Aim120 can be trashed with a barrel roll and chaff headon

[Muchocracker]

9 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

I don't understand why ED is trying to reverse engineer a multi-billion dollar AMRAAM project instead of creating a reasonably realistic simulation AMRAAM instead...

We don't need a full simulation, especially if it doesn't work. Its a nice to have sure, but it needs to work. If something can be made more realistic that's great, but if it causes the missile to be defeated by hilariously simple maneuvers like this, how about we just stick with a reasonably realistic simulation instead. I don't care how much depth the AMRAAM has in the internal code that I can never even read anyway, if it feels real, that's good enough.

For example, if ED decided to implement background cosmic ray radiation causing random errors in the sim... I mean.. great, I guess, I can't argue with something being more realistic... but if their code adds a bunch of ridiculous bugs it wasn't worth it.

You're still missing the forest for the tree's. As others have already brought up in this thread, plenty of old API AAM's are effected by the loaded barrel rolling maneuvers and have miss distances similar to the amraam (in its best kalman filter state which was before this last tuning change iirc). The common theme is all of them have sufficient warhead proximity fusing to make the miss distances not matter. 

We can debate all day of whether ED's decision to run head first into the wall of fully reverse engineering every single detail is the right one, but it's going to be pointless. The reality is this kind of maneuver is an actual challenge to solve for in the real world and it's already been an issue this whole time in DCS even before the new API. So we've been complaining about the wrong thing. I'm going to keep pounding the table on this proximity fusing thing because imo the real solution. 

[speed-of-heat]

2 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

I don't understand why ED is trying to reverse engineer a multi-billion dollar AMRAAM project instead of creating a reasonably realistic simulation AMRAAM instead...

We don't need a full simulation, especially if it doesn't work. Its a nice to have sure, but it needs to work. If something can be made more realistic that's great, but if it causes the missile to be defeated by hilariously simple maneuvers like this, how about we just stick with a reasonably realistic simulation instead. I don't care how much depth the AMRAAM has in the internal code that I can never even read anyway, if it feels real, that's good enough.

For example, if ED decided to implement background cosmic ray radiation causing random errors in the sim... I mean.. great, I guess, I can't argue with something being more realistic... but if their code adds a bunch of ridiculous bugs it wasn't worth it.

This, I don't care if it is technically as accurate as you can make it, if it doesn't provide a realistic outcome in the game...that just means it's broken... Put it another way, *The King Has No Clothes*, can we stop admiring the beauty of it and fix it, and if fixing it means "less realistic code" then I think you will find everyone is OK with that.

2 hours ago, Muchocracker said:

You're still missing the forest for the tree's. As others have already brought up in this thread, plenty of old API AAM's are effected by the loaded barrel rolling maneuvers and have miss distances similar to the amraam (in its best kalman filter state which was before this last tuning change iirc). The common theme is all of them have sufficient warhead proximity fusing to make the miss distances not matter. 

We can debate all day of whether ED's decision to run head first into the wall of fully reverse engineering every single detail is the right one, but it's going to be pointless. The reality is this kind of maneuver is an actual challenge to solve for in the real world and it's already been an issue this whole time in DCS even before the new API. So we've been complaining about the wrong thing. I'm going to keep pounding the table on this proximity fusing thing because imo the real solution. 

I honestly don't care the route to the fix... Whichever is simplest and quickest

[MARLAN_]

2 hours ago, Muchocracker said:

You're still missing the forest for the tree's. As others have already brought up in this thread, plenty of old API AAM's are effected by the loaded barrel rolling maneuvers and have miss distances similar to the amraam (in its best kalman filter state which was before this last tuning change iirc). The common theme is all of them have sufficient warhead proximity fusing to make the miss distances not matter. 

We can debate all day of whether ED's decision to run head first into the wall of fully reverse engineering every single detail is the right one, but it's going to be pointless. The reality is this kind of maneuver is an actual challenge to solve for in the real world and it's already been an issue this whole time in DCS even before the new API. So we've been complaining about the wrong thing. I'm going to keep pounding the table on this proximity fusing thing because imo the real solution. 

"Still" this is my first comment in this thread, no?

