D-Scythe

Than prove me wrong. I am willing to acknowledge I'm wrong. In fact, I'm desperately hoping that someone gives me some facts instead of their opinions so that it doesn't seem like I'm arguing with a wall. BTW, nice tone in your post. Man, that was a constructive post. I simply said that it was possible (i.e. there's a small chance) that by firing a radar missile first, the IR missile may lock onto the radar missile instead of the target (not that it will, but there's evidence that points to this). The Soviets were taught to shoot IR missiles first - this is a proven fact and standard doctrine. The logic here is "better safe than sorry." Since the end result is the same - the target occupies itself with the radar missile and hopefully won't notice the IR missile, Soviet pilots have been taught to shoot the IR missile first just to be safe. So I simply pointed out to Breakshot of this fact, that in an engagement where both radar and IR missiles are shot, the IR missile is shot first just to be safe. You know what? I'm done with this thread. I simply don't see the point of discussing this further with people like Erdem, Kenan and Shamandgg who offer nothing but their opinions, opinions that are completely based on fiction and fantasy, and have nothing constructive to offer, and fly nothing but their "precious-ess" Flanker and Fulcrum. I provided facts, I provided LOMAC tracks, and what've they produced? Absolutely nothing. Yet, they still adhere to their opinions, and offer nothing constructive to the table either. What a waste of time. EDIT: Haha, yeah Wolverine. I sorta double posted, and deleted the first post and decided to combine the two. Hopefully it won't happen again :D But if it does, your name is gonna be in it next :p

Well, if we're talking about changing Lock On, then opinions sorta don't count. You ever hear of something call air friction? You know, the kind that generates enough heat on the metal surface of a high speed object? The heat that allows IR missiles to lock onto in an all aspect engagement? ;) Moreover, I doubt that the engine would cool in seconds. Maybe the exterior (although I'm pretty sure there may be a vacuum or something that prevents the exhaust of the engine from coming into contact with the air), but the interior of the engine would still retain most of its heat. This can pose unnecessary problems for the IR missile. All missiles use proportional navigation (in some form or another) to fly the most optimal, energy conserving path to its target. This includes IR and radar missiles. Missile guidance really has nothing to do with how the missile navigates to the target. For example, the seeker, radar or IR, can track and hit the target without ever knowing the range of the target at any portion of the intercept. Basically, the guidance just keeps the target centred, and since the missile is moving towards the target, it will eventually pass close enough to the target to activate its missile fuse to detonate the warhead. How the target is "centred" depends on whether its radar or IR guidance, but the path to intercept and the end result is the same.

Ok, my bad on the snapping part. It's just that some people are getting on my nerves and it's pretty early in the morning. So again, I apologize. That's wrong. Even if initial guidance is turned off, the radar missile will still be in front of the ET in the end-game. And FYI, there is no way for the guidance computer to recognize a specific IR signature as a missile. Again, IR missiles do not have a doppler equivalent to tell apart what is from what. I can't emphasize this point enough. IR missiles are stupid in this respect, compared to radar missiles. They need to be cued to which IR signature to hit, as they cannot tell if a specific IR signature is the ground, a cloud, a flare, the sun, etc. Radar missiles, on the other hand, have doppler to at least tell apart what is moving and what is not. No it's not. It's standard Soviet doctrine, for the reasons mentioned above. It doesn't matter. Both radar and IR missiles use the same navigation algorithms, so it's almost gauranteed the radar missile will be inside the IR missiles FOV if it is launched first. Lock On is a sim. There are no places for opinions when discussing changes to be made to it. Again, I apologize for snapping at you like that. But you are wrong.

I'm not asking for a 100% missile PK either. What I am advocating, though, is that the AMRAAM (and all other advanced missiles) be modelled better in their no-escape zone so that people would respect that specific portion of the weapon envelope. The party going on there currently is ridiculous.

