Radar missiles

[D-Scythe]

All this NEZ/MEZ/A-pole/f-pole .... its all about physics! These are tactics because of the physics of AAMs. Get the physics right, which it currently is not and the tactics you mention will work ...

 

That's where you're absolutely wrong. NEZ/MEZ/A-pole/F-pole is all about killing your target - yes, it's based on physics/kinetics, but they are simply one of the means to this end IRL.

 

If you have the means, but your missiles are too stupid to accomplish the desired end result - i.e. the destruction of the target - then logically, you'd have players going about trying to kill their targets by unrealistic tactics like spamming and trying to hide in the notch by flying low.

 

Quite simply put, what is the point of executing realistic tactics/modelling realistic physics if you cannot get the desired result anyway?

[GGTharos]

That's where you're absolutely wrong. NEZ/MEZ/A-pole/F-pole is all about killing your target - yes, it's based on physics/kinetics, but they are simply one of the means to this end IRL.

 

This isn't right. These are KINEMATIC distances/ranges. They have zio zilch and squat to do with the guidance - these are strictly about 'if I have a missile shot at me at this range, can I outmaneuver it?'

When you are within the NEZ, you cannot defeat the missile using some predefined maneuver criterion such as (and typically) a 6g turn away from the missile to put it on your 6 and accelerating an additional 300KTS.

 

So once you are in the NEZ, you need to do something else: Very violent maneuver, and countermeasures, and so on. NEZ does not mean 'boom you're dead'. It does mean 'forget everything else and work on the missile or you are dead' ... of course, the next one will likely nail ya ;)

 

If you have the means, but your missiles are too stupid to accomplish the desired end result - i.e. the destruction of the target - then logically, you'd have players going about trying to kill their targets by unrealistic tactics like spamming and trying to hide in the notch by flying low.

 

Quite simply put, what is the point of executing realistic tactics/modelling realistic physics if you cannot get the desired result anyway?

Right - but to have tactics you need both parts - the seeker's a big thing, yes, but what's a missile that runs out of steam after going 5nm worth to ya?

 

Further more, and here is where I will disagree a bit with Rhen I guess, unlike the USAF ACMI we don't have look up tables for missile kinematics (they likely do) - we have to simulate missile flight every step of the way (or we could script the missile and decide hit/miss before it reaches the target, and just make it look like its doing something realistic I suppose ;) ) and that simulation includes computations which make guidance more efficient, etc.

 

If you want to have WAFM, you need to -start- with WAFM so you can program the autopilot accordingly. If you don't start with WAFM, you end up with a seeker tuned to do things it shouldn't with your nice WAFM missile.

 

BUT. There are some generic things that -can- be done today to help, yes. For example, sensitivity of RH missiles to chaff should go to zero in FQ shots.

[Kula66]

Quite simply put, what is the point of executing realistic tactics/modelling realistic physics if you cannot get the desired result anyway?

 

Well, I guess in a perfect world, you'd have both ... at moment we have neither! Hence the stupidity of people flying at 50ft with jammers on all the time!

 

Its a GREAT shame, it ain'g going to happen in BS and probably not for a good few years after that!

[Pilotasso]

the jammers is even a more flagrant issue. They should have never been uberized this way just to give the flankers range estimation thing a use. The jammers are highly unlikely to jamm anything but during those times where the weak dopler shift is superimposed by the noise. Under 20 miles should never work like it does in LOMAC otherwise there would never bee any use for EW aircraft. Why use F-111 ravens or E-6 Prolers when your litle pods will send your radar to hell untill you got in visual range? makes no sense at all.

[D-Scythe]

This isn't right. These are KINEMATIC distances/ranges. They have zio zilch and squat to do with the guidance - these are strictly about 'if I have a missile shot at me at this range, can I outmaneuver it?'

 

I never said they had anything to do with guidance. I simply said that the ultimate point of A-pole/F-pole/MEZ/NEZ tactics are to increase your Pk while decreasing your enemy's Pk - they are not ABOUT physics, they USE physics to achieve the desired goal.

 

When you are within the NEZ, you cannot defeat the missile using some predefined maneuver criterion such as (and typically) a 6g turn away from the missile to put it on your 6 and accelerating an additional 300KTS.

