Missile Dynamics - A discussion

[104th_Cobra]

... even when the losing side holds an advantage that the Eagle should have with a higher level of capability (the datalink).

 

If the F-15C presently modeled has this capability, with or without AWACS support, then it must be modeled. It will add to tactics variety.

[blkspade]

As a person that mostly only flies the F-15, the AIM-120 is far from the guaranteed kill that some of you Russian fliers claim it to be. While they seem to be typically strong against chaff, the fact is you may be doing it wrong. I watched a tacview track of one of my online engagements against another F-15, to see that me managed to spoof 2 of my 120s launched atleast 6 seconds apart with a single well timed chaff. They had more than enough speed to still catch him after he maneuvered but the one chaff spoofed them both. He was someone who I hadn't seen online of flown against before that. Anyone who manages to kill me with any sort of frequency, I tend to spot how they fly and what I'm likely to be doing wrong.

 

As for R-27s not guiding, this is an issue for all missiles in certain scenarios. Obviously less of an issue for 120s by design, but happens with my Aim-7s all the time. Somtimes its the missile, sometimes its your opponent. It was at one point common practice among actual fighter pilots to launch 2 out of expecting one to not guide. An A-10c managed to evade 2 of my 120Bs launched at like 4nm. Learn how the new afm effects your missiles, and know that it can cause your missiles to collide with each other if launched too close together while you're accelerating.

[lunaticfringe]

If the F-15C presently modeled has this capability, with or without AWACS support, then it must be modeled. It will add to tactics variety.

 

The modeled F-15C never existed; it is an amalgamation of pre- and post-MSIP capability.

[Exorcet]

As for R-27s not guiding, this is an issue for all missiles in certain scenarios. Obviously less of an issue for 120s by design, but happens with my Aim-7s all the time. Somtimes its the missile, sometimes its your opponent.

Yes, I have a track where I fired a 120 at someone cruising at 40,000+ ft. He never maneuvered, but my missile simply went off into space.

 

The 120 is currently crippled beyond 15 nm because of loft, and I've even had it run out of energy firing on targets with 5 nm.

[Teknetinium]

Im not talking about game balance, known facts are wrong at the moment and they should be pointed out. you are just as hippocratic when you try to convince me that AIM-120 should work better then they do when you don't know even the power output of aim-120s radar to compere it to F-15s. There is alot of things that we dont know witch force developers to make assumptions. Those educated assumptions are probably not far off. If aim-120/R-77 would lose track more often as ER-27 dose guided by Su-27/Mig-29 radar would not change anything to the advantage of using actives, The only difference would be that you would need to fly longer for same amount of kills. I believe that this changes would make FC3 more realistic and not as predictive.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

I think your ideas are upside down and in contrast to your philosophy of forcing pilots to have more realistic responses.

[Teknetinium]

I think your ideas are upside down and in contrast to your philosophy of forcing pilots to have more realistic responses.

 

Im for any approach where the pilots will have more realistic response. I have mentioned before that this could be achieved in different ways, Tweaking the SPO/RWR, not make them as reliable would give some effect as well, I know its not easy to program it to not be predictable, Im just pointing out some approaches.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

I think that very simply the R-27 family should become more reliable. Specifically I would like countermeasures to be treated in a different way than they are now, and I believe you would then see a fairly big difference and you could have more confidence in your weapons.

[lunaticfringe]

So every radiator should function like frequency hopping ESA emitters to make you feel more comfortable.

 

Unless you change the method of emission, you don't spoof the RWR.

[GGTharos]

I don't think he wants to spoof the RWR, but I don't think what he's thinking will make life better for him either ... for example, the 'signal power count-down' regarding active missiles that you get on the SPO-15 should not be offering you the most perfect way of dodging that active.

 

In fact, the western RWR should be doing this much, much better. Let's just say the western RWR is barren ... and that although do not have pictures of anything better, we know that the SPO-15 could be replaced with something better.

 

But again ... these aircraft are modeled to the limitations of available documentation and underlying avionics/flight model engine. They are not DCS modules.

 

And missiles will probably get better, nor worse. Don't expect them to behave like Vietnam war era missiles.

[danilop]

You can't judge complete missile performance according to any weapon deployment manual, period. General ballistic parameters yes, but all important tracking performance, anti-ECM performance and such, you can't.

 

Reprogram the missile software (you probably need half a day in RL) and you have completely different behavior while tracking/homing.

 

Modern air combat is fluid thing and it all boils down who have better ECM and way to beat it.

 

And no, weapons technicians/maintenance personel, hell, even pilots don't have enough clearance to have any clue what's going on in missile software. That's basically top-secret stuff.

 

So ... you'll have to compromise in flight simulator software intended for general public. :)

[Teknetinium]

I don't think he wants to spoof the RWR, but I don't think what he's thinking will make life better for him either ... for example, the 'signal power count-down' regarding active missiles that you get on the SPO-15 should not be offering you the most perfect way of dodging that active.

