Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[Frostie]

Far stronger than yours.

 

 

 

People happen to keep asking about one missile. ;)

Not so, my case is being all radar missiles and I think you'll find it points more in that favour than the solitary missile case.

 

Im all for a faster AMRAAM but as for better tracking and seeker , lets have that all round.:thumbup:

Its no coincidence that the majority of 'pro-better AMRAAM than anything else' lobby, worship F-15's.

[Frostie]

just want my 15 to be what its supposed to be, an air superority fighter.

So that you have no need to fear the non air superiority Flankers, indeed.:P

[markriley]

Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate! Especially the range figures are rough estimates only.

 

and Wikipedia is my fav source of there or there abouts estimate info.

 

So where is your better data? Did ED just pick the lowest figures they could find for the 120 instead of the majority of reports? or maybe even an average somewhere between lowest and higest figures? No, the 120 doesnt perform (distance wise) even as listed in game data.

[markriley]

So that you have no need to fear the non air superiority Flankers, indeed.:P

 

Dude, i never said that the 29, 27, and 33 aren't bad-ass air superiority jets. If those jets and thier weapons perform like you expect them to in the sim and you are happy with that, then why shouldn't I expect the same from my preferred "flyable" A2A jet and its weapons?

 

One day when I have the desire and time to learn those jets, I will expect them to perform as they should for this level of a sim.

[Frostie]

Not sure how to answer you ,

I am much happier using an AMRAAM than an R-27 against an enemy ,

but I would rather fly a Flanker probably down to the more enjoyment from the bigger workload involved , pick the bones outta that.

With figures I never said I had any, you did that.

[markriley]

Not sure how to answer you ,

I am much happier using an AMRAAM than an R-27 against an enemy ,

but I would rather fly a Flanker probably down to the more enjoyment from the bigger workload involved , pick the bones outta that.

With figures I never said I had any, you did that.

 

And I would rather fly the F-18 or F-16 sometimes because of the dual-role A2A/A2G ability (like the Flanker).

 

As for figures, if you believe the data is grossly inaccurate then you should be prepared to support you claim with the wide range of other info at your disposal.... otherwise we will have to go with what I was able to find.... give or take what, say 10 miles for arguements sake? That still leaves the 120 (and the aim-7) in lockon lacking a lot.

You never said how the russian missles own up to specs in lockon. Are they close or do they suck also?

[GGTharos]

The real thing (the AMRAAM-A) has an Rtr of about 7.5nm in a mor or less co-alt, nose to nose shot at some 13000' with a closure of 1000kts (both aircraft at 500). The Rmax (Whatever Rmax *MEANS* and it *MEANS* is classified, apparently) is 17-18nm under the same parameters.

 

In other words, if you're right at 7.5nm and you perform a 180 at 6.5g or so, then accelerate +300 KTS on top of your original speed, you ditch the missile. If you do your turn away at higher G, you'll escape it too.

 

Since then, pretty much most if not all gains in effective range have been mostly Rtr improvemetns through *guidance logic programming* and nothing else.

 

Draw your own conclusions at to missile ranges!

 

As far as teh R-27ER and AIM-120C go, they should be rather closely matched if minizap is any indication, barring interesting surprises like lifting body drag or control surface deflection drag etc etc.

[Frostie]

And I would rather fly the F-18 or F-16 sometimes because of the dual-role A2A/A2G ability (like the Flanker).

 

As for figures, if you believe the data is grossly inaccurate then you should be prepared to support you claim with the wide range of other info at your disposal.... otherwise we will have to go with what I was able to find.... give or take what, say 10 miles for arguements sake? That still leaves the 120 (and the aim-7) in lockon lacking a lot.

You never said how the russian missles own up to specs in lockon. Are they close or do they suck also?

I was meaning workload in A2A.

 

This site says 30+mile range(48km)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article3.html

also if you check out the AIM-7 it has a 30km range.

 

If you fire an AMRAAM at 45000 feet it will fly for well over 60km in LockOn. So I don't see your complaint.

[GGTharos]

The AMRAAM's 'useful range' is described as 'about 30nm' in the MLU manual. No details are given ... given certain other sources, I'd say that's a reasonable 'useful' range for an AMRAAM-A launched at mach 0.9 at some 30000'. Again, Rtr will be shorter ... perhaps (and I'm completely guessing here) on the order of 10-12nm.

[Kula66]

As far as teh R-27ER and AIM-120C go, they should be rather closely matched if minizap is any indication, barring interesting surprises like lifting body drag or control surface deflection drag etc etc.

 

I assume you mean match just on range ... bigger motor on the 27E compensating for the bigger, draggier missile. I thought it was generally accepted that the 27E out-ranged the 7/120?

 

As soon as you start turning surely the bigger (size and control surfaces) heavier missile would loose entergy faster? Unlike in LO, where the 27 can U-turn and re-attack!

 

Also, I guess the 120 is alot smarter, being 10 years younger and with more advanced ICs, reprogrammable etc.