 

So once you are in the NEZ, you need to do something else: Very violent maneuver, and countermeasures, and so on. NEZ does not mean 'boom you're dead'. It does mean 'forget everything else and work on the missile or you are dead' ... of course, the next one will likely nail ya ;)

 

Who said you automatically go boom in the NEZ? First of all, the NEZ is the point that you cannot defeat a missile through kinematics/manouevering alone - a very violent manouever usually won't get the job done, because a missile is MUCH more agile than any fighter plane (unless the manouver is designed to throw off the SEEKER). Second of all, while you don't automatically go boom in the NEZ, the resistance of radar seekers have gotten to the point that there is still a very high chance of dying within a missile's NEZ, since that is the ONLY way to defeat a missile fired within its NEZ - that is, to defeat the seeker.

 

Hence, because it is increasingly difficult to defeat/fool the seeker in modern radar missiles, there is a shift in modern fighter tactics in avoiding the NEZ of your opponent (because that is the area where you can dodge a missile ONLy by defeating its seeker). Lock On should reflect that.

 

Right - but to have tactics you need both parts - the seeker's a big thing, yes, but what's a missile that runs out of steam after going 5nm worth to ya?

 

Obviously you have to have BOTH. My point is that its much better to have a good seeker model and a mediocre physics model than the other way around.

 

If you want to have WAFM, you need to -start- with WAFM so you can program the autopilot accordingly. If you don't start with WAFM, you end up with a seeker tuned to do things it shouldn't with your nice WAFM missile.

 

Again, the point here isn't the realism of the missile - the fact that most things are classified is something everyone here can agree on. We're NEVER going to get something that is "realistic" in terms of missile modelling - simplifications and guestimations must ALWAYS be made, and frankly, it's not something I worry too much about. It's the proper execution of tactics that bugs me - that is the type of realism that any PC sim should first and foremost try to achieve.

 

Like in Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4.0 - their missile models don't annoy me half as much as the ones in LOMAC.

[Kula66]

I never said they had anything to do with guidance. I simply said that the ultimate point of A-pole/F-pole/MEZ/NEZ tactics are to increase your Pk while decreasing your enemy's Pk

 

By ensuring that your missiles have more energy when nearing their target than your enemy's missiles nearing you ... physics!

[D-Scythe]

By ensuring that your missiles have more energy when nearing their target than your enemy's missiles nearing you ... physics!

 

No, by ensuring that my missiles have enough energy for its SEEKER to guide onto the target and destroy it - NOT physics. It could have all the energy in the world and it would mean jack squat if the target pulls one lousy manouever to dodge it 100% of the time (like in LOMAC).

[GGTharos]

No, by ensuring that my missiles have enough energy for its SEEKER to guide onto the target and destroy it - NOT physics. It could have all the energy in the world and it would mean jack squat if the target pulls one lousy manouever to dodge it 100% of the time (like in LOMAC).

 

*cough*

 

SMACK

 

 

THink about what you're saying ebfore you say it ;)

A/F/E-Pole and NEZ are KINEMATIC. There's nothing about seekers in there. NOTHING! ;)

[D-Scythe]

*cough*

 

SMACK

 

 

THink about what you're saying ebfore you say it ;)

A/F/E-Pole and NEZ are KINEMATIC. There's nothing about seekers in there. NOTHING! ;)

 

And as I have stated repeatedly before, yes, they ARE kinematic. But you are not looking far enough ahead - these tactics are just a MEANS to get the missile on target with enough energy for the SEEKER to home in on the target to destroy it.

 

If the seeker is NOT up to the task, than everything leading up to it, INCLUDING A-pole/F-pole/etc. is MEANINGLESS. You might as well F-pole a ballistic rocket - sure, it has WAFM, but is it gonna hit anything?

 

That smack was absolutely unwarranted :p

[GGTharos]

Who said you automatically go boom in the NEZ?

 

You, in implication. Stop tlaking NEZ when you want to talk about seekers. NEZ/Kinematics has nothing to do with it.

 

First of all, the NEZ is the point that you cannot defeat a missile through kinematics/manouevering alone - a very violent manouever usually won't get the job done,

 

A very violent maneuver is exactly what'll do the seeker in. You're not trying to defeat the airframe here, you can't. You're in the NEZ.

 

because a missile is MUCH more agile than any fighter plane (unless the manouver is designed to throw off the SEEKER). Second of all, while you don't automatically go boom in the NEZ, the resistance of radar seekers have gotten to the point that there is still a very high chance of dying within a missile's NEZ, since that is the ONLY way to defeat a missile fired within its NEZ - that is, to defeat the seeker.

 

Yep.

