F15c is not the TANK

[Pilotasso]

Is this a fact or just a random notion?

 

Well AIM-120C is an ARH missile theres a factor right there; + adaptive warhead, inertial with GPS enhanced mid course corrections, stealth attacks etc etc, VS much old SARH missile, what did you expect?

 

 

 

Is this a fact or just a random notion?

 

The stats don't necessarily represent the missiles effectiveness, as how they are used and how they make the kill is not shown, i'd wager a lot of AMRAAM hits happen against a target trying evasive maneuveurs while a lot of R-27ER shots are against targets with minimal evasive maneuveurs.

 

Did you just contradict yourself in the same sentence? Your looking for facts but want wagers?

 

 

Especially when you consider the amount of fired and missed (120C 31% hit, 27ER 19% hit) you would assume from this that most long range ER shots miss

We were talking about proximity detonation effectiveness, but thats ok I can speak of this too:

 

Long range shots give lots of warnings and plenty time to notch and theres a big gaping kinetic escape window for the target. DUH They will loose track not because the missile guidance ECCM or warheads sucks but because the target has broken the lock on which it is dependent on. Quite obvious facts. It explains the differences.

whats the surprise here?

 

Using the R-27 for long range shots is highest risk tactic. You need to be alot closer than that to maximize PK but people just will refuse to realize this and complain their plane or missile of choice sucks the most. Have you noticed Cases graph wheres there's a general trend for missiles to kill better the shortest their range is?

Edited September 4, 2010 by Pilotasso

[SECeasar]

I am not some kind of AS here.... but I have something to say!

 

I am not sure that in philosophy of air to air combat in Russian books is written that you have to shoot two radar guided missiles at time. But I am sure that is something you will see in American combat books for AMRAAM120. And who wrote those books- the guys that are professionals- the lives of there pilots depend on that theory.

 

What I want to say! In FC2.0 if I fly Su27 I have to shoot (at same time) two R27er to disable F15 (in one sitting) if I wanna to avoid to be hunted by F15 powerful twin engines! F15 had to shoot one missile at time to do same thing. That is not the way in RL and it wasn`t part of previous FC (usually F15 fire at least two) -if you know what I mean!

Edited September 4, 2010 by =SE=Ceasar

[Pilotasso]

Ceasar, check the table on my post above. The R-27 is not hiting their targets any less hard than the AMRAAM seems to be. Its been balanced so far.

 

I also use 2, 3 AMRAAMs to decisively down my targets too.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Pilotasso

[Steel Jaw]

Please keep this debate going indefinately: any argument that tries to to make USSR/CIS technological prowess superior to that of the West is always good for a chuckle. Eventually, we're all just gonna have to call it the way it is. What stage comes after denial?

[GGTharos]

I am not some kind of AS here.... but I have something to say!

 

I am not sure that in philosophy of air to air combat in Russian books is written that you have to shoot two radar guided missiles at time.

 

Really? Why are you not sure? It is the standard way of increasing Pk and it is the standard Russian philosophy of missile employment.

 

But I am sure that is something you will see in American combat books for AMRAAM120. And who wrote those books- the guys that are professionals- the lives of there pilots depend on that theory.

You are, in fact, not correct. There are zero examples of this being true; as a matter of fact, with AMRAAM the employment is now shoot-look-shoot, not shoot-shoot-look, like it was with R-27 and Sparrow.

 

What I want to say! In FC2.0 if I fly Su27 I have to shoot (at same time) two R27er to disable F15 (in one sitting) if I wanna to avoid to be hunted by F15 powerful twin engines! F15 had to shoot one missile at time to do same thing. That is not the way in RL and it wasn`t part of previous FC (usually F15 fire at least two) -if you know what I mean!

That is the way in RL, but for different reasons. The vast majority of RL AMRAAM hits resulted in kills. Check your facts.

 

Then, check Case's numbers, which VERY CLEARLY show that you need about the same percentage of two AMRAAM shots to actually kill a target as you need R-27's.

[GGTharos]

Is this a fact

 

It is a fact; and by all means, go and check it independently.

ED believes it to be a fact; so if you want any changes, I suggest bringing your own facts to ED; they will judge those against available information they already have.

 

Here's a hint...the AMRAAM warhead has gotten smaller, not larger. I'll let you come to your own conclusions as to why that is, but I figure it isn't because they want to have to double tap every fighter or bomber that shows up on radar.

[Frostie]

Did you just contradict yourself in the same sentence? Your looking for facts but want wagers?

