I'm a beginner. Can any one teach me avoid missile?

[Kenan]

Do we have to assume if barrel rolling works in LOMAC, the missiles aren't modelled properly?

I know Falcon4.0 barrel rolling the ARH missile is futile 90% of the times so..

[GGTharos]

Thx

 

 

 

© Brush up on our missile physics...

 

http://pdf.aiaa.org/jaPreview/JGCD/1994/PVJAPRE21168.pdf

 

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1982/PV1982_1516.pdf

 

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1993/PV1993_861.pdf

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Missile+Guidance+algorithm+against+High-g+barrel+roll+maneuvers&btnG=Search

 

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/505733.html

 

http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun02/MN0202.html

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=aircraft+missile+evasion&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=Air-to-air+missile+avoidance+&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

 

just to help you get started ;)

 

Missile avoidance 2kb pdf. > http://www.filefactory.com/?f66d7c

 

P.s. Don't forget to follow the references

 

The only problem is that 'greater miss distance' does not equal 'you don't get hit'. LOMAC's missiles have a problem with both the fuze and the the 0.1sec update rate. That's all there is to it in LOMAC.

[GGTharos]

Do we have to assume if barrel rolling works in LOMAC, the missiles aren't modelled properly?

I know Falcon4.0 barrel rolling the ARH missile is futile 90% of the times so..

I would assume the truth's right smack in the middle ;)

 

I'm not sure what hey mean by 'high-g' barrel rolling in there either ... are we talking 5g? 9g? 15? It doesn't say in the fragments I looked over.

 

The only problem where barrel rolling was an issue -ever- in air interception with modern missiles - that I have heard of - was the SCUDs doing barrel rolls due to poor contruction, which caused some problems for the Patriots. Yet, they still hit, and later a new Kalman loop filter was installed to make barrel rolling ineffective all together.

 

So ah, yeah, LOMAC's got it 100% wrong (to clarify: You shouldn't have 100% success rate in dodging missiles with barrel rolling, wether you're prepared for it or not - you should certianly have -some- measure of success)

 

Falcon 4 has it -almost- as wrong, with barrel rolling not bieng effective -enough-.

[Gunja]

Do we have to assume if barrel rolling works in LOMAC, the missiles aren't modelled properly?

I dont see why it wouldnt work in LockOn. They even teach you how it works and why it is effective.

Look in Training-Top Gun-Mission#8 --> "Barrel roll" missile evasion maneuver (for LockOn v.1.1 only)

[D-Scythe]

I dont see why it wouldnt work in LockOn. They even teach you how it works and why it is effective.

 

Correction: it teaches you why it is effective in LOMAC. Not IRL.

[Pilotasso]

It usualy still gets the smart a$$ killed anyway. I gave up barrel rolling because it causes the pilot degraded SA not to mention that barrel rolling depletes speed FAST, in wich case your going to loose the chase and get shot at point blank range.

[Reaper-6]

Correction: it teaches you why it is effective in LOMAC. Not IRL.

 

So the fact that Robert Shaw, in "Fighter Tactics" recommends a technique he describes as "barrel rolling around the missile’s vector..."

 

Doesn't mean anything ?

 

I can't remember if he said that coming from an executive leather highback from best buy, or a G screamin' ejection seat...

 

Do you ?

 

 

And all that math/physics...

 

I get the feeling you would've looked at E=Mc2 and said "Al your full o sh*t, that couldn't light my smoke...now brush your hair !"

[GGTharos]

Reaper, older missiles had issues with seeker slewing rates. Current, modern missiles, and the previous generation do -not-, and it's those old missiles that Shaw is referring to.

Heck, 'back in the days' a 4-g break would see a missile lose you right from launch. In the late 80s, the sidewinder might have had trouble with an 8g break, however at this point in time, such problems have all but been eliminated - and those problems were solely seeker problems.

 

All that math and physics means zip without context -

current 'last ditch' method as FIGHTER PILOTS describe it is to do an orthogonal roll, not barrel into the missile.

 

Current missiles have *small* miss distances mainlu doe to advances in seeker and guidance.