 

Hence, because it is increasingly difficult to defeat/fool the seeker in modern radar missiles, there is a shift in modern fighter tactics in avoiding the NEZ of your opponent (because that is the area where you can dodge a missile ONLy by defeating its seeker). Lock On should reflect that.

 

There was never a shift in avoiding an enemy missile's kinematic envelope ;) It just so happens the defeating seekers early on was much, much easier. A 4g turn could put an AIM-4 out of parameters.

 

Obviously you have to have BOTH. My point is that its much better to have a good seeker model and a mediocre physics model than the other way around.

 

I don't think so ... not if you want -real- tactics. Not to mention platform of choice and radar equipment thereof plays a big role also.

 

Again, the point here isn't the realism of the missile - the fact that most things are classified is something everyone here can agree on. We're NEVER going to get something that is "realistic" in terms of missile modelling - simplifications and guestimations must ALWAYS be made, and frankly, it's not something I worry too much about. It's the proper execution of tactics that bugs me - that is the type of realism that any PC sim should first and foremost try to achieve.

 

No realistic missiles, no realistic tactics. it's just that simple.

 

Like in Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4.0 - their missile models don't annoy me half as much as the ones in LOMAC.

 

They annoy me thogh. F/A-18 has rather obvoius and sometimes infuriating flaws, over and uder-modelling certain aspects. F4 overmodels in general, but it is the better model of the three IMHO.

[D-Scythe]

There was never a shift in avoiding an enemy missile's kinematic envelope ;) It just so happens the defeating seekers early on was much, much easier. A 4g turn could put an AIM-4 out of parameters.

 

Yes, there was a shift. In the '70s, pre-doppler missiles, they were still building fighters armed with AIM-9s. And how are these fighters gonna use those AIM-9s? By wading through the missile envelopes of enemy fighters to smack them with a 'heater.

 

You see any of these types of fighters now? Since the AIM-7F/M?

 

Stop tlaking NEZ when you want to talk about seekers. NEZ/Kinematics has nothing to do with it.

 

Yes, it INDIRECTLY has to do with seekers. The NEZ is the portion of a missile's envelope where it can only be evaded by screwing its seeker - if its seeker SUCKS in the first place, what's the point of the NEZ?

 

The NEZ is ONLY important if it's seeker is good enough to actually make the missile MORE of a threat than it otherwise would be in the outer portions of its MEZ (where it can be dodged by other means).

[SwingKid]

...The majority of (you pick the country)AF pilots train with missiles having no physics modeling. ACMI doesn't require this.

 

No, but they have access to classified data in a look-up table, and that IMHO makes a big difference.

 

Perhaps you can help with one of the problems we may be having with this thread:

 

Does "NEZ" have anything to do with seeker look-down, notching, or ECCM capability?

I have always understood it to mean what the MLU2 flight manual says that it means - that the missile cannot any longer be defeated within this range by the target turning and running away - and nothing more. IMHO, many people seem to rather interpret "no escape" as meaning "no miss," or "perfect."

 

It reminds me of the "fire-and-forget" Hellfire, that isn't, in fact, fire-and-forget...

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

(oops - I replied before reading the last page of the thread)

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

the fact that most things are classified is something everyone here can agree on.

 

Count me out.

Unless something doesn't exist, I can't recall there being too much success keeping such technology totally secret. Certainly not something as irrelevant to national security and as academic as a new radar look-down technology - all the other radar technologies that we know about (HPRF, monopulse, HOJ etc.), we knew about pretty much from the day they were introduced. Classified is specific stuff like Combat Tree, that exploits the enemy leaving his transponder on, not physics or signal processing. We all even knew about stealth for years beforehand.

 

We're NEVER going to get something that is "realistic" in terms of missile modelling - simplifications and guestimations must ALWAYS be made, and frankly, it's not something I worry too much about.

 

Well, that much was already clear. :rolleyes:

 

It's the proper execution of tactics that bugs me - that is the type of realism that any PC sim should first and foremost try to achieve.

 

At the beginning of a realistic BVR engagement, I as an AMRAAM shooter would like the option to fire one of my missiles in a high loft, at extreme Raero range, to keep the enemy on the defensive as I approach for a closer, higher-Pk shot, and hopefully keep him from firing at me in the meantime.

 

You wrote that the top priority should be the "end game" - but the end game is going to be a whole lot different if the enemy is on the offensive or on the defensive when I close for that high-Pk shot. So, the launch conditions - lofted or not lofted, and the aerodynamics model to produce the resultant difference in range and Pk, are in fact first and foremost. How can any end-game be optimized without the launch conditions first being correct?