 

In fact, the western RWR should be doing this much, much better. Let's just say the western RWR is barren ... and that although do not have pictures of anything better, we know that the SPO-15 could be replaced with something better.

 

But again ... these aircraft are modeled to the limitations of available documentation and underlying avionics/flight model engine. They are not DCS modules.

 

And missiles will probably get better, nor worse. Don't expect them to behave like Vietnam war era missiles.

 

I know that making RWR more realistic would not make Su-27S life easier, and make it easie for me is not what I want. I'm trying to reach, GG said it well, "a realistic response from pilots". since some pilots make 5 times more kills in a mouth then all kills recorded since aim-120 was released. This makes the pilots learn how to use aircraft's disadvantages much better. This should be countered some how.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

You can't judge complete missile performance according to any weapon deployment manual, period. General ballistic parameters yes, but all important tracking performance, anti-ECM performance and such, you can't.

 

Reprogram the missile software (you probably need half a day in RL) and you have completely different behavior while tracking/homing.

 

Modern air combat is fluid thing and it all boils down who have better ECM and way to beat it.

 

There are some things we can know ... and it doesn't always boil down to better ECM/ECCM. It's a big factor which shapes tactics, but the basics are still the basics, and we're trying to ensure that the game at least enforces the basics.

 

And no, weapons technicians/maintenance personel, hell, even pilots don't have enough clearance to have any clue what's going on in missile software. That's basically top-secret stuff.

 

So ... you'll have to compromise in flight simulator software intended for general public. :)

That's kinda funny, because I know for a fact a couple of pilots and technicians that have proven that statement wrong ... though their comments were not for the general public :) They might not see the software itself in human-readable form, but they sure as heck are aware of what their weapons can do and how they do it, for those who are technical. Part of winning the fight is huge planning, not fighting with weapons you don't understand.

[danilop]

...They might not see the software itself in human-readable form, but they sure as heck are aware of what their weapons can do and how they do it, for those who are technical. ...

 

That is highly subjective view without any scientific background. We can take that as a good indication what current systems could do to second and third class Airforces around the world.

 

Fighting export variants of MiGs and SUs (first thing Russians and Americans do to export weapon systems is to cripple software) don't give reliable information on which you can base definitive answer.

[GGTharos]

Ok, I don't understand what you mean exactly ... if you are saying that people learn how the missiles work and thus get better at evading them or using them, this is just a fact of gaming life ...

Getting a lot of kills is not just the missile, it is bandit psychology too. You wouldn't believe how much A2G guys get shot down JUST because they believe they are defenseless against a fighter. They just give up.

Same thing for people faced with active missiles.

 

I know that making RWR more realistic would not make Su-27S life easier, and make it easie for me is not what I want. I'm trying to reach, GG said it well, "a realistic response from pilots". since some pilots make 5 times more kills in a mouth then all kills recorded since aim-120 was released. This makes the pilots learn how to use aircraft's disadvantages much better. This should be countered some how.

[GGTharos]

Not sure why you quoted the part you quoted, but to answer to what you are saying, it all goes back to covering the basics. There is a lot of information, some of it is confusing (as in ok, we know it does this, but how/why?) and some of it is pretty easy to understand but not necessarily so easy to model (at least in time/money terms).

 

In the end, it's just important to cover the basics, which are known, and right now are not covered as well as they could be.

 

That is highly subjective view without any scientific background. We can take that as a good indication what current systems could do to second and third class Airforces around the world.

 

Fighting export variants of MiGs and SUs (first thing Russians and Americans do to export weapon systems is to cripple software) don't give reliable information on which you can base definitive answer.

[Teknetinium]

Lets hope that ED will make it right, They have only improved since FC1, Missiles do have much better dynamics now then before and Im sure it will only improve. Since this is a simulator and not RL some actions have to be taken to achieve realistic response fom pilots, So far ED has done a good job to find that sweetspot, we have to remember that its beta.

[GGTharos]

There is a lot of work to be done with missiles IMHO. It will not end with FC3 (and I don't mean just air to air missiles).

[Frostie]

So every radiator should function like frequency hopping ESA emitters to make you feel more comfortable.

 

Unless you change the method of emission, you don't spoof the RWR.

 

I think your obsession of red air/eastVwest is getting the better of you. Tek is clearly talking a about the Russian SPO detecting radar range so accurately. While I don't completely agree with some of Tek's views on how certain hardware performs in FC I understand where he is coming from and that it is not of a pro Russian anti NATO stance. Tek simply wants engagements to work realistically eg. 2v1 scenarios should be decided by tactics and not a single bandit launching maddogs from 20nm away and running to a safe haven all this whilst controlling the engagement, as a small example. Presently SARH missiles scare no one while ARH can be used effectively by anyone with a fire button. Yes all missiles have degrees of suckage and 120s don't really get their full capabilities and ECM/ECCM modeling is all but non existent etc.etc., but what is really needed here are some unbiased views to try and make a better FC.

