agility of the Archer only comes into play during high-off boresight engagements - the AIM-9M while not as agile is still more than nimble enough to kill any maneuvering target. Since the AIM-9M share the same seeker technology as the R-73 though, it means that both are roughly equally likely to be decoyed by a flare. Yes, the R-73 has a longer range, higher off-boresight ability and is more agile. This physical performance just means the Archer has a larger weapons employment envelope, but can be just as easily evaded as an AIM-9M. It doesn't matter if it can pull more G's to keep a target within it's FOV - in fact, this can be seen as a disadvantage in some respects since it makes the missile more vulnerable to its seeker being pulled off target by a flare. A less agile missile might be able to snap back/reacquire the target more easily in its FOV (due to larger and larger LOS correction rates as range between target and missile closes) simply because the target stays in its FOV longer. At least with the AIM-9M decoy flares start being ineffective at close ranges because its seeker cannot cope with the rapid LOS changes produced by a flare (far more rapid than any fighter can make for the missile), or it's simply just programmed to ignore such large LOS changes. I think there's this "range" in the engagement profile where (theoretically) the LOS changes produced by decoy flares become so great that either the missile cannot track it or it gets rejected outright by the missile's programming. EDIT: BTW, I know I'm splitting hairs here :music_whistling:

What GG is trying to say is: if you can dodge an AIM-9M, you won't have much trouble dodging an R-73 either.

No U.S. fighter on MiGCAP duty favours full AMRAAMs, which are always mixed in withSidewinder and Sparrow (in the case of the F-15/F/A-18C). Some F-16CJs load up with 4 AMRAAMs for self-defense, as I'd imagine that there's no point to the dogfighting AIM-9 when you're carrying HARMs, fuel tanks and ECM pods altogether. IMO, there really is no point for the ASRAAM's extended range. The AIM-120 is absolutely lethal IRL within it's NEZ, and from pilot accounts have been basically described as "almost a deathray" when fired from a few hundred yards out to 8 miles. Other SRAAMs like the AIM-9X complement the AMRAAM much better in terms of being able to kill what the AMRAAM cannot (like a target 70 degrees off boresight a mile off the nose).

How are they severely undermodelled?

In my experience, flares work best in LOMAC after a bit of separation between the decoy and target. I don't think releasing even 60 flares simultaneously one second before impact would help decoy an incoming missile. If your timing is right, the separation between you and your decoys would already be there when the missile is launched. Not much, but it does give you a few precious seconds head start. Furthermore, releasing flares before hand may also cause your enemy to mistarget your flare instead of you before the missile is launched.

They are probably based on the R-27's performance in Ethiopia/Eritrea...if you want to dispute this, be my guest, don't drag me into this :p Anyway, I'm actually quite happy about the way radar missiles are modelled relatively to each other, although their performance relative to their targets and their decoys are a bigger problem, IMO. To the AIM-120 vs. R-77 debate, well, you don't really need to have any hard data to arrive at the conclusion that the AIM-120 has a better seeker. I am NOT saying this is the case IRL, cause as people have pointed out, there is no hard data, but there are a number of facts that strongly support this position that the AIM-120 is smarter and can see better than the R-77. For example: The R-77 was developed in the same timeframe as the AIM-120A, not the current AIM-120B and AIM-120C/D The AIM-120 is *much* better funded than the R-77, with constant upgrades to the guidance section Hughes, who originally developed AMRAAM, have produced the AIM-54 before that, probably the first effective active radar missile. The Russians produced...what prior active radar missile? Hmm, with no prior experience, plus the fact that Russian radar technology does lag slightly behind the U.S.'s (nobody have a cow, the U.S. lags behind the Russians in other fields I'm sure), and you can see why it is widely believed by a lot of people that the AIM-120 has a better seeker. Besides, Kenan said SARH missiles. Wow, this thread jumped a few pages while I was typing this out. The same could be said of all the times the AIM-120 has been launched in combat, all the AIM-7s, etc. Missiles not being fired in optimal conditions is a reality of combat.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the smoke isn't rising. That's just raining debris from a aircraft that's just been blown to bits.

