Taking off with a full complement of Phoenix missiles?

[shagrat]

...the thing with a 4-7 times higher turn radius is, if your turn radius is 1,500m the turn radius of the missile is some 6,000 to 10,500 m. The missile needs to intercept your future position, so at terminal guidance it usually should lead its target?

If you happen to have not flying straight into the missile head on, but crank or nodge, when you start turning again into the opposite direction inside the missile's bubble (6-10km) the missile needs more time to turn at you, than reaching you. Which leaves the kill to the proximity charge and distance.

 

I am aware it will require good timing (mind judging the launch and flight time, not necessarily "seeing" the missile), but it should not be impossible to outmaneuver a missile approaching at 4 to 2 Mach.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The faster the missile the less lead it requires, and few degrees of heading change you can achieve in a given time before it reaches you though.

[OnlyforDCS]

The faster the missile the less lead it requires

 

Pretty much this. Im not sure Im reading some of the comments here correctly but assuming that the AIM54 will get less dangerous the closer the launch distance to the target is absolutely incorrect.

Edited December 20, 2018 by OnlyforDCS

[shagrat]

So I guess you are correct and the guy on defense net is totally wrong and dies immediately when he goes defensive the first time against a fast missile in his Rafale...

 

I am still interested to test that pilots concepts against a more realistic AIM-54, but that's just me.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

So I guess you are correct and the guy on defense net is totally wrong and dies immediately when he goes defensive the first time against a fast missile in his Rafale...

 

I am still interested to test that pilots concepts against a more realistic AIM-54, but that's just me.

 

No need to get defensive. It was just a thought that popped into my head. I may well be missing something else that's more significant.

[OnlyforDCS]

So I guess you are correct and the guy on defense net is totally wrong and dies immediately when he goes defensive the first time against a fast missile in his Rafale...

 

I am still interested to test that pilots concepts against a more realistic AIM-54, but that's just me.

 

Well without reading what he wrote I can't judge whether it has merit or not, but just the part that you wrote about without knowing any other parameters doesn't really tell us anything about anything.

 

Also please note Im not saying that going full G defensive at the right moment and "dodging" the missile is impossible, it's just that it is very hard to do. And the faster a missile is, the harder it is to "dodge". That's just pure physics and doesn't have anything to do with the Phoenix.

 

Another thing to note the AIM54 doesn't have to hit you directly either, it has a pretty large warhead and a proxymity fuse too.

[shagrat]

No need to get defensive. It was just a thought that popped into my head. I may well be missing something else that's more significant.

The thing is, I read his post and it was pretty interesting to understand the math behind it. The necessary lead is mostly determined by the angular velocity of the target if I am not mistaken. So the idea of changing the lead vector faster than the missile can follow is to my understanding the basic concept of a couple of typical defensive maneuvers against missiles. e.g. barrel roll, crank and jinx, often combined with dragging the missile to denser air, increase distance and / or notching the guidance radar or seeker.

 

They won't do all this, if it is useless against a faster missile... we likely need to try and train for ourselves, when the AIM-54 from HB arrives.

[Dino Might]

So I guess you are correct and the guy on defense net is totally wrong and dies immediately when he goes defensive the first time against a fast missile in his Rafale...

 

I am still interested to test that pilots concepts against a more realistic AIM-54, but that's just me.

 

If you are accurately recreating his discussion, then yes, he is wrong. The assumptions that a missile requires an equal turn radius to what it is intercepting is pure folly except in very certain circumstances, one being an equal speed tail chase when the missile is already in lethal range of detonation. Irrelevant, and nonsense when the associated assumptions are applied to other geometries.

 

The guy may be a rafale pilot, or maybe he's just some internet commando. That he says something on defense.net doesn't make it true. His physics, as you describe them, make no sense, because the underlying assumptions are not relevant to this problem.

 

Please link the post, I'm curious as to what is being missed, either here or over there.

[shagrat]

Well without reading what he wrote I can't judge whether it has merit or not, but just the part that you wrote about without knowing any other parameters doesn't really tell us anything about anything.

 

Also please note Im not saying that going full G defensive at the right moment and "dodging" the missile is impossible, it's just that it is very hard to do. And the faster a missile is, the harder it is to "dodge". That's just pure physics and doesn't have anything to do with the Phoenix.

