Today I fired 20 amraams =(

[cool_t]

hehehe!

 

Nice,

 

fix the 120! So I can effectively kill 5 bandits at once like I usto before Flaming Cliffs.

 

:thumbup:

[centermass]

Wow, 5 bandits at once! Human or AI targets?

________

weed

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[cool_t]

Well

 

Hi there,

 

Well forinstance, I was in 169th server the other day and there were at least 6 bandits infront of me. I was tracking 3 of the "opertunity" targets and well sad to say killed one.

 

Now b 4 Flaming cliffs I can remember killing 5 bandits with out diverging from my altitude and hedding.

 

You must remember all of the factors involved, you can fill in the blanks according to your own experiences.

 

Practice with AI on different settings. also set missile effectiveness.

 

Remember with a pilots known information about his jet and the condition of his oponant use opertunity and deception to luer him in for the kill.

 

:joystick:

[Kuky]

sure you can kill 5 guys at once... if they don't evade :D

 

Flying against good pilots you can get kills only if they make a mistake... or you sneek up on them or if they are already engaged.

 

It may as well be when LockOn first came out not many people were good at it so it was easier to get kills... which I would call the PONS period :D

 

*PONS = Plenty Of Noobs Syndrome

[centermass]

I was thinking that vs human pilots you should not be able to get such kills, because the human pilots would get separation laterally and vertically.

 

But 5 kills at once is nice non the less.

________

ultimate fighters

Edited January 24, 2011 by centermass

[Maciver]

Most I've gotten in the current game was with the 15. 3 at once in tws.

[HubMan]

Cause in reality, there really is no such thing as a "burn through range." In reality, the strength of your radar returns is almost always guaranteed to be weaker than the jammer's emissions.

 

The strength of EM waves vs. range drop off according to the 1/R^2 law - e.g. doubling the target's range would cut signal strength by 1/(2^2) = 1/4. A radar wave who has to travel to the target (one 1/R^2 loss) has to reflect off its surface and bounce back (another 1/R^2 loss). Therefore, the returning wave would be 1/R^2 x 1/R^2 = 1/R^4 as strong as when it was emitted. On the other hand, the jammer only has to travel from the target to the radar - that is, only one 1/R^2 loss.

 

Thus, the idea of burn-through at any significant range is questionable, since your radar has to obey the 1/R^4 rule while the enemy jammer only has to obey the 1/R^2 rule. So unless your radar is many times stronger than the target's jammer (and it isn't unless we're talking about SPY-1 Aegis radar here), chances are any burn-through would be negligible.

 

If you want the exact math, here is an example of a radar operating against a stand-off jammer 200 miles away.

 

 

You can see that even with the SOJ aircraft being 200 miles away, burn-through doesn't actually happen until 840 ft - negligible by modern engagement standards.

 

Hi D-Scythe :)

 

Does the equation takes in account the fact that a modern radar is changing its frequency all the time for strictly technical reasons and ECCM ?

 

My question is related to the fact that if you don't know pretty well the emitting characteristics of a radar, you have to "noise jam" it by "force" ie by spreading the jamming signal over a large bandwith (ideally a good portion of the X-band), while at the same the radar emits its power over a narrow bandwith.

 

As a result, a jammer does have far more power available than a radar, but a good / non compromised radar can "focus" it's emitting power far more than a jammer will... :)

 

Ciao :)

 

Hub.

 

 

 

PS : I don't have my copy of "Introduction to Airborne Radar" at my office and I wanted to be sure of the meaning of the content / variables of the expression you gave.

[Frostie]

Hi there,

 

Well forinstance, I was in 169th server the other day and there were at least 6 bandits infront of me. I was tracking 3 of the "opertunity" targets and well sad to say killed one.

 

Now b 4 Flaming cliffs I can remember killing 5 bandits with out diverging from my altitude and hedding.

 

You must remember all of the factors involved, you can fill in the blanks according to your own experiences.

 

Practice with AI on different settings. also set missile effectiveness.

 

Remember with a pilots known information about his jet and the condition of his oponant use opertunity and deception to luer him in for the kill.

 

:joystick:

Kill 5 bandits while keeping lock and not have one of them shoot you down , sorry if lockon is to be close to realism then this shouldn't happen.

Maybe your expecting too much, like them all to make hits just as your touching down at homeplate.:D

[Geier]

Kill 5 bandits while keeping lock and not have one of them shoot you down , sorry if lockon is to be close to realism then this shouldn't happen.

