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

Weta43 · May 23, 2006

Time to take a deep breath & count to 10 Reaper

Weta43 · May 23, 2006

OK leave out the 0.1 sec bit -

They changed the scanner modelling in an attempt to increase realism & accidentally reduced it's ability to hold lock especially at short range.

Any more corrections ?

:-)

D-Scythe · May 23, 2006

If you didn't know anything, not even the data I presented to you and others yesterday.

The general impression that I got from some of your (and mine) sources on why barrel rolling would work, (and my opinion of the maneuver in general) was that the maneuver causes a greater miss distance, but there are guidance algorithms that can be programmed into the missile to make it more effective against the maneuver. Totally inconclusive. We do not know if the greater miss distances would be sufficient for the target to evade the missile's warhead (it may or may not be), and we don't know what guidance algorithms current missiles use (they may or may not be programmed).

So in terms of evading AMRAAM, MICA, R-77, etc. with barrel rolling...your sources prove (I'm assuming this, since you haven't elaborated much) that barrel rolling may work, and why it may work. But, doesn't the success of the maneuver depend on how the incoming missile is programmed (i.e. guidance algos) and the specific characteristics of the missile's seeker and warhead? My impression on the matter has always been that there are many "ifs" and "buts", and it should never be simply "hit" or "miss" because there are a plethora of factors to be considered.

Sure, barrel rolling probably works to an extent, and is a good last ditch maneuver, but IMO it shouldn't work 100% as it does in LOMAC because:

The maneuver has been around for over 20 years, and has remained stagnant. There's not a big difference between a MIG-21 doing a barrel roll and a MiG-29 doing a barrel roll. In fact, a MiG-21 may be even more problematic to hit, since its frontal profile is so much smaller.
On the other hand, missiles have had plenty of time to evolve in those 20+ years.
20 years is plenty of time to incorporate programming to defeat barrel rolling, especially when it is already public knowledge that such counter-guidance algorithms against such a target exists. If the public knows about it, chances are the military knew about it a decade ago, and they've had two decades to incorporate such guidance algorithms.
The AMRAAM has recieved more software updates than all other missiles combined. Something has to be updated right?
Inconclusive = more (classified) data on missile needed, although IMO a 100% success rate against the AIM-120C is highly unlikely.

Again, nothing against you personally. If I'm wrong, then by all means, you're welcome to school me on the matter.

When GG and I have been lip-lashing this same material for close to 2 yrs now...

My first post was to Gunja, stating that IRL barrel rolling is probably not going to be 100% effective, and LOMAC has got it wrong. In my opinion of course.

You decided to drag me into this with your reply to my post, #55 of this thread.

...why did you feel the need to cock-block the questions I posed to GG just to get yourself into the fight ?

For a second I thought he had his hand up your bum.

Thank you, your words, and the beautiful mental image they paint, are really necessary. I'll learn next time, I promise :rolleyes:

And again, I hate to say this, but you started it. I had no intention of getting in between you and GG, but I just happened to agree with GG that barrel rolling should not be 100% effective as it is in LOMAC. Nothing wrong with agreeing with another person.

GGTharos · May 23, 2006

OK leave out the 0.1 sec bit -

They changed the scanner modelling in an attempt to increase realism & accidentally reduced it's ability to hold lock especially at short range.

Any more corrections ?

:-)

Yeah ;) Actually you could barrel roll the missiles just the same originally for exactly the same reason (the 0,1sec timing) ... the change that happened has a lot more to do with bvr than close-range stuff, specifically, the ability of missiles to re-acquire targets, and their sensitivity to chaff, as well as scan patterns for the ARH missiles.

Weta43 · May 23, 2006

Osu Sensai

:-) It's alright - I knew barrel rolling worked before the changes. But thanks for the input.

Regarding my attempt to sum up the thread for Gunga which went:

"They changed the scanner modelling in an attempt to increase realism & accidentally reduced it's ability to hold lock especially at short range."

and your correction:

"the change that happened has a lot more to do with bvr than close-range stuff"

I guess I was confused by your previous statement (post #100):

"My position is that this leads to an unrealistic representation of missile guidance because at short ranges it causes the seeker to uderperform the slew rate."

but it could be that I see more common meaning between "at short ranges it causes the seeker to underperform" and "reduced it's ability to hold lock especially at short range" than is actually there.

