Pilotasso Posted April 3, 2006 Author Posted April 3, 2006 I edited my last post while you were both posting, its important. Oh and regarding Kenan's "you feel threatened" logic, its 10 to 2 (and that only 1 ET) arguments against him. ;) Hes missing the whole point and if you believe him and not read the thread properly so will you. .
Shaman Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Hahahaha. Missile that flies first, will dumb the IR seeking missile flying behind. Whoever said it has to be teh ultimate modern IR seeker logic expert. Omg, that's the wierdest and most "dumb-educated guess" I've read on this forums lately. I'll keep monitoring this thread. It's getting really funky. I can't wait till I can "elaborate" all my own opinions with some "reliable sources" (love these word, since Comical Ali show on TV). Anyway, for me its a trip to defense academy library, and few meetings with my mil.aviation&tactics teachers. Oh btw, the heat from air friction rises significantly actually at the edges of attack. For now, good show done by bunch of whiners. At the end. What kind of simulation is this if you program results first :D 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
Pilotasso Posted April 3, 2006 Author Posted April 3, 2006 Moreover, I doubt that the engine would cool in seconds. Indeed. From a certain increased speed, the convective capability to cool down a hot surface will cease to increase. Worse, the kinda of gas speeds inside the engine at work are more likely to keep it warm the same way wings are IR visible due to air friction. EVEN worse: Jet engines will ALWAYS compress air while working, and that alone generates ALOT of heat. I see 1:10 in jet engines compression rates and thats enough to fry eggs at the least. .
Pilotasso Posted April 3, 2006 Author Posted April 3, 2006 Hahahaha. Missile that flies first, will dumb the IR seeking missile flying behind. Whoever said it has to be teh ultimate modern IR seeker logic expert. Omg, that's the wierdest and most "dumb-educated guess" I've read on this forums lately. I'll keep monitoring this thread. It's getting really funky. I can't wait till I can "elaborate" all my own opinions with some "reliable sources" (love these word, since Comical Ali show on TV). Anyway, for me its a trip to defense academy library, and few meetings with my mil.aviation&tactics teachers. Oh btw, the heat from air friction rises significantly actually at the edges of attack. For now, good show done by bunch of whiners. At the end. What kind of simulation is this if you program results first :D you TOTALY misread his post dude. Im always open minded to good arguments as long as you dont stumble across bard's 400KM R-33's on the Su-27. I dont buy "you are a whinner" ( ;) )argument as proof the ET should be maddoged and have 180º degrees viewcone either. Not by a longshot. I prefer well placed and fundamented opinions. .
192nd_Erdem Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 It's been long since I've last checked these forums and it's seems like Mr. "Wise Armchair"s even came to discussing how overmodelled ET's are . . . Next should be again R-77 and how deadly R-60 modelled is. Then again how bad AMRAAM modelled is . . . Anyways, see you two months later :)
D-Scythe Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 It's been long since I've last checked these forums and it's seems like Mr. "Wise Armchair"s even came to discussing how overmodelled ET's are . . . Next should be again R-77 and how deadly R-60 modelled is. Then again how bad AMRAAM modelled is . . . Anyways, see you two months later :) 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. Hahahaha. Missile that flies first, will dumb the IR seeking missile flying behind. Whoever said it has to be teh ultimate modern IR seeker logic expert. Omg, that's the wierdest and most "dumb-educated guess" I've read on this forums lately. I'll keep monitoring this thread. It's getting really funky. I can't wait till I can "elaborate" all my own opinions with some "reliable sources" (love these word, since Comical Ali show on TV). Anyway, for me its a trip to defense academy library, and few meetings with my mil.aviation&tactics teachers. Oh btw, the heat from air friction rises significantly actually at the edges of attack. For now, good show done by bunch of whiners. At the end. What kind of simulation is this if you program results first :D 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
504 Wolverine Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Yes, Erdem. Same old S**t, different day. Just waiting on the post accusing ED of being Anti-western and we will be back to where we usually are with threads like this. Edit: strange, I saw that last post before Erdem replied. Next it's placed after his post and includes his name. Is it going to be moved again with my name in it next? ;) [/url]
Pilotasso Posted April 3, 2006 Author Posted April 3, 2006 [...] back to where we usually are with threads like this. This thread just fine! THX for the consideration. Replace "threads like this" by "posts like these". Ironicaly such as that you just made. .
