The R-73, schlemming, and you...can you really get a good PK off-bore?

[RedTiger]

Ok, seeing as this forum looks sad and lonely with no posts in the last day, I figured it was a good time to bring this up.

 

We know the R-73 has off-bore capability. We know that the pilot can use the head targeting system to target aircraft that are off-bore. So...how well does all this work in LOMAC?

 

Not too good, IMO. Well...first let me be clear about something. I'm talking strictly about the missiles capability to intercept a hard-turning fighter off-bore. Forget about countermeasures, this is pure kinematics. I don't want to suggest that the R-73 is somehow less flare resistant that it should be, whether it is or not, and go in that direction. ;)

 

So, I'm pretty sure we've heard the exaggerated term "shooting across the circle". Well, with the scripted Cobra manuever in LOMAC, you can attempt this. You will lose all your smash and will probably miss. The R-73 has difficulty intercepting the fighter under these conditions unless it is fairly far away or not pulling any G.

 

The most reliable way to make sure you have a good PK is to shoot your R-73 from a small aspect angle. You would expect this in any case, but in LOMAC this seems to be the only way to get a good PK. You have to negate your off-bore capability to actually stand a chance to get a kill. You can target off bore and get a "tone" in the form of the target ring flashing, but I find that you still have to get in the saddle and pull them into the HUD if you want to kill them.

 

To borrow a very astute phrase from S77th-konkussion, in what way does the LOMAC R-73 "crash at the corner of LOMAC & reality"? Is anything missing?

[aaron886]

I assume the geometric troubles of a missile shot across a turn circle exist in real life as well. It's not a super-weapon. The values of a high off-bore capability, like any other weapon, are lost if not employed within their envelope. No missile can claim a very high PK at a 90-degree launch aspect. Regardless of how you lock them, they obey the laws of nature. The question then is, where are the edges of the envelope? (Is that what you're asking?)

 

One partial answer I can see is the proximity fusing in Lock On. In Lock On, a missile can pass withing 20 feet and leave you unharmed. In real life, these weapons have much greater lethal radii, and non-lethal but highly debilitating effects for aircraft outside that range as well.

[GGTharos]

You have found out that LOMAC does not model TVC in missiles. Congratulations, hehe :)

 

Now, that side, there are a few other issues to consider; depending on the shot you're taking, the target's movement may out-rate the seeker's maximum translation rate (we're talking on the order of 20-25dps) ... if you launch at an aspect where the target isn't quite out-rating the missile, but is about to - the missile will accelerate, fail to achieve PN in time to helps its own seeker, and it'll be left in the dust.

 

That's just one of many possibilities - for this reason, HOB shots require either a lot of space, or a fast seeker + TVC ... TVC alone won't cut it for all situations, and as we already know, LO doesn't model that anyway.

[Pilotasso]

The R-73 has a mixed bag of benifits disavantages due to current code status:

 

1)LOMAC features no thrust vectoring for either missiles or planes.

 

2) LOMAC has no accurate high AOA induced drag modeling.

 

This results in 2 things:

 

A) this missile is prone to overshoot its targets because of wider turn radius and faster speed (probably) than the real thing.

 

B) This missile also conserves energy better than the real thing in off boresight conditions.

 

So you might find yourself missing or hiting targets unrealisticaly.

 

HOWEVER, that doesnt mean shlem is useless. You realy have to sit down in the F-15 to verify this and compare ;)

Thats because you would give anything to designate targets in certain angle off's that you cant possible cover using any CAC radar modes such as bore or vertical scan. That occurs when you have targets flying low (or high) and to your side that you dont have enough altitude to drop the nose and do this, or compromise your BFM against a second bandit if you do it. While in the mig, you look you shoot, without moving the nose, or shoot off boresight to one target while countring BFM of another. Thats the main advantage of this system, not extreme 1 on 1 dogfighting IMHO.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Alfa]

We know the R-73 has off-bore capability. We know that the pilot can use the head targeting system to target aircraft that are off-bore. So...how well does all this work in LOMAC?

 

In my opinion the R-73 doesn't perform as well in off-bore shots as it should in Lock-on for the reason GG already mentioned - namely lacking the TVC to take advantage of the seeker's wide FOV.

 

Using the Shlem system works well enough, but doesn't have anything to do with the angle at which you can fire the missile - the seeker itself needs to see and lock on to the target before the missile can be launched. The advantage of Shlem is that it provides the pilot with an intuitive method of "cuing" the missile seeker.

[RedTiger]

I assume the geometric troubles of a missile shot across a turn circle exist in real life as well. It's not a super-weapon. The values of a high off-bore capability, like any other weapon, are lost if not employed within their envelope. No missile can claim a very high PK at a 90-degree launch aspect. Regardless of how you lock them, they obey the laws of nature. The question then is, where are the edges of the envelope? (Is that what you're asking?)

