R-27 ET "Anomalies"

[Shepski]

Thanks for that Breakshot!!

 

I'd love to see an actual translation of it.

[EvilBivol-1]

Breakshot, I hesitate to do this, but are you reading the Russian yourself? 'Cause I am and your interpretation doesn't sound right to me (for the second time already), but before I say anything else, let me open my copy of that manual and look at a few more pages.

[MonnieRock]

Breakshot,

 

How do I get a copy of that manual?

 

 

Thank you,

Monnie

[EvilBivol-1]

Damnit, won't let me make my post... all that time wasted translating...

 

Anyway, Breakshot, the pages you cite don't say anything about "maddoging" a -27T/ET. "Uncontrolled launch" and "emergency jettison" are both cautionary procedures in case the plane cannot fly or land given the stores, or if the "tactical situation" call for their loss. They have nothing to do with hitting a target.

[Pilotasso]

As Shepski said. This thread can be boiled down to one thing.

 

Is the ET missile UBER In Lock-On?

 

Sorry, but it was me who posted this thread. what it is all about, (at least what it WAS meant to be) is the detection of anomalies that havent been much noticed and let it be fixed. Maybe I opened a can of worms when I tried to justify those flaws by mentioning that real world missile capabilities and tactics are no longer applyable once the expliots are learnt by an ever increasing number of people.

 

Despite my determination to stay objective, I was thoroughly disapointed by some peoples personal confrontation attitude. Its seems inevitable that anyone that flies 1 aircraft type will support it as if he was disputing a footbal penalty against or in favour of his team. From this moment on all we get is demagogy and all seriousess of the question ceases to be there.

 

Too bad. Because it ceases to be fun and with time less and less people will want to fly in a maddog spam contest.

 

And for those who think this game needs WAFM to correct some simple flaws, it only requires some common sense:

 

-If an ET cant be maddogged then make it dead if launched without a lock.

-If a real ET cant have 180º gimball limit, just fix it to a more realistic value.

-If an ET has data link by all means give it that, but without maddogging capability.

-If the AMRAAM is judged too easy to spoof, adjust its resistence factors.

 

Its that simple. Tweaking has been donne before, and it should be donne again this time the right way.

[Ice]

Lately I have been alarmed by the amount of times anyone gets killed by R-27ET and wondered exactly why this is so.

 

Boiled down

[Pilotasso]

So?

 

It only states when I first smelled a rat, after wich I made my investigation. Whats your point?

 

EDIT: right now I have only the consolation that some BETA testers and developers actualy are interested to go to the bottom of the question because the public debate among the fans was shamefull. Im thankefull that at least it got through to somebody with some power to change things.

 

I leave this discussion now. No heart feeling torwards any of the 169, or 504 menbers.

 

Cheers!

[Alfa]

Damnit, won't let me make my post... all that time wasted translating...

 

Anyway, Breakshot, the pages you cite don't say anything about "maddoging" a -27T/ET. "Uncontrolled launch" and "emergency jettison" are both cautionary procedures in case the plane cannot fly or land given the stores, or if the "tactical situation" call for their loss. They have nothing to do with hitting a target.

 

Also keep in mind that overriding the launch authorisation is a viable combat option with the radar guided version(R-27R/RE), because its guidance/homing method allows it to be controlled after launch - i.e. not a case of firing it "blindly"("maddog'ing") but merely of "letting it go" before the target enters its optimal engagement parameters(with subsequent drop in kill probability as result) in case the tatical situation favours it......e.g. forcing an oponent into a defensive posture.

 

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

I see your point Ice, but how can you judge whether the R-27ET is to be considered "uber" in Lock-on if not by finding out how it compares to the real thing?

 

It may not be the "magical stick" that gives the player using it an unrealistic overall advantage, but to me it is just as interesting to find out whether the weapon is depicted with characteristics that match those of the real weapon - not to make it more or less effective as such, but rather to give it characteristics that would require it to be employed in accordance with the intention behind the real weapon......whatever game advantages/restrictions this entails :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

As Shepski said. This thread can be boiled down to one thing.