Gunja · May 23, 2006

AS can be read above, some real life pilots have recomended the barrel roll as a real life technique.

I guess I'll listen to them RL pilots and try to use it to save my skin in LO. Like you said, better than crossing your fingers.

I also hope that training/demo missions have good credibility.

Thanks for clearing out some stuff anyway :smilewink:

It's a $30 dollar relatively hard core amatuer sim, not a multi million dollar millitary flight sim or (god forbid) real life.

Hey, I'm more than happy to have all this for $30

Dont mind me ya'all, I'm still exploring stuff in LO. :joystick:

GGTharos · May 23, 2006

but it could be that I see more common meaning between "at short ranges it causes the seeker to underperform" and "reduced it's ability to hold lock especially at short range" than is actually there.

Hehe yeah. It was never 'reduced', it was always that way :)

Weta43 · May 24, 2006

My take -

Perhaps the 0.1 sec polling did exist prior to 1.1(1?), but it didn’t exist AS A PROBLEM because of differences in the way the seekers FOV were modelled.

LO 1.1(1?) introduced new (more realistic) limits on missile FOV and gimbal limits – ED were quite proud of the work they’d done. But, we’ve ended up with a situation analogous to the removing of the F-15’s ability to maintain a lock in TWS outside its scan cone, but not (having or) introducing automatic alignment of the scan cone over the PDT. Introducing more realistic methods reduced the realism of the overall outcome.

Introducing the realistic scan & gimbal limits meant that the 0.1 scan rate actually mattered.

The seekers are effectively in TWS, scanning every 0.1 sec.

Prior to the seeker model changes lock would be held to some point outside the seekers (realistic) scan cone (the limits of seeker FOV + gimbal travel in all directions over 0.1 sec presumably) provided the targets actions would not have resulted in a lost lock had they been inside the scan cone. Now those relaxations of the lock limits are gone & if the target isn’t where it would have been had it continued along a relatively unchanged path for the intervening 0.1 sec, the lock is lost.

Reaper-6 · May 24, 2006

Now that you’ve had your edit/say and then some….

Yes, I admit, I really don't know the specs on the AMRAAM. I doubt you do either, or Mr. Shaw, or Mil, or any public source. No offense to anyone, but that's just a fact. All this speculation by public sources are also based on estimates.

Lol, I never said anything about an AMRAAM, but I think Shaw has a fair idea, and I’m for sure Mil. knows :D :D :D

Tell me, do they ever mention the AMRAAM (or a contemporary missile) specifically? I don't mean to be rude or show disrespect, I'm just genuinely interested.

93‘-2003’ is that not considered contemporary or modern ?

I'm not questioning whether you have material or not. I'm questioning whether your sources state that the barrel roll maneuver is an effective defense in a situation involving modern radar guided missiles.

Again 93’-03’, Did you read the material & research the references ? If you did then the conclusions are evident.

Since I don't have any sources (AMRAAM data is hard to come by), I'm interested in yours.

In my 3rd post is everything you need to know to come up to speed, if you are so inclined you will know what I know.

Well, better to admit that I don't know things than pretend that you know more than everyone else and yourself the guru of the subject. I doubt you know more than the next guy either, frankly. Again, no disrespect intended, but hard data on missiles are hard to come by, especially when they are still in service..

Yes I’m sure my childhood neighborhood brick war analogy was the first thing that qued everyone to the fact I knew it all…lol

As I said, and you refused to read apparently, all this material was dug up well after the fact.

More like a change in strategic approach, IMO. The Persians maneuvered behind the Greeks and attacked them in two directions.

Lol again with the opinion.

Dogfighting is completely irrelevent to the topic. It is far more complex and can be initiated in many more different ways than the maneuver we are talking about.

Here again you missed the point completely, dog fighting is not the point. The point is that in the past many “tactics” from many services have been shelved or 86’d all together.

Only to resurface in a time of need as our boys are getting their asses chewed in the field/air, because some geniuses has decided “modern combat” has “evolved”.

