D-Scythe

Hey, give the guy some credit. It took him over 10 pages of posting the same stuff repeatedly before he even started to show signs of frustration. And I'd be angry too - if I kept repeating that the Dash-1 is representative of the actual performance of an average F-15. I mean, he takes a page to explain it to one guy, and some other guy jumps in right after and starts to doubt the Dash-1 again. Which is dumb, because everyone's supposed to be on the same page. Instead of discussing something meaningful, we're squabbling over the credibility of the Dash-1.

Actually, the borchi's argument seems to be that the F-15 can NEVER reach Mach 2.5 in level flight - it can ONLY achieve such speeds in a dive. Otherwise, yes, this is a silly argument - because it's utterly useless.

Haha, don't try to take the high road, this is a forum - we can LOOK up what you wrote, and thus precisely know where you were trying to bullsh!t us. "little example, the f-15c is supposed to fly mach 2.5, thats what the industrie tells us, but in real life, it would only achiev that from a hgh altitude dive with full burners and max out the structural performance" - Post#82 in this thread, by borchi_2b

GG, I can't even give you more rep. Your patience has been outstanding, trying to inform the misinformed - especially when said misinformed member is so adamant that he's right.

This is an intelligent and constructive post. See, I can post things that blatantly contradict reality as well. You are objective. Your input is taken seriously. You have no agenda at all. And so on, ad naseum.

Yeah, I absolutely agree.

Mathematically, is: M + F = V (where M is the missile speed, F is the fighter speed and V is the total speed) ...so much more complicated than this: M + 0.5F = V or a compound linear/exponential equation: =M + 0.5*F+10*F^0.5 (which would give you a speed boost of 820 kmph @ 1000 kmph and 1450 kmph @ 2000 kmph) Pretty minimalistic to me.

A linear relationship would be a mistake - almost nothing in this world scales proportionally. Simply adding the aircraft's speed to the missile speed is too radical of a solution, without any realistic fact to back it up except "missiles fired from higher speeds go faster." Well, nobody said the increase in missile speed scales in a linear fashion to increases in launch speed. In fact, I know it doesn't - drag increases exponentially as speed increases. This is a simulation - balance should take the backseat to realism every single time. There are other ways to "balance" the game without implementing totally incorrect and absolutely meaningless "fixes" - for one, the players themselves could just simply adjust their tactics to overwhelm the F-15s by numbers.

That's not trig, that's just gauging distance with your eyes. I doubt your mathematically working the numbers and angles in your head. And this is a truck. Supersonic aircraft typically move a lot faster - increases error.

You can't in Lock On.

Nobody limited this discussion to SARH missiles either. The first poster said this, "I am wondering if a missile fired in Home on Jam mode requires that I maintain a lock on the target, or if a missile fired in this mode is fire and forget e.g. can I break lock after firing a missile in HOJ mode and still expect it to guide, or do I have maintain a constant lock on the target as if I was firing a SARH missile. Note that I am asking in regards to LOMAC FC 1.12a." I assumed he was talking about all radar missiles. Clearly. No. But there's isn't any data pertaining to ECM vs. ECCM anyway, even if you go back 30 years. Consider an AIM-120 is fired, and it's ropes are cut right away as the F-16 that launched it breaks away. Does the AMRAAM turn on its radar right away, or does it fly to its "activation point" and then turn on its radar? If the answer is the latter, what if the both the AIM-120 and the F-16 were tracking the target HOJ, so there was no activation point? Then would the AMRAAM radar start HOJing/emitting to reacquire the out-of-range target, on the off chance that it's radar energies might be enough to activate the SPJ? Or does it just do nothing?

The real AMRAAM uses both HOJ and active radar for terminal guidance - what I don't know if these two modes are used alternate each other in a sequence (e.g. active radar, HOJ, active radar, etc.) or somehow in combination (both at the same time). In any case, something as simple as manually (NOT considering automated jammers right now) turning the jammer on and off is unlikely to fool an AMRAAM - or the Sparrow, for that matter, so long as the aircraft that launched it kept its lock. Automated jammers are trickier because they can choose to only emit when the missile is in active radar mode - thus if the AMRAAM is alternating between HOJ and active radar guidance it would be fooled. On the other hand, the AMRAAM's seeker can emit while HOJ (like the N001/019 radars on Flanker/Fulcrum), thus ensuring that the jammer is always emitting. It might even be possible that the AMRAAM's software permits it to employ both emitting and non-emitting HOJ techniques - non-emitting if the jammer is dumb enough to always be "on" and thus achieve the silent kill, or switching to emitting when it's been found. I suspect this situation to be a lot more complicated with Sparrow, since the APG-63/70 is silent when in HOJ mode. I'd expect Russian missiles to behave in much the same way. No reason why the AMRAAM cannot emit while it's HOJ, ensuring the SPJ is continually active.

Wow, you're so cool!

