American IR Missiles

[BrackishWater]

I was wondering, the Russian planes (although the F-15 has a great flight record) seem to have an incredible advantage over American planes, at least in my experience so far. My question is why don't the American planes use IR missiles like the Russians (ET missile for example). I realize the Aim-120 is fire and forget and all that, but an IR missile can hit you by surprise. Any idea why the F-15 doesn't carry something like this? And why doesn't it carry a long range missile (like the Russian EM or the F-14's Phoenix). I can't imagine why the F-15 is so lacking in these 2 areas. Anybody?

[Force_Feedback]

Because the R-27ET is designed for retalitory purposes or sneak attacks, not for offensive action. When the enemy tries to sneak into a protected area, the fighters are able to pursue it and shoot it down, alternatively, when the enemy aircraft already completed its mission. It's not designed to fly into foreign countries and shoot down aircraft there, just for when the bad guys decide to flee the fight.

[S77th-konkussion]

Doctrine. In the estimation of the strategic planners- they didn't need to invest in a medium-short range IR missile.

 

or- they reseached and developed one and decided at some point in that process to cancel.

 

IR missiles can be rather dangerous (DUH) meaning that they do not distinguish/ IFF targets- they follow the heat. A friendly in the wrong place at the wrong time might draw his buddies' weapon. Active radar guidance along with IFF means a safer........ death LOL

 

IMO- While the USAF certainly prepares pilots for CAC -I'm surmising they would rather not if they don't have to. If I can kill my enemy from BVR that's what I'm a gonna do. They'll have their entire afterlife to debate glory, etc because they're DEAD. If I can't- I will still have tools to dogfight with.

 

I suppose at this point- a 27ET counterpart could be a sweet toy to have. I understand that the newer 9X Sidewinders have a pretty significant improvement in range while remaining nice & small. This missile sure as hell isn't in LOMAC. The 9M (?) is disappointing from what little I've used it, but this seems legit to me. I think the R73 was pretty badazz compared to pre- X versions.

[GGTharos]

Doctrine. In the estimation of the strategic planners- they didn't need to invest in a medium-short range IR missile.

 

or- they reseached and developed one and decided at some point in that process to cancel.

 

That in fact would be the AIM-7R missile utilizing the AIM-9X seeker with datalink. It was meant to be what we all thought the ET was, only much, much better.

It was dropped; the AMRAAM was considered more than adequate to deal with BVR threats.

 

 

IR missiles can be rather dangerous (DUH) meaning that they do not distinguish/ IFF targets- they follow the heat. A friendly in the wrong place at the wrong time might draw his buddies' weapon. Active radar guidance along with IFF means a safer........ death LOL

 

There's no IFF on radar missiles either ;)

 

IMO- While the USAF certainly prepares pilots for CAC -I'm surmising they would rather not if they don't have to. If I can kill my enemy from BVR that's what I'm a gonna do. They'll have their entire afterlife to debate glory, etc because they're DEAD. If I can't- I will still have tools to dogfight with.

 

Exactly right - but take care not to underestimate the actual BFM and ACM training given. Yeah, you want'em do die BVR, bu if they won't, you KNOW you can whoop up on'em WVR.

 

I suppose at this point- a 27ET counterpart could be a sweet toy to have.

 

In LO or RL? RL said toy was, at least for now, rejected. AMRAAM might give you a warning, but it's apparently not enough warning.

 

I understand that the newer 9X Sidewinders have a pretty significant improvement in range while remaining nice & small. This missile sure as hell isn't in LOMAC. The 9M (?) is disappointing from what little I've used it, but this seems legit to me. I think the R73 was pretty badazz compared to pre- X versions.

 

 

The 9X is probably nt quite a match energetically speaking for the 73; certainly not for the ET. As mentioned, the ET was designed to attack sneakily or to run down aircraft that the 73 couldn't reach. In addition, because the R-27(e)R's seem to be poor, especially in the face of dedicated bomber SPJ's, yet those same bombers have a /huge/ IR signature ... well :D

 

 

It is fair to say that the ET is in some ways overmodelled, and the 120 undemodelled - so don't take what you see in the game as reflection on reality.