In places like fighter town/stone bay ect. No tactic is to be considered obsolete until proven so in the field/air. If you know the history of how they came to be, then you understand why.

Fine, yeah, I don't know if barrel rolling around an AMRAAM would work or not IRL. My position is just that it probably will not.

“Unsupported” position.

If Raytheon could make the Patriot engage a barrel rolling SCUD at Mach 3 (or try to at least), I'm sure Raytheon has already done something through its software updates in the AMRAAM to make it at least a credible threat to any target who attempts to barrel roll around it. A barrel rolling fighter at Mach 0.7-1.0 is a much easier target than a SCUD at Mach 3, and Patriots have been hitting some of those SCUDs, in OIF at least.

1st. We all keep hearing about this Patriot/SCUD data, where is it ?

2nd. The term “Barrel Roll” has generally up until the SCUD claims has indicated controlled flight, not spiraling uncontrolled to the ground as a result of a structural failure effect.

In my view, you are “watering down” the term “barrel roll” to suit your needs.

3rd. You say in one sentence you know nothing and in another that you are sure. I am also sure that toasters have improved in that time, but like you this time I have no data to back it up. Get it ?

4th. You speak of the ease of targeting but have no data to suggest this “ease”.

Again you have produced nothing substantial but conjecture.

Besides I know that most of the “people” who were “there” for the Patriot v SCUD match in 91’ didn’t think much of it, even the battery operators. All agreed after the fact that sales/news reports were wrong, reporting every self-detonation as a “hit”. When in fact there was never a “bullet to bullet kiss”. And more times than not, proximity detonation of the Patriot made the SCUD deadlier as it fell in more pieces. 90’-91’ remains the only “operational theater” data presently available. And as was stated positive percentages were low at best.

Unless you two have something else yet to show us that refutes the claims of the battery operators or CBS’s 60 minutes on the subject.

Material that nobody can prove whether it applies to modern radar guided missiles or not, for the simple fact that it is public and the information needed to settle this is classified.

Again & again…it was written between 93’-03’ do you really think these Phd’s were presenting obsolete material above their signatures to the JCG/UNI’s/MIL ect. Ect. Ect. for all their peers world wide to see ?

It shows me you do not really grasp what we are going on about.

So no, IRL, I don't know, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. If that AMRAAM hits you, you're dead - either because of the G's after it detonates close by and throws your fighter to the ground, or from a direct hit in the face..

We agree, you don’t know

Cut the drama and stop pretending you know more than everyone else. You actually don't in the matter, and that's not an insult to you. This stuff is classified.

It’s not drama, it was a way to say Put up or Shut up. I do not wish to discuss with you (self admittedly “not up to speed”) your views. Just applicable data. Gheezs, you get it yet buddy ?…come back when your ball has some air in it.

Unless someone has read since yesterday till their eyes have bled, or you produce anything worth having a look at other than more opinionated words…Yes at this point it seems I do know more on this than anyone else on this subject.

Unless someone wishes to quit sand-bagging and come out of the closet.

And as I’ve said, I just read it, after the fact. And presented everyone to draw a opposing conclusions from that or any material. No one has yet.

And yes, there is some good material that states barrel rolling works against older radar missiles...and apparently you have it. More power to you.

Yes.

Does saying “older” make you feel better about the data ? It seems to.

Man, there's no point in having a meaningful conversation with you. I openly admitted that, no, I do not have the data to justify my position, simply my conclusions. I even openly stated that I do not have even a single source to justify my position..

Exactly how I feel about you, and you stated why yourself.

Then, you accuse me of "crapping out data" (when I admitted I have none), and also accuse me of proclaiming myself to be correct, when I explicitly stated "I do not know."

LOL, but I really did think you strongly positioned “opinionated” guys who readily advise others to have come up with something, anything, I said I would even accept crayon drawings. Nothing = Crapped Out.

Quote me where I said you were wrong, or any where I appear to be throwing a hissy fit.

You stated “Correction: it teaches you why it is effective in LOMAC. Not IRL.” after I posted supporting accredited data, not just an offhand opinion. So you drew other conclusions from the data and withheld it. Or you didn’t bother yourself to at least skim the material before continuing to post on the subject.

