Tunguskas shooting down Mavericks?

[GGTharos]

I just find it really amusing, SK ;)

 

What did I do to deserve such badly functioning BUKs? ;)

 

 

Jason, the AI reacts instantly, which is one of the existing gripes I think.

[aimmaverick]

Then you're playing a different game. My Patriot fires on a Mig-25RBT doing 1000kts at 65000' from 65nm which is about 120km.

 

Still far less than 160 km. In general i think many missiles have their motor burning time shorter than in RL. The best example is Sidewinder. I saw live fire footages and i can say it had much longer burn time than in Lockon. If you want

titles its called Falcon Attacks and 123 FS archer video which you can obtain at Patricks aviation site. (http://www.patricksaviation.com) and others too but i cant remember all names...

[GGTharos]

I have the Archer video AND the Skull Viper video.

Just because you can see a red-hot glow doesn't mean the rocket motor is still burning.

 

Either way, LOMAC missiles don't use 'real physics' right now, or rather, they use a very limited subset of said physics. This will be addressed in 1.2.

 

The burn time for both the PAtriot and S300 is about 10sec and this is modelled correctly.

 

120km is absolutely -not- unreasonable launch range if a 'max range' of 160km is given against a similar target, especially considering that the 160km range applies -strictly- to a setting where there are perfect conditions, and your target isn't expected to maneuver at -all-.

 

Thsi applies to -all- missiles.

[S77th-GOYA]

What did I do to deserve such badly functioning BUKs? ;)

 

That's an entirely different thread, GG.

[Alfa]

I told you so..

 

Aha!

 

Now what did I tell you guys about not judging this new feature on one or two mission results? ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Trident]

That's odd, I don't have a source handy but I distinctly remember reading the opposite. What did they mean by "precision"? Isn't a fuze just a binary on/off function?

 

Same here, I don't have the source(s) available right now. Anyway, as far as I can remember it was due to more accurate distance measuring. The warhead was more likely to be detonated at the ideal moment in high closure situations with small targets. OTOH, this may require an advanced implementation that is not commonplace today (?). Past experience dictates that your sources are usually the best :) but a fuze emitting pencil beams seems too prone to missing the target to be used in practise IMHO.

 

Like the Osa, Tunguska missiles are also seekerless beam-riders. The site takes 8-10 seconds to lock and fire on a new-detected target, and the proximity fuze isn't activated until a further 3.2 seconds after launch. Harpoons, Excoets and Tomahawks are at least trackable all the way from the radio horizon, reducing the lock-on and reaction-time problem. They've also long since separated from the aircraft.

 

About 12 seconds from detection until the missile can be intercepted - maybe one or two seconds more to allow for sufficient separation from the launcher for a range resolution of 400m (a speed of 400m/s sound about right for the Mav). Assuming the Tunguska missile flies at 600m/s we get a minimum range of roughly 2000m which in turn means that the Maverick launch must have occured about 7km away from the launcher for an interception to be possible. Interesting :) OTOH the guns have no practical minimum range, so they could fire on a missile launched from within 3-4km.

[TucksonSonny]

These Tunguskas battalions operate always in groups of 6 units. My guess is that there is a kind of a datalink between their radars or another radar is used (linked) in the setup therefore there goes your theory of tracking. Of course the PK chance will increase with the number of Tunguska units used.

[S77th-GOYA]

Aha!

 

Now what did I tell you guys about not judging this new feature on one or two mission results? ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

After several missions and tests, I still think it's bullshit.

 

It's a step farther into unrealistic SAM behaviour. Wrong + wrong = right just doesn't work for me.

[SwingKid]

Just wait till 1.2, when you pull the trigger in your A-10A and out the barrel of the GAU-8 pops a little yellow flag that says, "Bang!" ;)

 

Won't there be a lot of changing tactics then!

 

P.S. you misspelled "different"

 

-SK

[S77th-GOYA]

Confetti AGMs. :D

[Ironhand]

I haven't gotten a BUK to fire on any HARMs yet ... what's going on?

The results might be aircraft dependent. When I use F-16s and AGM-88s (missile slider=50%), the Buk system ignores the Harms. If, however, the aircraft/missile combo is the FA-18/AGM-88, the Buk system goes after the Harms. But, so far, the Buk has lost every confrontation (total of 8). Because of missile saturation, a flight of 2 F-18s with 4 AMG-88s makes the easiest kill (after any flight of F-16s, of course, in my tests).