[Geier]

One russian pilot told me that the "ПР" of R27ET on the HUD appears only at the range of 10km...

I suppose markriley tangles the max ballistic range and the max effective range

[Jester_159th]

Unlike in LO, where the 27 can U-turn and re-attack!

 

 

So can the Aim-7. Happened to one of our squad members in the first Red Flag flight. I haven't seen it myself but apparantly the Tacview file from that flight shows it perfectly.

[Kula66]

So can the Aim-7. Happened to one of our squad members in the first Red Flag flight. I haven't seen it myself but apparantly the Tacview file from that flight shows it perfectly.

 

Never really used the AIM-7 ... but I recorded lots of tracks showing the 27ER do it! I guess the 7 is modelled the same way.

[Pilotasso]

It is.

[markriley]

I was meaning workload in A2A.

 

This site says 30+mile range(48km)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article3.html

also if you check out the AIM-7 it has a 30km range.

 

If you fire an AMRAAM at 45000 feet it will fly for well over 60km in LockOn. So I don't see your complaint.

 

 

Lockons F-15 model is nearly at stall at 45000 feet and Im not talking about missle range before it drops out of the sky and you know it, Im talking about the usefull (killing) range of the missle in sim compared to IRL.

There is obviously a problem with the 120 in FC as compared to 1.02 or this thread would have been dead a long time ago.

 

For the AIM-7s made since 1987, the range on the 7F, & 7M/P is 70km.

Again effective range somewhere around 45-50km (25-30 miles). The sim doesnt simulate that very well either, but this thread is about the 120.

 

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html

Scroll down for chart.

 

and if you click on the AMRAAM 120 link in the first sentence you will find (scroll down to bottom) the spec chart for the different versions.

[markriley]

One russian pilot told me that the "ПР" of R27ET on the HUD appears only at the range of 10km...

I suppose markriley tangles the max ballistic range and the max effective range

 

When you launch the R27ET in lock on, do you wait for 10km? So IRL that missle sucks (range) according to your russian pilot but it works well beyond that in lockon dosnt it. We dont have that overperformance problem with the US missles in lock on.

[Geier]

When you launch the R27ET in lock on, do you wait for 10km? So IRL that missle sucks (range) according to your russian pilot but it works well beyond that in lockon dosnt it. We dont have that overperformance problem with the US missles in lock on.

 

Hmmmm this is called *balance*;)

[GGTharos]

No, it's called a bug. This is all known ... /all/ of this, and on the list.

[HubMan]

Wow, how could I miss that? Sorry bout that.

...

Hehe :) No problems :) Posts are filling up this thread just too fast to keep the pace :) I missed myself the post of golfsierra2 here :)

 

No - it seems to be a straight up, simple example that deals with the raw power aspect of burn through. But then again, ECCM isn't exactly burn-through.

Yes :) Stimson wanted to demonstrate that the ECM battle between a radar and a modern jammer could be hardly won by a radar using "raw power" and no ECCM.

 

Again, from what I can see, it was a simple example scenario to show how negligible burn-through actually is.

Or at least how negligible the burn-through is against a "spot jammer" that can focuses all its energy in the precise direction / bandwith of a radar (and the absolute necessity of ECCM in a modern radar).

 

 

Not exactly. In terms of just raw power (no ECCM or anything), the jammer beats the radar hands down. The case I illustrated before was an ideal, best case scenario for the radar (1/R^2 vs. 1/R^4). In reality, the target isn't going to exhibit perfect reflectivity - i.e. redirecting 100% of the radar waves back to the receiver - not even close. Even if the radar focuses all its energy on target, it's only going to get a really tiny fraction of it back. On the other hand, working with RWR, the jammer can pretty much direct everything it's got in the direction of enemy radar.

 

I think you are mostly right, but "Burn-through" range is not always negligible :

 

- if you are facing a "barrage jammer" ie a noise jammer that spreads energy over a large bandwith, the power density (ie Watts/surface) will be greatly reduced. If in addition to that, the jammer is not directed very precisely toward a threat, but emitting in the general direction of the radar, the jamming power will be against greatly diminished. Finally if the jammer is "on" all the time and not "tuned" to only emit at the same time than the radar, you have again another reduction in jamming capability (strong radar "burst" against mild constant jamming noise)

As a result the radar will only have to deal with a small fraction of the total jamming and will be able to defeat it by "force".

By the way, a couple of radars have a "burn-through mode", where as much emitting time as possible is spent on a precise direction (more or less similar to "tracking mode") to get locally the maximum power density. That's probably what ED tried to simulate at the time when the russian radars were raising an SPO/RWR alert when locking onto a jamming target (and the F-15 radar being in contrary "discreet").