Never said “Hissy Fit”

I said “crap-flinging-flailing” which is exactly what I am now dealing with, with you and your posts…nothing substantial just words. As if, like a trapped flailing animal sh*tting itself…typing more and more words will free you from your position. It won’t.

That’s what I meant.

I merely pointed out that although you may be right, you don't have the hard data either to support your position,

I am right & I have provided the “hardest” data to date in any CivSim forum I know of.

as your sources are a bit dated when considering missiles like the AIM-120B/C whose specs are mostly classified anyway..

Again and again and again with you…93’-03’ when were the B&C models operational ?

If it falls within or before 93’-03’ don’t bother answering.

I also stated that, if I'm wrong about your sources, I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on how your sources describe how barrel rolling would work against a modern incoming radar missile.

Your wrong, I’ve provided enough, do your own work/research.

Instead of proving that, you get all dramatic and accusatory instead of trying to have a meaningful discussion.

I never get dramatic, I don’t have too. Sadly it was the truth.

See what I mean about drama? I asked for you to elaborate on your sources, and you give me this spiel that has nothing to do with the already off-topic topic..

That’s funny to me and others because you stuck yourself right in your sig with your position and relentless persistence to a subject you were knowingly “uninformed” about.

Just like your oversized sig…lol

Do your own work if you want to know, you’re on the “ED Tester Team” show some initiative…damn. Want me to pack your lunch for tomorrow ?

Continued....lmfao V

Reaper-6 · May 24, 2006

The general impression that I got from some of your (and mine) sources on why barrel rolling would work, ..

Further up you said:

Man, there's no point in having a meaningful conversation with you. I openly admitted that, no, I do not have the data to justify my position, simply my conclusions. I even openly stated that I do not have even a single source to justify my position..

and also said...

Then, you accuse me of "crapping out data" (when I admitted I have none), and also accuse me of proclaiming myself to be correct, when I explicitly stated "I do not know."

Which one is true, do you have any material/sorces or not ?

More B.S.

We have yet to see any “source” from you, so until you can show it do not reference them.

That’s the way an argument with real data develops.

(and my opinion of the maneuver in general) was that the maneuver causes a greater miss distance, ..

LMFAO, you are weak, it says that on the first page of the material I gave you.

but there are guidance algorithms that can be programmed into the missile to make it more effective against the maneuver...

Weaker yet…Some of the papers were SPECIFICALLY on guidance algorithms. FOS

Totally inconclusive. ..

Only to you.

We do not know if the greater miss distances would be sufficient for the target to evade the missile's warhead (it may or may not be), and we don't know what guidance algorithms current missiles use (they may or may not be programmed)...

Yes we do, you may have to actually read to form an actual informed statement though.

So in terms of evading AMRAAM, MICA, R-77, etc. with barrel rolling...your sources prove (I'm assuming this, since you haven't elaborated much) that barrel rolling may work, and why it may work..

.

It does exactly. Why do you continually comment on things you don’t even concern yourself to be versed in.

But, doesn't the success of the maneuver depend on how the incoming missile is programmed (i.e. guidance algos) and the specific characteristics of the missile's seeker and warhead? ..

To a degree sure, how could you avoid those variables when you go to plug in to the formulas/computers for Mil Spec. presentation ? (which is why all this data was produced in the first place)

My impression on the matter has always been that there are many "ifs" and "buts", and it should never be simply "hit" or "miss" because there are a plethora of factors to be considered...

Horse shoes and Hand Grenades…

Sure, barrel rolling probably works to an extent,

An F or A pole only works to an extent. Your point ?

and is a good last ditch maneuver,

For the unskilled yes.

but IMO it shouldn't work 100% as it does in LOMAC,

It would depend again on the skill of the pilot.

because:
The maneuver has been around for over 20 years, and has remained stagnant.

Covered above.

There's not a big difference between a MIG-21 doing a barrel roll and a MiG-29 doing a barrel roll. In fact, a MiG-21 may be even more problematic to hit, since its frontal profile is so much smaller. .

No one specified an aircraft, what are you going on about…crap flinging ?

On the other hand, missiles have had plenty of time to evolve in those 20+ years..

So has chewing gum, toilet paper, and aircraft design/limits amazingly.

20 years is plenty of time to incorporate programming to defeat barrel rolling, ..

