Amraams in the recent updates

[TAW_Blaze]

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

 

Who said you need to fire from the crank? :)

 

Cranking before the shot gives you more time to react in case something happens, because it reduces your closure. It also reduces the angles you have to turn in case you have to ditch the fight.

 

Think about it if you crank at 60 degrees your closure speed to the target is halved (cos(60) = 0.5)). If you wanna fire you can always leave the crank if your fight is set up correctly you'll always have time for that. Otherwise you just sit in your crank and have a much higher chance of survival because of the geometry.

[Reflected]

A-haa, thanks!:)

[GGTharos]

The folly of doing arithmetic in public - it's not halved :). Your portion of it halved, but assuming co-speed targets (a fairly typical case), you reduce closure by 25%.

 

And if you do any pilot math at all, that's a pretty huge difference for timings.

 

Think about it if you crank at 60 degrees your closure speed to the target is halved (cos(60) = 0.5).

[GGTharos]

You don't need to crank; you decide whether you want to or not for whatever reasons you might have. Reducing closure, as Blaze pointed out, is one of them. Do you always want to reduce closure? ... maybe not. Maybe you're screaming in at M2 and you want your bandit to have reduced reaction time.

 

Maybe he doesn't have you on radar ... and so on.

 

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

[TAW_Blaze]

The folly of doing arithmetic in public - it's not halved :). Your portion of it halved, but assuming co-speed targets (a fairly typical case), you reduce closure by 25%.

 

And if you do any pilot math at all, that's a pretty huge difference for timings.

 

Yeah that's kinda what I meant but poor wording. But if they aren't stupid and they crank too then it is indeed halved! :megalol:

 

It also makes the other guy's missiles fly longer paths (not only because of reduced closure, but different direction of flight) which is super obvious but I didn't mention either. Especially important in case of missiles that can't always be immediately spotted on launch like the slammer or ETs. You might presume they're there and you might also guess when they were launched but you don't always know for sure. This gives you an even more significantly higher reaction time to whatever the hell is happening.

 

You don't need to crank; you decide whether you want to or not for whatever reasons you might have. Reducing closure, as Blaze pointed out, is one of them. Do you always want to reduce closure? ... maybe not. Maybe you're screaming in at M2 and you want your bandit to have reduced reaction time.

 

Maybe he doesn't have you on radar ... and so on.

 

Indeed. What's kind of missing from my posts though, is that pretty much all default advice I give relate to normal 1v1 setups, assuming both guys see each other. This is the absolute bread and butter of everything and once you're good at this you can adapt to whatever else is happening. I know you know this, but just putting it out there for the others to see, might not be so obvious to them. :D

Edited April 26, 2016 by <Blaze>

[pr1malr8ge]

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.

 

 

Sorry but this is incorrect. Standard alert config for the f15 is 42-50k with 3bags and full Weapons loadout. As far as a turning fight, well yes this is true you will not get the G that you would down sub 30kft. How ever my IAS is not low when I'm up that high it is generally at 400kts which means I can pull 5G! If you're going to be up that high and are not at corner speed you're in for a world of hurt! [by the way I am talking about IAS not GS where as my gs is generally over 1000kts]

 

Sick of being called an Astronaut because I fly the same profile the real pilots in the real thing.

Edited April 26, 2016 by pr1malr8ge

[Nerd1000]

You don't need to crank; you decide whether you want to or not for whatever reasons you might have. Reducing closure, as Blaze pointed out, is one of them. Do you always want to reduce closure? ... maybe not. Maybe you're screaming in at M2 and you want your bandit to have reduced reaction time.

 

Maybe he doesn't have you on radar ... and so on.

I never crank... but I fly the MiG-21, so maximum closure to get my crappy little missiles in range is a priority.

[GGTharos]

Then you should be getting shot down every time ;-)

[Nerd1000]

Then you should be getting shot down every time ;-)

A head to head joust where he's got 8 BVR missiles and I've got 2 sidewinders with SARH heads? I'm dead anyway. Cranking just delays the inevitable- better to just burn in and hope he's preoccupied with something else for the time it takes to get into missile range.

 

Naturally this would never work if AMRAAMs had realistic range and the average sim pilot had real fighter pilot level multitasking and SA. It doesn't work most of the time, particularly if there aren't any hills to hide behind. But here are the facts: if I burn straight in I die. If I crank I die. If I turn and run I die (F-15 and Flanker are both faster than me). Under those conditions the best choice I have is to roll the dice and hope my enemy screws up.