You're also hyper-focusing on proximity fusing. Its a way to mitigate the issue, but doesn't resolve it. These barrel rolls can cause the AMRAAM to miss by easily enormous amounts, a proxy fuse isn't going to make a missile missing 1000ft+ suddenly be useful.

If we ignore reverse-engineering a multi-billion dollar project, this can absolutely be solved. For example, if they so choose, they could make the AMRAAM fly at Mach 69 and do 10,000G turns... Its their sim, they can code it however. Now obviously they want it to feel reasonably realistic so my example is insane if realism is the goal (and should be), but its absolutely possible to fix. Also note, realism is not the same thing as real which seems to be their goal right now with reverse engineering...

Edited December 16, 2024 by MARLAN_

[Hobel]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb MARLAN_:

"Still" this is my first comment in this thread, no?

You're also hyper-focusing on proximity fusing. Its a way to mitigate the issue, but doesn't resolve it. These barrel rolls can cause the AMRAAM to miss by easily enormous amounts, a proxy fuse isn't going to make a missile missing 1000ft+ suddenly be useful.

 

first of all, the main problem is that the Aim120C with an energy state of 2-3.5m can be defeated very easily by this maneuver, with a PF of 15m the problem would be almost solved. if the missile flies over 15m or even several 100m the energy state is usually already very low.
It is certainly possible that it will still work, but the risk is too high for it to be worthwhile to roll against a missile and it forces the pilots to turn out.

before the last update that really broke it, the results were very good, the missile always came very close to the target at a good energy level, but the problem was always that the PF was too low.

@Default774 had tested it here, Unfortunately, the videos are no longer available.

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Hobel

[Red_Camarada]

6 hours ago, Hobel said:

first of all, the main problem is that the Aim120C with an energy state of 2-3.5m can be defeated very easily by this maneuver, with a PF of 15m the problem would be almost solved. if the missile flies over 15m or even several 100m the energy state is usually already very low.
It is certainly possible that it will still work, but the risk is too high for it to be worthwhile to roll against a missile and it forces the pilots to turn out.

before the last update that really broke it, the results were very good, the missile always came very close to the target at a good energy level, but the problem was always that the PF was too low.

@Default774 had tested it here, Unfortunately, the videos are no longer available.

 

adding to the PF stuff, we need to mention the RWR ultra precision, you can notch anything easily with that subdegree precision of both F18 and F16 systems. There are far more realistic RWR implementation in the SIM that could easily decrease the effectivness and practical usage in the battles.

[Hobel]

vor 50 Minuten schrieb Red_Camarada:

adding to the PF stuff, we need to mention the RWR ultra precision, you can notch anything easily with that subdegree precision of both F18 and F16 systems. There are far more realistic RWR implementation in the SIM that could easily decrease the effectivness and practical usage in the battles.

Yes with the RWR thing the notch meta could be reduced immediately, in addition you will not know in the future if you hit the notch, as long as you are in the aim120 seeker cone the RWR gives warning.

[Default774]

8 hours ago, Hobel said:

@Default774 had tested it here, Unfortunately, the videos are no longer available.

Some more recent demonstrations here.

Downgraded back to 2.9.9.2474@release, so this is before the filtering values were changed.

Manually edited aim120_family.lua to set the proximity fuze to 15 meters instead of the default 9 meters.

Taking two random tracks from this thread, the missile now explodes and destroys the target instead of flying past. Of course, there will still be situations where the missile will miss by more than 15m from any part of the aircraft, so this is obviously not a flawless solution. This just illustrates how much a changed proximity fuze can help in these sorts of situations.

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by Default774

[Xhonas]

3 hours ago, Default774 said:

Some more recent demonstrations here.

Downgraded back to 2.9.9.2474@release, so this is before the filtering values were changed.

Manually edited aim120_family.lua to set the proximity fuze to 15 meters instead of the default 9 meters.

Taking two random tracks from this thread, the missile now explodes and destroys the target instead of flying past. Of course, there will still be situations where the missile will miss by more than 15m from any part of the aircraft, so this is obviously not a flawless solution. This just illustrates how much a changed proximity fuze can help in these sorts of situations.

 

Now we are just missing ED implementing this into the game. However, i still think it would be better to use whatever voodoo the R77/R27/Phoenix are using because they are immune to this kind of maneuver. In every ED attempt to make this simulation more real than real life we ended up with the most arcade-type of gameplay features i ever seen in a simulator (F/A-18 iron dome and now the Spineroo star wars trick). So please try to find a balance and give us a middle term that is reasonable. Thanks.