 

Is the ET missile UBER In Lock-On?

 

My opinion and there are other top notch online players who fly all aircraft that agree with me is NO ET is not Uber.

 

I'm pretty good in the F15, Su27, MiG29. I dont have a favourite although right now the MiG29S is not in my good books. But only because of its near impossiblility to see at close range. So I chose not to fly it.

 

I dont see any real advantage in sniping it at 16km when you could fire it in EOS mode at 15km. A good pilot can fire ER's much earlier and F-Pole any incoming missile fired outside of 16km very successfully. So waiting to maddog your ET might get you a kill but you also (as demonstrated) might well die in the process trying to line up the target exactly as an ER homes in. You can also be sure that experienced pilots are flanking 30-40 degrees when you take aim and probably getting ready to reverse the tac as well. Any less experienced players that might be sniped with an ET inside or even outside that range would no doubt be just as dead with another more legitimate tactic. Sooner or later they will catch on anyway. So in summing it up I believe the "fad" of maddogging ET's will come and go in a very short amount of time. The disadvantages will in time far outweigh the small advantage.

[Breakshot]

EvilBivol said:

Anyway, Breakshot, the pages you cite don't say anything about "maddoging" a -27T/ET. "Uncontrolled launch" and "emergency jettison" are both cautionary procedures in case the plane cannot fly or land given the stores, or if the "tactical situation" call for their loss. They have nothing to do with hitting a target.

 

Did I say anythin about hitting a target?? All I stated was that the manual dictates the possibility of such a missile release, therefore proving a point that it is physically possible. I think you are mis-interpreting my interpretation. The pages from the manual were added to prove my point. I was not trying to directly translate them, as it wouldn't make any sense to the topic of discussion at hand (Maddogin ETs). What I am merely doing is, drawing conclusions based on what the manual has, to try and make actual sense based on the information at hand.

 

Same goes for my "inertial" guidance comment. I think its pretty obvious that the page from the manual that I raised up does not have any info on this, you dont need to read russian to understand it, because its just a table of missile launch parameters. So I think EvilBivol you completely misunderstood me there....

 

Oh and I am translating it because I am Russian and its my first language.....

[Ice]

I also agree with your viewpoint. However isnt it fair to say that none of the missiles in lockon perfectly represent the real life counterparts?

 

What I think is much more important is fair play. Whether we get a good game going or not.

 

As you can see in this thread we can debate until the cows come home what is realistic and what isnt and still not get any agreement.

 

Ive done my best to keep my debates civil objective and impersonal. I wont however get dragged into arguments on what real missiles can or cant do. I'll leave that to the fighter pilots of which none have replied so far.

[Breakshot]

Pilotasso:

Despite my determination to stay objective

Hmmmm, No Comment

 

Pilotasso:

noticed and let it be fixed

Untill any of the actual "assumed anamolies" are proven to be true/untrue with actual solid evidence/information to prove it, you or anyone else for that matter have no right to say what is "wrong/right" what should be "fixed" so I suggest picking your words a little more carefully next time.

 

As far as I am concerned nobody has brought up anything apart from speculation regarding the subject at hand. As for myself, I based all my comments/assumptions/conclusions on what I gathered from the Su-27SK manual, be it right or wrong.....

[504 Wolverine]

Sorry, but it was me who posted this thread. what it is all about, (at least what it WAS meant to be) is the detection of anomalies that havent been much noticed and let it be fixed. Maybe I opened a can of worms when I tried to justify those flaws by mentioning that real world missile capabilities and tactics are no longer applyable once the expliots are learnt by an ever increasing number of people.

Was this your intention or the fact that the ET is your greatest bane, with it killing you 53 times so far on the 504th server.

