Missile Dynamics - A discussion

[GGTharos]

Correct, the RWR/defensive system needs enough cues to prioritize and display to you a prioritized threat. An M-link detection alone isn't good enough.

[manfrez01]

The blind leading the blind :D

:D

[*Rage*]

Radar guided versions of R-27 missiles(R-27R and R-27ER) have INS with radio command update. IR versions(R-27T and R-27ET) do not - they are "LOBL"(Lock On Before Launch) and their seekers must lock on to the target before they can be launched.

 

 

 

Err what? - RWR warning comes from the aircraft radar switching to STT in preparation for launch of a SARH weapon. The missile itself doesn't emit anything neither at the point of launch nor at terminal stage SARH operation.

 

 

 

Yes although slight correction - when in terminal SARH operation, the R-27R is not "guided" by the launching aircraft radar. Its homing on target via its own radar seeker - the reason you need to keep lock on target is because SARH seekers don't have their own emitter and therefore needs the aircraft radar's target returns to home on.

 

So R27ER does have INS guidance.

 

And should not cause launch warning in opponent RWR?

[GGTharos]

For (hopefuly) the last time ... INS guidance has no implication on whether you get a launch warning or not. It is simply used while the missile's seeker is not in range to acquire the target itself, ie. you are able to launch the missile beyond its seeker range ... in yet other words, the missile is effectively capable of lock-on-after-launch.

 

This has no bearing on what the illuminating radar is doing.

 

The R-27(E)R has INS AND you get the launch warning.

 

So R27ER does have INS guidance.

 

And should not cause launch warning in opponent RWR?

[Teknetinium]

And how is this relevant when we are actively engaged in a concerted effort to identify problems and improve Missile Dynamics?

 

How does that help in identifying and rectifying issues?

 

I've read it three times now and I'm not seeing it........:helpsmilie:

 

This is what ED should take in account as well when creating a simulation, making missile deadly for both sides is only one approach of many how it can bee archived ( could be approached as well by making aim-120 not track as good as it dose in FC3 in active mode.

 

Why? would you do that, because it would represent reality better, (referring to my point)

 

And

lunaticfringe where is MIG-29s TWS been just to mention one thing.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[*Rage*]

So R27ER does have INS guidance.

 

And should not cause launch warning in opponent RWR?

 

For (hopefuly) the last time ... INS guidance has no implication on whether you get a launch warning or not. It is simply used while the missile's seeker is not in range to acquire the target itself, ie. you are able to launch the missile beyond its seeker range ... in yet other words, the missile is effectively capable of lock-on-after-launch.

 

This has no bearing on what the illuminating radar is doing.

 

The R-27(E)R has INS AND you get the launch warning.

 

But according to ALFA there is no reason for an RWR 'launch detect'....only STT lock tone?

[GGTharos]

Alfa said no such thing. The moment you pull that trigger, at minimum the radar will attempt to transfer to HPRF if not already there, and will generate an M-Link. Plenty of cues for a warning to be generated.

[Frostie]

Surely M-link is only aircraft to missile, not to target. Why would the radar send M-link to target.

[GGTharos]

Do you think it magically stops and drops dead after reaching the missile?

[sobek]

Surely M-link is only aircraft to missile, not to target. Why would the radar send M-link to target.

 

Because at launch the missile will be between the radar and the target. There is no way for you to send energy to the missile but not the target.

[Teknetinium]

There is no prove on that Aim-120 is better or worse in active mode since all factors as ground clutter, jamming and chaff is very hard to model in a simulator. making the aim-120 not as deadly in active mode would not harm the immersion of reality in this sim. ( Same argument was made about ETs in FC1).

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Yes there is, and people in the know are telling us about it.

 

But hey, if you want, you can go with the Pk of RL AIM-7 vs. AIM-120: THey were both used against similar targets. The AIM-120 got twice the Pk of the AIM-7.

 

There is no prove on that Aim-120 is better or worse in active mode since all factors as ground clutter, jamming and chaff is very hard to model in a simulator. making the aim-120 not as deadly in active mode would not harm the immersion of reality in this sim.

[Teknetinium]

Yes there is, and people in the know are telling us about it.

 

But hey, if you want, you can go with the Pk of RL AIM-7 vs. AIM-120: THey were both used against similar targets. The AIM-120 got twice the Pk of the AIM-7.

