Some things that *should* be in V1.11+

[D-Scythe]

I dont know what the problem is, I get plenty of kills with AIM120 and R77.

 

So does everyone else...but how many do you have to shoot?

 

The Su27 with 27ERs should have a decent chance with an F15C. The 27ER has enough extra range on it, that a properly executed F-Pole should down the F15C if he presses. If he turns tail, it is now easy to escape the 120.

 

So you're saying that so long as the Su-27 keeps lock, he should shoot the F-15C down if he does anything but turns tails and flee?

 

Sure, its not a given that you will get a kill at max range. Sure, it is not a given kill when firing at a high aspect.

 

Have you read any posts in this thread? The whole point is that with an AIM-7/R-27ER, they have such a higher resistence to chaff compared the ARHs that it IS a given that you WILL get a kill (against the AI at least, human players are smarter).

 

Has anyone compared Pk in RWS to TWS? Maybe it is a TWS problem, which I could see.

 

How does that even make sense? There should be no difference launching from RWS or TWS, so long as the missile is guided all the way into its radar activation point.

 

I see no problem with the way 1.11 is. Learn to time your shots better, and if he fires and has a better solution then dont press the engagement.

 

Get a wingman, and learn to fly with one.

 

Obviously your opinion. Can you prove anything that was said in this thread wrong? You know, with information or facts.

[Kula66]

Question to those that know: If I fire a 120/77 and maintain lock all the way to impact ... should it receive target updates right to impact? If so it should have accuracy at least as good as a 7/27 ... it should receive updates from the host a/c and get told to ignore chaff ... is this the way it works in RL ...

[D-Scythe]

Question to those that know: If I fire a 120/77 and maintain lock all the way to impact ... should it receive target updates right to impact? If so it should have accuracy at least as good as a 7/27 ... it should receive updates from the host a/c and get told to ignore chaff ... is this the way it works in RL ...

 

Um, what?

 

Let's get one thing straight: the SARH missile does not communicate with the illuminating radar in ANY way - it ONLY picks up the RF energy reflecting from the target. That's it. Nobody gets "told" to ignore chaff.

 

Another thing....stop talking like an SARH missile is by principle more resistence to chaff. In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't, but all things equal, a active radar missile should just be as chaff resistant as an SARH missile.

 

As for your question, no it does not work like that in real life. The AMRAAM at least does not have an inverse monopulse seeker (to behave like an SARH missile), or a two-way datalink (so it can't be "told" to ignore chaff). I'm not sure exactly how much information is transmitted by the launching aircraft via datalink once the AMRAAM's seeker is turned on, but chaff rejection has NOTHING to do with the launching aircraft in the first place. In both SARH and TARH missiles, the missile filters out the chaff.

[Kula66]

Ok, I'll ignore the tone of your reply ...

The host a/c sends update to the 120/77 telling it where to fly to intercept the target ... If the host a/c can work out what is chaff and what is target I assume it sends this info to the missile ...

 

I'm not saying a SARH missile is more resistant ... I saying the the host a/c is more resistant ...

 

I didn't mention two-way link or SARH communicating with the a/c ... where did your get that from? Please read what people write carefully ...

[S77th-GOYA]

Is there a definitive answer as to when an active missle should go active? Is it based on TTI or range or what?

[Pilotasso]

So from 40,000 at a target flying dumb at 17,000, H2H at about 12miles it should be a sure thing ... but both missiles missed ... :(

 

Gaah! 40000 feet?! Your too high than it is necessary, while you will be more likely to be above your oponents radar view cone, you will also have more severe problems with clutter. As far as I can tell, ingame the higher the look down angle the worse it is. Your likely to loose lock more easely, so will be the 120.

 

If you manage to get past detection, close it to 10 miles or less, otherwise there is no advantage to get that high anyway.

 

Shooting from much above also prompts your missile to be so fast it will turn less sharply and will be more likey to fly by target and plunge into the ground.

[Kula66]

Even after it goes active, does it receive updates on target location from the host a/c provided you maintain lock?