Maybe your expecting too much, like them all to make hits just as your touching down at homeplate.:D

 

Did it happen online or offline? I mean killing 5 bandits per one locking

[GGTharos]

That isn't necessarily true ... real life tactics do include grinders (where you turn away when the missile is active), thus throwing off enemy missiles while yours continue to guide - real life F-15 training certainly included 4vMany scenarios, where F-15's are outnumbered, sometimes 4:1, and they train specifically for such things.

 

Also, the AMRAAM's active range against an aircraft is about twice what it is in LO.

 

Kill 5 bandits while keeping lock and not have one of them shoot you down , sorry if lockon is to be close to realism then this shouldn't happen.

Maybe your expecting too much, like them all to make hits just as your touching down at homeplate.:D

[Groove]

Sometimes i think this "Missile Datas are classified" stuff is a joke.

 

I bet the Russians and the US knows the exact performance of the opposites sides missiles. And as both have allies they tell them about it. At least if they want to make Red Flag realistic they will make the OPFOR behaving realistic.

 

Like you couldnt "buy" the data from a US or Russian pilot...

 

Btw, is the PK ratio of the AMRAAM in the 2nd gulf war classified ?

[GGTharos]

Yes, it's classified, but there are unclassified sources of how many were launched vs. how many hit ... and in some cases it is known that those that missed were fired out of parameters etc.

 

If you flat out ignore launch parameters and simply count launch/hit ratio, I believe we did a calculation and came up with about 0.6pk

[Geier]

Yes, it's classified, but there are unclassified sources of how many were launched vs. how many hit ... and in some cases it is known that those that missed were fired out of parameters etc.

 

If you flat out ignore launch parameters and simply count launch/hit ratio, I believe we did a calculation and came up with about 0.6pk

 

60% of effectiveness... And what about russians missiles? I'm pretty sure that the figure will be analogous;)

[GGTharos]

60% of effectiveness... And what about russians missiles? I'm pretty sure that the figure will be analogous;)

 

They weren't firing AMRAAMs ;)

 

As far as I know, the only conflict where Russian weapons were really used a lot in air to air was Eritrea-Ethiopia.

 

There are no numbers available, other than descriptions of Su-27's cleaning their wings of R-27's (various models, IIRC) and hitting with a total of one or two.

 

Apparently the R-73 fared better, with about 0.3-0.4 Pk.

 

I honestly can't say if both situations are comparable, but from what I've been told, the AIM-120 is a /vastly/ superior weapon to the R-27. This is precicely why you see the R-77 in development.

 

Russian doctrine was to salvo/spam missiles to increase Pk. US pilots were trained to shoot-look-shoot ... this might be an indication about relative missile effectiveness (but it doesn't have to be)

[Geier]

They weren't firing AMRAAMs ;)

 

As far as I know, the only conflict where Russian weapons were really used a lot in air to air was Eritrea-Ethiopia.

 

There are no numbers available, other than descriptions of Su-27's cleaning their wings of R-27's (various models, IIRC) and hitting with a total of one or two.

 

Apparently the R-73 fared better, with about 0.3-0.4 Pk.

 

I honestly can't say if both situations are comparable, but from what I've been told, the AIM-120 is a /vastly/ superior weapon to the R-27. This is precicely why you see the R-77 in development.

 

Russian doctrine was to salvo/spam missiles to increase Pk. US pilots were trained to shoot-look-shoot ... this might be an indication about relative missile effectiveness (but it doesn't have to be)

 

Yes:)

As I've read about this conflict - there were only Su27 and Mig29A with R-27R and R-73

[GGTharos]

Yep ... it may have been old weapons and whatnot ... but I think it still shows a /huge/ discrepancy between technology.

It doesn't mean you should diss an R-27 if its fired at you, but like I said above - qualitatively the AIM-120 is a /vastly/ superior weapon. The AIM-7 was doing pretty well too, at least in its latest incarnations.

 

The R-77 and the newer R-73 models are far more dangerous than those older weapons too ... and I'm still sure that the AIM-120 is superior, but at this point the 'race' might be pretty tight ... in other words, you should be as afraid of one missile as you would be of the other, regardless of qualitative differences.

[D-Scythe]

I honestly can't say if both situations are comparable, but from what I've been told, the AIM-120 is a /vastly/ superior weapon to the R-27. This is precicely why you see the R-77 in development.

 

Actually, it isn't so black-and-white. Obviously, technology-wise, the R-77 is a newer and better weapon, but its kinematics aren't great for a BVR weapon. Apparently, the Russians weren't keen on the quick replacement of R-27s because it arrives with/retains vastly more energy than the R-77 in the end-game during a BVR engagement.