 

One partial answer I can see is the proximity fusing in Lock On. In Lock On, a missile can pass withing 20 feet and leave you unharmed. In real life, these weapons have much greater lethal radii, and non-lethal but highly debilitating effects for aircraft outside that range as well.

 

I probably shouldn't have used the cobra example, although when you attempt this, you are not launching with a 90 aspect, you're just raking your nose up 90 deg to get within the bore limits of the missile to fire. This is not the normal way I would use the missile, but it does demonstrate what I'm talking about.

 

As for the proximity fuse, maybe, but what I'm seeing is that it doesn't even have any chance to intercept or get close. As GG says, the targeted fighter leaves it in the dust.

 

You have found out that LOMAC does not model TVC in missiles. Congratulations, hehe :)

 

Whoops...how did I not know that one? :doh: No TVC but it still can track off-bore? Brilliant! :D

 

Now, that side, there are a few other issues to consider; depending on the shot you're taking, the target's movement may out-rate the seeker's maximum translation rate (we're talking on the order of 20-25dps) ... if you launch at an aspect where the target isn't quite out-rating the missile, but is about to - the missile will accelerate, fail to achieve PN in time to helps its own seeker, and it'll be left in the dust.

 

That's just one of many possibilities - for this reason, HOB shots require either a lot of space, or a fast seeker + TVC ... TVC alone won't cut it for all situations, and as we already know, LO doesn't model that anyway.

 

Well, I'm guessing that the translation rate is indeed outside those parameters because *I* have avoided them myself at instantaneous turn rate in the Russian planes, which should be above 20-25dps, right?

 

You are right about needing space. Just about the only time off-bore happens is when I'm fairly far away, and in that case it DOES save you some trouble of having to move your nose around, which leads to...

 

The R-73 has a mixed bag of benifits disavantages due to current code status:

 

1)LOMAC features no thrust vectoring for either missiles or planes.

 

2) LOMAC has no accurate high AOA induced drag modeling.

 

This results in 2 things:

 

A) this missile is prone to overshoot its targets because of wider turn radius and faster speed (probably) than the real thing.

 

B) This missile also conserves energy better than the real thing in off boresight conditions.

 

So you might find yourself missing or hiting targets unrealisticaly.

 

HOWEVER, that doesnt mean shlem is useless. You realy have to sit down in the F-15 to verify this and compare ;)

Thats because you would give anything to designate targets in certain angle off's that you cant possible cover using any CAC radar modes such as bore or vertical scan. That occurs when you have targets flying low (or high) and to your side that you dont have enough altitude to drop the nose and do this, or compromise your BFM against a second bandit if you do it. While in the mig, you look you shoot, without moving the nose, or shoot off boresight to one target while countring BFM of another. Thats the main advantage of this system, not extreme 1 on 1 dogfighting IMHO.

 

Interesting how being faster and consering more energy actually hurts it at the extemes. :)

 

See the above, I agree that it is a time saver and energy saver not having to move your nose around in cases where you are far enough away! I'll have to try the multiple BFM thing. That sounds fun!

 

You say it isn't meant for extreme 1 v 1 dogfighting, but isn't if funny that this is what all the anectdotal evidence suggests its for? It reminds me of the whole R-27TE datalink thing where you can make a wrong assumption from looking at what is "obvious". Using the schlemm primarily as an advantage in a multiple bandit fight makes good sense in terms of what he Fulcrum was designed to do.

 

Ok, so what inspired the latest Python, ASRAAM, and Aim-9X? Again, anectdotal evidence would suggest it was extreme dogfighting, "shooting across the circle". Did the West misunderstand the use of the archer and design their missiles with a capability they only imagined the adversary would have? If you read about those German MiG-29 fighting the F-16, it seems certain that they were using it 1 v 1 and were getting to call confirmed kills with the schlemm.

[RedTiger]

In my opinion the R-73 doesn't perform as well in off-bore shots as it should in Lock-on for the reason GG already mentioned - namely lacking the TVC to take advantage of the seeker's wide FOV.

 

Using the Shlem system works well enough, but doesn't have anything to do with the angle at which you can fire the missile - the seeker itself needs to see and lock on to the target before the missile can be launched. The advantage of Shlem is that it provides the pilot with an intuitive method of "cuing" the missile seeker.

 

Agreed. But the whole reason it has TVC and the wide bore is let the missile fire from highter aspect angle and prevent you from having to turn your fighter to get within parameters, right?

[Alfa]

Agreed. But the whole reason it has TVC and the wide bore is let the missile fire from highter aspect angle and prevent you from having to turn your fighter to get within parameters, right?