Well, here's a few things I learned from experience... One, decoys are your friends. Often times, just releasing them on their own is good enough to let you squeak through a missile barrage, even if you can't get a visual on the incoming missile(s). Quick fact: the resistence rates for the most lethal radar missiles in LOMAC, the AIM-120 and R-77 is about 7% at the default missile slider setting. So always try to pump at least 10 chaff shots off - programming your joystick (or whatever) to shoot 10 off all at once is even better. Heat seekers are even better. Usually, 3 pairs of flares released quickly together is enough to decoy any incoming heat seeking missile. Releasing flares before the enemy shoots at you also is immensely effective. Another thing about decoys...don't worry about them running out. It's better for you to dodge the current volley of incoming missiles bearing down at you by using lotsa chaff and flares then getting killed now just because you wanted to save your decoys just in case you need it later. No point in saving them if you're not going to use them - cause your dead. The next point - watch the training tracks provided by the game on how to dodge missiles, before trying out the moves yourself. They help IMMENSELY. Once your done with those tracks, head over to Ironhand's website and download his training tracks/videos.

For the last time, this was not an actual Raptor airshow display, but rather the pilot being BORED while waiting to do a flyby.

Meh, me thinks you can relax. The Su-27 was hardly "famous" for its ability to pull the Cobra (more like infamous), but the statement above simply meant that like the Russians, airshow displays by the F-22 will likely get pretty spectacular in the near future. Nobody claimed that the ability to pull a Cobra or hover in mid-air is combat applicable. In most cases it's not. Purely OT, but can the Su-27 and MiG-29 "hook" a Cobra - i.e. snap its nose sharply to increase it's turn rate while in a turn? I know that it can in LOMAC, but I've never seen it IRL, where Cobras have always been vertical.

Actually, that wasn't the Raptor's full display. They're still working out their routine AFAIK. The pilot in that video was just pulling some stuff off the top of his head to kill time. See this thread: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=009754

A combat flight sim can do many things with a physics card. For example, it would definitely help with the radar calculations, both the player's and AI (no more super-aware AI), line-of-sight calculations for missiles and AI, damage modelling, etc. Basically, any kind of advanced flight model (especially when damaged) or advanced seeker model could potentially benefit from such a physics PU.

You can also check Maverick's and Raptor's HFFM work with Falcon 4.0. I believed that they had access to some very detailed sources for their project. Um, not exactly. The figures for thrust quoted for engines are usually in a specific scenario - the amount of thrust produced by engines are highly dependent on factors like Mach and altitude. An F100-PW-220 can thus produce 104 kN of thrust in one regime and just as easily produce 130 kN of thrust in another.

Have a good one man - have some fun with the ETs

Um, I don't see where any source says that the only difference between the AIM-120D and the AIM-120C7 is the navigation system. The article that Cobra referenced only suggests that it is "a" difference. Furthermore, in the article, it never attributed the 50% range increase to only the updated navigation system either - in fact, the general idea I'm getting from the article was that the AIM-120D is being tested on the F-22 to validate how noise and vibration would affect the systems on the missile in a launch. http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123019277

No, Raytheon is not really involved with Meteor development AFAIK. Wasn't the FMRAAM, the Meteor's competitor, proposed by Raytheon? Scratch that. Raytheon proposed the FMRAAM, to compete with Meteor for the future European BVRAAM contract. They lost. And I know that the Meteor has a longer range - probably much longer range - than the AIM-120C/D. Doesn't mean the AIM-120 doesn't have superior performance in a heavy decoy/ECM/chaff environment though.