That's why I linked it in my first post.

Seems it is more and more common to chime in late, reading half a page of the book and make assumptions how good or bad the book must be.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3725560

 

...and I talked exactly about the interesting math and concept he tells us "why and how" dodging a very fast missile is very much possible and trained IRL.

 

Another thing to note the AIM54 doesn't have to hit you directly either, it has a pretty large warhead and a proxymity fuse too.

Yep, another thing I mentioned multiple times... Though I doubt its explosion covers more then 200 m?

[OnlyforDCS]

The necessary lead is mostly determined by the angular velocity of the target if I am not mistaken. So the idea of changing the lead vector faster than the missile can follow is to my understanding the basic concept of a couple of typical defensive maneuvers against missiles.

 

Yes this is correct, but you still have to understand that executing this maneuver against a missile going Mach 4 is much less effective than against the same missile going Mach 2, all other parameters being equal.

[Dino Might]

The thing is, I read his post and it was pretty interesting to understand the math behind it. The necessary lead is mostly determined by the angular velocity of the target if I am not mistaken. So the idea of changing the lead vector faster than the missile can follow is to my understanding the basic concept of a couple of typical defensive maneuvers against missiles. e.g. barrel roll, crank and jinx, often combined with dragging the missile to denser air, increase distance and / or notching the guidance radar or seeker.

 

They won't do all this, if it is useless against a faster missile... we likely need to try and train for ourselves, when the AIM-54 from HB arrives.

 

Yes, angular velocity for angle from missile boresight to target. They absolutley will maneuver against any missile of they know it's coming, because what the heck else are you going to do?

 

Achieving the necessary angular velocity for the missile is not the same as achieving a turn radius equal to that of the target. Turn rate and turn radius are not the same, and turn rate required to intercept does not have to equal turn rate of the target.

[Dino Might]

That's why I linked it in my first post.

Seems it is more and more common to chime in late, reading half a page of the book and make assumptions how good or bad the book must be.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3725560

 

...and I talked exactly about the interesting math and concept he tells us "why and how" dodging a very fast missile is very much possible and trained IRL.

 

 

Yep, another thing I mentioned multiple times... Though I doubt its explosion covers more then 200 m?

 

200m in what direction? Have you seen the calculations on the frag velocities? Im not suggesting anything here other than that you keep making unstated, blanket assumptions that don't always apply. The geometries matter. You can't make geometry independent assumptions and expect the conclusions to hold true across the board. Sorry for "jumping in late and not reading everything," but if we all did that, we'd never dig ourselves out of all the crap thrown around on the internet by supposed missile guidance experts.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Dino Might

[shagrat]

If you are accurately recreating his discussion, then yes, he is wrong. The assumptions that a missile requires an equal turn radius to what it is intercepting is pure folly except in very certain circumstances, one being an equal speed tail chase when the missile is already in lethal range of detonation. Irrelevant, and nonsense when the associated assumptions are applied to other geometries.

 

The guy may be a rafale pilot, or maybe he's just some internet commando. What he says on defense.net doesn't make it true. His physics, as you describe them, make no sense, because the underlying assumptions are not relevant to this problem.

The missile does not have to turn as good as the target to hit it. He and me never said that. The fact that a fast flying missile has a say 4-7 times larger turn radius makes it possible to dodge it by making it change its lead faster than it can turn. We talk jet turn radius at 7 G is 1,500 m and the missiles is 10,500 m so if you happen to turn inside the missiles 10Km bubble with 7 G it can't turn into you. If you manage to make the missile lead you before executing the 7 G turn it will even be harder because the missile needs to correct it's lead before starting to actually to

urn into you, by then it should have passed you...

The crucial part is judging launch distance and get a "feeling" / experience for the flight time and end speeds after the motor burned out (30sec into the flight). As I said, we need to test the concept in DCS with HBs Phoenix, as the current one does seem very exaggerated. :dunno:

[OnlyforDCS]

Ok, Ive read through the post on defenseissues.net now. (Sorry for missing it earlier, but it happens sometimes and there really was no need to get personal)

 

All that the poster claims is that it is possible to outmaneuver missiles in certain conditions and then proceeds to list them. They are kind of hard to follow because like Dino Might mentiones a lot of parameters are missing from the descriptions. He states that the faster a missile is the bigger turn radius it has, which is also true, but without knowing the intercept geometry as Dino Might mentioned is meaningless. Nowhere does he state that a faster missile is less capable than a slower one. In fact he even states and I quote:

 

Main problem with evading missiles is their speed, which makes timing somewhat difficult

Edited December 20, 2018 by OnlyforDCS

[Dino Might]

Okay, I read about 4 paragraphs of that dude's post on defense.net and can already tell it's got issues. Firstly, the part you reference on the turn rate discussion is as I said, for one very specific case of a tail chase, and it ignores actual intercept geometry (ignores the range to target). He does admit this, but doesn't provide any adequate explanation of its relevance or any verification with a time stepped model, unless his images are generated from a script that is available to check.

 

He makes nonsense statements on how a missile "can't track a fighter doing a barrel roll."

 

Better off looking up pure pursuit and proportional navigation and wrapping your head around a missile doing some of both throughout its engagement.

 

Also, just because something works a certain way in DCS does not make it reality, before I get that whole line of "I tested it in this game."

Edited December 20, 2018 by Dino Might

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The necessary lead is mostly determined by the angular velocity of the target if I am not mistaken.

 

Two factors are influence lead (against a non-maneuvering target): crossing speed of the target, and the speed of the missile. The slower the crossing angle of the target or the faster the missile, the less the lead required.

 

If the target changes direction, a faster missile will have a greater turning radious, but because it will be pulling less lead than a slower missile, it has a smaller heading change to make.

[shagrat]

Ok, Ive read through the post on defenseissues.net now. (Sorry for missing it earlier, but it happens sometimes and there really was no need to get personal)

 

All that the poster claims is that it is possible to outmaneuver missiles in certain conditions and then proceeds to list them. They are kind of hard to follow because like Dino Might mentiones a lot of parameters are missing from the descriptions. He states that the faster a missile is the bigger turn radius it has, which is also true, but without knowing the intercept geometry as Dino Might mentioned is meaningless. Nowhere does he state that a faster missile is less capable than a slower one. In fact he even states and I quote:

What is again, exactly what I said multiple times before. "Timing is crucial"... ? :huh:

 

What is the point here?!

[shagrat]

Two factors are influence lead (against a non-maneuvering target): crossing speed of the target, and the speed of the missile. The slower the crossing angle of the target or the faster the missile, the less the lead required.

 

If the target changes direction, a faster missile will have a greater turning radious, but because it will be pulling less lead than a slower missile, it has a smaller heading change to make.

Yep. Correct

[shagrat]

Okay, I read about 4 paragraphs of that dude's post on defense.net and can already tell it's got issues. Firstly, the part you reference on the turn rate discussion is as I said, for one very specific case of a tail chase, and it ignores actual intercept geometry (ignores the range to target). He does admit this, but doesn't provide any adequate explanation of its relevance or any verification with a time stepped model, unless his images are generated from a script that is available to check.

 

He makes nonsense statements on how a missile "can't track a fighter doing a barrel roll."

 

Better off looking up pure pursuit and proportional navigation and wrapping your head around a missile doing some of both throughout its engagement.

 

Also, just because something works a certain way in DCS does not make it reality, before I get that whole line of "I tested it in this game."

The sketches are for different maneuvers. Sketch number 2 (evasion-g-1) would be the more relevant one, and number 3 (evasion-g-2).

 

But I fold, you are so many people so much more knowledgeable, you must be right: there is no way to defend against the mighty Thor, ehhh AIM-54 Phoenix.

Its speed, agility and warhead makes it impossible to defeat, so we should always turn and run away when confronted with an F-14 and its Phoenix missiles, because it will rule the skies in DCS for now, until someone models the even more mighty Meteor!

Amen!

[OnlyforDCS]

The sketches are for different maneuvers. Sketch number 2 (evasion-g-1) would be the more relevant one, and number 3 (evasion-g-2).

 

But I fold, you are so many people so much more knowledgeable, you must be right: there is no way to defend against the mighty Thor, ehhh AIM-54 Phoenix.

Its speed, agility and warhead makes it impossible to defeat, so we should always turn and run away when confronted with an F-14 and its Phoenix missiles, because it will rule the skies in DCS for now, until someone models the even more mighty Meteor!

Amen!