 

 

The AIM-9M definitely lacks some maneuverability, and a bit of range too. Despite this if you use it correctly it is a killer. When in doubt, center the dot and fire. Beyond some 0.7nm you can also take some wicket 30+deg off-bore shots with it as well.

[S77th-konkussion]

Yes, I know. I meant in real life speaking purely from a "that would be cool" standpoint- not in the hard realities of budgets & weapon development.

[Pilotasso]

Because the R-27ET is designed for retalitory purposes or sneak attacks, not for offensive action. When the enemy tries to sneak into a protected area, the fighters are able to pursue it and shoot it down, alternatively, when the enemy aircraft already completed its mission. It's not designed to fly into foreign countries and shoot down aircraft there, just for when the bad guys decide to flee the fight.

 

I do not concur. If you read any detailed article about large IR russian missiles youll see 3 things:

 

-To be intended for chases beyong the reach of "ordinary" IR short range missiles

-To be shot in conjuction with radar missiles to maximize PK

-to be fired in salvoes of mixed guidances from oposite wing stations for longitudinal balance (less sudden untrimmed commands)

 

Fighting in the air is not scrable, you cant just take a slap in the face and say" ok now I will revenge myself for that" because that first slap is also going to be the last and it better be you who does it before the enemy.

[Rhen]

The AIM-9M definitely lacks some maneuverability, and a bit of range too. Despite this if you use it correctly it is a killer. When in doubt, center the dot and fire. Beyond some 0.7nm you can also take some wicket 30+deg off-bore shots with it as well.

 

When employing a Sidewinder IRL, we lock the target, with the seeker slaved, then uncage the seeker head to see if the missile's tracking the bandit. If the bandit pops flares, we can watch the behavior of the seeker and either fire, or not. If the seeker gets spoofed, we can recage the seeker and wait or go guns.

 

When firing any missile, we evaluate it's flight path, whether the motor lights off, or if it even comes off the rails - there have been instances of hung A-A missiles.

[S77th-konkussion]

GG- I could have sworn that I read something about the Slammer having some kind of IFF query/mechanism/software. I'm almost certain it was in the first lomac manual.

 

Obviously I'm not saying this is accurate- just curious. Maybe it was simply part of the IFF system and acts as a safety if you will, or maybe it's just wrong..

[S77th-konkussion]

- there have been instances of hung A-A missiles.

 

 

yikes.. I certainly hope that they can't light off the motors until clear of the pylon.

[GGTharos]

GG- I could have sworn that I read something about the Slammer having some kind of IFF query/mechanism/software. I'm almost certain it was in the first lomac manual.

 

Obviously I'm not saying this is accurate- just curious. Maybe it was simply part of the IFF system and acts as a safety if you will, or maybe it's just wrong..

 

AFAIK the (real) FCS does not inhibit a slammer launch against an IFF'ed target, but only AFAIK and Rhen can answer that one for ya better than I.

The real slammer has no IFF antenna, nor room for one to be bolted on - but that again is according to my limited understanding of the matter.

 

Also, the scores of (mistakenly) shot down friendlies in LO are testament to the slammer's lack of IFF in LO :D

[GGTharos]

yikes.. I certainly hope that they can't light off the motors until clear of the pylon.

 

That is the problem and that is the problem.

 

1. The motor might fire and the missile will potentnially guide ... on whatever's in front of ya.

 

2. The motor might fire as the ground crew are working on it.

 

And both Sidewinders and slammers light the rocket on the rail when attached to the appropriate one.

[192nd_Erdem]

It is fair to say that the ET is in some ways overmodelled' date=' and the 120 undemodelled - so don't take what you see in the game as reflection on reality.[/quote']

 

Go Tharos! What else?

[anselm80]

I recently got LOFC and only flew for about 30 hours, mainly with Su-27. So my knowledge/perception is probably not 100% reliable. But from what I can see, 27ET seems very effective, so much so that it left me with a suspicion that it's probably not a good representation of the real thing. Mid-range IR missile with high PK? Sounds a little too good to be true. On the other hand, 27ER is pretty much a garbage compared to AIM120.