 

Rich

[GGTharos]

That's funny - I used F/A-18's ...

[Ironhand]

That's funny - I used F/A-18's ...

Well...so much for that theory.

 

Rich

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

well i been playing good part of the day, and only once did strela fire on mav, the other 15+ missions, no dice.

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

ok i been testing some more, and WTF, TV mavs = useless, they dont do what there told to do, they fly away and go no where near there targets, thats if they dont explode in mid air first....

[Prophet_169th]

I have the Archer video AND the Skull Viper video.

Just because you can see a red-hot glow doesn't mean the rocket motor is still burning.

 

I dont know how these missles are guided. But I do know that the TOW missle, which I have some experience with, has an IR and UV beacon on the back, used by the sight to track the missle. The motor only burnes for 1.6secs I believe.

 

Anyways, could be something like that.

[355th_Paulie]

Just wait till 1.2, when you pull the trigger in your A-10A and out the barrel of the GAU-8 pops a little yellow flag that says, "Bang!" ;)

 

-SK

 

 

HEY!!! HEY!!!! No more cruelty over the back of the Hog, or this thread will be locked..........:icon_weed

[Bouddha]

Hi all,

 

I didn't have time to read these 20 pages post about this subject.

There were many interesting posts, but unfortunately, I dont have time to read them all.

Have someone made some statistical test with let's say around 100 Maverick fired, and % kill ?

 

What is the last status about this subject ? Is it correctely modeled or is there a "mistake" ?

 

thanks for your help,

 

regards

[355th_Paulie]

Í just came out of the 504 server, and had 4 out of 4 Mav hits. Earlier on I engaged an S300 site, they focussed on my maverick, I could bomb the site, using 97's.

 

 

You dont get painted directly after take off by long-range samsites anymore, you do however need to use your weaponry more efficiently, the Mav is not the one shoot-one hit wonder we are used to have, but overall, IMO, it is a fair reflect on reality.

 

And popping up on targets has never been so good as it is now!

[AMVI_Surgeon]

Yes, Tungs/Strelas will engage Mavs when the launching hog is music on. (There is a Shilka in the column with the Strela.)

Even is Hog is music off...

 

I've tried to fly yesterday the same multiplayer mission I've made with 1.1.

Results: a complete disaster: every maverick lauched against a coloumn of T-80, Shilka, Tunguska and Strela was intercepted and destroyed by strela , the tail of the coloumn.

The only way to destroy the coloumn was low level navigation and lots of clusters on target (but high risk!).

 

I really disappoint this new feature, but Im looking for new tactics....

see you soon!

[S77th-konkussion]

Results: a complete disaster: every maverick lauched against a coloumn of T-80, Shilka, Tunguska and Strela was intercepted and destroyed by strela , the tail of the coloumn.

 

Sad.

[GGTharos]

Double-tap the strela, or launch your missiles in quick succession.

[355th_Paulie]

Results: a complete disaster: every maverick lauched against a coloumn of T-80, Shilka, Tunguska and Strela was intercepted and destroyed by strela , the tail of the coloumn.

 

Sad.

 

Hey, that says more about the pilot than the sim right?

[S77th-konkussion]

Hey, that says more about the pilot than the sim right?

 

 

Don't think so. Like I said early on- I would give a TUNG the benefit of the doubt (big doubt) if the unit was tracking an A10 the whole time and was prepared for a Maverick launch. That's a mean unit with a helluva nasty gun. Throw up enough lead at something that you know is coming- you might hit it. MAYBE. I don't beleive for 1 second that a Strela would enjoy any success against an incoming Mav.

 

If I'm wrong- show me I'm wrong- I'll admit it.

[GGTharos]

Is the missile slider at 100%?

 

All my Strelas seem to miss the mavs or just not fire at them at all ... I don't understand what causes such different behavior - and I think we should find out.

 

Mission version (1.1 or 1.11), and possibly computer specs would be useful, as well as the skill rating fo the SAM in question and thigns like radar enabled SAMs in its vicinity (on the same side) and also missile slider setting.

 

Perhaps we can find some sort of common factor.