No, your talking about stats from RL im talking about wagers from FC2, [knockknock] hello, unlike you im not using RL facts that the 120 is better than the ER and misrepresenting that in a collection of stats taken from FC2. The 120 is a better missile in RL and FC2.

You do not have any stats or idea how these missiles hit their targets in FC2 so how can you say one is not performing better than the other.

We were talking about proximity detonation effectiveness, but thats ok I can speak of this too:

There is nothing in those stats that tell you whether it was a proximity hit or impact. I've tried to explain why the stats could appear so close but your happy to disregard that and carry on as though a missile is fired from long range or close makes no difference.

 

Why is it not feasible for the AMRAAM that hits from long range to have a higher probability of causing damage and this damage has more chance of downing the aircraft?

After all its a proven fact that there is more TNT in FC2 for the AMRAAM then surely it makes sense that a fractional proximity hit is going to do more damage than one with less TNT.:doh:

[Frostie]

It is a fact; and by all means, go and check it independently.

ED believes it to be a fact; so if you want any changes, I suggest bringing your own facts to ED; they will judge those against available information they already have.

 

Where did I say I didn't believe the RL AMRAAM was better?

 

Pilotasso stated that if the AMRAAM was the best missile like it should then we would all be crying. :D

Isn't it?

[GGTharos]

I thought you did; if that was not so, then I misread you, sorry.

 

Where did I say I didn't believe the RL AMRAAM was better?

[GGTharos]

The AMRAAM will do more damage at a given distance than the R-27; this is correct, and it is the way it should be due to the adaptive/directed warhead.

 

Of course, we don't know HOW much damage it (or any missile for that matter) would do, nor do we have damage patterns or probabilities for a given detonation range (nor does the FC2 simulate frag damage, or provide means for simulating a probability of hit at a given range for frag), and so as I said before, the way this warhead is set up - as well as the R-77 - is the only means by which an adaptive warhead with the fuze range desired could be simulated. FC2 simply does not offer another mechanism to do it with; this is not fixable within the limitations we had to work with, and will not be fixed in FC2 AFAIK, though hey, stranger things have happened.

 

A better solution to seek possibly (and we did seek it, but why it didn't happen, I don't know) is to disable the fire control system partially (not likely to happen) or completely upon taking some kinds of damage; but then you're negating the available emergency options in case of such damage. Obviously, we cannot simulate a pilot fearing for his life (well, actually, maybe we can? But then you have to live with your virtual pilot being able to pull the ejection handles on his own ;) )

 

After all its a proven fact that there is more TNT in FC2 for the AMRAAM then surely it makes sense that a fractional proximity hit is going to do more damage than one with less TNT.:doh:

Edited September 4, 2010 by GGTharos

[Frostie]

The AMRAAM will do more damage at a given distance than the R-27; this is correct, and it is the way it should be due to the adaptive/directed warhead.

 

Of course, we don't know HOW much damage it (or any missile for that matter) would do, nor do we have damage patterns or probabilities for a given detonation range (nor does the FC2 simulate frag damage, or provide means for simulating a probability of hit at a given range for frag), and so as I said before, the way this warhead is set up - as well as the R-77 - is the only means by which an adaptive warhead with the fuze range desired could be simulated. FC2 simply does not offer another mechanism to do it with; this is not fixable within the limitations we had to work with, and will not be fixed in FC2 AFAIK, though hey, stranger things have happened.

Its a can of worms that just spoils the illusion of the sim.

I've got no problem with the AMRAAM doing more damage as I understand the reasoning, just trying to point this thread in the right direction.

[GGTharos]

Which can of worms? That there is no fire control system damage modeled unless your wings are blown off?

 

Its a can of worms that just spoils the illusion of the sim.

I've got no problem with the AMRAAM doing more damage as I understand the reasoning, just trying to point this thread in the right direction.

[Frostie]

Which can of worms? That there is no fire control system damage modeled unless your wings are blown off?

I meant the modeling of the warheads.

[GGTharos]

There is no can of worms there ... it is just the only mechanism available, and there is nothing that can be done about it in FC2. It is a limitation everyone has to live with.

 

In fact, since you did say you believe AMRAAM to be more efficient, I'm not certain what your argument is exactly now, and I'm asking because I prefer to be on the same page.

 

I meant the modeling of the warheads.

[Pilotasso]

No, your talking about stats from RL im talking about wagers from FC2, [knockknock] hello

 

hello you, I never referred any RL stats, just cases tables and some very basic known facts.

 

 

There is nothing in those stats that tell you whether it was a proximity hit or impact.

 

Check the table again.

