Is this right? F-15C always explodes, Su33 almost never explodes.

[Xiathorn]

Whenever I play offline, I always find - without fail - that when my F-15 is hit by a missile from an Su33 it just explodes, dead. No ejection capability, the F-15 is genuinely blown up. Whenever I shoot down an Su33 with an AIM-9 it, almost always, just rips a wing off. Yes, it's a kill, and the pilot has to bail out, but still. It's a little frustrating that EVERY SINGLE TIME, WITHOUT FAIL I am never able to eject after a missile impact. This cannot be right, surely?! Is my install corrupted, perhaps? Or am I doing something wrong?

 

This is not an exaggeration, in LOMAC 1.02 obviously everybody could eject from a missile hit, in 1.1 it was a bit random. In the new patch the F-15C ALWAYS explodes for me. There has not been a SINGLE occation when I had to bail out, unless it was a machine gun hit or a proximity hit on a flare.

 

Please, somebody, anybody, explain.

[Kenan]

AFAIK AIM-9 is not really meant to "vaporize" bigger jet planes, rather damage them beyond recovery. SU33 is one big bird, so you would need a sparrow or amraam to really destroy it.

[anivanov]

"in LOMAC 1.02 obviously everybody could eject from a missile hit"

 

that is not true, at least for me. There was situations when i wasn't able to eject from f-15, but only from f-15

[Force_Feedback]

It's a conspiracy, the devs hate the F-15, the Aim-9 is underpowered, and the pilot in the F-15 has god mode on.

 

Oh, and I had plenty of shots with the AIM-9 that destroyed the entire target plane, the size of an su-27/mig-31.

[aimmaverick]

Yes they do. And short range missiles, particulary aim-9 are severely undermodelled.:mad:

[D-Scythe]

Yes they do. And short range missiles, particulary aim-9 are severely undermodelled.:mad:

 

How are they severely undermodelled?

[Pilotasso]

THe AIM-9 and the 120 have smaller warheads than the ruaain counterparts. I think the Sidwinder has a far too short range in this SIM though. I would expect that kind of perfomance to be typical of the AIM-9j/P and earlier. I dont know how this missile will come out to be in 1.2. Probably half as much as the R-60. :P

[Sealpup]

THe AIM-9 and the 120 have smaller warheads than the ruaain counterparts.

 

AIM-120 Payload

40 lbs Blast-frag

 

AIM-7 Payload

88lbs Blast-frag

 

AIM-9 payload:

20.8 lbs Blast-frag for AIM-9L/M

 

R-27 Payload

39 kg (86 lbs) expanding rod

 

R-77 Payload

30 kg (66.13 lbs) HE fragmentation

 

R-73 Payload:

7.4 kg (16.3 lbs) HE expanding rod

 

R-60 Payload:

6 kg (13.2 lbs) HE/Uranium fragmentation

 

For ranges I just looked for the R-73 and the AIM-9, and the numbers I found suggest 10-18 miles for the Sidewinder and 12-25 miles for the R-73.

 

If those are the same numbers Eagle had to work with, or atleast similar, that explains heater range. I was surprised to see the Russian heaters were the 'lightweights' in payload, though.

 

EDIT: The R-60 payload is no typo. They use Uranium (likely U238 'depleted') as the fragmentation material

[S77th-konkussion]

I think the AIM -9's guidance is pretty weak in LOMAC. But I also know that it was supposed to be pretty inferior to the R-73 in the timeframe. How much worse is tough for a non- expert to call.

[GGTharos]

Actually it's the same guidance as the 73 (or it should be) ... the difference is lack of vectored thrust, and narrower gimbals ... but it uses pretty much the same guidance principles and very,v ery similar seeker ... so in theory a Sidewinder should be no easier to escape than a 73 given a reasonably good shot that wouldn't require vectored thrust to 'get on target' first.

[peterj]

So given the target is right infront of you and not maneuvering they should perform equally ;)

Off-boresight capabilities + thrust vectoring + longer range

 

The r-73 does however miss in close range and hard maneuvering, as modelled in LockOn. I wonder how many Gs it can pull?

[GGTharos]

Frankly off-boresight capability is about as good as the missile's seeker-slew speed, and I doubt the 73's is any better than the 9's. While the R-73 is -overall- a superior missile, the guidance unit should function the same way, is the point.