 

Despite my determination to stay objective, I was thoroughly disapointed by some peoples personal confrontation attitude. Its seems inevitable that anyone that flies 1 aircraft type will support it as if he was disputing a footbal penalty against or in favour of his team. From this moment on all we get is demagogy and all seriousess of the question ceases to be there.

You post this like you fly all of the fighters with equal amounts in each and because of this you can be objective where as people that only fly russian aircraft cannot.

Looking at the 504th stats shows me, that based on kills you spend 83% of your time in the F-15 with the Su-27 coming second with 9% (su-33 4%, MiG-29S 3 %).

 

Heck even I have flown in the F-15 the same amount of time that you have flown in the MiG-29. Can I too state that I have flown all planes. ;)

 

A look at the 169th server show around the same results (80% for the F-15, 11% for the Su-27, 7% for the Su-33 and 2% for the MiG-29S)

 

Too bad. Because it ceases to be fun and with time less and less people will want to fly in a maddog spam contest.

Ummm, wasn't this what russian pilots were complaining about to the eagle pilots when the fad of Spamraaming all 8 and running home started. A tactic that myself and others witnessed you do on numerous occasions.

 

And for those who think this game needs WAFM to correct some simple flaws, it only requires some common sense:

Obviously directed towards me. :icon_roll

 

-If an ET cant be maddogged then make it dead if launched without a lock.

-If a real ET cant have 180º gimball limit, just fix it to a more realistic value.

-If an ET has data link by all means give it that, but without maddogging capability.

Wether or not these tweeks are needed, Lock-on will beneift greatly from WAFM. I don't think anyone can dispute this.

 

-If the AMRAAM is judged too easy to spoof, adjust its resistence factors.

Ah now we are getting into the real reason for this thread. I would agree that, like the other missiles, the Amraam needs to be fixed (as GG has already stated) but it seems that like some other Eagle pilots you want a 40 mile deathray.

 

I got a great insight to your actual thinking last night, I was listening to you while you used our TS channel to fly on the Dreyou server and if anyone else had heard you they wouldn’t put you in the "All aircraft" category but in the "Eagle fanboi" category.

 

Anyways I am done with this threat before I say something that I either regret or that goes against the 504th code of conduct. At least this thread served some purpose. It has sparked the serious discussion between GG, Alfa, Ironhand and Shepski on this subject.

[169th_Bat]

Originally posted by (504) Wolverine

Was this your intention or the fact that the ET is your greatest bane, with it killing you 53 times so far on the 504th server.

 

Ooooh suits you Sir. I do believe the head of the nail has been firmly struck. Nice one Centurian!!!!!

[Pilotasso]

Wanted to stay quiet from now on but need to add a few notes to this:

 

Was this your intention or the fact that the ET is your greatest bane, with it killing you 53 times so far on the 504th server.

 

 

53 kills versus 37 of the R-77, and all others are on the teens or single digits. Dont you see inconsistencies here?

 

The mainstream of russian missiles is suposed to be the R-27 SARH versions. With the R-77 as the future possible main weapon, and by far the best russian missile. It looks very shy compared to the ET.

 

What we get is the ET being used as the main russian weapon online. howcome it failed to score a SINGLE kill in combat IRL? I think it was never brought to use in the same conflits the SARH versions did.I cant think any particular reason since the SRAH versions are potentialy more complex and expensive yet they have been fire by the dozens by Migs and Su-27's in Ethiopia VS Eritrea war.

 

Looking at the 504th stats shows me, that based on kills you spend 83% of your time in the F-15 with the Su-27 coming second with 9% (su-33 4%, MiG-29S 3 %).

 

Let me add with the "little time I got on russian planes" as you describe it I get 51 kills from the ET alone, thats almost 10% of my total kills wich almost matches to total relative time I used the Russian planes compared to the F-15. To make it even worse the ET acounts for more kills than the other russian missiles combined. And thats without a single maddog. If you look at 169 Stats I rarely even scored kills without the ET. I had maddoged 3 times successufully and 2 of the victims were top aces. I dont blaim them realy, they couldnt have guessed what was about to happen to them.

