Radar missiles

[Pilotasso]

I havent gotten where I am quote]

 

 

LOL ! I'm sorry, can't resist ... umm where exactly are you? Did I miss something?

 

Accumulated experience in the F-15 for confidence. No matter the oposition. What else did you expect?!

 

If you still missing it then you havent been online or simply you havent been arround enough.

 

Im sorry if this sounds arrogant but you asked and I simply answered plain and simple with vulcan isention and precision. ;)

[Pilotasso]

I tend to play at 40k' and in the 15 trying to hold a lock until you are 16miles away in TWS is now very tricky - and then try and hold it until weapon goes active is neigh on impossible ... since 1.2 I've played little on-line, its just a exercise in frustration! And if you record the tracks, you see missings going stupid all the time ... yours included Pilotasso! You have to use STT mode which warns the target ... bang goes one of the 15s few benefits!

 

Plus no real benefit from being up there in terms of range ... its supposed to be an A2A Sim ... and missiles kinematics are totally unrealistic!

 

Plus the whole super-27ET thing ... this game really needs WAFM - BIG disappointment when theat was dropped from 1.2!

 

At 16 miles you should have droped to at least 25000. If he returns a shot in your in trouble, you simply dont have the manueverability to dodge at angels 40K.

 

My track may show you alot of misses on my part but theyll also show less deaths. ;) The whole point is not be greedy and get out of the fights alive.

[Kula66]

At 16 miles you should have droped to at least 25000. If he returns a shot in your in trouble, you simply dont have the manueverability to dodge at angels 40K.

 

My track may show you alot of misses on my part but theyll also show less deaths. ;) The whole point is not be greedy and get out of the fights alive.

 

The usual problem is that the return shot is outside the RWR coverage and you never hear it!

 

But split S and dump chaff seems to work ok.

[Pilotasso]

If I dont hear it its because I messed it and let him pass under my radar where theres no TEWS coverage. That rarely hapens anymore. Believe me. Its the most used tactic online and I see it and fight it everyday multiple times. I get killed more often by coordinated attacks by people who have guessed Im the one fighting them. They often tell me so and ask to quit flying the way I do, but I know better. :D If it works why fix it? ;)

[EvilBivol-1]

OK, quick test:

 

Me at 10,000 m., target at 2,000 m.:

Rmax1: 26 nm.

Rmax2: 9 nm.

TTA: 38 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 1583 km/h.

 

Me at 10,000 m., target at 10,000 m.:

Rmax1: 26 nm.

Rmax2: 9 nm.

TTA: 36 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 2036 km/h.

 

Me at 2,000 m., target at 10,000 m.:

Rmax1: 13 nm.

Rmax2: 3 nm.

TTA: 10 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 2795 km/h.

 

Me at 2,000 m., target at 2,000 m.:

Rmax1: 13 nm.

Rmax2: 3 nm.

TTA: 10 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 2720 km/h.

 

Note, TTA was measured by elapsed time from missile fire to start of target maneuvering (using TWS to designate). My plane is an F-15, missile in question is the AIM-120. Target is friendly Su-27.

 

You can clearly see that the launcher's altitude is the determining factor in missile range. It doesn't look as though target's altitude is a factor, but it still influences missile kinematics. The two tests where I fired from 2000 look almost identical because the motor was burning throughout TTA and the missile did not loft. The difference in kinematics depending on target altitude is better seen in the Me at 10,000 tests.

 

Other than that, D-Scythe, I think you are seriously underestimating the "game" factor. IMHO, people don't fly realistically less because of model peculiarities, but more because they simply can. They 'press the point' and willingly enter the 'NEZ' because, what's the worst that can happen? They die and hit Recover? Big deal... its worth it if it gets you a kill. In real life, well, you know... The notch may be abused or overmodelled, but it can be quite easily defetead with teamwork, which is exactly what we hear from the real deal, 'he might notch one F-15, but not a wall of 4' type of stuff. In my experience, if you set up some ground rules with your players and attempt to behave realistically, the game produces realistic results.

[Pilotasso]

^^^^this also demonstrates that the AMRAAM is too slow. Max speed should be mach 4 and average speed should be arround mach 3.

 

IF the stuff I read about the R-77 holds true, it seems to me that the R-77 and AMRAAM have their perfomance stats swaped over in this SIM.