 

Of course, if the opponent is using ECM, then lacking range information, the lofted shot should not be available to me - and I should have to choose between taking the time to perform some kind of kinematic ranging maneuver, taking a shot and risking that the now-PN HOJ AMRAAM will lack the range to hit, or closing to WVR and risking a shot in my own face.

 

That is what I think about as "BVR tactics," and because of the ranges involved, it absolutely depends on the aerodynamic performance of the missile more than anything else. You respect a BVR threat regardless of its Pk. On the contrary - dancing around the sky with hard maneuvers, popping chaff and rolling the dice after a threat is already inbound - that is IMHO not distinguishing BVR from WVR.

 

Like in Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4.0 - their missile models don't annoy me half as much as the ones in LOMAC.

 

Perhaps, but that's hardly a fair comparison, since the cheated AI on the other side on those sims don't complain nearly as much as paying human customers on the other side in Lock On.

 

Or, you mean it's all about you? ;)

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

I have always understood it to mean what the MLU2 flight manual says that it means - that the missile cannot any longer be defeated within this range by the target turning and running away - and nothing more. IMHO, many people seem to rather interpret "no escape" as meaning "no miss," or "perfect."

 

Yes, so the only way to evade a missile in its NEZ is through trashing the seeker. But if the missile seekers suck in the first place, there really is no point to the NEZ, because no one is going to be trying to out-turn or out-run the missile then.

 

Count me out.

Unless something doesn't exist, I can't recall there being too much success keeping such technology totally secret. Certainly not something as irrelevant to national security and as academic as a new radar look-down technology - all the other radar technologies that we know about (HPRF, monopulse, HOJ etc.), we knew about pretty much from the day they were introduced. Classified is specific stuff like Combat Tree, that exploits the enemy leaving his transponder on, not physics or signal processing. We all even knew about stealth for years beforehand.

 

You think that Raytheon or the USAF is going to come out and explicitly say that "Yes, the AMRAAM is programmed with algorithms to track targets trying to notch it"? This is a *specific* scenario/manouvre here, not the general information like HPRF, HOJ, etc.

 

Missile guidance is one of the most highly classified aspects of modern warfare - ALL the missile evasion manouevers that we know of deal with defeating missiles kinematically (even though they might have other applications). For example, you're hardly ever gonna find a military source (like a basic flight manual) that emphasizes the "hiding in the notch" part of the beam manouever more than "force the incoming missile to deplete as much energy as possible" part.

 

You wrote that the top priority should be the "end game" - but the end game is going to be a whole lot different if the enemy is on the offensive or on the defensive when I close for that high-Pk shot. So, the launch conditions - lofted or not lofted, and the aerodynamics model to produce the resultant difference in range and Pk, are in fact first and foremost. How can any end-game be optimized without the launch conditions first being correct?

 

No, I said that I'd rather have a mediocre FM and a good seeker FM. Obviously both are important, and I'm fine if ED wishes to implement WAFM first. I stated so in my first post - I was just ranting.

 

Actually perhaps I did, but it's not the way I meant it. I think if you can't have both, a good seeker model is the better way to go.

 

Not asking for any interim fixes in this one ;)

 

That is what I think about as "BVR tactics," and because of the ranges involved, it absolutely depends on the aerodynamic performance of the missile more than anything else. You respect a BVR threat regardless of its Pk. On the contrary - dancing around the sky with hard maneuvers, popping chaff and rolling the dice after a threat is already inbound - that is IMHO not distinguishing BVR from WVR.

 

That's already what's happening in LOMAC - and the fact people just load up with 8 AMRAAMs, don't even bother to turn on the radar or anything and just shoot all 8 in the direction the RWR is indicating the threats are.

 

Don't know how WAFM is gonna solve that one, if spamming guy is good enough to dodge every single return shot (from non-spammers), retreat then rearm.

 

Or, you mean it's all about you?

 

My parents obviously went wrong somewhere.

[504Goon]

Missile guidance is one of the most highly classified aspects of modern warfare - ALL the missile evasion manouevers that we know of deal with defeating missiles kinematically (even though they might have other applications). For example, you're hardly ever gonna find a military source (like a basic flight manual) that emphasizes the "hiding in the notch" part of the beam manouever more than "force the incoming missile to deplete as much energy as possible" part.