[D-Scythe]

What GG is trying to say is: if you can dodge an AIM-9M, you won't have much trouble dodging an R-73 either.

[Weta43]

Except that if it can pull the G's to keep it's nose pointing in the right direction, it's seeker won't be slewing as fast.

[Sealpup]

Except that if it can pull the G's to keep it's nose pointing in the right direction, it's seeker won't be slewing as fast.

 

Only when the motor is still burning. Once the motor burns out, the thrust vectoring gear on an R-73 is nothing but weight.

[GGTharos]

Except that if it can pull the G's to keep it's nose pointing in the right direction, it's seeker won't be slewing as fast.

 

That's where you're wrong. The seeker has to track the target -first- to issie the turning command, and then the seeker slews -very- quickly as the vectored thrust brings the tail around (not a very high G maneuver btw, just very high rotation about own axis)

 

This is why US Jets have a lead cue for their missiles, you center the dot, andso long as the seeker has a lock, the missile needs to do minimal maneuvering (and thus minimal seeker motion) to hit the target. Over short ranges where the target's maneuver is minimal.

[GGTharos]

Only when the motor is still burning. Once the motor burns out, the thrust vectoring gear on an R-73 is nothing but weight.

 

Argh ... thrust vectoring DOES NOT MEAN HIGH G's!

 

Next thing you'll tell me is that the Cobra is an 11G maneuver. ;) It's about 3g's actually ;)

 

Bringing the nose around via vectored thrust is -not- a high g maneuver compares to an aerodynamic high-speed turn. It may be very -fast- by comparison, when it comes to orientation, but it's definitely not 'high g'.

[Sealpup]

Argh ... thrust vectoring DOES NOT MEAN HIGH G's!

 

Next thing you'll tell me is that the Cobra is an 11G maneuver. ;) It's about 3g's actually ;)

 

Bringing the nose around via vectored thrust is -not- a high g maneuver compares to an aerodynamic high-speed turn. It may be very -fast- by comparison, when it comes to orientation, but it's definitely not 'high g'.

 

A cobra is a high angle of attack maneuver that makes no real effort to change the velocity vector of the aircraft (quick change in the direction the aircraft is facing, then letting it aerodynamicly 'snap' back). Thrust vectoring on an R-73 creates a high angle of attack, with the intent of changing the velocity vector in a damned hurry, which it does. And a fast change in velocity vector (IE Turning) will cause alot of G.

 

EDIT: To be a little more clear. A change in facing, like a Cobra, will only create G force from the deceleration of the wings acting like an air brake and the engines trying to push the aircraft up. About 3g as mentioned. The R-73 is changing facing and, with the engine still burning, changing it's actual direction of flight, at a very fast rate. This could easily reach the max accelleration G of the engine, which on the sources I've seen is around 12g.

 

EDIT2: I'm in the Air Force and I still cant spell...

[Weta43]

So with thrust vectoring the R-73 will maintain it's lock, but be carrying a bit of extra weight while coasting (it still has conventional control surfaces), & without it the AIM-9 will lose lock but be more trim?

[GGTharos]

The R-73 will lose lock under the same circumstances an AIM-9 would, more or less, turning or not turning. They're both vulnerable to the same tactics used against their seekers.

[GGTharos]

A cobra is a high angle of attack maneuver that makes no real effort to change the velocity vector of the aircraft (quick change in the direction the aircraft is facing, then letting it aerodynamicly 'snap' back). Thrust vectoring on an R-73 creates a high angle of attack, with the intent of changing the velocity vector in a damned hurry, which it does. And a fast change in velocity vector (IE Turning) will cause alot of G.

 

EDIT: To be a little more clear. A change in facing, like a Cobra, will only create G force from the deceleration of the wings acting like an air brake and the engines trying to push the aircraft up. About 3g as mentioned. The R-73 is changing facing and, with the engine still burning, changing it's actual direction of flight, at a very fast rate. This could easily reach the max accelleration G of the engine, which on the sources I've seen is around 12g.

 

EDIT2: I'm in the Air Force and I still cant spell...

 

Precicely ... but the creation of high AoA in this turn is a byproduct, not the purpose ;) At any rate the -highest- acceleration achieved in this case is that of the engine. you can achieve more witht he aerodynamic surfaces, but then you suffer the disadvantage of actually having a turning radius (not that vectoring doesn't, but you get the idea)

[Weta43]

Lots of posts while I had the page open.