 

For those interested, it's generally accepted by "experts" that grid fins don't really perform well at the lower speeds (transonic, low supersonic) typical of a terminal BVR intercept.

 

Missile Grid Fins: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

 

In that respect, the R-27ER is a more useful weapon.

[HubMan]

Hi D-Scythe :)

 

Does the equation takes in account the fact that a modern radar is changing its frequency all the time for strictly technical reasons and ECCM ?

 

My question is related to the fact that if you don't know pretty well the emitting characteristics of a radar, you have to "noise jam" it by "force" ie by spreading the jamming signal over a large bandwith (ideally a good portion of the X-band), while at the same the radar emits its power over a narrow bandwith.

 

As a result, a jammer does have far more power available than a radar, but a good / non compromised radar can "focus" it's emitting power far more than a jammer will... :)

 

Ciao :)

 

Hub.

 

 

 

PS : I don't have my copy of "Introduction to Airborne Radar" at my office and I wanted to be sure of the meaning of the content / variables of the expression you gave.

 

/BUMP :D

[D-Scythe]

/BUMP :D

 

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

 

Does the equation takes in account the fact that a modern radar is changing its frequency all the time for strictly technical reasons and ECCM ?

 

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.

 

My question is related to the fact that if you don't know pretty well the emitting characteristics of a radar, you have to "noise jam" it by "force" ie by spreading the jamming signal over a large bandwith (ideally a good portion of the X-band), while at the same the radar emits its power over a narrow bandwith.

 

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

 

As a result, a jammer does have far more power available than a radar, but a good / non compromised radar can "focus" it's emitting power far more than a jammer will... :)

 

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.

 

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.

[Pilotasso]

Actually, it isn't so black-and-white. Obviously, technology-wise, the R-77 is a newer and better weapon, but its kinematics aren't great for a BVR weapon. Apparently, the Russians weren't keen on the quick replacement of R-27s because it arrives with/retains vastly more energy than the R-77 in the end-game during a BVR engagement.

 

For those interested, it's generally accepted by "experts" that grid fins don't really perform well at the lower speeds (transonic, low supersonic) typical of a terminal BVR intercept.

 

Missile Grid Fins: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

 

In that respect, the R-27ER is a more useful weapon.

 

R-77 is only newer than AIM-120A.

The AMRAAM has been one of the most updated missiles ever. The latest AIM-120D is almost worthy a new designation. There will be better missiles soon though. ;)

[crusty1606687734]

Hi D-Scythe :)

 

Does the equation takes in account the fact that a modern radar is changing its frequency all the time for strictly technical reasons and ECCM ?

 

My question is related to the fact that if you don't know pretty well the emitting characteristics of a radar, you have to "noise jam" it by "force" ie by spreading the jamming signal over a large bandwith (ideally a good portion of the X-band), while at the same the radar emits its power over a narrow bandwith.

 

As a result, a jammer does have far more power available than a radar, but a good / non compromised radar can "focus" it's emitting power far more than a jammer will... :)

 

Ciao :)

 

Hub.

 

 

 

PS : I don't have my copy of "Introduction to Airborne Radar" at my office and I wanted to be sure of the meaning of the content / variables of the expression you gave.

 

Hey Hub,

 

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

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

[Geier]

R-77 is only newer than AIM-120A.

The AMRAAM has been one of the most updated missiles ever. The latest AIM-120D is almost worthy a new designation. There will be better missiles soon though. ;)

120D is for F35 and F22 or it's just compatible with SuperHornet?

[GGTharos]

It can be carried by any AMRAAM-capable aircraft I believe ... however unless you have some sort of (probably software?) upgrade you won't be able to utilize the 2-way datalink on the missile, thus losing out on that capability.

[Geier]

It can be carried by any AMRAAM-capable aircraft I believe ... however unless you have some sort of (probably software?) upgrade you won't be able to utilize the 2-way datalink on the missile, thus losing out on that capability.

 

 

Hey, Tharos - wow - this missile has 2-way datalink? What does it mean? It can lock 2 target at once?:huh:

[markriley]

GGTharos wrote:

"Also, the AMRAAM's active range against an aircraft is about twice what it is in LO. "

My point exactly. These type basic flaws should be addressed/fixed without some sort of major debate or a thread with this many pages/posts to get it done. The A2A combat is what the sim is about. If the only US ture flyable A2A jet is crippled from the start, whats the point of calling it a sim, its just a game then. Damn pretty as it is, still just a game.

I can understand if the russian-made sim is a little bias toward the russian side but come on now. Lets play fair please.