 

Yup :) - or rather the combination of TVC and high off-bore seeker means having to do less aircraft manouvering to get within parameters.

 

The lack of the TVC component will cause the scenario you mentioned yourself - you can get the shoot cue(the seeker can see and lock the target), but unless you "help" the missile by manouvering to a more favourable firing aspect, the missile might not be able to chase down the target.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Alfa

[GGTharos]

Whoops...how did I not know that one? :doh: No TVC but it still can track off-bore? Brilliant! :D

 

There's nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't shorten the short range employment envelop as much as it ought to :) The missile will still make an aerodynamic turn, but you can no longer 'cheat' and take a square corner to your lead-intercept.

 

 

Well, I'm guessing that the translation rate is indeed outside those parameters because *I* have avoided them myself at instantaneous turn rate in the Russian planes, which should be above 20-25dps, right?

 

That doesn't matter; we're talking LOS rate, not turn rate. You can only out-rate the missile at aspects close to 90 deg (Well, in theory - there are other geometries, but the probability of your maneuver working in that case it worse)

 

You are right about needing space. Just about the only time off-bore happens is when I'm fairly far away, and in that case it DOES save you some trouble of having to move your nose around, which leads to...

 

1.5-2km will do nicely for more HOB shots I find. Anything closer and you need to at least point if not lead.

 

 

Ok, so what inspired the latest Python, ASRAAM, and Aim-9X? Again, anectdotal evidence would suggest it was extreme dogfighting, "shooting across the circle". Did the West misunderstand the use of the archer and design their missiles with a capability they only imagined the adversary would have? If you read about those German MiG-29 fighting the F-16, it seems certain that they were using it 1 v 1 and were getting to call confirmed kills with the schlemm.

 

First shot, shot from parameters the other guy can't take the shot from (ie. more shots), etc etc. The 9X HAS demonstrated the ability to shoot across the circle, and so has Python 5 - but so far no other missile has done so - for now. I imagine the MICA might be able to.

 

It is designed to make BFM/ACM go faster, and with advantage for you - in addition it permits you to maintain a better defensive posture against your bandit AND his wingman while you shoot both of them up.

[DarkWanderer]

A) this missile is prone to overshoot its targets because of wider turn radius and faster speed (probably) than the real thing.

 

B) This missile also conserves energy better than the real thing in off boresight conditions.

IMHO relates to this too, isn't it?..

 

Don't know about the others, but for me personally off-boresight shots show themselves best in 3 cases:

1.One- or two-circle WVR combat, when the enemy has advantage in turn rate. It will be high off-bore angle, but low-aspect shot.

2.2 or more targets in front of you, requiring quick firing solution. No other mode will give you possibility to react.

3.Enemy launches a missile a second before you lock him. You can begin evasion, not losing possibility to lock and respond.

Distance 2.5 - 10 km is perfect for its usage. Pk is even better than head-on ER shots ;) mainly because it's usually not expected to get a missile from 3/4 aspect target. It may be difficult to master it, though, but that's another conversation?...

 

Is this ("LOMAC does not model TVC in missiles") confirmed by ED or it's another "Think it should be that way"?

Edited October 14, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[GGTharos]

1.One-circle combat, when no matter how many G's your opponent is pulling because these are parallel to missile flight path

 

Unless your 1-circle is over 1km wide, no dice. You're getting into min range very fast, and this is precicely one of the reasons for choosing 1-circle, to stay out of missile envelope or shrink it before the other guy can launch.

The other geometry, nose-to-tail, is what you want because distance is kept more or less constant and predictable, which actually helps the missile. Parallel ONLY if you're shooting very early in the turn and there's significant distance (same as shooting across the circle).

 

2.2 or more targets in front of you, requiring quick firing solution. No other mode will give you possibility to react.

AESA+SWT, potentially some advanced form of TWS with MSA's as well. ;)

It'll detect, identify, designate and cue everything for you ... you just push the 'destroy all enemies in sight' button ;)

Edited October 14, 2008 by GGTharos

[RedTiger]

Unless your 1-circle is over 1km wide, no dice. You're getting into min range very fast, and this is precicely one of the reasons for choosing 1-circle, to stay out of missile envelope or shrink it before the other guy can launch.

The other geometry, nose-to-tail, is what you want because distance is kept more or less constant and predictable, which actually helps the missile. Parallel ONLY if you're shooting very early in the turn and there's significant distance (same as shooting across the circle).

 

You beat me to this one. I've seen them sail right behind the bandit and in other cases go completely stupid since they aren't even tracking anymore because the aspect angle is nearly 90 degrees as they go off the rail.

[DarkWanderer]

Unless your 1-circle is over 1km wide, no dice. You're getting into min range very fast, and this is precicely one of the reasons for choosing 1-circle, to stay out of missile envelope or shrink it before the other guy can launch.