 

If you have a -better- source lay it on, I'm certainly interested. But I've yet to hear a fighter pilot actually validate this method. Maybe it works, but apparently it doesn't work well enough (for whatever reason) to be taught as an evasion method.

 

LOMAC's missiles are vulnerable to barrel rolling for one and ONLY one simple reason, which is that 0.1sec scan rate, which definitely does -not- reflect reality.

 

While things like seeker settling and the guidance constant can and -will- affect miss distance, and R&D -always- seeks to minimize miss distance, there is no guarantee that you will avoid taking damage like you can do in LOMAC.

[Reaper-6]

LOL no guarantees in LO either it seems…for some

 

“…orthogonal roll/ barrel into the missile” tomato/tomato…that’s a thin hair to split my friend…lol

Shaw say’s barrel roll, weapons physics researchers with Phd’s say high G barrel roll, good enough for me, I’ll roll with them on it.

 

GG if you had everything just right (in Game/re IRL) would a missile being continually maneuvered to it's operational G Envelope limits still then be susceptible to the seeker head losing it's ability (in F.O.V. limits) to keep an "eye" on the targeted vehicle the closer it gets ?

 

I understand proximity fuses also, but if it loses sight of you before the detonation envelope...

 

The only way for a missile not to be susceptible to this maneuver is for it to have lateral/vectored thrust...or have a program that detonates the missile based on post/relative calculations, that tell it it should be in the same relative airspace just about to lead. And then the missile “blast cone would not be exactly effectual.

 

 

This to me had always been a no brainier, just like side stepping a alley apple that some kid threw at you. The "Man in Black" twirling his sword to get the upper hand on Indigo Montoya. Or a martial artist using an opponents strength against them.

 

I never looked at any of this technical material until people started pissin' and moanin' about it, and as it turns out I am right. I am the only one on either side of the argument to provide multiple forms of independant data including IRL, supporting his argument.

 

Is there anything (material) you would like to show me ? Other than your own thoughts or views.

 

P.s. Relavent data, not just spec's

[GGTharos]

LOL no guarantees in LO either it seems…for some

 

“…orthogonal roll/ barrel into the missile” tomato/tomato…that’s a thin hair to split my friend…lol

Shaw say’s barrel roll, weapons physics researchers with Phd’s say high G barrel roll, good enough for me, I’ll roll with them on it.

 

The devil is always in the details ;)

 

GG if you had everything just right (in Game/re IRL) would a missile being continually maneuvered to it's operational G Envelope limits still then be susceptible to the seeker head losing it's ability (in F.O.V. limits) to keep an "eye" on the targeted vehicle the closer it gets ?

 

Currently seekers are entirely capable of maintaining LOS ... I might bother calculating what the angular velocity is though just in case ... however the insrcibed 'circle' is quite small.

 

Couple with seeker settling you might cause the seeker to lose LOS, however from what I have gathered so far, an otrhogonal roll is meant to defeat the weapon kinematically rather than defeat the seeker (it may gimbal-out the seeker, but this is secondary as by then the missile is quite close ... the difference here is that the missile is physically unable to maneuver to keep up with the aircraft, which is different from what you demonstrate).

 

I understand proximity fuses also, but if it loses sight of you before the detonation envelope...

 

Indeed - however the question is, how close does the missile get to the target? Newer and newer generation are 'hittles' ... withness the propagation of ARH hit-to-kill missiles. SAMs mostly, but keep that in mind.

 

 

The only way for a missile not to be susceptible to this maneuver is for it to have lateral/vectored thrust...or have a program that detonates the missile based on post/relative calculations, that tell it it should be in the same relative airspace just about to lead. And then the missile “blast cone would not be exactly effectual.

 

This isn't true. We're talking about seekers. Vectored thrust allows you to keep up with a maneuver better, but your seeker's still going around in a circle. And I'll point out that the R-73 is just as susceptible to barrel rolling as everything else.

 

This to me had always been a no brainier, just like side stepping a alley apple that some kid threw at you. The "Man in Black" twirling his sword to get the upper hand on Indigo Montoya. Or a martial artist using an opponents strength against them.