 

The real AIM120 is not fully autonomous, you still have to guide it with your AN/APG, until the missile's own radar kicks in. F4 did a good job portraying it. In F4, you can see the amraam going blind if you stop bugging your target, lose the radar lock or leave the TWS gimbal before the missile goes 'pitbull'.

 

ED, on the other hand, seems to have made AIM120 fully autonomous in LO. It's either that or the missile just goes pitbull really quickly, like right off the hardpoint, effectively turning AIM120 into a true fire-and-forget weapon. So I don't get why some of you say that AIM120 is under-modelled. If anything, it's vastly over-modelled/simplified in delivery.

 

Now, onto the famous sidewider... AIM-9M in F4 has even shorter range than that in LO, with almost 0 PK outside 2nm (3.7km), provided you are shooting the target in the correct aspect. So I can't tell which representation is "more" correct, though I get a sense that the range on the real thing probably sucks. Also, AIM-9M can't be fired using helmet-mounted target queueing system, that was only implemented with AIM-9X.

[D-Scythe]

The real AIM120 is not fully autonomous, you still have to guide it with your AN/APG, until the missile's own radar kicks in. F4 did a good job portraying it. In F4, you can see the amraam going blind if you stop bugging your target, lose the radar lock or leave the TWS gimbal before the missile goes 'pitbull'.

 

ED, on the other hand, seems to have made AIM120 fully autonomous in LO. It's either that or the missile just goes pitbull really quickly, like right off the hardpoint, effectively turning AIM120 into a true fire-and-forget weapon.

 

Are we playing the same game? The AIM-120 in Lock On activates its seeker when it gets within 7-8 nm of the target. If you break lock before then, chances are your AIM-120 would just loft into the sky.

 

So I don't get why some of you say that AIM120 is under-modelled. If anything, it's vastly over-modelled/simplified in delivery.

 

Again...are we playing the same game?

 

BTW, the point isn't that the AIM-120 is under-modelled - rather, it's the fact that all missiles with a monopulse doppler radar seeker (AIM-120/7 and R-27/77) are undermodelled. Doppler effectively means that such missiles should have no problem with chaff/clutter rejection so long as the target isn't trying to hide in the notch.

 

Now, onto the famous sidewider... AIM-9M in F4 has even shorter range than that in LO, with almost 0 PK outside 2nm (3.7km), provided you are shooting the target in the correct aspect. So I can't tell which representation is "more" correct, though I get a sense that the range on the real thing probably sucks.

 

Why would you think it's range sucks? Any sources/facts to back this up?

 

Also, AIM-9M can't be fired using helmet-mounted target queueing system, that was only implemented with AIM-9X.

 

And that's how it is in Lock On. Don't know why you felt like you needed to bring this up.

[GGTharos]

I recently got LOFC and only flew for about 30 hours, mainly with Su-27. So my knowledge/perception is probably not 100% reliable. But from what I can see, 27ET seems very effective, so much so that it left me with a suspicion that it's probably not a good representation of the real thing. Mid-range IR missile with high PK? Sounds a little too good to be true.

 

The biggest problem is that it can be launched without a lock, and reliably find itself a target.

 

On the other hand, 27ER is pretty much a garbage compared to AIM120.

 

As it should be, but LO undemoddels the both of'em, I'm sure.

 

The real AIM120 is not fully autonomous, you still have to guide it with your AN/APG, until the missile's own radar kicks in. F4 did a good job portraying it. In F4, you can see the amraam going blind if you stop bugging your target, lose the radar lock or leave the TWS gimbal before the missile goes 'pitbull'.

 

I don't know why you're comparing this to F4. If you lose track or gimbal out, the missile is supposed to start searching on its own, in whatever sim ...

 

ED, on the other hand, seems to have made AIM120 fully autonomous in LO. It's either that or the missile just goes pitbull really quickly, like right off the hardpoint, effectively turning AIM120 into a true fire-and-forget weapon. So I don't get why some of you say that AIM120 is under-modelled. If anything, it's vastly over-modelled/simplified in delivery.

 

The problem is the search algorithm employed for the ARH missiles - it's not just the 120. And yeah, it's pretty darned undermodelled - low speed, low range, low energy, and a great lust for chaff.