 

Ummm, wasn't this what russian pilots were complaining about to the eagle pilots when the fad of Spamraaming all 8 and running home started. A tactic that myself and others witnessed you do on numerous occasions.

 

Indeed! Good point. I actulay wanted to get rid of the 20 mile maddogs instead of going the confortable way of crying to keep this. It was highly unrealistic. I cant see why Im suspect now for wanting the same for the ET wich is much less likely to be able to do the same! However you never heard me complain then and neither will you hear me complain about the "run for your base" tactic. Its cowerdly os simple need to get more fuel and weapons before getting caught and pasted unarmed. Would you like to see you oponents go suicidal? Hardly a measure for anyones talents realy.

And I resent to be labeled the "coward runs to base" tactic inventor when I have way more guns and AIM-9's point blank kills than average.

Obviously directed towards me. :icon_roll

 

Actulay it wasnt, and then WAFM would only see the end of straight missile trajectories that enables the sucess of the ET's maddogs.

 

Ah now we are getting into the real reason for this thread. I would agree that, like the other missiles, the Amraam needs to be fixed (as GG has already stated) but it seems that like some other Eagle pilots you want a 40 mile deathray.

 

I agree that they all need fixing but we dont need to rely on AFM to get an acceptable balance. hence the common sense comment I made.

The 40 mile death ray comment is pure linguistic abuse on your part because I have specificaly told Syth and GG that I didnt want to see it overfixed to the point no one could dodge a given missile whatever it is.

 

Le me remind you, so you can be more precise on your comments in the future:

 

The way the game models missiles it will be extremely unlikly to get sure kills in the no escape zone, and to be honest I want a good pilot to still be able to dodge missiles.

 

I think we can make a good balance between fun and realistic real world tactics. This is the most important thing.

 

If ED tries to model NEZ 100% kill effecteviness it will still bork things up but to the reverse problem we have right now. And I dont think real missiles are 100% efective even in the NEZ. I recall that there are proximity kill envelopes and specific problems for the fuse to work in certain intercepet trajectories. Without WAFM I dont think we can count on this to be taken realisticaly donne, hence the balance I mentioned.

 

Too bad you didnt read or pretended I never said this.

 

I got a great insight to your actual thinking last night, I was listening to you while you used our TS channel to fly on the Dreyou server and if anyone else had heard you they wouldn’t put you in the "All aircraft" category but in the "Eagle fanboi" category.

 

Anyways I am done with this threat before I say something that I either regret or that goes against the 504th code of conduct. At least this thread served some purpose. It has sparked the serious discussion between GG, Alfa, Ironhand and Shepski on this subject.

 

I didnt say anything extraordinary out of context about what I said already here. Stay cool. Its only a game and theres no reason to go personal here.

I can hardly get any more than slighly irritated by text thrown at the internet by some people I have never met IRL.

[D-Scythe]

It's unbelievable that there are people who think that LOMAC cannot be wrong. Radar missiles are undermodelled - that's a fact. Anyone who knows the basics of doppler radar operation should know that. It's one of the major realism killers in the game.

 

Eagle Dynamics have stated themselves that chaff is most effective head-on or tail-on, but then you have people like shamandgg claiming that this is not the case. And then I post a track proving ED is right and then a counter-track is posted that was the biggest waste of my time, simply proving that yes, the AMRAAM can reacquire the target if you fly perfectly headon at it, at the same altitude as the missile and you stay centred on the missile. Christ, why the hell would an AMRAAM need to be guided then? A unguided rocket would do in a pinch if targets are expected to stay nice, level, at the same altitude and directly head on.