Ironhand Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 ...Breakshot if you show that the ET has mid course guidance it is ok. But thats still different from maddogging since you require to keep feeding the missile the targets position... Without considering the accuracy of LOMAC/FC's modeling of the -ET, Breakshot stated that the missile has inertial guidance. Presumably it would also have the possibility of midcourse correction. But with inertial guidance it's already been told to fly in a particular direction toward a particular patch of sky to look for a target. So it's already been given it's "guidance"? The midcourse correction would simply fine tune the piece of sky, if the target has altered direction in any way. Rich YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg _____ Win 11 Pro x64, Asrock Z790 Steel Legend MoBo, Intel i7-13700K, MSI RKT 4070 Super 12GB, Corsair Dominator DDR5 RAM 32GB.
S77th-RYKE Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Yes, the R-77 is even better than the AIM-120 Not arguing here but didn't I see in these forums at least a zillion mentions by GG and others (I think even from ED) that 120s and 77s are modeled EXACTLY the same in lockon ? so that puzzles me to say the least Regards... [sIGPIC]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v108/madmaxx69/LOMAC/Rykesig1.jpg[/sIGPIC] Savage 77th , http://s77th.com |Core i7 920|Asus P6T Deluxe V2|GTX 285|9600GT-OC|6G DDR3|Softh on 3x22"CRTs|Tir2|yeahIsaidTir2|X-45|Haf 932|Vista Ultimate 64|
504Goon Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Not arguing here but didn't I see in these forums at least a zillion mentions by GG and others (I think even from ED) that 120s and 77s are modeled EXACTLY the same in lockon ? so that puzzles me to say the least Regards... AFAIK the seeker&tracking logic of those missiles is exactly the same, but the rocket modelling is diffrent. R-77 has a longer motor burn time, and so it has a longer range. At least that's how i've understood it. 504th CO http://www.vvs504.co.uk
Force_Feedback Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 They're not, the r-77 is draggier and the aim-120 has better "mad dog" capabilities compared to the r77. Also the soviet doctrine was not to fire the r-27et right away as the first weapon to be fired, the first salvo consised the 2 r-27(e)R missiles, and if the target got close enough, at medium distance, the r-27(e)t and R-27(e)r are deployed, if that didn't help, the R-73 is used. This is what I read a while ago, I can confirm (or correct) it if I read the su-27 manual, but I don't have much time now, maybe later. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Shaman Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 D-Scythe, for own reasons I feel exactly the same about you ("fiction and fantasy" guy) as you feel about me I guess, and others, I was done with this discussion as much as you are done now. Just wanted to express my utter opinion in totally unsound manner. It wasn't supposed to be constructive, as any of you-posters weren't (though illusion was quite convincing). Sorry but your track is rubbish. Already it was pointed out why. Though I have nothing personal against you, D-Scythe. It just the expert "Mr.Armchair" attitudes that you guys created in this discussion make me upset. I hate whinning. Doesn't matter what multiplayer community it will be. And this thread is a typical monument for Great God of Whine. /me gone fishin' 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
Shepski Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 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. I'd like to see some proof of that statement... so, what you are saying is that an AIM-9 on the rail using the scan mode(no aircaft sensor lock) and acquiring a heat source(aircraft) is somehow different then an AIM-9 after it's launched? So, somehow the seeker stops working after it's launched and it couldn't pick up the heat signature of a fighter that's in it's FOV? To me that doesn't make sense which is why I have no problem believing that an IR missile can be launched maddog to search for a heat source to lock onto.
Shepski Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Apology Accepted Also in the End-Game the missile motor is burned out (it only takes couple of seconds) and at that speed it will cool instantly, therefore the missile will have no heat signature what so ever, the missile will probably have ice forming on it! Also different types of missile use different type of navigation. Just compare ARH vs SARH, so I dont see your point there. I agree that the rocket nozzle would cool rapidly at cold outside air temps but the missile won't be getting iced up because of the heat generated by the friction of the air hitting it at those speeds. AND... enough of the "whiner" comments everyone!!