They were apparently still “roughing” it out in ‘03 as the data shows above :D

especially when it is already public knowledge that such counter-guidance algorithms against such a target exists.

And are still being compiled to this day.

If the public knows about it, chances are the military knew about it a decade ago, and they've had two decades to incorporate such guidance algorithms.

Again you embarrass yourself, but your apparent refusal to READ it for yourself.

The AMRAAM has recieved more software updates than all other missiles combined. Something has to be updated right?

LOL your cute.

Inconclusive = more (classified) data on missile needed, although IMO a 100% success rate against the AIM-120C is highly unlikely.

Inconclusive to you, remember ? If your just typing out loud do not quote me.

Again, nothing against you personally. If I'm wrong, then by all means, you're welcome to school me on the matter.

LOL say what you will, I don’t bring my purse in here like others do.

You have been being schooled, and as your teacher you get an F. Not for being unintelligent for obvious reasons. But for trying to B.S. your way thru an argument you admittedly had no real knowledge of but could have, instead of doing what GG is doing. Researching, for himself to battle again when the field is better suited for him.

Even though GG & I disagree violently, he is willing to extract himself from the conflict too arm himself better in the face what is at the time of this post, still overwhelmingly in my favor. This is why I respect him and not you, or your words, or opinions.

Is that clear enough for you yet ?

My first post was to Gunja, stating that IRL barrel rolling is probably not going to be 100% effective, and LOMAC has got it wrong.

NO you said:

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

You said NOT, not PROBABLY (the smell is catchin’ up with you)

Right after you told the thread starter:

watch the training tracks provided by the game on how to dodge missiles, before trying out the moves yourself. They help IMMENSELY...”.

And since it teaches exactly what we are discussing in game, and I have provided the best REAL WORLD evidence to date to support that specific training.

You are again left with nothing but self admitted uninformed opinion.

In my opinion of course.

Of course…lol, we have all come to expect that by now, no matter what evidence is presented to you..

You decided to drag me into this with your reply to my post, #55 of this thread.

I dragged you into answering my questions/reply too GG ?

Are you drunk/high or something ? that is least amount of sense from you so far.

You and I have been here at the ED forums for the same amount of time and comparing the number of respective posts, I’d say the problem is dragging you out of a thread not dragging you in.

I asked a questions of you, to a sweeping statement you made, that you have still not answered.

Thank you, your words, and the beautiful mental image they paint, are really necessary. I'll learn next time, I promise .

Well that’s one thing you have learned, that you should have already known…F+

And again, I hate to say this, but you started it.

Don’t feel bad, I have always been prepared to finished whatever position I have taken up , if I‘ve started it or not. But if it makes you feel better that way instead of a “stand up fight” I’m good with that, I don’t have to live it.

I had no intention of getting in between you and GG,.

Yes you did, just look.

but I just happened to agree with GG that barrel rolling should not be 100% effective as it is in LOMAC..

We caught that.

Nothing wrong with agreeing with another person.

No there is not, Unless it’s me it would seem no matter what person or data I produce. ;)

Daaaamn, now that was some crap-flingin-flailin to get thru. Just as predicted…lol

O.K. NOW…

D-Scythe until you come up with real currently accessible data on the subject of Missile/Aircraft Barrel Roll that is INDEPENDENTLY accumulated, CREDITED and PUBLISHED outside of your head, I have nothing more to say to you.

In all this you have not even shown an advancement in a REAL supportable argument. Just the same opinions over and over and over and over and over and over and over…Like if you just keep saying them they’ll come true. They won’t.

While I’m sure you are a great guy to some, in this conversation for the moment you are inadequately armed. Your position is non-existent, and I will not respect or take anything you may say seriously until you provide the data to support it.

All this for what ? Nothing with you.

D-Scythe · May 24, 2006

Lol, I never said anything about an AMRAAM, but I think Shaw has a fair idea, and I’m for sure Mil. knows

Shaw wrote his book before AMRAAM was finished testing. Mil is Russian. Why would they know anything about the missile?

93‘-2003’ is that not considered contemporary or modern ?

Again 93’-03’, Did you read the material & research the references ? If you did then the conclusions are evident.