[Pavlin_33]

5 minutes ago, Xhonas said:

Now we are just missing ED implementing this into the game. However, i still think it would be better to use whatever voodoo the R77/R27/Phoenix are using because they are immune to this kind of maneuver. In every ED attempt to make this simulation more real than real life we ended up with the most arcade-type of gameplay features i ever seen in a simulator (F/A-18 iron dome and now the Spineroo star wars trick). So please try to find a balance and give us a middle term that is reasonable. Thanks.

Wait what? To which maneuver is R-27 immune? Probably the worst performing missile when it comes to energy retention while maneuvering is the Alamo. That thing goes from warp speed to nothing in a blink of an eye.

Also, why is eveyone up in arms when it comes to the proximity fuse? IRL blast radius will depend on many factors.

[Xhonas]

4 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Wait what? To which maneuver is R-27 immune? Probably the worst performing missile when it comes to energy retention while maneuvering is the Alamo. That thing goes from warp speed to nothing in a blink of an eye.

Also, why is eveyone up in arms when it comes to the proximity fuse? IRL blast radius will depend on many factors.

Hey, chill out, no one here is trying to make your Flanker worse than it already is. The R27 is immune to this barrel roll / aoa roll maneuver being described on the thread and we are trying to get ED to fix that for the Amraam. Otherwise, they will continue to implement this kind of logic to the other missiles, including on your beloved R27, and then it will be ruined.

[Hobel]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Xhonas:

Now we are just missing ED implementing this into the game. However, i still think it would be better to use whatever voodoo the R77/R27/Phoenix are using because they are immune to this kind of maneuver. In every ED attempt to make this simulation more real than real life we ended up with the most arcade-type of gameplay features i ever seen in a simulator (F/A-18 iron dome and now the Spineroo star wars trick). So please try to find a balance and give us a middle term that is reasonable. Thanks.

it is not a Voodoo it is basically exactly what Default demonstrates whether new or old API the miss distance is quite similar. The biggest difference is the proxy fuze. Test the mentioned missile with 9m proxy fuze and you will get a similar result as the aim120.

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Pavlin_33:

Also, why is eveyone up in arms when it comes to the proximity fuse? IRL blast radius will depend on many factors.

Because this "abuse/exploit" is very very very annoying and we wouldn't be having this discussion here if it A few meters more. See the example videos.

And to the 2nd point, I agree.

[okopanja]

On 12/16/2024 at 4:01 AM, Muchocracker said:

The common theme is all of them have sufficient warhead proximity fusing to make the miss distances not matter. 

The fuse distance is in a nutshell defined by the amount of damage the warhead is able to inflict on the target. This value is chosen while having in mind the ability of warhead to inflict desired effect on the target. The desired affect can range from causing low/medium level of damage (basically mission kill) to high level of damage (you blast the target into tiny pieces).

Typically smaller missiles bring less explosive than larger. The choice of the size depends on technological limits in ability for guidance to achieve as close distance to the target as possible.

If those limitations are high enough or more devastating effect is desired, the designer will choose the missile with heavier warhead instead, which in turn means more weight, for motor fuel and with all that higher drag at the end.

Also there are considerations on what kind of effect the missile is expected to have: from causing the damage, toward blasting the target into tiny pieces.

For A-D missile its easy to go with more explosive and have much higher fuse distances in tenths of meters than mentioned here for amraam.

While the increasing of fuse distance as suggested by default may look right, it actually rises the question of current lethality of the warhead of amraam in DCS compared to the events observed IRL. E.g. at distance of 15 meters I would expect far less damage than with distance of 9 meters.

E.g. the AMRAAMs impact we see in DCS, does not quite correspond to the effect reported by IRL pilots who survived the impacts, and I am not talking here about isolated cases.

For example: in 1999, only 2 pilots were killed by the impact: others survived to either to eject or land their aircraft damaged or completely undamaged.

It should be noted that the standard NATO practice was to launch AMRAAMs in pairs, or complemented with a Sparrow if a range allowed. This was confirmed by both NATO and Yugoslav pilots who in many cases counted the contrails approaching them or the explosions in the vicinity of their aircraft.