 

These are the same people claiming the AMRAAM is overmodelled. They post a track of how a situation where an AMRAAM should kill its target, which turns out to be an ideal air-to-air unguided rocket kill. Now who's wanting to castrate who's weapon?

 

Anyway, here's my bit on why radar missiles are undermodelled. Taken from "Introduction to Airborne Radar" by George Stimson:

 

 

Note the highlighted key points. And yes, an MTI radar would also be a doppler radar. Note also the footnote: guess what it says to do?

 

This passage illustrates the only instance where chaff would be effective:

 

 

So let's see...in LOMAC, we have modern doppler radar missiles that are especially vulnerable to chaff at every aspect except 3 and 9 o'clock. This text says that chaff should only work at all at 3 and 9 o'clock. But LOMAC is always right, so this guy must be wrong too.

 

Oh, and then we have the main topic, which is punctuated by accusations of incompetence courtesy of the new statistics boards, where we have one person interpreting the Su-27SK manual in his own way where we have already come to the general consensus (by Russians, people who speak Russian and Russian weapons enthusiasts) that no, the R-27ET cannot be maddogged.

[Pilotasso]

Despite my determination to stay objective, [...]

 

 

Hmmmm, No Comment

 

 

Gee, thanks for your consideration!

 

Untill any of the actual "assumed anamolies" are proven to be true/untrue with actual solid evidence/information to prove it, you or anyone else for that matter have no right to say what is "wrong/right" what should be "fixed" so I suggest picking your words a little more carefully next time.

 

 

 

After the time I spent taking insults such as "you feel threatened", "you are a whiner", or indirectly implied that I invented all cowerdly tactics from your squad colleagues...............(breaths).......... I still manage to hear you out and try to make sense of your Su-27 manual this is what I get? "no coment" and "choose your words better"?

 

Let me sum up:

 

Breakshot, I would very much like to read some more info on the R-27ET, I would apreciate that you linked me to a reliable source. Or recommended me some books. I know about the doctrine of firing SARH and IR missiles silmultanously, now, you dont specify if thats a true BVR shot or a simple rear hemisphere shot on a strategical nuclear bomber, wich was the philosofy that first made tactics such as these emerge during the cold war.

 

Allright here are 2 slides of actual Su-27 manual regarding missile emplyment.

 

Basically it states the Guidelines and parameters at which the missile is launched. ET is number 4 in the table and in forward aspect has a maximum emplyment range of 53km!(perfect conditions offcorse) The missile is inertial guided at first stage of flight. There are disclamers however that weather/sun etc can affect the effectiveness. But not drive the missile blind like some might think! Also the plane can do up to 6gs when launching, when the seeker is out of limits!(The R73 up to 8gs) So the AC actually downloads the coordinates of the target upon launch...

 

 

I also fly ALL fighters, and to be honest I find the F15 lot more superior in BVR and it is definately the best AC in that respect to get the kills. And Yes i flew in it since 1.12a and have gotten better K/D ratios than in any Russian bird. A combo of Aim7 + 120 is very hard to beat!

 

Break, I'll look into your documnets as soon as I have the reading time. I already passed working time here. Ill post something in the next 4 hours.

 

 

Just (tried to) read your document. Since I do not know any russian and cant spell most words in cyrilic either, can you translate for me the table entries of:

 

-2./5 and 2./6 entries

-The entire 4. Line

 

Regarding the IR abilities in bad weather, bear in mind that it is very relative and it is very well known that water vapor works as a black body (a thermodynamic term) to these wave lenghts. While it will still guide through moist air it wont see past clouds. They are too dense to see through unless they are very, very faded as mere transparent haze.

 

Regarding both posts above you can always take in consideration the best fundamented opinion and not close your eyes to any that doesnt provide mathematical evidence because thats a trap. It only favors one side of the argument by default. And doesnt take you closer to the truth.

 

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.