 

Now, onto the famous sidewider... AIM-9M in F4 has even shorter range than that in LO, with almost 0 PK outside 2nm (3.7km), provided you are shooting the target in the correct aspect. So I can't tell which representation is "more" correct, though I get a sense that the range on the real thing probably sucks. Also, AIM-9M can't be fired using helmet-mounted target queueing system, that was only implemented with AIM-9X.

 

 

... And we have actual AIM-9L missile firing data which shows us that LO's sidewinder is HORRIBLE compared to the real thing. I'm not sure how you can say F4's AIM-9 has shorter range than LO's, when the F4 AIM-9M will get twice the range that the LO one will.

[anselm80]

Are we playing the same game? The AIM-120 in Lock On activates its seeker when it gets within 7-8 nm of the target. If you break lock before then, chances are your AIM-120 would just loft into the sky.

 

 

See, you are assuming that the seeker activates after some distance. I found that to be not true; in this game, it guides to the target even without my own radar on the bandit.

 

Here is an easy test you can do, when you do a quick start on F-15, you can see a Mig25 on your radar, 2 O'clock, about 15nm out. He's coming in head-on aspect, so the distance will close rather quickly, so lock him up and fire the 120C ASAP. And as soon as the missile leaves, unlock him and disengage altogether. You will find the missile still hits regardless.

 

This is an easy test to replicate, I just did it twice, both times resulting in successful hits. Here are the screenshots.

[GGTharos]

Did you by any chance watch in say, the outside view to see when the missile begins to actually maneuver to intercept the MiG? After the rocket burns out, you can watch the g on the missile in external view.

[anselm80]

Did you by any chance watch in say, the outside view to see when the missile begins to actually maneuver to intercept the MiG? After the rocket burns out, you can watch the g on the missile in external view.

 

 

Actually, the missiles just go into a climb for 7~10 seconds just after launch, the motor burns out soon after. Once it gets around 7km within the target, it starts maneuvering.

 

I just re-did the test, only this time I fired at 22nm out, and of course, I dropped the lock right away. The missile still hit. I want to see my missile going blind and miss the target. :mad:

[GGTharos]

Why would it go blind?

The target's flying right into its scanbox.

[anselm80]

OK, I got a good news and a bad news.

 

Good news is that I just got my first miss on AIM120C, using the same testing method. I dropped the lock and the missile got lost and flew into emptiness. I guess AIM120C in LO isn't totally autonomous after all.

 

Bad news is that I was 25 nm out when I fired. It seems that the seeker on the missile goes active pretty early its flight and it's definitely not when it's just 7~8nm away from the bandit. It seems to go active at much greater distance than that (more like 20nm, judging the distance to the bandit from the MFD on the second screenshot).

 

Anyway, here are the screenies.

[anselm80]

Why would it go blind?

The target's flying right into its scanbox.

 

No, I am saying, the missiles' scanbox seems to be active even from a great distance from the bandit. I always thought that AIM120s onboard radar goes active after it gets reasonably close to the target. (7~8nm like D-Scythe said) And to guide it close till its radar activates, you need to keep your lock on the bandit. At least that was how it was portrayed in F4.

[D-Scythe]

You're tests don't indicate anything. Using the AI as a test subject in this case is meaningless - it literally flies RIGHT into the AMRAAM. And you do know that once you break lock, the AMRAAM still searches out for the target out on its own - and the AI is making this ridiculously easy by flying right into its acquisition box.

[D-Scythe]

No, I am saying, the missiles' scanbox seems to be active even from a great distance from the bandit. I always thought that AIM120s onboard radar goes active after it gets reasonably close to the target. (7~8nm like D-Scythe said) And to guide it close till its radar activates, you need to keep your lock on the bandit. At least that was how it was portrayed in F4.

 

So what if the radar activates right when you break lock? The missile is gonna try to turn on its seeker to find the target if you cut the link and force it to go autonomous early. However, just because its seeker is on doesn't mean that it has locked onto the target 20 miles away and is tracking it. In your tests, I think it's just a matter of the target flying a straight and predictable profile, RIGHT into the missile.