Yeah, unfortunately that's how it's gonna stay in the sim. Just adapt - I'm sure the real APG-70 is a lot more user friendly.

Maybe you know something I don't, but from my understanding there are two types of ECCM - ECCM that is specific to certain types/techniques of jamming and "general purpose" ECCM that can be used against all types of jamming. HOJ/AOJ belongs in the latter category. Thus, I'd think the missile would be able to home in on any type of jamming, and not just those tuned to a specific frequency. In fact, by bouncing the jamming signal off the ground a target can often fool missiles in HOJ, since the missile cannot tell which signal is the real source of the jamming. That would be correct.

Why not? Provided the jammer is on, any radar missile in HOJ is fire-forget. The fact that some SP jammers are automated and require the target to be painted/locked up in order to actively emit doesn't mean that the missile is not fire-forget - it just means that the target has to be painted, by your radar, your wingman's radar, a SAM radar, etc. Either way, the missile is functioning completely independently from the jet that launched it. Now, there is a possibility that an AMRAAM may still receive mid-course updates from an F-15 and its more powerful ECCM equipment, but I'm going to limit myself to radar missiles with HOJ but without datalinks for the moment (e.g. AIM-7M). Furthermore, the original question was asking with regards to Lock On, not real life. SP jammers are not modelled in Lock On. Thus, HOJ missiles are fire-and-forget, so long as the enemy pilot leaves their jammer on. At least, that's my understanding of the discussion so far. Feel free to refute/clarify.

*I'm* saying SPJ is not modelled. From what I gather, Goya is describing jammers in the game as they should be, not as they are. I know they should work as Goya has described, but I was merely pointing out it's not currently modelled like that.

No, being fire and forget is accurate. When the target is actively jamming - that is, the jammer is on and emitting - the missile will home in on this energy autonomously, without the need for the target to be locked on. However, some jammers only turn themselves on when the jet is locked on/painted by an enemy radar - therefore, the jamming signal necessary for the missile to home in on is only present when the target is being illuminated by an enemy radar. Thus, so long as someone is painting/locking the target, its jammer will be emitting and your missile is fire and forget. However, this is NOT the type of jammer modelled in game, so I don't really get what Goya was saying. In the game, we can turn on or off our jammers at will. Furthermore, the APG-63 doesn't even actively paint the target when it's tracking it in HOJ mode, so how the jammer will "know" to jam is a bit sketchy. The whole ECCM/HOJ vs. ECM thing, it's really a complicated and messy affair.

So, you're basing your entire theory on the kinetics of naval cannons striking the armour hull of an enemy ship. That's great - still doesn't help your case though, cause tanks aren't armoured the same way as ships and naval guns tend to be typically much bigger than a 120mm smoothbore. Doesn't matter. You said that anything can rip through - penetrate - anything given enough kinetic energy. I say it can't. Projectiles tend to vaporize on contact with anything at hyper velocities. Just google "projectile vaporization."

Obviously? Here's the Anderson formula (a basic derivative of it anyway) used to roughly approximate projectile penetration for APFSDS ammunition. P =(1.044*V -0.194*Ln (L/d) -0.212 ) * L P obviously stands for amount of RHAe penetrated. V is velocity, d is diameter. Any guesses on what L stands for? When considering penetration, since when have the shape of the projectile become completely separate from its physical properties/dimensions? And penetration is determined by how the penetrator and the armor behaves on contact. Kinetics only affects the initial conditions for when the projectile and the armor come into contact - it has nothing to do with penetration directly, save for setting the initial conditions to favor penetration by the projectile. Thus, a broom stick will never penetrate at a tank - in fact, it's more likely to vaporize on contact with the armor at hyper speeds. If you did your homework on rail guns, you'd know that if you shoot smaller, lighter projectiles at extremely high speeds, they'd more likely to vaporize on impact rather than gain any sort of penetration.

No, you need to pay attention. Last I heard, the M61 cannon fires rounds that are 20mm in diameter, NOT length. And length does start playing a role in penetration once you start moving into anti-tank kinetic penetrators like the German DM63 and the American M829A3. Obviously, not applicable here, but all the same it's not right to say that length has nothing to do with penetration at all.

Just out of curiosity, what are these other "aspects" of the F-35 that gives it a much greater potential than the F-22?

I just think an APG-65 comparison would be more "fair."

Is this even a fair comparison? You might as well compare the radar between the F-4 and the MiG-17. Until the introduction of the AMRAAM, there wasn't even a reason for the APG-68 to have a significant BVR capability anyway. The N019 was to be used with the R-27R/ER from the outset and, in terms of size, the APG-65 was a much better match physically. Still, from what some pilots (East German or otherwise) have said, the N019 was a generation behind the APG-65 - obviously this is a subjective opinion and should be taken lightly, but it's a comparison nonetheless between the N019 and another contemporary western radar of similar physical dimensions.

Very pretty Tico.