Unless it's 1km wide, you wouldn't be able to shoot missiles in any mode.

Parallel ONLY if you're shooting very early in the turn and there's significant distance (same as shooting across the circle).

Yeah, yeah. G's and so on...

I'm shooting and hitting. Disprove this ;)

AESA+SWT, potentially some advanced form of TWS with MSA's as well.

It'll detect, identify, designate and cue everything for you ... you just push the 'destroy all enemies in sight' button

Wrong steppe.

Edited October 14, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[GGTharos]

Unless it's 1km wide, you wouldn't be able to shoot missiles in any mode.

 

I'm shooting and hitting. Disprove this ;)

 

I don't doubt you, but parameters still have to be satisfied. ;) A well executed 1-circle is aimed to prevent what you're doing ;) A wide leaf just gets you shot in the face instead.

 

 

Wrong steppe.

 

Steppe?... (if you mean I should have added N/A LOMAC, you're right)

[DarkWanderer]

Steppe?...

A literal translation of russian idiom. Means that opponent have missed... a bit ;) Yes, I meant that.

I don't doubt you, but parameters still have to be satisfied.

 

A well executed 1-circle is aimed to prevent what you're doing A wide leaf just gets you shot in the face instead.

But you'll anyway be able to shoot earlier, isn't it?..

 

BTW, MiG-29's circle radius at 700kph is at least 600m. Add 150km/h - and you get your desired 1 km easily. But this is already another question.

 

Sorry for cutting into the discussion, go on...

[GGTharos]

No problem, I think discussing situations where these things are useful is ... well, useful for players who wish to use those features :)

[RedTiger]

No problem, I think discussing situations where these things are useful is ... well, useful for players who wish to use those features :)

 

Indeed! Nothing wrong with calling your shot and knowing how to set up to work. :gun_smilie:

[IvanK]

"First shot, shot from parameters the other guy can't take the shot from (ie. more shots), etc etc. The 9X HAS demonstrated the ability to shoot across the circle, and so has Python 5 - but so far no other missile has done so - for now. I imagine the MICA might be able to."

 

ASRAAM ?

[GGTharos]

Does it have TVC? I forget - But in any case it does have a wide-gimballed seeker ... I am very curious as to why the US abandoned it in favor of the sidewinder.

[RedTiger]

Does it have TVC? I forget - But in any case it does have a wide-gimballed seeker ... I am very curious as to why the US abandoned it in favor of the sidewinder.

 

QFT.

 

I've often wondered why the US didn't use this missile and soldiered on with the Aim-9M.

[IvanK]

It has TVC, The RAAF evaluated AIM9X, Python 4 and ASRAAM as a replacement for the FA18A/B AIM9M. ASRAAM was chosen by the RAAF.

 

I believe it has a wide-gimballed seeker.

 

As to why the US chose AIM9X I have no doubt politics came into it much like the current USAF tanker debacle. In a similar vein I am not so sure the RAAF's decision on ASRAAM (though a formidable missile) wasn't linked to the BA Hawk purchase. What will be interesting to see is what missile the RAAF choose to go with the FA18F purchase.

[GGTharos]

A little bit of history ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-132_ASRAAM

 

I find it amusing that they heap on ridiculous praise on the R-73 there - that it had better seeker qualities than ASRAAM with an FPA is uh ... mind-boggling. Haha funny.

 

This sounds like the real reason ASRAAM was abandoned:

 

 

Due to the numerous developmental delays caused by the UK-German bickering over ASRAAM design with no solution in sight, and in light of threat of Archer, the US could not wait any longer and began development of their own improved version of the Sidewinder, the AIM-9X in 1990.p

 

Edit: IvanK beat me to it :) I personally consider the two missiles (ASRAAM and 9X) to be functionally equivalent.

[Frostie]

ASRAAM has a 20range 20seeker profile compared to 20/10 for 9X, though range for an SRM is probably moot . Time, delays and cost were probably the reason for pulling out.

[GGTharos]

Psst same seeker .... what are you talking about? O.o

 

ASRAAM has a 20range 20seeker profile compared to 20/10 for 9X, .

[RedTiger]

A little bit of history ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-132_ASRAAM

 

I find it amusing that they heap on ridiculous praise on the R-73 there - that it had better seeker qualities than ASRAAM with an FPA is uh ... mind-boggling. Haha funny.

 

This sounds like the real reason ASRAAM was abandoned:

 

 

 

 

Edit: IvanK beat me to it :) I personally consider the two missiles (ASRAAM and 9X) to be functionally equivalent.

 

Like 76.8% of the internet, wikipedia is officially sponsored by Sukhoi, Mikoyan, and Vympel! :lol:

 

I kinda figured it was politics, I just didn't want to believe it.