 

Modify your tests. Place the target as high off boresight as possible and shoot the AMRAAM. Make sure you break missile lock before the missile completes its turn into the bandit. Don't give the AI a waypoint so that it starts looking for an airbase and doesn't fly in a straight line.

[anselm80]

In your tests, I think it's just a matter of the target flying a straight and predictable profile, RIGHT into the missile.

 

Modify your tests. Place the target as high off boresight as possible and shoot the AMRAAM. Make sure you break missile lock before the missile completes its turn into the bandit. Don't give the AI a waypoint so that it starts looking for an airbase and doesn't fly in a straight line.

 

I did what you said. I think the pictures are pretty self-explanatory. The seeker finds the target even when the bandit is not travelling toward the missile, without any outside guidance. It certainly doesn't look like the case of bandit accidentally coming across the AIM120's radar. Another intersting thing I saw is that the missile didn't climb. It didn't even speed up for long, the burner went out within a couple of seconds into its flight, if not less. It definitely seems to be tracking at a distance greater than 7~8nm from the target. And no matter how quickly I break the lock (which was within a half second in all of these tests), the missile either 1) turns directly into the bandit, or 2) starts its climb. I tried shooting it way off-angle, at the edge of the gimbal, but to no avail, it still behaves in the one of the two ways I described.

 

I wanted to test at a greater range using this off-bore approach, but that meant that I would have to shoot outside DLZ and the missile will never have any energy to reach. (I tried it, and as expected it just doesn't have the energy to maneuver.)

 

p.s. I exceeded my upload limit for jpg, so I had to delete some screenshot from the previous posts.

[Weta43]

I'd have thought, when you launch the missile it would calculate an optimal path to an impact point with the target pretty much immediately on launch, fly this path using inertial navigation, and only change that course if updates show the target has changes its path.

To not do this would result in heavier manuvering later in the flight & a loss of energy/PK.

If this is the case, it doesn't matter how off bore the target is at launch, or at what point after launch you break the lock, if the target doesn't change course it will still be right where the missile expects it to be when it gets within range of the missile's seeker.

To test - lock the target (at any aspect), launch the missile & break the lock, then ALT J into the target aircraft & make a definate, but not violent, change in course at a specified time. Watch the track in F6 & if at the specified time the missile turns & tracks you (assuming it's before it gets within the range of the seeker ) it's tracking. If it heads to where you would have been had you not manuvered (sorry - can't spell that word), it's just following a calculated PN path to intercept.

 

(edit - I thought it, but then I looked it up ...)

 

"A typical engagement starts with the aircraft's radar detecting and tracking the target. Just prior to launch, the launch aircraft's fire-control software will download the inertial data for the target to the missile. This provides the AIM-120 with navigation data allowing the AMRAAM's onboard autopilot to guide the missile to the predicted location of the target. Updates from the launch aircraft provide mid-course corrections to the missile in order to provide the most accurate range and bearing data to the autopilot.

In addition to this mode, the AMRAAM is fully capable of directing itself to a point in space from which it will engage its radar to seek out the target. However, without periodic updates there is an increased risk that the missile will be unable to acquire the target because the aircraft will have moved out of the seeker's scan envelope. Despite the disadvantages, this mode does allow the aircraft to launch an AMRAAM and then disengage from the battle entirely."

 

and from WIKI

 

"If the firing aircraft or surrogate continues to track the target, periodic updates are sent to the missile telling it of any changes in the target's direction and speed, allowing it to adjust its course so that it is able to close to self-homing distance while keeping the target aircraft in the basket (the radar seeker's field of view) in which it will be able to find it.

 

Not all AMRAAM users have elected to purchase the mid-course update option, which limits AMRAAM's effectiveness in some scenarios. The RAF initially opted not to use mid-course update for its Tornado F3 force, only to discover that without it, testing proved the AMRAAM was less effective in BVR engagements than the older semi-active radar homing BAE Skyflash weapon--the AIM-120's own radar is necessarily of limited range and power compared to that of the launch aircraft."

 

This non - updated option is essentially the same as losing lock just after launch - the missile will still inertially giude to the predicted intercept point (even if off bore) & then look for the target. If the target is not actively manouvering - it will find it..