 

And if this were real life? I wouldn't be taking off, because a) I'd just get shot down and b) chances are that a F-15E dropped a bunch of CBU-87s on the airfield and my plane is a burning wreck regardless.

[DarkFire]

Sorry but this is incorrect. Standard alert config for the f15 is 42-50k with 3bags and full Weapons loadout. As far as a turning fight, well yes this is true you will not get the G that you would down sub 30kft. How ever my IAS is not low when I'm up that high it is generally at 400kts which means I can pull 5G! If you're going to be up that high and are not at corner speed you're in for a world of hurt! [by the way I am talking about IAS not GS where as my gs is generally over 1000kts]

 

Sick of being called an Astronaut because I fly the same profile the real pilots in the real thing.

 

Ah, maybe I should have been more clear - I meant in game terms, rather than real life. 40K+ for a real F-15 would make perfect sense. Probably would for the Su-27, Mirage and many others too. I also agree that you can have > 400 Kts IAS up there, but at what throttle setting? I can envisage a scenario where you'd absolutely want to get as high and as fast as possible when e.g. intercepting Russian strategic bombers coming over the north pole to attack the CONUS, i.e. a defensive SIOP scenario, but for more tactical engagements such as a deployed in-theatre fighter sweep, escort, CAP etc flying at military thrust or even some AB stage would needlessly waste fuel.

 

Please note I wasn't having a go at you with regards to the astronaut comment - if you want to fly realistic profiles then good, I like to do the same thing, but there are plenty of people who fly in a similar way not for that reason but because they think it will maximise their missile engagement range, without understanding the associated limitations of flight in that sort of regime.

[ShuRugal]

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 :)

 

Kopp may be a complete whackjob, but that doesn't mean that he is wrong to say that an aircraft with a mach 2+ top speed will make a better launch platform than aircraft with mach 1.8 and 1.6 top speeds.

 

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.

 

I don't know if perhaps English is not your native language, but "IRs are active" is, in fact, exactly what "Active radar missles (including IRs)" means. Your use of "including" in that way declares that "IRs" belongs in the category "Active radar missiles".

 

What might have been better phrasing would be "Active radar missiles (as well as IR missiles)", which would indicate that the next clause in your sentence applies equally to the separate groups "Active radar missiles" and "IR missiles".

 

There was certainly no need to cuss up a storm over it, intentional or not, your phrasing did not match your meaning, and you can hardly expect people to have read your mind.

[probad]

Kopp may be a complete whackjob, but that doesn't mean that he is wrong to say that an aircraft with a mach 2+ top speed will make a better launch platform than aircraft with mach 1.8 and 1.6 top speeds.

to be more precise it would be "launching at mach 2 has advantages over launching at mach 1.8"

 

while an aircraft may have a mach 2 limit, that does not mean it will be operating at, nevermind launching at mach 2 consistently for any number of reasons.

[TAW_Blaze]

Kopp may be a complete whackjob, but that doesn't mean that he is wrong to say that an aircraft with a mach 2+ top speed will make a better launch platform than aircraft with mach 1.8 and 1.6 top speeds.

 

In word-to-word combat (see what I did there? :) ) it does, but in reality it doesn't. Most commonly you don't want to be screaming at such high speed, and even when you do, you can't afford to. Simply put it takes too much resources to get there and the benefit is marginal. If you do this tactic, you have 1 or 2 attacks at maximum per plane before you're out of fuel, and bear in mind that once you have reached this speed you MUST attack or else the resource is merely wasted. If you have a rotating CAP of normal flights they can happily circle around for all-eternity compared to that..

 

On top of all that, I seriously doubt there's any record of missiles being fired above M1.5 in combat scenario*. Training or testing, maybe, but not actual combat. It's even rare in the ****ing sim where we all know how careless everyone is!

 

What is a hell of a lot better capability instead, is the ability to accelerate from cruise speed to slightly above transsonic region. For instance to go from M0.7 to M1.4 within the least amount of time and with the least amount of resources wasted. This will enable the planes to maintain their position and fulfill their objective while still having the option to pose as a very deadly threat more than just 1 or 2 times, at any given time.