[nscode]

never underestimate a russian rocket ;)

[GGTharos]

The R-77 has a higher diameter rocket, so it'll pump out more power per unit time - it burns for 6 sec and IIRC its all boost, no boost-sustain ... this theoretically gives the AMRAAM an NEZ range advantage.

[Pilotasso]

Not to mention the multiple interfeering boundary layer induced drag at the potato mashers.

[D-Scythe]

OK, quick test:

 

Me at 10,000 m., target at 2,000 m.:

Rmax1: 26 nm.

Rmax2: 9 nm.

TTA: 38 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 1583 km/h.

 

Me at 10,000 m., target at 10,000 m.:

Rmax1: 26 nm.

Rmax2: 9 nm.

TTA: 36 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 2036 km/h.

 

Me at 2,000 m., target at 10,000 m.:

Rmax1: 13 nm.

Rmax2: 3 nm.

TTA: 10 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 2795 km/h.

 

Me at 2,000 m., target at 2,000 m.:

Rmax1: 13 nm.

Rmax2: 3 nm.

TTA: 10 s.

Vmissile @ A-pole: 2720 km/h.

 

EDIT: Look at it this way - missiles lose speed at approximately the same rate whether diving or climbing at low altitudes. Against an evasive target, a missile shot from a higher altitude has to spend a lot more time in the higher density air when attacking a target at low altitudes. Conversely, a missile shot from below at a high altitude target spends only a few seconds at low altitude and then spends the rest of its flight at high altitudes.

 

Without modelling any significant speed retention in the missile while diving, the increased time spent at low altitudes by a missile shot from high altitude is devastating on its range. You can measure and plot charts on the numbers PRIOR to the end-game all you want, but the fact is that missile range is getting decimated in the end-game, not anywhere else.

 

To explain, a lot of times, I don't even rely on the Rmax values - if a lower altitude target performs evasive manouevers, chances are any range increase is mitigated by the fact that the missile spends more time in Lock On's thicker low altitude air (which is realistic). However, what's NOT realistic is the fact that gravity and momentum effects are not modelled, so despite diving from above the missile loses velocity as quickly as a normal "straight" shot.

 

Contrast that with shooting from below. Your HUD might give you a shorter Rmax than you can actually obtain, since your missiles spend only the first initial seconds at low altitudes before climbing higher to thinner air. Again, this is realistic, but the fact that the missile isn't significantly slowed down due to climbing (again, cause gravity is either not modelled or undermodelled) ensures that it's range is more or less equal to a high altitude shot.

 

In fact, with the high altitude shooter unable to beam an incoming missile plus is not able to manouever as effectively, it is actually far more likely that he will end up the loser in the engagement. What's indicated in your HUD may not always be right.

[Pilotasso]

Does ED plan to include effects of gravity, even in very simplified manner. Classic mechanics is very easy. Cant figure why this isnt in the game from 1.0.

[tflash]

Indeed, I second that. It is is very important to first get the physics right, so that your missiles behave in a natural way, and only then work on the pursuit algorithms. What happened now is that we have incomplete modelling coupled with algorithmic oversophistication. This gives mixed results, and a sometimes very weird missile flightpath, as you can see with Tacview. E.g. programming loft without gravity modelling (in fact, correct me but I think what we need is energy modelling taking gravity into account) was maybe not a good choice. WAFM is the way to go. Remember that you need to program the velocity vector of the launching aircraft into the equation, certainly with free-fall bombs, rockets and bullets, and apply some wind influence also.

 

I would prefer getting these basics straight before implementing advanced pursuit/midcourse correction logic on the missiles.

[EvilBivol-1]

...so despite diving from above the missile loses velocity as quickly as a normal "straight" shot.

Not quite, as you can see in the 10K to co-altitude vs. 10k to 2k shot. Fired from the same range, the co-altitude shot gets there faster and with more energy. But, to be fair, this probably has more to do with loft (thinner air) than gravity. I think you are correct in that it isn't modelled correctly.

 

...but the fact that the missile isn't significantly slowed down due to climbing (again, cause gravity is either not modelled or undermodelled) ensures that it's range is more or less equal to a high altitude shot.