 

- depending of the shape of the beam generated by the jammer (and the thinnest, the more jamming power...), the radar will or will not be in the main lobe of the jammer. Considered that the power available in the sidelobes is far less than the one of the main lobe, a radar will be able to burn-through far easily a jammer not "directed" at him. (being in the side lobe of a jammer is far better than being in its main lobe)

 

- talking about sidelobes : if you digress from the self protecting jammer case and have a look at the "standoff jammer" aircraft (like the Prowler) that provides ECM support for other fighter, we can see that they need to be positionned in such a way that their noise jamming reaches the enemy radars through their radar main lobes. In other words, if the jamming signal is received with too much of an angular offset, it will be located in the same direction than the side lobes and will be easily discarded.

Of course, that's not too likely to happen in the self jamming case, because the radar is pointed at the noise source and jamming signal and radar main lobe are coaxial.

 

- as already said burn-through largely depends on the capability of a jammer to focus its power (direction / bandwith / PRF...) against a radar. That's the reason why planes like the Prowler or Growler are usually advertised as able to jam "n" radars at the same time. Put enough radars in the air ("n+1") and you are more than likely to get a non negligible "burn-through" range for some of them or the fighters they are protecting.

 

- finally, if a radar is just too agile for a jammer to adapt precisely (large and fast variations in signal "pattern" ie frequency, PRF...), the jammer will probably have to fall back to some less accurate / widened jamming, though forcing it to "dilute" its power. That enough, mean a non useless "burn through" range (talking about that, considered the huge power available to ground radars, burn-through in such a case is very likely to happen at significant range against a recent SAM system).

 

Thus, to me (and I've absolutely no credibility in this area), no matter which way you slice it burn-through is negligible. The radar has to rely on ECCM.

Neither do I. I'm not building radar for a living :) But I read a lot on the subject and I think I start to apprehend some concepts :)

 

 

Hey Hub,

 

Looks like you might have few other good books in your office thou

I do have a copy of "Intro..." in my office - just no time to read it.

Hey Crusty :)

 

Thank you :) And too bad you don't have enough time to read it :) But it's probably good to have some things left to do in life by the time we will get old and retired. They might even be a chance that pulse radar will become obsolete by that time and that some nice unclassified information will start to emerge :) (the same way than heaps of data on the original SA-2 can be found since a couple of years).

Anyway, if you need to buy some other nice books for your office in anticipation of your hollidays/old years, I can give you a few titles :)

 

 

The AMRAAM's 'useful range' is described as 'about 30nm' in the MLU manual. No details are given ... given certain other sources, I'd say that's a reasonable 'useful' range for an AMRAAM-A launched at mach 0.9 at some 30000'. Again, Rtr will be shorter ... perhaps (and I'm completely guessing here) on the order of 10-12nm.

 

...

The real thing (the AMRAAM-A) has an Rtr of about 7.5nm in a mor or less co-alt, nose to nose shot at some 13000' with a closure of 1000kts (both aircraft at 500). The Rmax (Whatever Rmax *MEANS* and it *MEANS* is classified, apparently) is 17-18nm under the same parameters.

..

 

Hi GGTharos, :)

 

Personnaly, according to what can be guessed / extrapolated from the web / tacitly understood, I would agree with you. My guess is that :

 

- 30nm is a "far shot" for an AIM-120A/B ie it's extreme operationnal limit with low pk.

 

- 20nm would be my guess for a shot with a reasonnable pk at high altitude or low pk at medium altitude.

 

- at low altitude against a manoeuvring target, the RtR (NEZ) is probably below 10nm. I would tend to think that 10-12nm low in the weeds is the same thing than 30nm, high against a hot target... :)

 

 

 

Hub out :)

 

 

Ps : sorry for the delay, I'm slow at posting :)

PPS : going on week end this evening, I won't be able to post back until next monday :)

[GGTharos]

Correct, Hub - notice I spoke of the real thing...my info is accurate for the 120A ;)

And a very good overview of how jammers actually work!

[Geier]

No, it's called a bug. This is all known ... /all/ of this, and on the list.

 

 

Yep - but as you know it will be fixed... But not ET, this cheater's missile:(

[centermass]

Nice work HubMan.

 

So it looks like we are all in agreement that some jammers can defeat some radars and some radars can burn though some jammers depending on the situation?

 

Hope the devs can come up with a good model for each system that is realistic. And at worst, a system that is the same for all jets if they can't find any reliable data (jammer, Radar, and ECCM).

________

headshop

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[GGTharos]

N

Hope the devs can come up with a good model for each system that is realistic.

 

They cannot because:

 

And at worst, a system that is the same for all jets if they can't find any reliable data (jammer, Radar, and ECCM).

 

Therefore the best thing to do is make the the ECM/ECCM battle probabilistic, plain and simple. You pick a 'technique' semi-randomly and decide if it works semi-randomly. That, to me, is the best way to simulate the EW 'cat and mouse' game.

[tflash]

I guess that if HOJ would actually work in-game that a lot of problems would already be solved?

[GGTharos]

Yes. HoJ is modelled as using pure pursuit, where it should be using proportional navigation with either estimated or no closure component in the computation.