 

EDIT:

*Here I meant from aircraft that are not considered to operate in normal conditions when flown at M2 or above, i.e. MiG-25 and MiG-31 excluded. I'm sure they have fired missiles well above M2 from those planes.

Edited May 5, 2016 by <Blaze>

[pr1malr8ge]

In word-to-word combat (see what I did there? :) ) it does, but in reality it doesn't. Most commonly you don't want to be screaming at such high speed, and even when you do, you can't afford to. Simply put it takes too much resources to get there and the benefit is marginal. If you do this tactic, you have 1 or 2 attacks at maximum per plane before you're out of fuel, and bear in mind that once you have reached this speed you MUST attack or else the resource is merely wasted. If you have a rotating CAP of normal flights they can happily circle around for all-eternity compared to that..

 

On top of all that, I seriously doubt there's any record of missiles being fired above M1.5 in combat scenario*. Training or testing, maybe, but not actual combat. It's even rare in the ****ing sim where we all know how careless everyone is!

 

What is a hell of a lot better capability instead, is the ability to accelerate from cruise speed to slightly above transsonic region. For instance to go from M0.7 to M1.4 within the least amount of time and with the least amount of resources wasted. This will enable the planes to maintain their position and fulfill their objective while still having the option to pose as a very deadly threat more than just 1 or 2 times, at any given time.

 

EDIT:

*Here I meant from aircraft that are not considered to operate in normal conditions when flown at M2 or above, i.e. MiG-25 and MiG-31 excluded. I'm sure they have fired missiles well above M2 from those planes.

 

Spoke with my cousin in terms of launching at m2. Sorry on my iPad can't upload texts so I'll quote..

 

me: Hey how's things been going. Quick question. You ever or heard of launching a missile above M2.

 

Pilot: Adam, yes we were always told the more Mach the better energy the missile has at end game. So if the missile has a top speed of Mach 4 and you start it at Mach 2 then either it's range has increased or it's ability to maneuver inside of max range increases.

 

Me: laws of physics doesn't change haha, some one mentioned they didn't think anyone would or has launched at those speeds. More so because of getting up to those speeds was resource consuming(fuel).

 

Pilot: Most defiantly a big factor. You may not be able to get there always but give it the best you can. Obviously dependent on threat.

[SinusoidDelta]

Slide 25 gives a little pilot survey:

 

[ame=http://flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2014/break%20the%20store.pdf]http://flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2014/break%20the%20store.pdf[/ame]

 

IMO in the FC3 F-15, there is no concern for air frame integrity, rudder control malfunctions, inadequate oxygen supply over 50 kft and I'm sure many other RL concerns during testing.

 

No one ever flies that high in MP though :megalol:

[Frostie]

Structural integrity is a pretty weak area in sims for sure, no pun.

 

In DCS it has only really involved wings or rotors from the Su25, Ka50, A10C, WW2 and Su27. Also it is a bit hit and miss between modules/developers, for example are we sure the real MiG-15 engine is more reliable than the MiG-21 or Flanker as it is in DCS, I doubt it very much.

 

I'm sure you remember that it wasn't too long ago the entire F-15C fleet was on lock down for going over a set Mach because of structural failings in its aging frame, this was brought on by an accident when the whole front end and cockpit of an F-15 detached from the aircraft at 7g. It was found that 40% of the fleet had a non conforming part which was key to holding the airframe together, but only a handful had started to show cracks.

 

Obviously as we all know getting higher and faster is going to get your missiles to perform but I should imagine hitting mach2 is mission dependent, alert intercept yes but any sort of CAP and I suppose they have a long term plan to think about. Being outnumbered might be the switch but for NATO that doesn't happen.

[TAW_Blaze]

Spoke with my cousin in terms of launching at m2. Sorry on my iPad can't upload texts so I'll quote..

 

Well this pretty much confirms what I said. :)

 

Flying around M2 also creates other problems that are really hard to deal with. The environment is already dynamic enough with quite high closures even if you fly at normal speeds. For instance in DCS if you have a lot of guys coming at you with all their ECM on popping up at 25nm will leave you with little time to react, and if the other guy is doing the exact same thing then he'll be in launch range within a couple seconds.