 

Yeah well ... it was a 'no brainer' that the R-27ET would have a datalink since the ER did, but that turned out entirely wrong :)

 

Unfortunately time and again we get to find out that when it comes to these things, there's no such thing as a 'no brainer' :(

Though that's not too bad - lots of interesting discussions arise.

 

I never looked at any of this technical material until people started pissin' and moanin' about it, and as it turns out I am right. I am the only one on either side of the argument to provide multiple forms of independant data including IRL, supporting his argument.

 

Is there anything (material) you would like to show me ? Other than your own thoughts or views.

 

P.s. Relavent data, not just spec's

 

I'll see what I can find - I'll aim for finding a fighter pilot first, then I'll see if I can calculate the angular velocity of a barrel rolling aircraft at various G's.

 

But keep another thing in mind too, which is actually not hard to find if you google it (I think ... I wish I kept these things :P )

The Patriot still hit barrel rolling SCUDs (doing about 5g at mach 3) without too much trouble. Due to the closure, I'd consider that much more of a feat.

[Weta43]

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you will :-) - if the scud is "rolling" on its way towards the ground & the patriot launched from some distance (laterally) away from the impact point then the patriot won't see a barrel roll, just an occilation about the path. In other words the patriot would only see a "roll" if launched from the intended scud impact point. Planes are different because they change course to cause the SAM/AMRAAMSKI etc to see a "roll"

[GGTharos]

While you'll have less oscillation on one axis, it'll still be there because of the closure changes in the roll. Does it affect the seeker less? I don't know.

 

A head-on or tail-on shot has the -highest- Pk regardless of maneuver (whenthe missile is fired in parameters) ... a beam shot has the lowest Pk.

[Reaper-6]

Well I must say GG, that’s the most smoke I’ve seen any amount of keystrokes produce, but still no fire kemosabe.

 

The devil is always in the details ;)

 

Only for scumbag lawyers.

 

 

Currently seekers are entirely capable of maintaining LOS ... I might bother calculating what the angular velocity is though just in case ... however the insrcibed 'circle' is quite small.

 

Couple with seeker settling you might cause the seeker to lose LOS, however from what I have gathered so far, an otrhogonal roll is meant to defeat the weapon kinematically rather than defeat the seeker (it may gimbal-out the seeker, but this is secondary as by then the missile is quite close ... the difference here is that the missile is physically unable to maneuver to keep up with the aircraft, which is different from what you demonstrate).

 

It does both, dynamic weapon limits then F.O.V limits. (provided the missile is traveling fast enough to overshoot.

 

Indeed - however the question is, how close does the missile get to the target? Newer and newer generation are 'hittles' ... withness the propagation of ARH hit-to-kill missiles. SAMs mostly, but keep that in mind.

 

And…

 

This isn't true. We're talking about seekers. Vectored thrust allows you to keep up with a maneuver better, but your seeker's still going around in a circle. And I'll point out that the R-73 is just as susceptible to barrel rolling as everything else.

 

Here you contradict yourself with the above “Gimbal out”

 

You and I both know I provided a 3-33’s v 1-27 track at the same time I provided the 3v1 american track with the same results just a lot more missiles in the air.

 

If you’d like I can make sure you get it, again.

 

Yeah well ... it was a 'no brainer' that the R-27ET would have a datalink since the ER did, but that turned out entirely wrong :)

 

?

 

Unfortunately time and again we get to find out that when it comes to these things, there's no such thing as a 'no brainer' :(

Though that's not too bad - lots of interesting discussions arise.

 

Has been and still is for me, and nothing has changed.

 

I'll see what I can find - I'll aim for finding a fighter pilot first, then I'll see if I can calculate the angular velocity of a barrel rolling aircraft at various G's.

 

While I would Respect/Hero Worship a Fighter Pilot on sight, and what he had to say. And do not believe that Fighter Pilots will ever die away. We are the future (or people like us) of Frontline Fighter (UAV) Aircraft, without the design/training/fear/physical limitations that are their everyday life, our skills and crafts will always outshine.

 

Recently a high ranking Russian Defense Official also agreed with me on this.