D-Scythe Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 D-Scythe, for own reasons I feel exactly the same about you ("fiction and fantasy" guy) as you feel about me I guess, and others, I was done with this discussion as much as you are done now. Just wanted to express my utter opinion in totally unsound manner. It wasn't supposed to be constructive, as any of you-posters weren't (though illusion was quite convincing). Sorry but your track is rubbish. Already it was pointed out why. Though I have nothing personal against you, D-Scythe. It just the expert "Mr.Armchair" attitudes that you guys created in this discussion make me upset. I hate whinning. Doesn't matter what multiplayer community it will be. And this thread is a typical monument for Great God of Whine. /me gone fishin' LOL, your a funny guy. Yes, I'm an armchair pilot and also an A/A combat enthusiast, but at least I know what I'm talking about. I don't just google crap. I don't deny that I am an armchair pilot like you do. Let's sum up the score shall we? Me: I proved through my tracks that it is quite possible to party all day long in the best conditions possible for a radar missile shot (look up, NEZ range). In fact, I proved that you don't have to do anything - just press the chaff button really fast. You and friends: My tracks are garbage because that's our opinion. People who think otherwise go against our opinion and are stupid. Me: IR missiles should not be able to be mad-dogged, and if there is LOAL capability (i.e. inertial guidance), it should be limited because the nature of an IR seeker does not allow it to scan for targets like a similar missile with radar can. Basis is that radar can filter out clutter through the doppler effect. You: The R-27ET should behave like radar missiles. If you don't think so, you're a whiner. Let's bash other people's posts. Me: In an attack with IR and radar missiles, Soviet pilots are taught to fire IR missiles first just to be safe. You: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Let's bash post more, give more factless opinions and just pretend we know it all. That sums up the score pretty nicely. Remind me to ignore you in the future.
D-Scythe Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 I'd like to see some proof of that statement... so, what you are saying is that an AIM-9 on the rail using the scan mode(no sensor lock) and acquiring a heat source(aircraft) is somehow different then an AIM-9 after it's launched? So, somehow the seeker stops working after it's launched and it couldn't pick up the heat signature of a fighter that's in it's FOV? To me that doesn't make sense which is why I have no problem believing that an IR missile can be launched maddog to search for a heat source to lock onto. Thought I was done with this thread, but you are Shepski...:p AIM-9 mode in scan mode is also cued. There's a circle in the HUD that represents the FOV right? When that missile seeker is over the correct heat signature (either by maneuvering that target inside the seeker FOV, or by letting the missile scan around your HUD...think that was called uncaging, not sure), you fire the missile. So essentially, you are telling the AIM-9 what to lock onto as it scans around its FOV. That's why early HMS, which don't provide an indication of what the SRAAM has locked onto, but merely that it has a lock, had some problems because the pilot had no idea what the missile had locked onto and is tracking. The problem is filtering out the important IR signatures. Feel free to prove me wrong. EDIT: What I mean is that there's a difference between uncaging the seeker and letting it scan for targets (from which you in turn can decide to shoot once the seeker is locked onto a particular target) and just firing the missile blindly and hoping that it locks onto a target after launch. In the latter case, IR missiles are going to lock onto everything in its path. Radar missiles would at least attack moving targets, because it has doppler to filter out clutter. Again, anyone who knows better, please correct me.
GGTharos Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Here are some facts: Reticle seekers employ two methods of rejecting flares: Kinematic and two-color 'vision'. Unfortunately, this is not perfect, but typical missile employment under 2km should render the flares ineffective most of the time (which is why you put them out BEFORE missile launch in an attempt for the seeker to lock onto the flares) ... yet we've seen missiles at those ranges miss RL. Reticle seekers are NOT suitable for long range lock-after-launch because they are incapable of discriminating detail. This means they will happily lock onto anything remotely resembling 'a target' (the hawt, HAWT tailpipe of a missile launched ahead will do nicely) 'Inertial guidance' only means 'missile will go from point A to point B' and nothing more - it implies nothing aboud said 'guidance' (navigation actually) talking to the seeker to 'talk eyes on'. The INU is probably there because the only thing changed on the missile is the seeker, which aparently -also- contains the datalink component, which is -not- present in the ET ... in fact if you keep looking in that manual you'll likely find the part that says that the dling signal is -not- generatedfor ETs. The ET seeker uses either the R-60 or R-73 seeker (I honestly forget which) which has -no- datalink capability. It uses a -dogfighting- missile seeker which has limitations and advantages inherent to that type of combat. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Thought I was done with this thread, but you are Shepski...:p AIM-9 mode in scan mode is also cued. There's a circle in the HUD that represents the FOV right? When that missile seeker is over the correct heat signature (either by maneuvering that target inside the seeker FOV, or by letting the missile scan around your HUD...think that was called uncaging, not sure), you fire the missile. So essentially, you are telling the AIM-9 what to lock onto as it scans around its FOV. That's why early HMS, which don't provide an indication of what the SRAAM has locked onto, but merely that it has a lock, had some problems because the pilot had no idea what the missile had locked onto and is tracking. The problem is filtering out the important IR signatures. Feel free to prove me wrong. EDIT: What I mean is that there's a difference between uncaging the seeker and letting it scan for targets (from which you in turn can decide to shoot once the seeker is locked onto a particular target) and just firing the missile blindly and hoping that it locks onto a target after launch. In the latter case, IR missiles are going to lock onto everything in its path. Radar missiles would at least attack moving targets, because it has doppler to filter out clutter. Again, anyone who knows better, please correct me. To be even more clear, look at the AIM-9's FOV. IRH missile FoVs are pretty darned tight ... coule this with high speed, and not-so-great sensitivity (compared to radar missiles) and any attempt at 'searching' is basically bogus. Even radar missiles don't scan like the 120/77 do in this game. There is a -lot- of work to be done with missiles in this game. I guess, a very simple anwer would be: Q: Can you maddog a heat seeker? (With reticle seeker) A: Yes, but you would be rather unlikely to actually hit anything of value. When you start using FPAs, things start changing a whoooole lot because you seeker can /discriminate/ so much more. That's just regarding lock-after-launch here, nothing else. Sensitivity is still physics-delimited. And, of course, DS is absolutely right about the 180-deg seeker capabilities, which seem to be an issue for HoJ missiles also. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
EvilBivol-1 Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 The bit from the Su-27SK flight manual says nothing about a datalink, interial navigation, or "downloading" of target coordinates outside the seeker's FOV. It does say though, that the TE is limited to launches outside of cloud cover (I think this means that the launcher itself much not be within the clouds, which would make sense), and at least 15* outside of the Sun, or 4* outside of the moon. Who knew, the thing could actually lock on to the moon! :D - EB [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer. The Parable of Jane's A-10 Forum Rules
Shepski Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 EDIT: What I mean is that there's a difference between uncaging the seeker and letting it scan for targets (from which you in turn can decide to shoot once the seeker is locked onto a particular target) and just firing the missile blindly and hoping that it locks onto a target after launch. In the latter case, IR missiles are going to lock onto everything in its path. Radar missiles would at least attack moving targets, because it has doppler to filter out clutter. Again, anyone who knows better, please correct me. Thanks for contuning. :) This all about education as far as I'm concerned and as long as we keep things civil it is well worth it to keep going. Right... let the seeker lock onto a heat source and launch with no aircraft guidance... in scan mode or boresight. Now, if you knew there was an aircraft in front of you with hot afterburning engines and simply fired the missile(maddog)... would the seeker not lock onto that heat source after it left the rail? The way I see it, the seeker will lock onto the best heat source in it's FOV and if you were to maddog it at a head on target in a look up situation would it not see that heat source if there was nothing but sky and a fighter in it's FOV? The key words are lock onto the best heat source and IMO, a high speed jet, possibley with afterburners on, against the sky or ground would be the best heat source... which is what we see in the Lock On engagements. We know the seeker is always active once launched because it will lock on to flares or the sun so if there are no flares or no sun why wouldn't it lock onto a highspeed jet in it's FOV after a maddog launch? As for the comments about an IR missile locking onto the burning rocket motor of a missile directly in front of it... it happens in Lock On, as it should IMO.
GGTharos Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Shepski, what you are describing is exactly how sidewinders used to be launched form the F-5A. They'd center the reticle, get the growl and fire ... but this was a short-range shot, and by no means should you expect the 2.5 deg FoV seeker to find an aircraft when launched at 15nm without guidance. At 10km, IF it was that sensitive, it would be looking at 400m diameter patch of space, and TBH it's not likely that 10km is a good lock-on distance for any heat seeker in head-on situations (I dont' care about tail-on ... we know tail on is exactly what heaters are all about ... this discussion is about head-on, long ranged shots). The perturbation of the missile throughout its flight alone should already have it looking at the wrong place. With a 2.5deg FoV, you don't need much perturbation, which you get /plenty/ of /just/ launching the missile it self! That thing comes off the rail and /wobbles/ .... and it does /not/ know where to go! Even the come-off-the-rail sidewinder does this. So ... is it possible? It is possible. Is it likely? ... you probably just wasted a missile (RL) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
EvilBivol-1 Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 The other question is whether the particular weapons control system will allow for a launch without prior lock, even if it would be physically possible. I wouldn't be surprized if the lock-before-launch for IR missiles was a requirement by the "computer". - EB [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer. The Parable of Jane's A-10 Forum Rules
Galaad Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 A russian specialist said : (r-27) In the case of the IR homing versions the target is initially acquired by the fighter radar, wherupon target information is download to the missile's seeker head; ...For the radar homing versions the course of action is the same........It is possible to fire r-27R(Er) before target lock-on is achieved; in this case the missile receives mid-course guidance via a special command link until it comes within lockon range. The mid-course correction feature increase the effective kill range......
GGTharos Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Yep, except the R-27T/ET have no inertial update. Neat stuff about the ER though, I suspected the flanker's 'tws' might do something liek this .. it's done with the new sparrow. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Recommended Posts