Again, not quite. As a test, I repeated the 2K to 10K shot, but this time fired prematurely, with the 26nm range of the co-altitude shot. The missile got to A-pole in 47s at 878km/h. Compare that with the co-altitude performance of 36s. and 1583km/h. Although, again, you are correct in that gravity (or something) is wrong, because the same shot fired at 19.5 nm (~50% greater than Rmax1 on the HUD) actually reached the target and missed by proximity.

 

Does ED plan to include effects of gravity...

Thats what WAFM is all about.

[GGTharos]

Just to point out one thing: Gravity is 1g at 0m, and 1g at 15000m. (Yes, a touch less than 1g. You won't feel the difference)

[D-Scythe]

Actually, I'm more worried about the performance of the radar seekers in the end-game as opposed to anything else. Lock On's current system is probably the most sophisticated seeker model ever put into a modern jet sim - however, because ED modelled some things well (apparently all the limitations) while modelling other things not was well, or omitting them altogether (i.e. all the advantages) actually puts it behind Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4.0.

 

Sure, F/A-18 and F4:AF seeker models are not really accurate, but they don't attempt to model *everything* realistically, instead making a few simplifications that in the end turns out pretty well. In the end, it's all about how you use your PC sim to execute valid, realistic combat tactics, how you fly your plane in a simulated combat environment. Falcon 4.0 for one has got many things wrong, but in the end, *real* BVR tactics like A-pole, F-pole, etc. are crucial to winning an engagement.

 

In Lock On, even though certain aspects (considered individually) may be more realistic, the pieces don't come together in a realistic way - I can't fly my jet the way I read about it from pilot accounts, tactics textbooks, etc. I'm forced to fly unrealistically, and that's the worse type of unrealism I can think of.

 

Obviously, the civilian population (us) is going to know more about the hows and whys of the faults of a weapons system rather than the hows and whys of its strengths. I mean really, is Raytheon really gonna tell people how its engineers crafted the AMRAAM to track targets trying to hide in its doppler notch? Obviously not - if such a measure exists, then it's classified. However, any civilian who has ever worked a radar would know about the doppler notch, and how it's a fundamental weakness of a doppler radar. Does that mean the AMRAAM should be modelled without any ability to attack targets attempting to notch it simply because we don't publically know how this is accomplished? I don't get the logic in that.

 

Not quite, as you can see in the 10K to co-altitude vs. 10k to 2k shot. Fired from the same range, the co-altitude shot gets there faster and with more energy. But, to be fair, this probably has more to do with loft (thinner air) than gravity. I think you are correct in that it isn't modelled correctly.

 

 

Again, not quite. As a test, I repeated the 2K to 10K shot, but this time fired prematurely, with the 26nm range of the co-altitude shot. The missile got to A-pole in 47s at 878km/h. Compare that with the co-altitude performance of 36s. and 1583km/h. Although, again, you are correct in that gravity (or something) is wrong, because the same shot fired at 19.5 nm (~50% greater than Rmax1 on the HUD) actually reached the target and missed by proximity.

 

Yes, you're completely right. My point is that there does seem to be something going on, but whatever it is, it can't really be considered significant - the range increase/decrease is minimal, almost invisible to the shooter and the target.

 

Again, you might squeeze a couple miles out of your missiles by flying high, but most of the time I find that it's not worth it, considering you're actually more vulnerable higher up.

[GGTharos]

Personally I would say that notching and chaffing would almost guarantee a lock-on-chaff ...

 

I have reasons for saying this that I will not get into right now, but I'll undoubtedly get back to this thread later :D

[Pilotasso]

Thats what WAFM is all about.

 

Well yes...but we're talking about radar missiles not the vikhr...or this is one of those things to be read between the lines? :)

[D-Scythe]

Personally I would say that notching and chaffing would almost guarantee a lock-on-chaff ...

 

I have reasons for saying this that I will not get into right now, but I'll undoubtedly get back to this thread later :D

 

Yes, please explain. Cause if this was true, then notching + ground clutter should probably also gaurantee a lock onto the ground.

[GGTharos]

Wrong. Nothing + clutter does not guarantee a lock onto the ground because the ground scatters radar energy in a manner inconsistent with that of scattering from your aircraft.

