Amraams in the recent updates

[Fri13]

I overlooked the launch platform's speed however, when launching at the same altitude and speed the AIM-120 has the speed advantage.

 

I have always found odd the thing said below:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

 

In terms of kinematic performance, a key factor which is almost universally ignored by Western planners other than the F-22 and F-111 communities, is the impact of the launch aircraft's kinematics at the point of missile launch. A supersonic Su-35 sitting at Mach 1.5 and 45,000 ft will add of the order of 30 percent more range to an R-27 or R-77 missile. Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world, and the reach of their missiles is wholly determined by the parameters of the propellant load inside the missile casing, and the ability of the midcourse guidance algorithms to extract every bit of range from that stored energy. The result of this is that an AIM-120C/D which might look better on paper compared to an equivalent R-77 subtype will be outranged decisively in actual combat.

[probad]

Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world

 

lost credibility at this point

 

all it managed to say at the end was

"a slow missile is slower than a fast missile"

 

talking pure numbers there is nothing that doesnt allow any 120 platform in the us inventory to be flying at m1.6@45000

 

so tell me all the things odd if a 120 launched with a similar kinematic profile?

[Vincent90]

You shouldn't use Ausairpower.net as a source. The writer, Carlo Kopp, doesn't substantiate his "facts" with sources and is known to use his own bias in articles, especially if it concerns the F-22 and F-111 :)

[Fri13]

Amazing that someone say it is odd that something is written, and people attack then to person who is suspicious in the first place...

[probad]

i think i might have misunderstood what you were trying to say then.

[Nerd1000]

Either/or. That has been the vast, bast majority of systems that have engaged NATO aircraft in those modes and more.

 

You only need to solve miss distance.

 

Assuming your target doesn't fly in a straight line after being fired upon, your missile will need to turn in order to get a reasonable miss distance, correct? A higher top speed is also good, of course, but the higher the speed the greater the proportion of your rocket's mass has to be fuel (this quickly gets out of hand).

The solution is pretty simple, too. Bigger rocket :)

That's literally what I said. Sadly, rocket engines have mass that you need to account for.

Most armed forces do pretty much exactly this. SA-2 and SA-3 are effectively stationary SAM emplacements with 2300kg missiles for the SA-2 and 950kg for the SA-3. Even the SA-6 missiles weight in at 630kg a piece, and ~700kg for SA-11. The warheads on these are mostly 60-70kg, with 200kg for the SA-2. This is what you need if you need to reach certain altitudes.

 

The SA-2 and SA-3 are throwbacks to the '60s and would have long since been replaced with smaller, more mobile systems if the countries that operated them could afford it. Of note is that in spite of its 200 kg warhead, the Guideline's average miss distance was greater than the lethal radius of its explosion.

 

You can easily see the pattern even in your own examples: the missiles reduced in size until it was enough to get a 60-70 kg warhead to the desired range/altitude/speed with the available level of technology. More recent missiles are smaller and lighter again. Consider the RIM-162 Sea Sparrow: similar range to the SA-11, but less than half the total weight and a lighter 40kg warhead.

 

If you want a huge warhead on your SAM, the MIM-14 Nike Hercules would be your best option: it weighs 4.8 tonnes, goes nearly mach 4, has a very long range and high ceiling and its payload is either a 500kg HE-frag or a 20kt nuclear bomb. The Americans, fools that they are, replaced it with the much smaller, lighter and more maneuverable Patriot.

 

AAMs have a 40kg warhead at most (with the exception of the very largest AAMs) and that's still shrinking as miss distance decreases and smarter fuzes are implemented.

Why can't SAMs benefit from the same technological advances too?

[Veritech]

Carlo Kopp is... welll... how to put it in a diplomatic way? Not playing with the full deck maybe?

Although he has a valid point in that Russia's philosophy of air to air weaponry employment is considerably different from the western one, I think he sometimes lack credibility by making statements that don't sound professional or coming from a defence analyst.

Anyway IMHO the technological advantage of the west is somehow overrated, to the point that we won't know how effective everybody's weapon systems are until they face a wide scale real conflict.

 

Best Regards,

[Chrinik]

''Fire and forget'' is the term you are looking for i think.

The missile is slaved to a IR signature and then it simply tracks that signature until something else turns up or it impacts. That is not the same as the missile actively looks for targets. You can kind of compare it to a SARH in HOJ mode.

 

 

Stop ****ing saying I said IR missles are active missiles, I NEVER SAID THAT.

 

****ing hell, I lumped them IN WITH active radar missiles while talking about lag-proof tracking.

 

I said "Active radar missles (including IRs) look for targets" (paraphrased)...this might have been confusing phrasing but I never said IRs are active...could have said Fire and Forget, yes.

 

Sorry for agressiveness, but being misunderstood once is okay we resolved that, and then it got misunderstood again.

 

And by the way, you are wrong.

You can fire IR missiles without a lock and when it finds a suitable heatsource, it locks on to that and flies to that. It "actively" looks for targets with a passive sensor.

 

This is why you can evade IR missiles WITH FLARES! That is why you don´t launch into the sun!