 

If so, it should be able to get pointers from the more powerful/sophisticated radar (even though it is further away) in the host to help it ignore chaff ...

[D-Scythe]

Ok, I'll ignore the tone of your reply ...

 

Okay, I was a jerk. My bad :)

 

The host a/c sends update to the 120/77 telling it where to fly to intercept the target ... If the host a/c can work out what is chaff and what is target I assume it sends this info to the missile ...

 

Even if the host aircraft can work out what is chaff and what is target, it doesn't send this info to the missile, because it is the missile's guidance computers that are responsible for this.

 

The AIM-7M doesn't even have a datalink like the AMRAAM, so it can't recieve such information anyway. You need a datalink to do this.

 

I'm not saying a SARH missile is more resistant ... I saying the the host a/c is more resistant ...

 

Again, it doesn't matter. There is no "communication" between missile and aircraft. Remember, there is only so much information that the computers on a missile can process/analyze.

 

The AMRAAM might have this feature, since it does have a datalink. Thus, I guess once its radar goes active, it can recieve brief, periodic updates from the host aircraft's radar on the target's position. The AIM-7M and the R-27ER can't. At all. At least not the ones modelled in LOMAC.

 

If the AMRAAM can, it's just another reason why a TARH missile should have a higher PK than an SARH missile.

 

I didn't mention two-way link or SARH communicating with the a/c ... where did your get that from? Please read what people write carefully ...

 

The only way this chaff thing can work out efficiently is if there is some sort of datalink. From doppler effects, if a missile falls for chaff, it probably "knows" that it fell for chaff in a second or two, since a chaff cloud dissipates quickly. Thus, through a two-way datalink (transmit/recieve), the missile can transmit back to the launching aircrat "Crap, I lost my target," then the aircraft can transmit back to the missile "No prob. Look for the target here."

 

This will cut down on reacquistion time once the missile is spoofed, but in no way does the radar filter out chaff/ECM for the missile.

[Pilotasso]

Even after it goes active, does it receive updates on target location from the host a/c provided you maintain lock?

 

If so, it should be able to get pointers from the more powerful/sophisticated radar (even though it is further away) in the host to help it ignore chaff ...

 

As far as I can tell...no. RL 120's may have that though.

[Vosxod]

As I'm speaking both russian and english it's really funny to read both parts of forum. Believe me guys - each 'side' wants their planes to be 'closer' to real life = kick that blue/red ass goddamnit! :) However I take my hat off to those members of eng/rus forum who has guts to oppose to egoistic majority and speak facts rather than emotions. /0

[Kula66]

The AIM-7M doesn't even have a datalink like the AMRAAM, so it can't recieve such information anyway. You need a datalink to do this.

 

I didn't say the 7M had a datalink ... I implied that the 120 and 77 have a datalink ... I'm assuming that the 77 and 120 are modelled in a similar fashion and people using them in LO are having similar problems ... but that given they have that datalink and IF it is active right up to the point of impact wouldn't this allow the missile to ignore the chaff and focus on the real target?

[Esac_mirmidon]

Well, i´m reading again and again your replys and i think this is not a question about more or less BVR combat level. I´m not the best pilot of the world, but iwas playing this game since it came out. I´ve tried very hard to improve my capabilities and i think right now i´m a decent player.

 

This is not my first or second post. I had problems with login and autentication. My first name was Esac_ Mirmidón.

 

Well here is my question.

 

The R27-ER and R versions MISS ALWAYS inside max-min launch ranges because chaff, and miss 50% inside NO ESCAPE ZONE. Is this normal?

 

Well, somebody can tell me, " you don´t have idea " " you don´t have enough level " " You don´t Know how this works "

 

Please don´t trust my words, simply watch this trak. I tested more than 30 times, at all altitudes. Always the same results. The R27R and ER are totally useless inside max-min range. And only if you are clouse enough, into no escape zone, you can obtain a hit at 50% of probability.

 

Please don´t fall in personal atacks, just answer my question.

 

I´ve always been very kindly in this forum. Be the same with me.