As I said, and you refused to read apparently, all this material was dug up well after the fact.

Actually, I think you're being too narrow minded in your conclusion. Yes, your sources were published in 2003 (it could be published in 2006 and it wouldn't change a thing). Unless it specifically states in the text that it applies to modern radar missiles.

Contemporary MISSILES, not contemporary sources. Guess you missed that being wrapped up in your own brilliance and all.

The sources can be referring to older missiles with conventional guidance algorithms yes? I bet you that your same sources state that there are guidance algorithms that exists that can reduce the effectiveness of the barrel roll maneuver, if not defeat it completely.

Bottom line: Tell me how you know these counter guidance algorithms are not in the AIM-120B/C.

Here again you missed the point completely, dog fighting is not the point. The point is that in the past many “tactics” from many services have been shelved or 86’d all together.

Only to resurface in a time of need as our boys are getting their asses chewed in the field/air, because some geniuses has decided “modern combat” has “evolved”.

In places like fighter town/stone bay ect. No tactic is to be considered obsolete until proven so in the field/air. If you know the history of how they came to be, then you understand why.

I didn't miss the point about dogfighting. You can't use dogfighting as an example, because dogfighting is a "series" of tactics itself and there are a series of tactics to initiate this series of tactics. In turn, each of these tactics can be initiated by a series of triggers, and end with a series of events.

Barrel rolling is just one tactic, initiated by a single trigger - an incoming missile at a particular target aspect - and ends with a three possible events (damaged, destroyed, miss).

LMFAO, you are weak, it says that on the first page of the material I gave you.
Weaker yet…Some of the papers were SPECIFICALLY on guidance algorithms. FOS

Um, that was the general impression. Ok, it may be on the first page, but the first page of papers usually contain the abstracts, which are supposed to give a general impression.

Stop trying to make others sound stupid, you're just making an ass of yourself. Tell me, how would you have put it?

Yes we do, you may have to actually read to form an actual informed statement though.

Um, no you don't. Tell me, what is the fragmentation pattern of the AIM-120C's WDU-41/B warhead? And how much would an AIM-120 have to miss to either not trip its fuze or extend the target out of this frag zone?

You know what? I'm done with you. You turn out to be all talk anyway, and have provided zero evidence that one, the AIM-120B/C, or MICA, or R-77, are not programmed with counter-guidance algos that can combat barrel rolling (yes, we ALL know those exist), or any hard data on any contemporary missile. Yeah, we know, you have "contemporary" 1990s-2003 sources which are probably referring to the "uncontemporary" 1980s-era AIM-7F, but hey, twist it so that applies to the 2003 AIM-120 too.

Oh, thanks for pointing out sources that tell me what I already know: that barrel rolling works but there are counter-algos to defeat it. One big circle that leads us...right back to where we started. So unless you can prove that the AIM-120 is not programmed with these counter-algos, you should take some of your own advice: "if you don't know anything, then sit down and shut up."

Reaper-6 · May 24, 2006

Shaw wrote his book before AMRAAM was finished testing. Mil is Russian. Why would they know anything about the missile?

Actually, I think you're being too narrow minded in your conclusion. Yes, your sources were published in 2003 (it could be published in 2006 and it wouldn't change a thing). Unless it specifically states in the text that it applies to modern radar missiles.

Contemporary MISSILES, not contemporary sources. Guess you missed that being wrapped up in your own brilliance and all.

The sources can be referring to older missiles with conventional guidance algorithms yes? I bet you that your same sources state that there are guidance algorithms that exists that can reduce the effectiveness of the barrel roll maneuver, if not defeat it completely.

Bottom line: Tell me how you know these counter guidance algorithms are not in the AIM-120B/C.

I didn't miss the point about dogfighting. You can't use dogfighting as an example, because dogfighting is a "series" of tactics itself and there are a series of tactics to initiate this series of tactics. In turn, each of these tactics can be initiated by a series of triggers, and end with a series of events.

Barrel rolling is just one tactic, initiated by a single trigger - an incoming missile at a particular target aspect - and ends with a three possible events (damaged, destroyed, miss).

Um, that was the general impression. Ok, it may be on the first page, but the first page of papers usually contain the abstracts, which are supposed to give a general impression.