 

I just saw an F-16 hud tape not so long ago where the bandit breaks the lock of the attacker by notching, and the pilot even calls out "Good notch" after loosing the lock. The trigger was pressed right in the limit of the NEZ, which after the bandit started turning and broke the lock. Now this was simulated combat, so we can't know if the AMRAAM would have hit the bandit or not. But at least he was able to break the lock fairly quickly right after launch.

[Pilotasso]

Any chance that HUD tape being in the internet? :)

[504Goon]

At least ED has it:D

[SwingKid]

Yes, so the only way to evade a missile in its NEZ is through trashing the seeker. But if the missile seekers suck in the first place, there really is no point to the NEZ, because no one is going to be trying to out-turn or out-run the missile then.

 

As an aside, this might be one reason why the NEZ no longer exists as such, having years ago been renamed Rtr.

 

More to the point, the NEZ provides information to the shooter to make shooting decisions, not to the target to make evasion decisions. It tells the shooter that there is no further Pk advantage to be gained by holding off on launch to approach any closer. This is still valid information, regardless of what the actual Pk is after firing.

 

You think that Raytheon or the USAF is going to come out and explicitly say that "Yes, the AMRAAM is programmed with algorithms to track targets trying to notch it"?

 

I would expect the information to leak out somewhere. For example, the ability of modern RWRs to detect LPI radar is advertised in their brochures.

 

Missile guidance is one of the most highly classified aspects of modern warfare

 

And yet I have no trouble finding more books than I can absorb on the topic in my local university library.

 

- ALL the missile evasion manouevers that we know of deal with defeating missiles kinematically (even though they might have other applications). For example, you're hardly ever gonna find a military source (like a basic flight manual) that emphasizes the "hiding in the notch" part of the beam manouever more than "force the incoming missile to deplete as much energy as possible" part.

 

And where is the "basic flight manual" that advises you to do the latter?

You seem to be looking for VCR programming instructions in a bible.

 

That's already what's happening in LOMAC - and the fact people just load up with 8 AMRAAMs, don't even bother to turn on the radar or anything and just shoot all 8 in the direction the RWR is indicating the threats are.

 

That is decidedly not what is happening. Realistic missile lofting tactics would require adding an Raero indicator to the DLZ in the HUD. It should also be impractical to use loft against jamming targets, and HOJ shots should have comparable range to Sidewinders. Last I checked, none of the above was true.

 

-SK

[Pilotasso]

Im going to visit the local F-16 Airbase next tuesday. Ill grab a camera if they let me and ask arround about this stuff.

[Kula66]

Yes, so the only way to evade a missile in its NEZ is through trashing the seeker. But if the missile seekers suck in the first place, there really is no point to the NEZ, because no one is going to be trying to out-turn or out-run the missile then.

 

Remeber you can defeat a missile by turning and running away from it outside the NEZ OR bleeding enegy from it if WITHIN the NEZ OR a combination of running awat and bleeding energy from it within the NEZ ... they are all using kinematics to defeat the weapon.

 

This is in addition to using chaff/flares/jamming to trash the seeker.

 

I think we'd all agree that this area needs serious work in LO - the current situation is a joke and promotes spamming etc ... I'd prefer the WAFM approach to get priority, you, I'd guess would prefer the seeker modelling to get priority - lets hope it all gets the man hrs it deserves!

[D-Scythe]

As an aside, this might be one reason why the NEZ no longer exists as such, having years ago been renamed Rtr.

 

More to the point, the NEZ provides information to the shooter to make shooting decisions, not to the target to make evasion decisions. It tells the shooter that there is no further Pk advantage to be gained by holding off on launch to approach any closer. This is still valid information, regardless of what the actual Pk is after firing.

 

Look at it this way - if the target doesn't attempt to out-run/out-rate your missile because he *knows* he'll trash your seeker regardless, then that defeats the point of providing the shooter with information that Pk has reached its highest point in the NEZ.

 

This is because the target is relying solely on trashing your missile's seeker in the first place - all the Pk increases associated with kinematic dimension of your shot is therefore meaningless.

 

I would expect the information to leak out somewhere. For example, the ability of modern RWRs to detect LPI radar is advertised in their brochures.

 

LPI is a general, broad feature - it's not simply the ability to avoid tripping the RWR - it can make you look farther away than you really are, or confuse you with some other type of signal, etc. What kind of LPI technique? Planar radar, phased or active ESA LPI radars?