If we take this into account then the AIM-120 is likely over-performing in this respect in DCS, where it's more likely you will turn into the fireball than IRL.

In the Mig-29a (grumble, correct would be 9.12a) section I left already 3 account, where for 2 cases we know for sure the AMRAAMs were utilized:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1217-dcs-mig-29a-fulcrum/

In one case I could not confirm if friendly fire occurred or aircraft potentially got hit by amraam: the pilot has landed his damaged airplane at the airport. Sadly I could not confirm where exactly and against which pilot the Dutch F-16AM did score a kill against and if this was his "kill".

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by okopanja

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

On 12/16/2024 at 6:39 PM, okopanja said:

The fuse distance is in a nutshell defined by the amount of damage the warhead is able to inflict on the target. This value is chosen while having in mind the ability of warhead to inflict desired effect on the target. The desired affect can range from causing low/medium level of damage (basically mission kill) to high level of damage (you blast the target into tiny pieces).

Typically smaller missiles bring less explosive than larger. The choice of the size depends on technological limits in ability for guidance to achieve as close distance to the target as possible.

If those limitations are high enough or more devastating effect is desired, the designer will choose the missile with heavier warhead instead, which in turn means more weight, for motor fuel and with all that higher drag at the end.

Also there are considerations on what kind of effect the missile is expected to have: from causing the damage, toward blasting the target into tiny pieces.

For A-D missile its easy to go with more explosive and have much higher fuse distances in tenths of meters than mentioned here for amraam.

While the increasing of fuse distance as suggested by default may look right, it actually rises the question of current lethality of the warhead of amraam in DCS compared to the events observed IRL. E.g. at distance of 15 meters I would expect far less damage than with distance of 9 meters.

E.g. the AMRAAMs impact we see in DCS, does not quite correspond to the effect reported by IRL pilots who survived the impacts, and I am not talking here about isolated cases.

For example: in 1999, only 2 pilots were killed by the impact: others survived to either to eject or land their aircraft damaged or completely undamaged.

It should be noted that the standard NATO practice was to launch AMRAAMs in pairs, or complemented with a Sparrow if a range allowed. This was confirmed by both NATO and Yugoslav pilots who in many cases counted the contrails approaching them or the explosions in the vicinity of their aircraft.

If we take this into account then the AIM-120 is likely over-performing in this respect in DCS, where it's more likely you will turn into the fireball than IRL.

In the Mig-29a (grumble, correct would be 9.12a) section I left already 3 account, where for 2 cases we know for sure the AMRAAMs were utilized:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1217-dcs-mig-29a-fulcrum/

In one case I could not confirm if friendly fire occurred or aircraft potentially got hit by amraam: the pilot has landed his damaged airplane at the airport. Sadly I could not confirm where exactly and against which pilot the Dutch F-16AM did score a kill against and if this was his "kill".

 

 

 

 

Undoubtedly the cases where the pilots were able to land their damaged planes was not the result of a direct hit. I would venture to guess this is also true for most of the pilots that survived the impact. This does however highlight another important issue and it’s that an AMRAAM (or any other missile) encounter in game is practically 100% fatal. Clearly this contradicts the real world accounts you provided. Still, even if the pilot is not killed, destroying or damaging the opponents aircraft can certainly be enough to win the engagement. By increasing the 120’s PF, not only would this mitigate the barrel roll problem, it would also likely result in a higher survival rate (given that the missiles could detonate farther away from the target) more in line with real world data. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[Coxy_99]

It will never be resolved ED can change it all they want, The fact is end of the day its a game, Proxy fuse this and that wont work, Its all down to network connection etc etc, Id rather have the aim120 when it was back in the days of dcs 1.2, And for a matter of fact if i remember right you could barrel roll the ER in the M-2000 also, But know one kicked up a fuss about it. Either way it will never be solved.

[okopanja]

On 12/18/2024 at 2:11 AM, DCS FIGHTER PILOT said:

Undoubtedly the cases where the pilots were able to land their damaged planes was not the result of a direct hit. I would venture to guess this is also true for most of the pilots that survived the impact. This does however highlight another important issue and it’s that an AMRAAM (or any other missile) encounter in game is practically 100% fatal. Clearly this contradicts the real world accounts you provided. Still, even if the pilot is not killed, destroying or damaging the opponents aircraft can certainly be enough to win the engagement. By increasing the 120’s PF, not only would this mitigate the barrel roll problem, it would also likely result in a higher survival rate (given that the missiles could detonate farther away from the target) more in line with real world data. 