 

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 while what we see online is that by that time most MIG/SU drivers preferred not to be facing its target by the time it guides on its own. If the ET indeed has mid course guidance or any sytem of the sort, it would then be more correct that the russian aircraft must keep lock untill the seeker is ready to guide. And that will decrease its efecteviness dramaticaly since, then the launcher will be axposed all the way in untill the last 20 KM (11-12 miles) or so.

 

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

 

Ok, here is a page from the manual again (pg, 169), which clearly states that u can release these missiles in a completely unguided manner (maddoging??) It states that u have to press some switch and hold it etc. Note also thats not simply jettisoning the weapon, as that is described as well. This is actually releasing the missile if required by any "tactical" situation. So it is very much possible to "maddog" an ET!

 

Another interesting page (pg 142) shows the thermal profile of targets for Headon/Rear/Close/Long Range/low alt/High alt/ for launching an intercept missile. So it clearly proves that these missiles are definately employed at such ranges, or at least ment to be employed.

 

Breakshot, I hesitate to do this, but are you reading the Russian yourself? 'Cause I am and your interpretation doesn't sound right to me (for the second time already), but before I say anything else, let me open my copy of that manual and look at a few more pages.

 

It seemed that you had interisting constructive material to add, I hear you out "your choice of words", (try) to read your documents to correct these issues once for all and after this you put my honesty into the mud and shove it in my face. After all this I realy didnt need the backstab.

 

Who has to choose the words better its not me, I dont think personal insults such as those I quoted above are exactly well chosen either, and they were used to counter anything I said without any serious contemplation besides personal interests.

 

That was a low blow man.Totaly uncalled for.

[Breakshot]

It seemed that you had interisting constructive material to add, I hear you out "your choice of words", (try) to read your documents to correct these issues once for all and after this you put my honesty into the mud and shove it in my face. After all this I realy didnt need this backstab.

 

That was a low blow man.Totaly uncalled for.

Buddy read up my post properly before making such conclusions. None of my comments ment to insult you or anyone.

 

No matter how one tries he can never be objective. All your posts Pilotasso were only ment to somehow disprove this "new problem" of yours. I am sorry if you feel offended by my reply, but I was only stating the obvious. That is you are totaly biased into thinking that the ET is wrong and should be "fixed". Just look at the title of this post for example, that tells the whole story. Anyway no hard feelings, I think you shouldnt have started this post in the first place, as it is obvious where it would be going.

 

Also the info that I posted (su27 manual) didnt seem to matter to you or to others, as you just maitained your course of complaint.

[Breakshot]

D-Scythe:

It's unbelievable that there are people who think that LOMAC cannot be wrong

 

Hmm I think its obvios for everyone that LOMAC is wrong. It has to be, as it is just a sim, not real. It is a question of "how much wrong" thats what we are deliberating on....

[Pilotasso]

You were the only one coming forward willing to prove me wrong, naturaly I also defended my position. Can you blame me for that?!

 

Anyone else would have started to go definatly wrong after having his logic exposed and get bashed in the face to insult with anything but contructive or relevant. Realy didnt see your post comming. Was a total surprise after the friendly talk we had.(after the atrition I had with your m8's.)

Despite all the mud thrown at me I was always polight and had a flame war as a response.

 

Maybe I opened a can of worms but no one cam blaim me for being iquisitive about something that is IMHO definatly fishy and doesnt quite fit in the realism we are aiming this game for.

Maybe I did make the mistake of not antecipating how badly regarded this matter could be by aftecting the interests of some people to have fun.

 

No matter how one tries he can never be objective. All your posts Pilotasso were only ment to somehow disprove this "new problem" of yours. I am sorry if you feel offended by my reply, but I was only stating the facts.

 

Bivol also read the same as you so:

 

"facts"?

 

If I accepted your interpretation for the manual dogmaticaly without any doubt I would have to call EvilBivol a liar.

 

"facts" is a relative term when there are 2 sides arguing and none has definate proofs, but just good points.