 

It also requires you to know the target's position from a decently long range with a long enough timeframe for you to accelerate up to M2. In a 15 that could take minutes, even if you already have the altitude. IRL and also in the sim the most common thing is that pilots accelerate to a more efficient point, M1.3 or so, which takes a lot less time and fuel while still benefiting them quite a lot. Not to mention screaming towards a guy from a long range will probably alert them of your intentions. :D

 

Obviously as we all know getting higher and faster is going to get your missiles to perform but I should imagine hitting mach2 is mission dependent, alert intercept yes but any sort of CAP and I suppose they have a long term plan to think about. Being outnumbered might be the switch but for NATO that doesn't happen.

 

Spot on.

[GGTharos]

And in all those years, only one aircraft broke up despite eagles being subjected to over-g regularly.

 

Most of the defective longerons were replaced, though 9 aircraft were written off.

 

I'm sure you remember that it wasn't too long ago the entire F-15C fleet was on lock down for going over a set Mach because of structural failings in its aging frame, this was brought on by an accident when the whole front end and cockpit of an F-15 detached from the aircraft at 7g. It was found that 40% of the fleet had a non conforming part which was key to holding the airframe together, but only a handful had started to show cracks.

[Frostie]

And in all those years, only one aircraft broke up despite eagles being subjected to over-g regularly.

 

Most of the defective longerons were replaced, though 9 aircraft were written off.

 

Yes sorry I didn't mention this was quickly addressed during the down time and as for the Mud hen that was an improved design which caused no issues.

[SinusoidDelta]

There was also the F-15C that disintegrated at 8-900 knots due to a vertical stab failure. Nearly half of the pilots exceeding mach 1.5 experienced some system malfunction.

[GGTharos]

They were checked for defects too though - they went nuts checking the entire F-15 fleet. Later they found issues in F-16's also.

 

Yes sorry I didn't mention this was quickly addressed during the down time and as for the Mud hen that was an improved design which caused no issues.

[GGTharos]

Safe IAS is 800kts anyway, and as for half of the pilots going above M1.5 experiencing failures - I don't understand the meaning of this statistic ... sorties > M1.5 are frequent and they're basically the flat-dash intercept scenario training.

 

There was also the F-15C that disintegrated at 8-900 knots due to a vertical stab failure. Nearly half of the pilots exceeding mach 1.5 experienced some system malfunction.

[pr1malr8ge]

Safe IAS is 800kts anyway, and as for half of the pilots going above M1.5 experiencing failures - I don't understand the meaning of this statistic ... sorties > M1.5 are frequent and they're basically the flat-dash intercept scenario training.

 

My cousin has said he has went over M2 as often as he could. He was telling me when he would take up an aircraft after its tear down rebuild he would run it through its paces. He was telling me there one that just just wanted to go above m2 and wanted to do it quicker then any he flew before.

[SinusoidDelta]

Safe IAS is 800kts anyway, and as for half of the pilots going above M1.5 experiencing failures - I don't understand the meaning of this statistic ... sorties > M1.5 are frequent and they're basically the flat-dash intercept scenario training.

I was referencing the document I posted earlier. Its only a sample of 43 pilots but it give some insight to those of us who don't know eagle drivers personally. Only one of the 43 pulled more than 7G above mach 1.5. They didn't experience failures per say but malfunction warnings. The whole document is worth reading. I've posted it 5-6 times now. Especially the 800 knot test point at 3,000 ft, which in one of your previous posts claimed control surfaces would be ripping off.

Edited May 7, 2016 by SinusoidDelta

[Reflected]

So I tried to use all the info I got around here, but it seems to me AMRAAMs are still about as accurate as Sparrows...

 

I approach with the bandit on the radar's gimbal limit. Usually with at least 10k feet altitude advantage, at 400+ knots IAS. I turn in and fire an AIM120 from maximum 10-15 miles - the bandit is hot - almost in the sure-kill range. Then I crank.

 

As long as the Russian touches the stick and changes path my missiles do not hit. Of course when they evade my AMRAAMs they are already within range for an IR shot that seldom fails...

 

I moved here from you-know-which-sim because of the mind-blowing overperformance of Russian planes, and underperformance of the Germans. I just couldn't put up with that propaganda bull... anymore. This made me a little paranoid, and I can only hope there are still a bucketload of things I'm missing or doing wrong here. DCS is known for its high fidelity of FMs, I sure hope it is also true for missiles.