 

Now you are resorting to hyperbole. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is frankly rude. The point myself and others are trying to make, and the one you conveniently seem to disregard for the past few pages, and instead choose to resort to ridicule, is that a faster missile is much more deadly than a slower one, all other parameters being equal.

 

I don't see how much clearer we can make this. No one is stating that the Phoenix is a GOD MODE missile or anything of the sort, all we are saying is that the idea that it is somehow easier to dodge a faster missile than a slower one is wrong. (All other parameters being equal)

Edited December 20, 2018 by OnlyforDCS

[shagrat]

Now you are resorting to hyperbole. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is frankly rude. The point myself and others are trying to make, and the one you conveniently seem to disregard for the past few pages, and instead choose to resort to ridicule, is that a faster missile is much more deadly than a slower one, all other parameters being equal.

 

I don't see how much clearer we can make this. No one is stating that the Phoenix is a GOD MODE missile or anything of the sort, all we are saying is that the idea that it is somehow easier to dodge a faster missile than a slower one is wrong. (All other parameters being equal)

...ok, but I wasn't saying anything different, than "the AIM-54s speed does not mean it is invincible, as the more speed it has, the larger its turn radius."

So a carefully timed evasion works similar to any evasion of an AMRAAM, AIM-9 or other missiles. :dunno:

[Dino Might]

No, the whole diatribe has been about you using some questionable post on some .net discussion board to justify expectations that the AIM54 will have a hard time hitting maneuvering targets, trying to perpetuate an urban myth repeated by chair force commandos the world over.

 

Our frustration stems from these continued ill-founded claims routinely being posted despite evidence and reasoning to the contrary. I have been less than patient with this because posts like the ones you have made, which you think are just asking questions to spur a discussion are not actually phrased that way. It's like news reels using a question mark in a statement, "this story we just conjured up spells the end of the world...?"

 

And to the backtracking in your most recent post, so what if it has a larger turn radius? We have been explaining to you that is not a primary metric affecting missile intercept performance, so why are you even talking about it in that context.

[OnlyforDCS]

...ok, but I wasn't saying anything different, than "the AIM-54s speed does not mean it is invincible, as the more speed it has, the larger its turn radius."

So a carefully timed evasion works similar to any evasion of an AMRAAM, AIM-9 or other missiles. :dunno:

 

Actually theoretically it should be easier to dodge an AIM54, than an AMRAAM or an AIM9, in certain equalized conditions, the most important of which being equal speed, however you have to also take into account that there are also many conditions where the aim54 is much more deadly than the other missiles listed too. That's why I took exception to what you posted regarding it's turn radius. It's just one parameter of many, and not even the most important one when the missile is close to or at its max speed.

 

The speed of the AIM54 is not a weakness, it's the missile's biggest asset.

Edited December 20, 2018 by OnlyforDCS

[shagrat]

The starting point was, that the current(!) DCS AIM-54 is pretty overpowered, it seems, as it can acquire targets at 50° and low against ground clutter instantly while turning into the target like an IRIS-T...

 

So I was interested to see how good these evasion tactics will work against Heatblurs more realistic AIM-54 and I suggested it would be possible with a good timed jink or notching and turning to dodge it, as according to the turn radius calculation the missiles bubble is pretty big.

 

The rest needs to be tested, once the Heatblur AIM-54 is released.

 

I don't get the point of the whole argument here, as we seem to basically tell the same thing?

 

Bottomline: The AIM-54 is a fast missile, which makes it crucial to judge the timing extremely well, but you should be able to dodge it like any other BVR missile coming at you, if you time it right?

[shagrat]

No, the whole diatribe has been about you using some questionable post on some .net discussion board to justify expectations that the AIM54 will have a hard time hitting maneuvering targets, trying to perpetuate an urban myth repeated by chair force commandos the world over.

 

Our frustration stems from these continued ill-founded claims routinely being posted despite evidence and reasoning to the contrary. I have been less than patient with this because posts like the ones you have made, which you think are just asking questions to spur a discussion are not actually phrased that way. It's like news reels using a question mark in a statement, "this story we just conjured up spells the end of the world...?"

 

And to the backtracking in your most recent post, so what if it has a larger turn radius? We have been explaining to you that is not a primary metric affecting missile intercept performance, so why are you even talking about it in that context.

No, I did not. That was maybe what you anticipated/expected, but not what I said or meant.