 

So far Im still waiting for a better readout of the manual. From someone who is not interested to get kills online. That would settle it all.

[GGTharos]

Actually, the Su-27 manual only states some operational parameters and procedures, but -not- tactics (which would allow you to glimpse a lot more).

I'm quite certain that you'd suffer seeker walk-off if you 'maddogged' a heat seeker equipped with a retticle seeker, quite simply due to the way they work.

 

So, -is- the ET wrong? Yes.

Is it -really- -badly- wrong? No. There's just some stuff missing from the simulation that -makes- it 'too good', but it's not a huge deal.

 

By comparison, the radar guided missiles are -quite- porked.

 

To give you an idea ...

 

When sparrow was still in service, a lot of kills were made with sidewinders.

Once AMRAAM wobbled into the scene, sidewinder kills were minimal.

 

This should give you a good indication of the 'missile generation gap'.

 

The ET is built with a dogfighting seeker - those seekers are made to work in close-range environments in 'always homing' (aka. no search logic) modes for some very simple reasons:

 

a) You have no time to search for anything, range too short

b) friendlies in the vicinity ... you either got a target or you don't ... just to be sure it's not a friendly

c) Seeker seduction/walk-off (taken advantage of by current IRCM techniques in real life)

[Breakshot]

Sorry let me rephrase that, "opinions". It might not necessary mean facts, my bad, wrong choice of word.

 

Also I replied to EvilBivol regarding his "different interpretation"

 

If I accepted your interpretation for the manual dogmaticaly without any doubt I would have to call EvilBivol a liar.

EvilBivol actually disagreed with my conclusions based on interpretation.

 

Such as: about Inertial Guidance (because it isnt stated in the manual) Simply because its an operational manual not a technical manual.

I made this conclusion because the manual clearly states that the ET has a maximum forward aspect target range of ~53 km (based on some parameters offcorse). Now how can an ET hit something at that range wihtout some sort of initial guidance? And no, the manual doesnt just state the ballistic stats on the missiles, it states the parameters of their employment, so theoretically it is possible to hit a flying target at that range.

 

Such as: Maddoging was possible, now in this part he just misunderstood me as all I was trying to say that it could be possible because the missiles could infact be released without lock if the situation requires.

 

I hope that clears it out for you. But if not let me recap just the facts from the manual:

 

Pg 128-129 (Table for Missiles)

Title: Conditions for Missile Launch

 

(pg 128) Under IR missiles (2,3,4) it states certain weather conditions that could affect the launch. Such as: clouds, sun, water that is lighted by sun, also states the allowed temp deviation of 15C during this conditions for day and 4C during night with moon instead. etc etc

 

(pg 129) 4 (P27TE)

 

 

First line 4 (ET)

Parameters when launching at longer ranges using CYB depending on the conditions of atack

 

PPC from 2 to 52.5km ZPC from 0.7 to 12.5km

 

 

Second line

Parameters when launching at identified visual ranges using KP

 

PPC from 2 to 3Hp+15km ZPC from 0.7 to Hp/2 + 2km

 

 

Now the only 2 things I couldnt uderstand is the short forms for the (avionic systems?) such as CYB and KP. It states that u use them for providing range data on the target. That could be it, the system that provides the missile with necessary guidance info for launch. Anyone knows what these stand for?

[Pilotasso]

Anyway, here's my bit on why radar missiles are undermodelled. Taken from "Introduction to Airborne Radar" by George Stimson:

 

 

Note the highlighted key points. And yes, an MTI radar would also be a doppler radar. Note also the footnote: guess what it says to do?

 

This passage illustrates the only instance where chaff would be effective:

 

 

Well I always thought LOMAC's chaff cartriges also dispersed quicly after droping and disapeared. How long do they stay active for the missiles?

[GGTharos]

They take forever to fall to the ground. Like lint.

[Pilotasso]

LOL are you serious? They drop all the way to the ground?