Already for some time I am translating the transcripts of interviews of 29 pilots from 1999, along matching them with corresponding the western pilots.

It should be noted that motivation is to bring more attention why the Mig-29 9.12b performed so bad, by provided as much as possible of the background information.

You can find them in the Mig-29A section of the forum.

So far I published 4 of them and the last one is about the shortest flight and probably one that was most uneven

Please read the testimonies of both pilots (white timestamps will open exact place in youtube video where they made statements), and you will get it why am I so skeptical about never missing AMRAAMs.

 

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb okopanja:

Already for some time I am translating the transcripts of interviews of 29 pilots from 1999, along matching them with corresponding the western pilots.

It should be noted that motivation is to bring more attention why the Mig-29 9.12b performed so bad, by provided as much as possible of the background information.

You can find them in the Mig-29A section of the forum.

So far I published 4 of them and the last one is about the shortest flight and probably one that was most uneven

Please read the testimonies of both pilots (white timestamps will open exact place in youtube video where they made statements), and you will get it why am I so skeptical about never missing AMRAAMs.

 

The thing is. Some of the reports speak of minor damage. Now the question is from what distance did the Aim120 explode to cause such minor damage?

5m or 15 or even 20? That's not clear.

And how cool would it be if this were possible in DCS, the Aim120 triggers at 15m and you can still fly your damaged bird home.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

The thing is. Some of the reports speak of minor damage. Now the question is from what distance did the Aim120 explode to cause such minor damage?

5m or 15 or even 20? That's not clear.

And how cool would it be if this were possible in DCS, the Aim120 triggers at 15m and you can still fly your damaged bird home.

Can not offer exact answer, but perhaps the answer can be inferred based on the pilot descriptions, and by modeling against known stats. Hence the importance of matching and correlating pilot's stories.

Bottom line is: lesser diameter meant less drag but also meant smaller warhead. Shower fired after of-the-rail-pitbull amraam, sparrow, which has heavier warhead, and again fired amraam from like 4nm.

Edited December 21, 2024 by okopanja

[Xhonas]

Hello there, problem persists in the latest patch.

 

barrel roll asd1.trkbarrel roll asd2.trk

[Default774]

26 minutes ago, Xhonas said:

Hello there, problem persists in the latest patch.

 

barrel roll asd1.trk 1.22 MB · 0 downloads barrel roll asd2.trk 322.5 kB · 0 downloads

As expected; this latest patch merely reverted the 120 back to the november and before state of affairs.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Default774

[Pavlin_33]

On 12/21/2024 at 1:06 AM, okopanja said:

Can not offer exact answer, but perhaps the answer can be inferred based on the pilot descriptions, and by modeling against known stats. Hence the importance of matching and correlating pilot's stories.

Bottom line is: lesser diameter meant less drag but also meant smaller warhead. Shower fired after of-the-rail-pitbull amraam, sparrow, which has heavier warhead, and again fired amraam from like 4nm.

Slobodan Peric, who was hit by a 120, reported that it felt like a truck had hit his MiG, so I am pretty sure that after a "direct" hit there's no limping back home. He was lucky to have been hit at the rear, unlike his wingman who tragically died.

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

limping

 

8 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Slobodan Peric, who was hit by a 120, reported that it felt like a truck had hit his MiG, so I am pretty sure that after a "direct" hit there's no limping back home. He was lucky to have been hit at the rear, unlike his wingman who tragically died.

Both Perić and Radosavljeviç were flying at pretty high altitude. For low altitude performance, I refer you to interview with Mike "Dozer" Shower, with part of his interview, found in story of Nebojša Nikolić. That evening he fired 2 Amraams and 1 sparrow at Nikolic. Later he fired another Amraam at Kulačin(in preparation...) which missed. Out of 3 Amraams 1 did hit.

Anyway you can comment there, since this is mostly about barrel roll.