 

 

And dose this improve the FC3 immersion of reality?

In FC2 aim-120 statistics have similar if not three times better Pk.

 

But thats not the point the missile would have the advantage even if it was poked down to not have as good radar as F-15 in active state. The stats would probably look the same.

As Su-27s are still killing alot whit ETs even if it was poked down in FC2.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Don't worry, missiles will eventually be getting smarter ... they'll improve the realism of BVR, and your immersion, assuming you want to be immersed in realistic BVR instead of crying about fairness :)

 

With each iteration, the LO/FC series has been taking a step closer to better BVR realism. DCS will take this further eventually.

Edited December 4, 2012 by GGTharos

[USAFMTL]

GG

 

Are you suggesting that A2A missiles migrate? :P

[GGTharos]

What, you mean, like with passports and stuff? I mean I'm ok with them migrating from my eagle into a flanker or mig ... they like doing that :P

[Teknetinium]

Don't worry, missiles will eventually be getting smarter ... they'll improve the realism of BVR, and your immersion, assuming you want to be immersed in realistic BVR instead of crying about fairness :)

 

With each iteration, the LO/FC series has been taking a step closer to better BVR realism. DCS will take this further eventually.

 

 

I hope so because you have to think about other things in simulation then the raw technical data, sins it will still not be enough to make it simulated in a computer at this state, So we have to think in other manner to achieve it.

[EtherealN]

Tek, I don't quite understand what you mean by "immersion of reality". Could you perhaps explain that? It sounds to me like you want to create an illusion of realism through on-purpose doing things that are not realistic?

[Teknetinium]

Tek, I don't quite understand what you mean by "immersion of reality". Could you perhaps explain that? It sounds to me like you want to create an illusion of realism through on-purpose doing things that are not realistic?

 

 

In real life you would never tell your self this missile is bad so I pincer and wait, I know it will miss. You react different since you cant relay on your gathered intelligence as you can in games. That's why to emit this situation in a simulation you have to make missile deadly on both sides so the level of realism reaches in another point then just technical where the pilots learn how to exploit it after a while. ( or make the aim-120 not as effective in active state). That would not make the simulator less realistic rather the opposite.

 

This is proven to work in GI multiplayer campaign since the opponents don't know if they are fired upon by R or ER they have to take same defensive maneuvers as it would be ER.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

In real life this is a team game, and tactics are developed based on knowledge, the way you want to fight, and the capability of your wingmen.

 

You tell yourself whatever the vault and training tells you to tell yourself. All we know is that RL pilots don't ignore threats to their life, but we don't know squat about tactics except for the basics, which is what we are trying to make work.

[Teknetinium]

In real life this is a team game, and tactics are developed based on knowledge, the way you want to fight, and the capability of your wingmen.

 

You tell yourself whatever the vault and training tells you to tell yourself. All we know is that RL pilots don't ignore threats to their life, but we don't know squat about tactics except for the basics, which is what we are trying to make work.

 

 

:) you tell me about teamwok.

 

That's what I feel you work against since one side dose not respect threats as in real life :)

[GGTharos]

I was talking about RL. In-game you will find a mix of people. Lone wolves are the meat here generally speaking, though the vast majority of flight simmers never really get online anyway.

 

Teamwork isn't easy. It's hard. Few people do it well. This has nothing to do with missiles. People ignoring missiles isn't bad just in teamwork, it's bad in 1v1 as well.

 

That is DIFFERENT than people who are well versed in enemy missile capabilities and maneuver in such a way as to screw over any shot you might take.

[EtherealN]

So if I understand this right then: what you are saying is that we can promote realistic behaviour on the part of pilots through the implementation of something that on it's own may not be realistic?

 

If so, I can see how you think, but I don't agree that it is a course that should be pursued.

[Teknetinium]

So if I understand this right then: what you are saying is that we can promote realistic behaviour on the part of pilots through the implementation of something that on it's own may not be realistic?

 

If so, I can see how you think, but I don't agree that it is a course that should be pursued.

 

It would not be unrealistic to poke down AIM-120 in active state!!!

[GGTharos]

Yes it would be. The in-game 120 is pretty dumb compared to its RL counter-part. All it does is PN.

 

It would not be unrealistic to poke down AIM-120 in active state!!!