 

Chaff on the other hand, is -much- more consistent - in particular, we're talking about high vs. narrow bandwidth scattering. Ground does wide bandwidth, the aircraft narrow, the chaff will also be fairly narrow, and since under those circumstances closure cannot be relied on, you gate the narrowband spike and the thing that spikes the most is ... chaff (Bigger RCS).

 

It may or may not be possible to deal with this to some extent using some form of kinematic filtering;

 

Disclaimer: All of the above is speculation.

[D-Scythe]

That may be true, but the missile under a certain range would probably able to to reject chaff on the basis that the LOS rate generated by the chaff cloud would be way too great - aircraft can't decelerate from Mach 1 to zero airspeed in an instant like the super light particles of chaff can.

 

Furthermore, I don't think I understand this "scattering" RF energy concept - the missile should be tracking the target through its doppler signature, not RCS characteristics. Can you elaborate?

 

Anyway, the idea that radar missiles can be fooled 100% of the time by notching + chaff seems a bit ridiculous to me. If that was true, radar missiles are a failure - the AIM-ACEVAL exercise would've produced a datalinked IIR missile, not an active radar AMRAAM.

[EvilBivol-1]

Well yes...but we're talking about radar missiles not the vikhr...or this is one of those things to be read between the lines?

Ah, maybe I should've said thats what WAFM *will* be for? :) Truthfully, you can see in the tech. demos that some objects have already been WAFMed. But guided missiles are far more complex than small caliber ballistic rounds.

[GGTharos]

That may be true, but the missile under a certain range would probably able to to reject chaff on the basis that the LOS rate generated by the chaff cloud would be way too great - aircraft can't decelerate from Mach 1 to zero airspeed in an instant like the super light particles of chaff can.

 

Furthermore, I don't think I understand this "scattering" RF energy concept - the missile should be tracking the target through its doppler signature, not RCS characteristics. Can you elaborate?

 

No RCS characteristics, no tracking! Period! Doppler is a characteristic of the RCS, too ;)

I'm not sure what more I can say to explain. Aircraft targets scatter RF in a very coherent (narrow frequency range) way, the ground does not (it scatters energy across a wide frequency range) ... you can therefore isolate the aircraft by gating the largest narrowband RCS spike, so long as you're close enough that it isn't dronwed out by clutter.

Kinematics, as I said, are probably your next step, and they may or may not work. The missile might be 10km from you when you do this, so all this chaff may well be in its view.

 

 

Anyway, the idea that radar missiles can be fooled 100% of the time by notching + chaff seems a bit ridiculous to me. If that was true, radar missiles are a failure - the AIM-ACEVAL exercise would've produced a datalinked IIR missile, not an active radar AMRAAM.

[EvilBivol-1]

Again, you might squeeze a couple miles out of your missiles by flying high...

?! According to my test, an AMRAAM fired at Rmax1 from 10K (meters) down to 2K will go autonomous nearly 10 seconds earlier and with about 800km/h more E than the same missile fired the other way.

 

Regardless however, my general comment had less to do with this and more to do with the fact that I find F-pole and A-pole to work in the game, provided players don't exploit the code, like snipe their ETs knowing that this cannot be done IRL. Do you find that online IL-2 servers have much to do with WW-II air battles?

 

EDIT: This is not to shy away from all things wrong with the modeling. I for one find it interesting that a maneuvering target lowers your Rmax1, but not your Rmax2, something that should happen and is modelled in F4. And there are certainly plenty other issues.

[EvilBivol-1]

Wanted to repeat a point which I think slipped by unnoticed earlier. One of the main contentions seems to be that the classic air combat rules of staying high and fast appear to be reversed in LO, where it is far too easy to exploit the notch and hide in the clutter. I agree that this is the case, but the common repy to this IRL appears to center less on specific technology (radar, missile, or otherwise), but more on tactics, specifically multi-ship tactics. This is the general angle missing in LO. AI doesn't do it at all. In multiplayer, you are typically in no more than a 2v2, and even that is rarely done with proper comms, formations, etc. In reality, it is *always* done that way, and therein lies the ability to fight the notch and tag targets hiding in the clutter.

 

IMHO.

[Ukr_Alex]

Can someone tell the fool in me why there is a difference between beaming from high or low?

 

How does it mater?