 

R27 TRAK

[Kula66]

Gaah! 40000 feet?! Your too high than it is necessary, while you will be more likely to be above your oponents radar view cone, you will also have more severe problems with clutter. As far as I can tell, ingame the higher the look down angle the worse it is. Your likely to loose lock more easely, so will be the 120.

 

I like the view from up there ... and you'd be surprised how often enemy a/c fly right under you without spotting you! As I said, the two I fired at yesterday just carried right on flying ... and I maintained lock until the TT went to 0 ...

 

You may be right about the clutter thing ... but isn't this what doppler radars are designed to filter out?

[Pilotasso]

You may be right about the clutter thing ... but isn't this what doppler radars are designed to filter out?

 

Yes but as with everything in life it aint perfet. The more look down angle you have the more clutter you will have, and the closer you need to be for the targeting computer to figure it out of that mess. This will be equivalent to max detection range reduction.

[Yellonet]

As I'm speaking both russian and english it's really funny to read both parts of forum. Believe me guys - each 'side' wants their planes to be 'closer' to real life = kick that blue/red ass goddamnit! :) However I take my hat off to those members of eng/rus forum who has guts to oppose to egoistic majority and speak facts rather than emotions. /0

That's too bad, I wan't everything to be as realistic as it can.

[Kula66]

That's too bad, I wan't everything to be as realistic as it can.

Indeed!

 

Dear Raytheon, could you help with a spirited discussion ... is your missile any good against chaff? What range does it go active? What's max range from 40k'? How good is it in those nasty close range look-down shots ... be specific! No marketing hype please! :)

[D-Scythe]

I didn't say the 7M had a datalink ... I implied that the 120 and 77 have a datalink ... I'm assuming that the 77 and 120 are modelled in a similar fashion and people using them in LO are having similar problems ... but that given they have that datalink and IF it is active right up to the point of impact wouldn't this allow the missile to ignore the chaff and focus on the real target?

 

Again, no. The datalink has NOTHING to do with chaff resistence. The only speculative application where it might be useful in the terminal phase is to provide periodic updates to the missile of the target's position so that *just in case* the missile falls for chaff, it might cut down on reacquisition time.

 

SARH missiles are worse off in this respect because if they fall for chaff, they can only pick up/reacquire the target by itself. They should be in most cases just as susceptible to falling for chaff because the radar designating the target for it does not help it at all to filter out chaff and other clutter.

 

All this points to the fact that at the very least, the AIM-120/R-77 should have just as high a PK as an R-27ER/AIM-7M, but with the advantage of letting the mother-aircraft break off before missile impact. That is the whole point, the idea, the raison d'etre, of having an active radar missile in the first place.

 

As proof, just look at all future radar missile developments. They are ALL active radar homing. FMRAAM, AIM-120C7/D, R-77M, etc. If SARH missiles were as effective in real life as in Lock On, this wouldn't be the case.

 

If anyone can come up with a reason why the R-27ER should perform better than the AIM-120/R-77, please say so. I would like to know, so if I'm wrong, I can change my opinion accordingly.

[S77th-GOYA]

The only speculative application where it might be useful in the terminal phase is to provide periodic updates to the missile of the target's position so that *just in case* the missile falls for chaff, it might cut down on reacquisition time.

 

I think that's the question. After the 120/77 goes active, will it still use information sent from its launching a/c? If the mother a/c is telling the missle the target is in one position, would the missle's guidance system reject/filter a chaff return in another position?

[Pilotasso]

Probably the real deal works like that. I dunno if any SIM tryied to model this though.

[D-Scythe]

I think that's the question. After the 120/77 goes active, will it still use information sent from its launching a/c?

 

The answer is maybe bordering on probably not - this type of stuff is usually highly classified. The applications of such a technique is at best very limited and at worst NONE because of the one-way datalink in the AMRAAM/R-77, as the missile can only recieve information from the mother aircraft, but not transmit back.

 

So there is no point in using information sent to it from its launching aircraft, because the launching aircraft doesn't *know* the position of the AMRAAM/77. Thus, there is no "reference point" between missile and aircraft to determine the position of the target. Position by definition is a vector with a direction, and to be determined NEEDS a reference point.

