vs. SARH

[Prophet]

GrandSlammed by the ED guy :smartass:

 

Except the data Cali gathered was from in game.... :smartass:

 

Will have to run tests at low and high alt to see if there is a difference.

[Ironhand]

Ironhand's tactics are much the same in his "Clipped Eagles".

Please be careful where such tactics are concerned. "Clipped Eagles" was made with V1.02 and I note this caveat in the description on my site: Unless you are flying LOMAC V1.02, this tutorial video will be of limited value. A number of things but especially missile behavior have been significantly altered in Flaming Cliffs. If you are flying V1.12a, waiting to use the R-27ET first will put you in a serious world of hurt. Somewhere in the following thread: I must be friggin' retarted! are links to two tracks (V1.12a) I made for a gentleman having some A2A problems. One is 2v2. Another is 1v2 (Su-27 vs F-15).

 

Ingame it doesnt look like that, it sure doesnt feel like it. The AIm-120 flies like an airbrake, not the R-77...

FWIW, out of curiosity I ran a quick test. ALT= 2000 meters. Aircraft Launch Speed= 462 km/hr. AIM-120: In 60 seconds will be 23 km downrange with a speed of 588 km/hr. Auto-destructs 24 km downrange 70 seconds after launch. R-77: In 60 seconds will be 24 km downrange with a speed of 576 km/hr. Auto-destructs 25 km downrange 68 seconds after launch.

 

Rich

[Chizh]

There are two tracks with subtitles with my comparison test of missiles drag index.

Version 1.12a

Missiles_drag_compare.zip

[GGTharos]

I believe there are more things to think about - like speed loss during maneuver. Best way is to use Tacview's export feature and process the data after doing a few experiments.

 

And by the way, guys, Chizh means 'drag index', LO missiles do NOT do drugs! :D

[Pilotasso]

 

FWIW, out of curiosity I ran a quick test. ALT= 2000 meters. Aircraft Launch Speed= 462 km/hr. AIM-120: In 60 seconds will be 23 km downrange with a speed of 588 km/hr. Auto-destructs 24 km downrange 70 seconds after launch. R-77: In 60 seconds will be 24 km downrange with a speed of 576 km/hr. Auto-destructs 25 km downrange 68 seconds after launch.

 

Rich

 

RGR that but perhaps in your prehocupation of being analitical and precise you forget that sometimes numbers of extreme edges of perfomance rarely reflect real use, just like 3Dmark2005 :D

 

Try use both missiles at low altitude against a target receading at 1200Km/h, youll be surprised by the practical differences wich cannot be apreciated the way you did above. Do the same against a target with aspect changes during BVR.

 

P.S. I know its not going to be changed but someone has to clear this myth that the 120 is close to be an R-77 equivalent.

[kyborgs]

And by the way, guys, Chizh means 'drag index', LO missiles do NOT do drugs! :D

 

Of course they do, how else could you explain this :lol:

[Pilotasso]

There are two tracks with subtitles with my comparison test of missiles drug index.

Version 1.12a

 

 

My index is "clean" thx very much! :D

 

Now seriously, Ill check into this at home, I need to keep pretending Im working right now :D

[D-Scythe]

Of course they do, how else could you explain this :lol:

 

Which missile was that? The AIM-120?

[kyborgs]

Which missile was that? The AIM-120?

R-73, from this topic

[Ironhand]

RGR that but perhaps in your prehocupation of being analitical and precise you forget that sometimes numbers of extreme edges of perfomance rarely reflect real use, just like 3Dmark2005.

 

Try use both missiles at low altitude against a target receading at 1200Km/h, youll be surprised by the practical differences wich cannot be apreciated the way you did above. Do the same against a target with aspect changes during BVR.

 

P.S. I know its not going to be changed but someone has to clear this myth that the 120 is close to be an R-77 equivalent.

I had only about 5 minutes to play with, so the test was quick and dirty controlling for the few variables I had time to control for. And, actually, I was drawing no conclusions other than that, in straight line flight and with an N of 1, they do appear to be fairly comparable. The problem you face in testing against maneuvering targets is controlling for the maneuvers used so that the results will contain meaningful data.

 

Rich

[GGTharos]

Yep - like I said, we need two humans to do the testing, record ACMI, and the export and interpret the data.

[Ironhand]

It sure does feel like the 77 is on drugs.

 

:)

 

Another quick and dirty test. Crossing target (IL-76MD crossing 90*. Missile launched with target on nose). Range at Launch: 15km. Target position at launch: Directly ahead.

 

AIM-120: At 20 sec: 13 km downrange, speed 1450 km/hr. Impact: 15km downrange, speed 1100 km/hr. Flight time: 26 sec.

 

R-77: At 20 sec: 14 km downrange, speed 1509 km/hr. Impact: 15km downrange, speed 1300 km/hr. Flight time: 22 sec.

 

The data are very raw, especially with only a single sampling, but 4 seconds feels like an eternity in a A2A duel.

 

Rich

[GGTharos]

Now try at 20km ... :)

[Chizh]

...

And by the way, guys, Chizh means 'drag index', LO missiles do NOT do drugs! :D

Ups! :D :doh:

[Ironhand]

Now try at 20km ...

Won't be by me. At least not today. :)

 

EDIT: Thinking about what I've seen so far based on ridiculously little data, I suspect that moving the crossing target out to 20km wouldn't effect missile arrival time all that much. The only difference will be that neither missile will hit the target because both are out of E. It'll be interesting to check.