Stop trying to make others sound stupid, you're just making an ass of yourself. Tell me, how would you have put it?

Um, no you don't. Tell me, what is the fragmentation pattern of the AIM-120C's WDU-41/B warhead? And how much would an AIM-120 have to miss to either not trip its fuze or extend the target out of this frag zone?

You know what? I'm done with you. You turn out to be all talk anyway, and have provided zero evidence that one, the AIM-120B/C, or MICA, or R-77, are not programmed with counter-guidance algos that can combat barrel rolling (yes, we ALL know those exist), or any hard data on any contemporary missile. Yeah, we know, you have "contemporary" 1990s-2003 sources which are probably referring to the "uncontemporary" 1980s-era AIM-7F, but hey, twist it so that applies to the 2003 AIM-120 too.

Oh, thanks for pointing out sources that tell me what I already know: that barrel rolling works but there are counter-algos to defeat it. One big circle that leads us...right back to where we started. So unless you can prove that the AIM-120 is not programmed with these counter-algos, you should take some of your own advice: "if you don't know anything, then sit down and shut up."

You may now remove your carcass from the field...leave your credibility...it's mine now ;)

D-Scythe · May 24, 2006

You may now remove your carcass from the field...leave your credibility...it's mine now ;)

That thing is still alive, genius. Dead animals usually don't have their head up and looking around.

Reaper-6 · May 24, 2006

Exactly, perhaps you might wanna consider changing your "call sign" to Zombie Boy.

D-Scythe · May 24, 2006

Exactly, perhaps you might wanna consider changing your "call sign" to Zombie Boy.

Right...Still waiting for those specs/algos on the AIM-120 BTW.

Reaper-6 · May 24, 2006

Right...Still waiting for those specs/algos on the AIM-120 BTW.

Do your own research

D-Scythe · May 24, 2006

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/Reaper-6/hellfrezesoversmallest.jpg

Do your own research

I do. But apparently, the AMRAAM is classified in many, many ways. But apparently you found away around that. So I'm genuinely interested about your "research".

Or your "make belief" facts right? Same thing to you.

Reaper-6 · May 24, 2006

I would like to thank those that gave me a "Rep" during the sh*t storm...

My Pals :)

GGTharos · May 24, 2006

Well you deserve it just for sticking to your guns, but this insult-fest -really- has to end ;)

Frostie · May 24, 2006

I think they need to rename the AMRAAM in LO 'The Marmite' ,its not to everyones taste , some hate the thought of it but those that like it can't get enough of it.

And the R77 can be 'The FatBird'.

Yeah im a lover.:D

169th_Crusty · May 24, 2006

Well you deserve it just for sticking to your guns, but this insult-fest -really- has to end ;)

Man, these 2 guys have "patience" (and time) to go on like this.

Brit_Radar_Dude · May 25, 2006

Does anyone think that poor guy RedHammer will dare ask another question ?

Red Hammer · July 10, 2006

Don't give me excuse Brit Radar Dude. No one here is gona miss you.

sumoscouse · July 10, 2006

Right Then - to everyone involved in this discussion.

I have a friend who is a Pilot in the R.A.F (currently serving) and guess what I did?

I asked him to describe his tactics if faced with the threat of a missile.

His response -------- wait for it "if the ETA of the missile were generous then a descending, accelerating 180 degree turn would be the most favourable with counter-measures thrown in if needed. If ETA were not so generous then serious concentration kicks in and its down to high G turns horizontally and vertically with lots of counter-measures for reassurance". He found it pleasantly amusing that a BARREL ROLL might be used to counter a missiles effectiveness when chasing a £30 Million fighter jet. He thinks not - his conclusion 'just as well its a simulator'

Cheers

sumoscouse out ;)

ah BTW - no Military Documentation here - just a Tornado Pilots POV LATER BOYS

Reaper-6 · July 10, 2006

Right Then - to everyone involved in this discussion.
I have a friend who is a Pilot in the R.A.F (currently serving) and guess what I did?

I asked him to describe his tactics if faced with the threat of a missile.