That is why you call Fox-2 because friendly fire might occur when a friendly passes infront of your missile.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Chrinik

[Veritech]

You ough to calm down buddy, you sound a little bit agressive don't you think? :)

[Svend_Dellepude]

I'm not gonna have a pissing contest here so if you think im wrong, it's fine with me.

It was just a follow-up comment.

I never thought you would take it in that way.

I'm so sorry..

[Reflected]

I'm fairly new to post 1952 warfare, but I'm doing my best to learn as much as possible. This is what I noitced:

 

I mark the bandit in TWS mode, we are flying more or less head on. I have a 10,000 feet altitude advantage, flying at 400 kts. I wait until the range is halfway between the max range and the "death zone" line, usually within 20 nm, and fire an amraam. Then, 4 seconds later another one. I start to crank, then turn back and fire another one.

 

This works about 20% of the times. Which is VERY surprising. I might as well be throwing apples at the enemy...unless I'm doing something fundamentally wrong, but I doubt it.

[SFJackBauer]

I'm fairly new to post 1952 warfare, but I'm doing my best to learn as much as possible. This is what I noitced:

 

I mark the bandit in TWS mode, we are flying more or less head on. I have a 10,000 feet altitude advantage, flying at 400 kts. I wait until the range is halfway between the max range and the "death zone" line, usually within 20 nm, and fire an amraam. Then, 4 seconds later another one. I start to crank, then turn back and fire another one.

 

This works about 20% of the times. Which is VERY surprising. I might as well be throwing apples at the enemy...unless I'm doing something fundamentally wrong, but I doubt it.

 

The missiles in-game hit a brickwall of drag, then go knee-deep in jelly while over-correcting for their targets. By the time they reach the intercept point, they are already falling from the sky. Unfortunately DCS lives right now in an alternate universe, where air is <insert some number between 0 and 100>% denser, but only for missiles. Therefore treat 120s as Sparrows, Sparrows as Sidewinders, and Sidewinders as... long range bullets.

[Frostie]

I'm fairly new to post 1952 warfare, but I'm doing my best to learn as much as possible. This is what I noitced:

 

I mark the bandit in TWS mode, we are flying more or less head on. I have a 10,000 feet altitude advantage, flying at 400 kts. I wait until the range is halfway between the max range and the "death zone" line, usually within 20 nm, and fire an amraam. Then, 4 seconds later another one. I start to crank, then turn back and fire another one.

 

This works about 20% of the times. Which is VERY surprising. I might as well be throwing apples at the enemy...unless I'm doing something fundamentally wrong, but I doubt it.

Obviously the closer you get the more effective your missiles should be, whether they are underperforming or overperforming to get the most out of either set you need to get into dangerous territory to get the kill chance you desire. Remember it works both ways, you can fire missiles from 20nm expecting them to hit then scratch your head why they failed but look at it from the other perspective, were you in any sort of danger of getting hit yourself, probably not, then this should relieve the puzzled thoughts.

The key to BVR is outwitting the opponent by being in the optimal position to fire your missile before he can, this doesn't have to be the first shot/engagement it's a series of exchanges which if used with the right blend of tactics, aggression and guile should put you in the advantageous position to make the kill. There is so much more to it than just getting into range and firing a missile unless you're facing drones. :)

[Reflected]

The missiles in-game hit a brickwall of drag, then go knee-deep in jelly while over-correcting for their targets. By the time they reach the intercept point, they are already falling from the sky. Unfortunately DCS lives right now in an alternate universe, where air is <insert some number between 0 and 100>% denser, but only for missiles. Therefore treat 120s as Sparrows, Sparrows as Sidewinders, and Sidewinders as... long range bullets.

 

I have the same feelings...I mean when the range is close to the 2nd line - probable kill zone? - and I fire 3 of them at an alt advantage, I don't expect the enemy to outmaneuver them 80% of the times...

[Nerd1000]

I have the same feelings...I mean when the range is close to the 2nd line - probable kill zone? - and I fire 3 of them at an alt advantage, I don't expect the enemy to outmaneuver them 80% of the times...

I think the first line is maximum range and the second line is effective range- the enemy needs to be closer than the second line for the missile to have a good chance of scoring a hit. Shots from further than the second line will only hit if your enemy is nice enough to keep on flying towards you, so they are more for scaring your opponent and forcing him to turn, potentially putting you in a better position for a follow up shot.

[Reflected]

I think the first line is maximum range and the second line is effective range- the enemy needs to be closer than the second line for the missile to have a good chance of scoring a hit. Shots from further than the second line will only hit if your enemy is nice enough to keep on flying towards you, so they are more for scaring your opponent and forcing him to turn, potentially putting you in a better position for a follow up shot.

 

I know, that's why I fire much closer to the effective range.

 

This utmost inefficiency of missiles and the ease to defeat them favors the side that built their planes for knife fights, and puts the other side to a great disadvantage. I really doubt theUSAF would keep using AMRAAMs if they were like this in real life...

[Frostie]

I know, that's why I fire much closer to the effective range.

 

This utmost inefficiency of missiles and the ease to defeat them favors the side that built their planes for knife fights, and puts the other side to a great disadvantage. I really doubt theUSAF would keep using AMRAAMs if they were like this in real life...