 

Rich

[porky]

Well...in an hour of Lock On I can say confidently that I managed to evade one ER (Su-33vSu-27) and been hit by around 30 :D At least I'm learning...I dunno how you guys can do it...The one I evaded I didn't even see, just guessed based on how far away the 33 seemed to me and how fast ERs travel. Is that how I should be going? Or should I look out for the smoke (which I tried to, but failed completely) and go from there?

 

Oh, and, can you get the Su-33 I'm up against launch as early as possible in the editor? All that happens at the moment is the 33 launches at 73 range, giving me little time to realise what's going on or look for the trail.

 

Thanks for all the input.

[Pilotasso]

:)

 

Another quick and dirty test. Crossing target (IL-76MD crossing 90*. Missile launched with target on nose). Range at Launch: 15km. Target position at launch: Directly ahead.

 

AIM-120: At 20 sec: 13 km downrange, speed 1450 km/hr. Impact: 15km downrange, speed 1100 km/hr. Flight time: 26 sec.

 

R-77: At 20 sec: 14 km downrange, speed 1509 km/hr. Impact: 15km downrange, speed 1300 km/hr. Flight time: 22 sec.

 

The data are very raw, especially with only a single sampling, but 4 seconds feels like an eternity in a A2A duel.

 

Rich

 

Exactly, and thats with a cargo plane, imagine a fighter receading or changing course. The differences would be more pronouced. It would cause a time difference bigger than 4 seconds. Sometimes I get the impression by the time the 120 gets to be on terminal flight Im already well within WVR anyway. Its just not very usefull. Not only that but it also causes me to waste missiles by firing another missile when the previous one unexpetedly hits after all.

 

Terminal flight speed aftecs PK and sensor sensiteviness dramaticaly and thats partialy the responsible why the AMRAAM misses so much compared to the 77, even though they have the same seeker.

[tflash]

Terminal flight speed aftecs PK and sensor sensiteviness dramaticaly and thats partialy the responsible why the AMRAAM misses so much compared to the 77, even though they have the same seeker.

 

Right on the spot. I did not kept records but I have been doing a lot of comparisons lately with firing one shot at the same AI-target from an F-15C and a Mig-29, with Amraam vs. R-77. I shoot and then just press F6 and follow the missile fly at its target.

 

It struck me that time and time over again, the R-77 just nicely banks in towards the right to the ever-thesame-diving AI target and blows it away, while over and over again the Amraam just suddenly, very abruptly, breaks lack and flies totally unexplanable to the left.

 

The only explanation I come up with, is that the R-77, which flies faster, is NEARER to the target and so the target still is in the cone wheras the chaff is not, while the Amraam is still further away and sees both chaff and plane in the cone.

 

An equally probable explanation for me is that it is just scripted that way :D

[peterj]

IIRC in my tests in 1.11 the R-77 had a turn radius somewhere in between the R-73 and the AIM-120.

[Pilotasso]

Turn radius is indeed better with the 120, it should be the other way arround since the 77 has more control surface area, but that is of secondary importance as turn radius becomes relevant in very specific and extreme scenarios. In BVR it wont matter at all, only if you dont have R-73's at hand and you have only BVR's left, you can guess that doesnt happen very often.

Ironicaly in the F-15 theres not much reason to carry the Sidwinder and thus AMRAAM is more likely to be found in those situations more often, but still many of them.

[tflash]

Yes, it's not the turn radius, the whole idea is that since the AI target consistently flies downward and left in a beaming effort, when it launches chaff this chaff will be, from the amraam's point of view, to the left of the target. The amraam clearly goes for the chaff, actually turning into it (just try it, you will see it seems a very odd flightpath). Since the R-77 by then is already much closer to the target, the chaff that is released is immediately outside the scanning cone of the R-77 and not picked up.

 

I verified again: a Mig-25PD from medium alt medium distance is killed anytime by both R-77 and Amraam, *since it doesn't throw out chaff*, when you change this by a Mig-23, you clearly see the Amraam consistently decoyed by the chaff while the R-77 goes for the kill.

 

But hey, this has been beaten to death and will be fixed in BS if I understand GG right.

[GGTharos]

Yep. The AMRAAM seems much more fearsome at short ranges to me in BS.

A number of people have also asked to have the rest of the missiles corrected as well, to make BVR more realistic and stop these silly 'I'll just fly towards you and it won't hit me anyway' things from happening.

[Pilotasso]

The R-77 wont fall that easely already anyway, as for SARH I think they should be left alone or else the only thing different about them is that you cant break radar lock.

[GGTharos]

I think the proportions of chaff susceptibility will be the same (I hope) it'll just be harded to ditch'em overall - again. None of this 'I fly towards you, chaff, and nothing hits me' BS, if I have my way.

[tflash]

Interestingly, I was thinking that, if you would be programming such intercept algorythms IRL, you do not even need chaff rejection to correct the faulty behaviour in this case. In fact, the target is moving downwards right. The chaff is ejected to the left, and causes the amraam to make a sharp turn away from the aircraft.

 

It is very clear however, that the target in such a situation *could not be suddenly moving to the left so abruptly*. A beaming target cannot reverse. From the distance the missile is, it's algorythms should prevent it to make such a drastic reverse course correction.

 

Being able to violently turn with the target is something for heaters, that need to grip on the target like a predator and keep their hold tight. They definitely need good flares rejection, and the new seekers do offer this. But in a radar missile like amraam, the kill is prepared long before, by forcing the target aircraft in a corner. No need to extremely change course in the endgame (they also have larger blast radius). So a simple algo fix would probably solve the problem IRL (if it would ever exist).