His response -------- wait for it "if the ETA of the missile were generous then a descending, accelerating 180 degree turn would be the most favourable with counter-measures thrown in if needed. If ETA were not so generous then serious concentration kicks in and its down to high G turns horizontally and vertically with lots of counter-measures for reassurance". He found it pleasantly amusing that a BARREL ROLL might be used to counter a missiles effectiveness when chasing a £30 Million fighter jet. He thinks not - his conclusion 'just as well its a simulator'

Cheers

sumoscouse out ;)

ah BTW - no Military Documentation here - just a Tornado Pilots POV LATER BOYS

:D He embarrasses himself (by letting someone outside his profession/industry know more than he does) and you, let him know I said so.

Did you provide him the presented data or just ask him ?

If he was presented with the data and came to that conclusion then he is terrible at math. All you have to do is program the (provided) formulas into an excel sheet or the like and plug in any attributes/values (missile or jet) you’d like, the results are the same. MISS.

Ask him if you could, what he would say if “The Maneuver” is the FIRST/PRIMARY a2a missile evasion technique that IS programmed into the front line Unmanned Combat Vehicle that will replace some of his kind. And probably will cost less.

Which ultimately means 1 of 2 things, they do not value him and his machine (which I don’t believe for a minute) or they do not trust him to employ it, physically or otherwise.

Please, post it if you get a statement from him to that question, I love to rub peoples noses in sh*t they should have already known. Even if I have to wait a couple years. And while I kinda Hero worship any Fighter Pilot, he is wrong.

What you’ve all seemed to miss, was the most base concept. At first I didn’t believe that most here didn’t understand it the way I do, but as time has worn on it became annoyingly apparent and pitifully funny. I realize that even as I explain it, and you read it in other documents, some will still not understand or be able to comprehend and accept the facts. Absolutely Pitiful, No Vision, Delusional, anyhow…

When you fire a missile at a target, you are no longer in control and neither is the missile.

The targeted vehicle is.

The Target can “FORCE” the missile to go up/down/north/south/east/west, there fore “CONTROL” over the missile is achieved. To the possible extreme of exhausting a missile that was fired well within it’s pk.

By definition Forced Control over anything achieves physical victory, especially since we are talking in reference to “semi-smart machines” (missiles)

I decide which control surface is actuated on the incoming missile, it is just reacting. The only thing the missile controls is it’s detonation. I can put a bottle rocket in a cats ass for the same burn time control a missile exhibits over itself currently.

That is the answer to Life, the Universe & Evasion. The number is 6

Also the Jet came before the Missile. One follows the other, literally, and in design.

And since it’s another information give away day, I suggest the algorithm boys consider that the same information can be both classified and unclassified. Follow the Money and Proprietary information. In the America it would be the G.A.O. & the patent office. (PTO)

Even if it (someone’s algorithms) makes it into a missile and becomes classified, they protected their work with a patent. And someone’s gotta pay for it, and they (the bean counters) will have a detailed receipt and assessment report.

http://www.filefactory.com/?a49e34

Page # 12

http://www.filefactory.com/?e2c65c

Seeker constraints ‘04, (Shaws “move” is directly referenced)

Now that I think more about it, I have come to the partial conclusion that the difference between our camps on this subject is that of a Victor and Victim mentality.

ie. When a missile is fired at some they can apparently feel as if they are a targeted (possible) victim of a missile attack. They generally set up for an F-Pole and await the results.

Where as some others may feel as if, a launch is detected, they (the aggressor) has already blown it (by letting me the target know the attack is on it’s way) and will now pay the price.

Part of that is assaulting the missiles limits (whatever they may be) before it gets to me while maintaining an aggressive posture, even in the middle of an attack or evasion technique.

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html

http://sinisaaa.tripod.com/

http://www.patentstorm.us/class/244/3.15-Automatic_guidance.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/class/244/3.13-Beam_rider.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bluemax+aircraft+flight+path+generator

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Evading-Missiles.html

http://surviac.flight.wpafb.af.mil/

http://www.ideal-aerosmith.com/products/missileflightsimulation.asp

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6832740.html

http://www.bahdayton.com/SURVIAC/archive/surviac_bulletin/bulletin_9706/page1.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/class/244/3.16-Optical_(includes_infrared).html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=PRONAV+intercept+algorithm&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web