 

Beaming is a *specific* manouvre, in a *specific* scenario. LPI, HoJ, HPRF, etc. - they're general features that encompass a lot of specifics. Take ECCM: we don't know the different techniques of jamming the radar/missile can counter - we only know that there is ECCM, and it's there to deal with jamming.

 

Should we make all radar missiles completely useless against an aircraft equipped with a jammer that can perform cross eye jamming because it's not advertised by Raytheon that the AIM-120 can attack a cross eye jamming target? Simply because it hasn't been leaked?

 

Furthermore, do you want to consider the things that have been leaked/suggested and isn't modelled?

 

And where is the "basic flight manual" that advises you to do the latter?

You seem to be looking for VCR programming instructions in a bible.

 

No, I just don't get you're "leak" argument - it's not like I'm saying radar missiles should be COMPLETELY resistent. Some leaks, like pilot testimony that AMRAAM is lethal out to 8 miles (plenty of time to notch), military analyst speculations on AMRAAM's seeker (Carlo Kopp, http://www.ausairpower.net/amraam.html), etc. don't count as "leaks," but when I suggested a manual instead then, you're saying I'm looking for a Bible?

 

Okaaaaay....

 

That is decidedly not what is happening. Realistic missile lofting tactics would require adding an Raero indicator to the DLZ in the HUD. It should also be impractical to use loft against jamming targets, and HOJ shots should have comparable range to Sidewinders. Last I checked, none of the above was true.

 

Have you missed all the threads complaining about spammers, people flying around at low altitudes, leaving ECM on, Lock On gets like Air Quake at times, R-27ET sniping, etc.? There are a TON of these threads, and unless people are making this stuff up, yes, they ARE happening.

 

EDIT: Don't think we're talking about the same thing here. In my previous post, I said bad things were already happening - and you replied that they're not, but then proceed to list a bunch of things that should be happening, but because they don't, bad things are happening, which agrees with my previous statement...?

 

Remeber you can defeat a missile by turning and running away from it outside the NEZ OR bleeding enegy from it if WITHIN the NEZ OR a combination of running awat and bleeding energy from it within the NEZ ... they are all using kinematics to defeat the weapon.

 

No, you CANNOT defeat a missile kinematically in its NEZ. No matter what you do, there is NO way to run the missile out of energy before it kills you. That is the very DEFINITION of the NO-ESCAPE zone.

[GGTharos]

Look at it this way - if the target doesn't attempt to out-run/out-rate your missile because he *knows* he'll trash your seeker regardless, then that defeats the point of providing the shooter with information that Pk has reached its highest point in the NEZ.

 

That doesn't change the definition of the NEZ.

 

No, you CANNOT defeat a missile kinematically in its NEZ. No matter what you do, there is NO way to run the missile out of energy before it kills you. That is the very DEFINITION of the NO-ESCAPE zone.

 

Yes, you -can-. The NEZ is not defined as 'there's nothing you can do'. It is defined as 'if you do a 6-g turn to put the missile on your 6, and add 300kts, you will escape, unless you are inside the NEZ'

 

Once inside the NEZ, this SPECIFIC MANEUVER will no longer bail you out.

[D-Scythe]

That doesn't change the definition of the NEZ.

 

And where did I say it did? All I'm saying is if the target does not even try to out-run/rate the missile, because he knows he'd probably spoof it, then the NEZ loses its significance, whose Pk increase stems from the fact that the target cannot defeat the missile kinematically.

 

Yes, you -can-. The NEZ is not defined as 'there's nothing you can do'. It is defined as 'if you do a 6-g turn to put the missile on your 6, and add 300kts, you will escape, unless you are inside the NEZ'

 

Once inside the NEZ, this SPECIFIC MANEUVER will no longer bail you out.

 

First of all, I never said there is nothing you can do - I said that you cannot possibly bleed away enough energy from the incoming missile for it to not kill you on kinematics alone. Good? ;)

 

Secondly, since when was the NEZ is defined by one specific manouevre? It wouldn't even be "no-escape" then - there are plenty of ways to bleed even more energy off the incoming missile aside from just turning around at 6-Gs and adding 300 kts. Dive to thicker air, weave a bit if it's a PN missile, a combination of the two, etc.

[S77th-GOYA]

Let's see,

 

The AMRAAM seeker sucks

All radar missiles' seekers suck

the AIM-9 damn sure sucks

All missiles kinematic modelling sucks

All airborne radars suck

chaff resistance sucks

F-15 thrust in the vertical realm sucks

 

What am I forgetting? :)