 

But keep another thing in mind too, which is actually not hard to find if you google it (I think ... I wish I kept these things :P )

The Patriot still hit barrel rolling SCUDs (doing about 5g at mach 3) without too much trouble. Due to the closure, I'd consider that much more of a feat.

 

It may be wobbling on it’s trajectory axis due to course corrections, wind, drag ect…but in no way is it “barrel rolling”. LMAO

[GGTharos]

Here you contradict yourself with the above “Gimbal out”

 

... how? In my example the missile is gimballed out since it cannot physically keep up with the maneuver, but the seeker doesn't lose lock until it smack into the gimbals. This isnt' even an issue in your tracks.

 

You and I both know I provided a 3-33’s v 1-27 track at the same time I provided the 3v1 american track with the same results just a lot more missiles in the air.

 

If you’d like I can make sure you get it, again.

 

I'll be more clear. You made a remark about TVC missiles. I pointed out that in LOMAC (see, I should that put that in there) this doesn't matter - all seekers are affected equally by the 0.1s scan inerval.

 

?

 

The point is that a 'no brainer' to you (or anyone) does not necessarily coincide with reality.

 

Has been and still is for me, and nothing has changed.

 

Excellent

 

While I would Respect/Hero Worship a Fighter Pilot on sight, and what he had to say. And do not believe that Fighter Pilots will ever die away. We are the future (or people like us) of Frontline Fighter (UAV) Aircraft, without the design/training/fear/physical limitations that are their everyday life, our skills and crafts will always outshine.

 

Not sure where you're going with this - I think the only one who could easily provide us with a definitive answer would be a fighter pilot -assuming that this isn't classified information for 'operational considerations' (mutter)

 

It may be wobbling on it’s trajectory axis due to course corrections, wind, drag ect…but in no way is it “barrel rolling”. LMAO

 

Oh no. They -were- barrel rolling due to shoddy construction, from the initial rocket thrust and the subsequent airframe deformation - some severe enough that they would break up upon re-entry into the atmosphere.

[Reaper-6]

... how? In my example the missile is gimballed out since it cannot physically keep up with the maneuver, but the seeker doesn't lose lock until it smack into the gimbals. This isnt' even an issue in your tracks.

 

I took Gimbal’d out as a end result Dynamics and Seeker…same same

 

6 Minute (+or-) mark of the track or movie shows just that, and other places as well.

 

Not sure where you're going with this - I think the only one who could easily provide us with a definitive answer would be a fighter pilot -assuming that this isn't classified information for 'operational considerations' (mutter).

 

Unless he has done the maneuver successfully it won’t matter what he say’s.

 

Oh no. They -were- barrel rolling due to shoddy construction, from the initial rocket thrust and the subsequent airframe deformation - some severe enough that they would break up upon re-entry into the atmosphere.

 

I believe that it may have resembled a “cork screw” trajectory due to these factors, but that is not a “controlled” barrel roll.

 

Hell for that matter you could say that pieces of either one of the orbiters barrel rolled down to earth…It’s that whole devil in the details thing.

[Weta43]

A slight change of focus - if it is the 0.1 second scan that causes LO missiles to too easily lose lock & increasing the rate to 0.01 or .0025 sec or whatever would cause too much lag, would an alternative not be to scan in as accurate a fashion as poss every 0.1 sec till a lock is established, then assume a lock is held from that point & every 0.1 sec chech to see whether any events have occured which may have broken that lock (seeker tracking rate would have been exceeded for example - or flares/chaff released) & on the basis of the probability of such an occurence with the parameters that existed at the time, decide if the lock was broken, if not the lock held.

Less realistic in its method once lock established, but perhaps a more realistic outcome for the same amount of processing

[GGTharos]

I took Gimbal’d out as a end result Dynamics and Seeker…same same

 

6 Minute (+or-) mark of the track or movie shows just that, and other places as well.

 

Well, in your tracks the weapons stop tracking. It's a matter of the seeker looking in the wrong place (target no longer there) due to the 0.1 sec limitation. This is why it happens -in LOMAC- ... no reference to reality here. This is confirmed by the devs.