 

But if the missile does not know where the target is (having been spoofed), and the aircraft knows where the target is (relative to itself) but does not know where the missile is, how is it going to relay the target's position to the missile?

 

If the mother a/c is telling the missle the target is in one position, would the missle's guidance system reject/filter a chaff return in another position?

 

Again, the mother aircraft telling the missile the position of the target is useless because it doesn't know where the missile is. So unless there is some classified way to do things (or just really physically complex), having a datalink for terminal guidance is USELESS.

 

Probably the real deal works like that. I dunno if any SIM tryied to model this though.

 

Again, in big bold letters: The datalink is useless in the end-game unless there is some classified method to determine the target's position from a reference point that BOTH the missile and the mother aircraft knows, and usually this is done by a TWO-way datalink, which does NOT exist in any currently in service missile.

 

EDIT: So I was WRONG before, now that I think more deeply into it. I was wrong when I said the datalink can possibly cut down on reacquisition time.

[Esac_mirmidon]

I don´t think SARH missiles are better than ARH missiles.

 

I only want to know if the SARH missiles like R27-ER could or couldn´t made a kill inside max-min launch ranges when chaffs are present. Inside no escape zone is another question but you lose the suppossed range advantage of this kind of missiles ( The only advantage that could retain but in 1.11 it disappears).

 

Is this so difficult?

 

I always preffer ARH instead SARH. More flexibility in combat, can break de lock and turn away, etc, but what´s the matter with semi-active. if i´m doing something wrong please tell me that.

 

Thanks a lot for all support.

[S77th-GOYA]

D-Scythe, from your response I would gather that a mother a/c couldn't guide a launched missle toward a manouvering target at all. Once launch/seperation occurs, the mother a/c doesn't know where the missle is.

[D-Scythe]

D-Scythe, from your response I would gather that a mother a/c couldn't guide a launched missle toward a manouvering target at all. Once launch/seperation occurs, the mother a/c doesn't know where the missle is.

 

Actually, no. The mother a/c just has to guide the aircraft to an intercept point, that requires much less precision than trying to put a 50 lb warhead into a MiG-29's fuselage. You can use techniques to guide the missile to the general (very general) location of the target, such as using the launching point of the missile as the reference point.

 

Since we're talking long-range BVR shots, it wouldn't take much computing to put the target within the 8nm radar cone of an AMRAAM. You don't have to be that precise. However, in the terminal phase, accuracy is crucial, and given that the area covered by the AIM-120's radar cone shrinks considerably as range decreases, you'll need much, much greater accuracy.

 

Plus, the farther away from the reference point (especially if both missile and mother a/c is manuevering), the more erroneous the target's calculation will be.

 

Or you can use the initial active radar point as the reference point, and basically the mother a/c can just transmit changes in the initial radar point to the missile. Both missile and mother a/c would know this point.

 

Basically, it CAN be done, but remember, there is a VERY limited amounted of computing power available in both the F-15C and the AIM-120 (or MiG-29S and R-77). Having a two way data-link solves the problem (and can do many other things too, like triangulation of an jamming target), because the missile can simply transmit its position to the mother a/c.

[GGTharos]

Here's how I think it happens:

 

The missile has an INS, so does the mothership.

 

Jsut ebfore the missile is launched, INS coordinates are downloaded to it - it's own (from the mother), and the target's. When the missile is in flight, it knows where IT is. The datalink simply sends it an updated set of coordinates and the missile computes a new wake-up point.

[D-Scythe]

Here's how I think it happens:

 

The missile has an INS, so does the mothership.

 

Jsut ebfore the missile is launched, INS coordinates are downloaded to it - it's own (from the mother), and the target's. When the missile is in flight, it knows where IT is. The datalink simply sends it an updated set of coordinates and the missile computes a new wake-up point.

 

Sure, but I wouldn't think such a system would be accurate enough to help the missile in reacquiring the target during the final seconds of the terminal end-game. That's why the proposed AIM-120D will have both GPS and a two-way datalink.