 

An analogy:

 

I'm standing on the left side of the motorway watching the cars come towards me & pass me on my right.

If I don't move my head or my body, then as the car gets closer I have to move my eyes off center, and as the cars get closer the rate at which I have to do this will increase.

At some point my eyes won't turn anymore & I lose sight.

suppose I can turn my body, but only slowly and my head is fixed in angle to my body.

If I see the car a way off I can turn to the right early (putting the car at the left of my vision), and provided the car doesn't go too fast or come too close as it passes I should be able to keep the car in my field of view till it passes me bye.

The faster I can turn my body, the closer & faster the car has to be going before I can't track it any more. It also means I can catch sight of the car later & still track it because I don't have to start my turn so early.

 

Now assume I'm running along the side of the road when doing this.

When I turn I'll move along a curve. The faster the turn (if my forward speed doesn't change) the tighter the turn and the higher the (G) forces needed to make the turn.

The R-73 when turning pulls 30G in the turn, trying to keep the target within the seekers FOV. In order to do this it acheives a very high angle of attack (up to 40 degrees) at this angle the control efficiency of traditional control surfaces is completely lost, so the designers implemented the vectored thrust system. They initially designed it with no conventional control surfaces, but discovered they were needed to allow the missille to generate lateral forces from them (otherwise it would just do a cobra, but hardly change course) & for after the motor has burned out.

The very high speed & the very high angle of attack generated by the vectored thrust and acting on the conventional control surfaces results in a very tight high G turn, allowing the missiles guidance system to keep the target within the seekers field of view.

[Weta43]

They may be vulnerable to the same countermeasures, but these aside the missile that can turn fastest can keep it's lock on a target with a higher rate of movement across the FOV.

 

I suspect you're arguing just to defend a position.

[D-Scythe]

And all this talk about agility means...absolutely nothing. The agility of the Archer only comes into play during high-off boresight engagements - the AIM-9M while not as agile is still more than nimble enough to kill any maneuvering target. Since the AIM-9M share the same seeker technology as the R-73 though, it means that both are roughly equally likely to be decoyed by a flare.

 

Yes, the R-73 has a longer range, higher off-boresight ability and is more agile. This physical performance just means the Archer has a larger weapons employment envelope, but can be just as easily evaded as an AIM-9M.

 

They may be vulnerable to the same countermeasures, but these aside the missile that can turn fastest can keep it's lock on a target with a higher rate of movement across the FOV.

 

I suspect you're arguing just to defend a position.

 

It doesn't matter if it can pull more G's to keep a target within it's FOV - in fact, this can be seen as a disadvantage in some respects since it makes the missile more vulnerable to its seeker being pulled off target by a flare.

 

A less agile missile might be able to snap back/reacquire the target more easily in its FOV (due to larger and larger LOS correction rates as range between target and missile closes) simply because the target stays in its FOV longer.

 

At least with the AIM-9M decoy flares start being ineffective at close ranges because its seeker cannot cope with the rapid LOS changes produced by a flare (far more rapid than any fighter can make for the missile), or it's simply just programmed to ignore such large LOS changes. I think there's this "range" in the engagement profile where (theoretically) the LOS changes produced by decoy flares become so great that either the missile cannot track it or it gets rejected outright by the missile's programming.

 

EDIT: BTW, I know I'm splitting hairs here :music_whistling:

[Weta43]

If you take the "only" out I think you summed it up very well.

 

"The agility of the Archer comes into play during high-off boresight engagements"

 

which is precisely the kind of engagement we're discussing - no ?

 

If the AIM-9 were agile enough to kill "any manouvering target" there wouldn't be any need to add high off bore aquistion / high G turn capabilities to the next generation of short range missiles, & the West wouldn't have considered the R-73 a generation ahead of their own missiles when they got their hands on it.

It had three advantages over contemporary Nato missiles - slaving to helmet sight, 75 degree seeker gimbal limits, and 30G turns - all working together. Like the vectored thrust & the conventional control surfaces. remove any one & the package is diminished.

Remove the helmet sight, reduce the gimbal limits & reduce the G capabilities & then you have an AIM-9 of the period.

 

:-)