 

Unless he has done the maneuver successfully it won’t matter what he say’s.

 

I could say the same about your sources man! Come on! :P

I've got my hands on a military missile simulation document, and they certainly don't seem to care to simulate barrel rolling aircraft, for whatever reason (Certainly not for lack of computer power)

The usual maneuver the simulate against is a 'perfectly timed' six or seven g break (I would call that about as effective as a barrel roll, but eh - you can argue it either way)

 

It -is- also true that there are methods being researched to 'predict' target maneuvers while guiding in order to better the kinematic range of the missile and counter these maneuvers.

 

However, does this in any way imply that barrel rolling is at all effective? In fact, it's not even mentioned. Ever. Nor have fighter pilots ever claimed (to my knowledge) to train in barrel rolling about a missile's flight vector. I'm certain it might do something for you as a last-ditch defense, but ... have you ever heard of pilots going in barrel rolling in BVR fights?

 

I believe that it may have resembled a “cork screw” trajectory due to these factors, but that is not a “controlled” barrel roll.

 

Hell for that matter you could say that pieces of either one of the orbiters barrel rolled down to earth…It’s that whole devil in the details thing.

 

Sure, I won't disagree with that - point is, it does create a measurable problem for the seeker.

[Red Hammer]

Mr Ironhand:

The incorrect one I've download is called: STAYING ALIVE :: EVADING MISSILES. It says v1.01 but I only have v1.02

By the way call you tell me why they put the gunpowder burn on Flanker's gun point?

I really hate that. Why it only on the flanker?Can they change some better skin?

[Reaper-6]

Well, in your tracks the weapons stop tracking. It's a matter of the seeker looking in the wrong place (target no longer there) due to the 0.1 sec limitation. This is why it happens -in LOMAC- ... no reference to reality here. This is confirmed by the devs..

 

Exactly, the roll has taken you beyond the seeker view once the dynamic limits have been reached.

 

I could say the same about your sources man! Come on! :P

 

So Robert Shaw and all those big -headed weapons physics guys (many who wrote the papers while in the Mil) are wrong or just liars ?

 

You still have yet to produce anything…even in crayon :D

 

I've got my hands on a military missile simulation document, and they certainly don't seem to care to simulate barrel rolling aircraft, for whatever reason (Certainly not for lack of computer power)

 

Maxim sold his wares to Europe before America took notice...

 

The Romans against Hannibal's elephants...

 

Many were lost at Thermopylae before they changed tactics...so

 

Are you saying just because a tactic is not concieved/studied/practiced/simulated it’s not effective ?

 

The usual maneuver the simulate against is a 'perfectly timed' six or seven g break (I would call that about as effective as a barrel roll, but eh - you can argue it either way).

 

Then we wont

 

It -is- also true that there are methods being researched to 'predict' target maneuvers while guiding in order to better the kinematic range of the missile and counter these maneuvers..

 

Exactly ½ of what is necessary, as I said.

 

However, does this in any way imply that barrel rolling is at all effective? In fact, it's not even mentioned. Ever. Nor have fighter pilots ever claimed (to my knowledge) to train in barrel rolling about a missile's flight vector. I'm certain it might do something for you as a last-ditch defense, but ... have you ever heard of pilots going in barrel rolling in BVR fights?.

 

Except in this book by this Fighter Pilot , no :D

 

Sure, I won't disagree with that - point is, it does create a measurable problem for the seeker.

 

And if you can “control” it, you can defeat it.

[D-Scythe]

Exactly, the roll has taken you beyond the seeker view once the dynamic limits have been reached.

 

In LOMAC. We have no idea what the seeker limits are for an AMRAAM IRL, or any other modern radar missile, so there is no telling if the barrel roll will STILL be effective against the newer generation of radar missiles.

 

 

So Robert Shaw and all those big -headed weapons physics guys (many who wrote the papers while in the Mil) are wrong or just liars ?

 

You still have yet to produce anything…even in crayon :D

 

You have yet to produce anything either in terms of the performance of modern radar missiles against a barrel rolling target. Your book, Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering, is 20 years old - before AMRAAM, Patriot, R-77, etc.