It's proof of nothing? Right. The tracks obviously show that a head on target can evade 5 AMRAAMs (and there is no difference between AI launched AMRAAMs and player launched AMRAAMs) in level flight. I, the target, did NOTHING at all. There were NO evasive maneuvers. 5 km alt difference? What are you smoking? This is a look up, head on situation. It is the best shot you can make with a radar missile. And there is no difference between missiles launched by AI and by the player. And there were no evasive maneuvers. If this isn't proof, I don't know what is. First, it was 4 MiG-29s. And secondly, these tracks prove how INEFFECTIVE missiles are. That last track is further proof that if you know what you are doing, you CANNOT be hit except if you don't know where the missile is coming from. Those 4 MIG-29S should've killed me right when I stepped into the no-escape zone of their R-77s, yet evasive maneuvers plus smart use of chaff allowed me to dodge the BEST radar missile in the game. Yes, the R-77 is even better than the AIM-120, and I danced around them without feeling threatened - at all. That last track was at 100% missile slider, btw. Further proof that evasive maneuvering + smart chaff use = ZERO PK for radar missiles. You think that's realistic? And Breakshot, the whole point is to increase the effectiveness of AMRAAM and other radar missiles in the no-escape zone. Targets in the no-escape zone should die. Furthermore, the AMRAAM's PK IRL is over 60%. In LOMAC, you'd be lucky to get half that, and that's only if you're a good pilot. See, this is already proof that you don't know what you're talking about. IR missiles are usually launched BEFORE the radar missile because having the radar missile launched first might confuse the IR missile because it's rocket motor is in its seeker FOV. It's funny, because when ED tries to implement some realistic limitations on a Russian weapon, like the R-27ET, based on very good information (official Russian documentation) they are accused of nerfing the weapon. Haha. Talk about biased. Spoiled crybabies? Nice. So lemme see the score: F-15 "fanbois" provide proof that AMRAAM is porked, proof that the Russian fanbois cannot dispute, so they resort to name-calling and generally overall bad behaviour. Well, besides "Oh, I get shot down all the time by AMRAAMs, so it must not be porked." Yeah, that's great.

Ok, thanks. Daayyyymmmnnnn. If Maverick's flybys can make his skipper spill himself, I hate to be at one of those airshows during one of those flybys then.

I thought there was a limit to how fast planes can go when buzzing an airshow? And just going out on a limb here...wouldn't there be some sorta motion blur if that Flanker was really going that fast? Can a camera really keep focus on everything (stationary and moving) at once like that? Like Bublik's photos have motion blur...but not this one? And those trees are further away than any object in the lower photo, and they're not in focus....so if it really was going that fast...?

Hmm, maybe. I meant that ground effect is more prominent when flying a helicopter than a jet airplane (due to the mechanisms in which it achieves flight), and that the basics of it are covered in Longbow 2. So you don't necessarily need to go into advanced aerodynamics to be familiar with ground effect.

What were you even right about? Nobody proved that the F-15C can or cannot accelerate vertically. You can't compare it with the Mudhen because it has like twice the thrust-to-weight ratio and much less drag in any case.

(Real final answer by Yeti): "So I'm saying that although a "clean" F-15 could probably accelerate in the vertical for some distance after takeoff, I have never done it myself and would not be able to verify any details concerning that sort of performance." Quit taking things out of context, or worse, bringing up things that are totally unrelated to the topic (what does a viking climb have to do with ground effect?). One question: did you actually land that Cessna you flew that one time? (the answer is no) So how, logically speaking, can you claim that what has been said about ground effect is untrue if you never even experienced it? [ You've never played Longbow 2 huh? :p

This coming from a guy who's only flight experience is Lock On? Wow, talk about a wannabe arm-chair expert.

Here's your proof. Head on, look up, the best type of shot you can make with a radar missile. You see that all 5 AMRAAMs miss with a 15 chaff bundle (not a lot considering that you evade 5 AMRAAMs). The next track is of the target on the beam, the worst shot you can make with radar missiles, again with 15 chaff or so released. You see 4 out of 5 AMRAAMs track and hit. Problem with this overperformance in the beam is that if the target pulled any evasive maneuvers on the beam (target in this case is flying straight and level), all 4 of the AMRAAMs would've likely been kinematically defeated. Thus if chaff and evasive maneuvers are combined, the AMRAAM's net PK in LOMAC is zero. Ten to fifteen chaff would likely allow you to dodge any radar missile without evasive maneuvering. Both the F-15 and Su-27 have over a 100 chaff rounds. You do the math on how many missiles can be dodged without going defensive. This is V1.12a. The AMRAAM is porked and the R-27ET is overmodelled - get used to the facts. BVR in LOMAC is unrealistic as it is currently. Hopefully this will get fixed in LOBS. You also have yet to provide proof of the AMRAAM's "horrible" combat record. head on vs. beam.zip