We will see how it pans out after Beta or next patch whichever.

[X-man]

Both RWR and IFF is not as accurate IRL as it is (and has always been) in FC. Right now, neither of these ever fails (not as in hardware failure, but failure to interpret) or even struggles, they are spot on every single time, no matter the range. It would be a very nice thing to introduce some kind of randomness to these, but I guess that is a long way ahead ;)

[GGTharos]

Tek simply wants engagements to work realistically eg. 2v1 scenarios should be decided by tactics and not a single bandit launching maddogs from 20nm away and running to a safe haven all this whilst controlling the engagement, as a small example.

 

But that example is already untrue in FC2. If someone's shooting out of SAM cover, they're shooting out of SAM cover. What can you do?

 

On the other hand, if he's shooting and scooting he's not maintaining control of the air.

 

What you're describing cannot be solved by programming or tactics, it is only solvable with mission design, and only to a certain degree. You cannot really take the air quake out of air quaker so easily, and even if you had fully modeled with all the secret-bits-attached and super-realism sim-pits for everyone you would still see the same behavior (incidentally, cheapshots are part of real BVR tactics, and to some degree so are maddogs ... but not in the way they were used back in LO/FC1. FC2 ended those).

 

Presently SARH missiles scare no one while ARH can be used effectively by anyone with a fire button.

 

Yes, they need something that all missiles need: More realistic CM rejection. It's a complex deal so I won't get into it too much, but suffice it to say that after all the obvious stuff is dealt with (ie. missile speed/range etc) what remains is making the missile more reliable, and that has to do with how CMs are handled in-game, and a bit of end-game kinematics.

[Pilotasso]

Presently SARH missiles scare no one while ARH can be used effectively by anyone with a fire button. Yes all missiles have degrees of suckage and 120s don't really get their full capabilities and ECM/ECCM modeling is all but non existent etc.etc., but what is really needed here are some unbiased views to try and make a better FC.

 

Presently either in FC2 or FC3 beta, there inst any 20 mile maddog capability. I see that people continue to forget the simple fact that seekers logic is the same for all missiles, if the 120 could do magic so should the other missiles.

 

The notion that 120's dont need any skill is also another misconception, being a slower and shorter ranged missile than the R-27ER and taking account that its seeker range is like 1/3 that of the total (same as R-77), and the fact you are obliged to micro manage the radar by hand to successfully employ it, is being repeatedly dismissed/ignored due to personal/political bias.

 

It is evident to me that unbiased views -- as you put it-- are yet to be made.

 

Cheers.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Exorcet]

Both RWR and IFF is not as accurate IRL as it is (and has always been) in FC. Right now, neither of these ever fails (not as in hardware failure, but failure to interpret) or even struggles, they are spot on every single time, no matter the range. It would be a very nice thing to introduce some kind of randomness to these, but I guess that is a long way ahead ;)

I think this is something that needs to happen at some point.

 

Oddly enough, the FC F-15 can pick up U's (unknowns) on the RWR, but I think this only happens for EWR radars or something.

 

I wonder, as a start, if it would be easy to code a random ID timer. A contact on radar/RWR needs to wait for the timer to countdown before it's properly identified. This time can be small, as in milliseconds, or noticeable like half a minute.

 

Identification is a huge part of combat, and it's plainly missing for the sim for air to air engagements at the moment.

[GGTharos]

Given the amount of RF simulated, I don't see why the RWR's should suffer. Just saying.

[Frostie]

But that example is already untrue in FC2. If someone's shooting out of SAM cover, they're shooting out of SAM cover. What can you do?

 

On the other hand, if he's shooting and scooting he's not maintaining control of the air.

 

What you're describing cannot be solved by programming or tactics, it is only solvable with mission design, and only to a certain degree. You cannot really take the air quake out of air quaker so easily, and even if you had fully modeled with all the secret-bits-attached and super-realism sim-pits for everyone you would still see the same behavior (incidentally, cheapshots are part of real BVR tactics, and to some degree so are maddogs ... but not in the way they were used back in LO/FC1. FC2 ended those).

 

 

FC1 was an abomination. But when you GG take RL tactics or RL employment of missiles and try and compare FC's behaviour as an equality for that behaviour it makes me cringe.

 

Firstly RL cheapshots are already in MPRF to HPRF active stage when they are dropped so with regards to that I think you're confused.

While maddogs have a hugely reduced Pk because it requires the target to continue approx. on its current path, if the target makes any evasive manuevers then the chance of the target being in the missiles basket at active stage is greatly reduced.

 

If any of this were true in FC then we'd be on track for something special, unfortunately non of it is true, shots that are dropped mid command stage in FC have a chance of acquiring targets which have made extensively hard maneuvers to be nowhere near the missiles basket.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Frostie