[skywalker22]

On 12/13/2024 at 12:56 PM, GRY Money said:

Btw the Aim-120 is the only missile in the game that has this issue. The Sparrow cannot be barrel rolled and neither can the R-77. 

Incorrect. I evaded all of the Fox1 and Fox3 missiles in DCS for my very 1st time. I wasn't killed from any of the missiles (don't counting some 2nd shots). See my example track how the mission was set. So I wanted to show that any of the missiles can be evaded with the right barrel roll maneuver in DCS.

The problem of DCS's missiles is that they drop the speed way too fast while trying to keep up with the aircraft in the barrel roll. They simply do way too much Gs whats necessary. At the end they drop way too much energy (speed) and simply cannot follow the aircraft any longer.

Or while high above, when still having lots of speed, because of way too much maneuvering (going off the straight forward axis) they simply cannot keep up with the aircraft's flight line also considering less air which means longer reaction time for the missile.

Both metods working in quite similar way.

Point being, missiles in DCS are turning way too much they would need to and also their reaction times is most of the times very slow, if not too slow. And maybe just  because of that missiles need more turning. We can say it's so called vicious circle.

Tacview-20250105-Super530D.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-SD10.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-R77.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-AIM120-F15E.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-AIM120_F16.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-AIM-7_F15E.zip.acmi

--

So this is not just AIM-120C-5 problem! Its DCS missile issue in general. All missiles seems to have same code for the seekerhead or how they are guided as Fox-1.

f-16_barrel_roll_aim-7-sparrow.trk

[GRY Money]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb skywalker22:

Incorrect. I evaded all of the Fox1 and Fox3 missiles in DCS for my very 1st time. I wasn't killed from any of the missiles (don't counting some 2nd shots). See my example track how the mission was set. So I wanted to show that any of the missiles can be evaded with the right barrel roll maneuver in DCS.

The problem of DCS's missiles is that they drop the speed way too fast while trying to keep up with the aircraft in the barrel roll. They simply do way too much Gs whats necessary. At the end they drop way too much energy (speed) and simply cannot follow the aircraft any longer.

Or while high above, when still having lots of speed, because of way too much maneuvering (going off the straight forward axis) they simply cannot keep up with the aircraft's flight line also considering less air which means longer reaction time for the missile.

Both metods working in quite similar way.

Point being, missiles in DCS are turning way too much they would need to and also their reaction times is most of the times very slow, if not too slow. And maybe just  because of that missiles need more turning. We can say it's so called vicious circle.

Tacview-20250105-Super530D.zip.acmi 78.34 kB · 0 Downloads Tacview-20250105-SD10.zip.acmi 97.76 kB · 0 Downloads Tacview-20250105-R77.zip.acmi 97.73 kB · 0 Downloads Tacview-20250105-AIM120-F15E.zip.acmi 84.38 kB · 0 Downloads Tacview-20250105-AIM120_F16.zip.acmi 92.87 kB · 0 Downloads Tacview-20250105-AIM-7_F15E.zip.acmi 71.73 kB · 0 Downloads

--

So this is not just AIM-120C-5 problem! Its DCS missile issue in general. All missiles seems to have same code for the seekerhead or how they are guided as Fox-1.

f-16_barrel_roll_aim-7-sparrow.trk 802.31 kB · 0 Downloads

You are just outenergying them because they shoot early, try again from 5nm and see again... Useless post honestly. The R-77 from this Tacview doesen't have enough energy to make that turn. You will be able to barrel roll an amraam from 5nm but no old API missile. That's the whole point of this post. What you are showing is completely unrelated.
 

Edited January 5 by GRY Money

[Xhonas]

Yeah guys defeating a missile launched from max range is not the point of this post, we are talking about missiles being trashed by barrel rolls / aoa rolls from the NEZ or very close to the NEZ. 

[skywalker22]

Just evaded 3 missiles with a barrel roll (online on GS server), 4th one got me, because I wasn't expectinmg it and wasn't pulling Gs anymore, for a test:

1 minute ago, Xhonas said:

Yeah guys defeating a missile launched from max range is not the point of this post, we are talking about missiles being trashed by barrel rolls / aoa rolls from the NEZ or very close to the NEZ. 

I know, that was never my intention, but if amramm is shot from 15nm from you at cca 20k feet is not considered as max range.