Are we playing the same game? Chaff is *most* effective head on against an AMRAAM (which is absolutely false IRL btw). If you know what you are doing, you can dance around in the AMRAAM's NEZ all day without anything even coming close to hitting you, even at 100% slider. I hope you're going to elaborate...? I only heard of R-27s being fired and many missing horribly, not AMRAAM. BTW, I would like to know how lock on after launch (maddogging) would work with an IR missile. Really, I would. Cause from where I'm standing, it is *not* possible.

Hmm, than enlighten us. How exactly would an IR missile like the ET distinguish a blob of heat (of a fighter jet) from the blob of heat from a heated rock on the ground or a blob of heat from clouds? Unlike radar missiles, IR missiles cannot tell if the blobs of heat are moving. There is no doppler equivalent for IR missiles to filter out clutter. Do you understand? An IR missile needs to be cued by radar or by the pilot to tell it which blob of heat to track. It's the whole "filtering out clutter" process that IR missiles cannot handle. A maddogged ET is just as likely to start chasing random clouds as it is to chase another fighter.

Bingo. IR missiles cannot intelligently search for targets at all - it needs to be cued to a heat source to track it. There are just too many heat signatures (clouds, terrain, everything on the terrain, sun, etc.) and there's no way for an IR missile to tell what is a fighter and what is clutter. If maddogged, chances are they'll lock onto the billion and one other heat sources out there. AMRAAM can be maddogged because (at the very least) it can use doppler to track moving targets. Kenan, shamandgg...feeling threatened? :p

Acquire the ET (hardest part), turn off AB, and pop 6-8 flares (so 3-4 pairs) in rapid succession while evading. Usually the first group of flares should do it. If the missile is still tracking you, pop off another 6-8 flares. This is at 100% missile slider.

And Stormin was posting to Ruggbutt, not you :p See where this is going? ;)

The uber powerful, creates-a-40ft-crater 300 km away, projectile-shooting, Star Wars, planned for next-gen US Navy cruisers/destroyers kind :p

How bout rail guns? ;)

That's what I heard too. The Blackhawks didn't have their IFF running.

You're comparing how the F-15C should behave by referring to an F-15E? An F-15C with three external fuel tanks and 8 AAMs would still weigh less and at most have comparable drag than a clean F-15E with CFTs and LANTIRN. Just felt like pointing that out ;) A difference of 500 lb in one specific scenario/portion of the operating envelope is meaningless.

What's so immersive about it? From those screens, all I see is nice (ground) eye-candy. And in terms of pure looks, LOMAC's new ground vehicles are comparable to SB Pro PE's.

I disagree. To a fighter pilot (not civil), the actions they take in a combat/emergency situation is driven by instinct, and less by thought. At Mach 1, things happen too fast to dwell on something for too long. You "do" what "feels" right more so than you do what you think is right. At least that's the impression I get from reading various accounts by fighter pilots. Take the incident with the one wing IAF F-15 landing. The IP in the backseat wanted to punch out, cause he knew that it's not possible to fly with one wing. Hell, even McDonnell Douglas thought it was impossible when asked about it, and they built the plane. Fortunately, the pilot found that he could still fly the jet, and elected not to eject. And guess what? He landed the thing, more on pilot instinct than his knowledge about the plane. I agree with you, that knowledge is important, but only to a certain extent. IMO, having a good instinct/natural ability to fly the jet is just as if not more important than trying to know everything you can about the jet.

Shock rings for AIM-120 and other smokeless missiles: Before and after comparison of new/old F-4:

Haha, well, you did say everything needs to be known about your jet :p