Don't kid yourself, head to head at 5nmi there is no better missile to have than an ARH.

[DarkFire]

It's well known that all missiles have artificially high coefficient of drag, which results in them losing speed and energy unrealistically quickly. ED's position is that tuning missiles for realistic ranges at low-medium altitude gives them extremely unrealistically long ranges at high altitude, for example the old 170Km kill-shots it was possible to get back in LOMAC / FC1 days with the R-27ER.

 

My response would be that nobody conducts missile duels at 45,000 feet. IAS for both the Su-27, F-15 and the M200C is so low at that altitude that conducting a turning fight is both impossible and unrealistic anyway. Personally I'd much rather see realistic missile behaviour between ground level - 10,000m altitude and accept that the trainee astronauts will occasionally be firing from longer ranges. That tactic is easy to counter anyway.

[Ktulu2]

I think the main reason why the majority of virtual pilots are flying low (<15K') is the missile retardation DCS is currently prone to : missile don't use height as they should. I don't think the actual range of the missile is the problem, or at least the priority. To me, it's seeing 120s going pure towards their target when they have a massive height advantage, instead of going parabolic and minimising the travel lenght at lower altitudes. I won't even talk about russian missiles for this...A shot taken directly towards the optimal intercept dot might result into a 9G turn for the missile. I'm sure that that if we get a better guidance, or if missiles get better ranges as darkfire suggests, we will see high, or at least Pk-Band BVR become norm instead of the bird-eating challenge we currently have. And although I wasn't here during FC1, high altitude flights were more common which proves my point. So I think the problem is much more the way the missile manages it's energy much more than it's capacity to retain it's energy in a passive way, as the range of high altitude shots are fine.

[TAW_Blaze]

I'm fairly new to post 1952 warfare, but I'm doing my best to learn as much as possible. This is what I noitced:

 

I mark the bandit in TWS mode, we are flying more or less head on. I have a 10,000 feet altitude advantage, flying at 400 kts. I wait until the range is halfway between the max range and the "death zone" line, usually within 20 nm, and fire an amraam. Then, 4 seconds later another one. I start to crank, then turn back and fire another one.

 

This works about 20% of the times. Which is VERY surprising. I might as well be throwing apples at the enemy...unless I'm doing something fundamentally wrong, but I doubt it.

 

Oh but you are. :)

 

The first thing you're doing utterly wrong is firing at 20 nm. The second is firing another after 4 seconds. This basically means you wasted at least 1/4 of your payload, or far more if you're not a fool flying around with 8 slammers. If you do this you might aswell throw apples like you say, because you'll be back to base before you got to 10 miles of a guy. You know people dodge slammers from within 5 miles right? :D

 

My response would be that nobody conducts missile duels at 45,000 feet.

 

Because a) they don't know how to fly there and b) there's no point in flying there. Back in old days everyone ran around at 40kft.

[Reflected]

Blaze,

 

is it the fact that I'm launching them from too far away? Or the fact that I launch 2? Someone said if I fire another one after 3-4 seconds it makes it harder to dodge the 2nd one. How close should I get with altitude advantage, and hot?

[TAW_Blaze]

Both.

 

First of all I'll be the first guy to tell you that all moves can and will work, but only if used right. I can pretend to fly like a retard and dupe people into making mistakes. But the important part is that first you must understand the basics.

 

Firing a 2nd missile can give you an edge but not if both of them are ludicrously far away. If you're firing outside 10 miles below 25kft that's basically a defensive shot and there's no point to fire 2 there. If you're confident you're not alone I'll go as far as saying that there's no point in firing defensive shots on a MP scenario. If you don't know if you have support or not, it's a different story. Skimping on defensive shots in a 1v1 will lead to being abused into a shit position for the most part.

 

The other part that you're doing wrong is not cranking before firing. Or atleast I assume you don't because you didn't explicitly say it, and most of the people who do this don't. Flying straight at things is the quickest way to get your ass kicked. But you should really watch some of your own tacviews, if you really did you wouldn't be complaining about how all your missiles missed because you would've noticed a trend of them running out of energy before they got halfway to the target. :)

 

Other than this your post was pretty vague so there isn't much to say.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

You shouldn't use Ausairpower.net as a source. The writer, Carlo Kopp, doesn't substantiate his "facts" with sources and is known to use his own bias in articles, especially if it concerns the F-22 and F-111 :)

Carlos Kopp, in my opinion, is just a internet troll and an idiot!

The F-35 and the Super Hornet are not low performance fighter jets!

All you need to see that he's an idiot, is to see his comparison between the F-22 and Su-30MK2, or the comparison between the Super Hornet and Su-34.

 

Anyway, Carlos Kopp is a Troll and a Liar!

[TAW_Blaze]

I'm fairly convinced that people like Pierre Sprey are just well paid to come up with their so called bullshit expertise with totally ludicrous claims by someone who benefits from it. It's all politics. Plus there's no way such highly educated people can be that braindead.

[Reflected]

Why would I need to crank before firing the first shot? It delays my firing solution just like the enemy's, doesn't it?