 

+-----------------+------+-------+-------+
| weapon          |[b] hits[/b] |[b] kills[/b] | ratio |
+-----------------+------+-------+-------+
| AIM-120B        |   50 |    33 |  66.0 | 
| AIM-120C        |  266 |   156 |  58.6 | 
| AIM-7M          |    7 |     7 | 100.0 | 
| AIM-9M          |   56 |    44 |  78.6 | 
| R-27EM (AA-10C) |   29 |    18 |  62.1 | 
| R-27ER (AA-10C) |  181 |   112 |  61.9 | 
| R-27ET (AA-10D) |  135 |    89 |  65.9 | 
| R-27R (AA-10A)  |   10 |     7 |  70.0 | 
| R-60M (AA-8)    |   11 |     6 |  54.5 | 
| R-73 (AA-11)    |   88 |    54 |  61.4 | 
| R-77 (AA-12)    |   82 |    46 |  56.1 | 
+-----------------+------+-------+-------+

 

If this doesn't tell you nothing your taking a blind eye and then whats left to base of your claims on?

Edited September 4, 2010 by Pilotasso

[Frostie]

Check the table again.

 

+-----------------+------+-------+-------+
| weapon          |[b] hits[/b] |[b] kills[/b] | ratio |
+-----------------+------+-------+-------+
| AIM-120B        |   50 |    33 |  66.0 | 
| AIM-120C        |  266 |   156 |  58.6 | 
| AIM-7M          |    7 |     7 | 100.0 | 
| AIM-9M          |   56 |    44 |  78.6 | 
| R-27EM (AA-10C) |   29 |    18 |  62.1 | 
| R-27ER (AA-10C) |  181 |   112 |  61.9 | 
| R-27ET (AA-10D) |  135 |    89 |  65.9 | 
| R-27R (AA-10A)  |   10 |     7 |  70.0 | 
| R-60M (AA-8)    |   11 |     6 |  54.5 | 
| R-73 (AA-11)    |   88 |    54 |  61.4 | 
| R-77 (AA-12)    |   82 |    46 |  56.1 | 
+-----------------+------+-------+-------+

Proximity hits do kill.

[Boberro]

I am not some kind of AS here.... but I have something to say!

 

I am not sure that in philosophy of air to air combat in Russian books is written that you have to shoot two radar guided missiles at time.

 

It's the Russian philosophy. Su has automatic weapon release after X seconds, so pilot doesn't need to release it manually. Russians engineers knew they had to fire few missiles to kill single target...

Edited September 4, 2010 by Boberro

[Pilotasso]

Proximity hits do kill.

 

then whats you point?

 

You claim and claim, and nothing has been put forward to back it up. Just biased comments "just because it does".

[Frostie]

In fact, since you did say you believe AMRAAM to be more efficient, I'm not certain what your argument is exactly now, and I'm asking because I prefer to be on the same page.

That the F-15 is not a tank, its the 120 proximity hitting is more likely to kill than an ER proximity hitting.

[MoGas]

That the F-15 is not a tank, its the 120 proximity hitting is more likely to kill than an ER proximity hitting.

 

And this little %, is pissing you guys off over 15 pages? I should start my TWS issue topic, you come in as well, and support my concern?

 

To be honest, this is just too funny...

[Pilotasso]

its not the %. The graphs showing the real effects ingame have been flat out ignored by some people in denial.

[Frostie]

You claim and claim, and nothing has been put forward to back it up. Just biased comments "just because it does".

Claimed what?

I've given you facts and observations, there is no claim of anything.

 

And this little %, is pissing you guys off over 15 pages? I should start my TWS issue topic, you come in as well, and support my concern?

 

To be honest, this is just too funny...

Whats pissing me off is the presumption that im pissed off.

Stop making silly generalisations that everyone that talks against your wishes is in one big clique.

[MoGas]

its not the %. The graphs showing the real effects ingame have been flat out ignored by some people in denial.

 

Whatever, this is a joke....

[MoGas]

Claimed what?

I've given you facts and observations, there is no claim of anything.

 

 

Whats pissing me off is the presumption that im pissed off.

Stop making silly generalisations that everyone that talks against your wishes is in one big clique.

 

Yes sure, because you are soo happy in here :doh:

[Pilotasso]

Claimed what?

I've given you facts and observations, there is no claim of anything.

 

Man your pretending to suffer from rampant dyslexia?

 

That the F-15 is not a tank, its the 120 proximity hitting is more likely to kill than an ER proximity hitting.

 

 

No claims, mere observations heh?

 

Your facts seem not to correlate with real data extracted from the game.