I heard it was the first AIM-120 variant to use the 5 inches in extra space that was made available in the AIM-120C5 (which was only filled with ballast, AFAIK). Superior in terms of what? It is a given that the Meteor would have a longer range (it's carriers aren't stealthy afterall), but with the AIM-120's endless R&D funding, constant software updates and Raytheon's overall expertise in the area of radar missiles, I'm willing to bet that the AIM-120D's seeker and guidance would be smarter than even the Meteor's. Time and money talks IRL, and the AIM-120 program has both in spades.

Hmm, I suppose. Although, if it isn't logical, I can't see how such tactics can be fun or realistic either, and sort of defeats the purpose of a simulation. For the record, I didn't say spamming would stop completely, just that it would be reduced. Surely, there are people who spam just for the heck of it, but I bet there are also spammers who spam because they believe that they won't get the kill otherwise (or, as you put it, people who think it increases their PK). Hmm, I was just basing my perspective on sims with deadlier AMRAAMs, like F4:AF. Spamming doesn't seem to be an issue with those sims at all.

Okay, I'll take your word on this one, but 3 seconds is hardly "short succession" IMO :p Firstly, when did AMRAAM home "a whole lot better" in LOMAC? There were always issues with its performance from day one. I'd say it performed best in V1.02, but even then it wasn't that much better. Secondly, people "can" do a lot of things, but if it doesn't make logical sense, why would they? Sure, they may occassionally do something illogical, just for kicks or simply to piss other people off, but why waste 8 AMRAAMs on one target when 2 AMRAAMs are just as likely to get the job done? Then instead of returning to base, three more such attacks could be made without returning to base and starting to spam-cycle anew.

What firing delay? AMRAAMs were designed to be launched simultaneously at multiple targets anyway - I'd imagine that every missile on-board an F-15 will be ready to be fired as soon as the Eagle enters one of its A/A modes. What's the difference between firing multiple missiles at a single target in short succession or firing multiple missiles at multiple targets in short succession? Sure, there would probably be some delay, which IMO would be minimal, but in any case the exact time figure is likely to be classified so it can't be modelled anyway except through guessing (and ED explicitly stated that that was to be avoided). Such a solution would create a lose-lose scenario. And worse, you don't have any figures or proof to back you up. And why would anyone spam if their missiles hit their targets reliably in the NEZ? It would be a waste of missiles. A good example of this is Falcon 4.0 - yes, active radar missiles seem a bit over-modelled, but you never see the issue of spamming even brought up because it would be a waste of perfectly good AIM-120s (or R-77s, MICAs) to do so.

Just one point...people wouldn't be spamming 8 missiles in a row if modern radar guided missiles were modelled properly. With missiles like the AIM-120B/C, MICA EM/IR and the R-77, the chances of survival for a missile duel between flights of aircraft in the NEZ should be less than 20%. Players should be dropping like flies if they stray within 6 to 8 miles of any enemy fighter with such weapons. Sure, spamming is bad, but can you really blame spammers if it is possible to dodge 8 missiles simultaneously? I gaurantee that if it was possible to dodge 8 AMRAAMs fired within their NEZ IRL, the U.S. would scrap the entire program (and the billions that went into it) in a heartbeat.

Um, I really don't think there was a Dash 100 tweaked to produce 29K lbs of thrust. I know that there are the Dash 220E and the Dash 220E+, derived from the 100 and 220 turbofans with -229 tech, but I don't think either of these engines were retrofitted to F-15s in the late 1980s when the F-15E program was underway. Reason for this is because the update incorporated IPE engine technology into the older engines, but the Dash 229 didn't exist back then.

Along with the points posted by GG, forward swept wings only really offered an advantage over conventional wing design in the transonic region (M0.8-1.2). Above, the conventional wing was superior and below they offered similar performance.

Well, they could make patches to rectify "guesses" as new information becomes available. In the meantime, I'm sure that many people would enjoy an F/A-18C, even if it is not fully realistic. Hell, the current F-15C is not fully realistic either, namely it's radar.