 

You may have noticed that the avionics on military equipment have increased exponentially in capability since then, you know, due to advances in computer technology and stuff, computer revolution and all.

 

Many were lost at Thermopylae before they changed tactics...so

 

Going OT here, but no, no tactics were changed in Thermopylae. The Spartans were betrayed, but last time I checked, the Persians still fought them in a narrow mountain pass hand-to-hand. The discovery of an alternate route that led them around and behind the Spartans was the key to their victory, not a change in tactics.

 

Are you saying just because a tactic is not concieved/studied/practiced/simulated it’s not effective ?

 

An unsimulated, not practiced, not studied tactic can possibly be effective, but it's more likely not to be. Especially considering that such a tactic has already been concieved 20 years ago.

 

In any case, barrel rolling has a greater chance of defeating a modern radar missile kinematically than defeating the seeker itself.

[Reaper-6]

In LOMAC. We have no idea what the seeker limits are for an AMRAAM IRL, or any other modern radar missile, so there is no telling if the barrel roll will STILL be effective against the newer generation of radar missiles.

 

So you really don't know, please remember that lower down.

 

I on the other hand have produced documents and thier authors, many of whom work for or are enlisted in the Military.

 

 

You have yet to produce anything either in terms of the performance of modern radar missiles against a barrel rolling target. Your book, Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering, is 20 years old - before AMRAAM, Patriot, R-77, etc.

 

The latest material I produced was from Aug. 2002 on exactly that. If you want newer material, buy a subscription. As it is I have provided you with your best material on the subject.

 

You have produced...nothing, just self admitted lack of knowledge, see above.

 

You may have noticed that the avionics on military equipment have increased exponentially in capability since then, you know, due to advances in computer technology and stuff, computer revolution and all.

 

REALLY !?! Do tell ! Sliced Bread..Horseless Carraige...head spinning :D

 

 

Going OT here, but no, no tactics were changed in Thermopylae. The Spartans were betrayed, but last time I checked, the Persians still fought them in a narrow mountain pass hand-to-hand. The discovery of an alternate route that led them around and behind the Spartans was the key to their victory, not a change in tactics.

 

So they stopped doing it one way and did it another...Change of Tactics, a commander can do what he will with intel, act on or ignore. One way things change the other they don't.

 

 

An unsimulated, not practiced, not studied tactic can possibly be effective, but it's more likely not to be. Especially considering that such a tactic has already been concieved 20 years ago.

 

Kinda like all those people who said "The Dog Fight" is dead this is the age of air to air missiles eh ?

 

I'll bet the Jocks at Top Gun/Fighter Town would love to hear that...lol

 

In any case, barrel rolling has a greater chance of defeating a modern radar missile kinematically than defeating the seeker itself.

 

LOL, once again it does both & you can see it.

 

The bottom line in all this is, Until you can produce something more than opinion, don't say anything.

 

Opinion does not level the REAL MATERIAL I have produced.

[nscode]

What does that material say about mig-28 and negative g?

[Vati]

Reaper-6, now sit back and wait for them to find 1 source out of zillion to comply w/ their POV and you shall read how they were right and you are wrong ;)

[Gunja]

Correction: it teaches you why it is effective in LOMAC. Not IRL.

I am a bit confused now.

If that technique is not effective IRL as you say, than LockOn has a serious bug.

It wouldnt be unthinkable to me that LockOn has a bug (can happen to anyone).

It would however be unthinkable to me that the manufacturer (ED) would teach you how to exploit their bug. Why brag about it?

Please make two things clear to me:

1.Is mission #8 in TopGun teaching me how to exploit LockOn's bug?

2.Are there any more training missions/demos in LockOn that are teaching me to do something that wouldnt be propper/realistic technique IRL?

 

ps. not trying to be a smart a$$, still learning here.

[GGTharos]

Reaper-6, now sit back and wait for them to find 1 source out of zillion to comply w/ their POV and you shall read how they were right and you are wrong ;)

 

Doyou actually know anything that's useful to this conversation?

 

Maybe you know what the answer is, one way or the other?

 

If so, how about letting us know? ;)