Missile Dynamics - A discussion

[Teknetinium]

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

 

Its still have same PK if not better in FC2 then in RL, so I dont see your point.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

You know, that's a pretty surprising statement coming from the guy whose squadronmate posted the stats on missile effectiveness.

 

It has half the Pk in-game compared to what it has in RL.

 

Its still have same PK if not better in FC2 then in RL :)

[lunaticfringe]

 

Are you referring to the red rectangular sections between the Canard and main fins ? I think these are Influence fuse antennae.

 

 

Nah, man- those are Gandalfski Waveform Inhibitors. They oscillate at a frequency between I and F Bands, intoning a warning to M-Link radiation that would pass them by:

 

YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

MCU/guidance waveforms stopping at the missile; that was pretty good. :megalol:

[Teknetinium]

You know, that's a pretty surprising statement coming from the guy whose squadronmate posted the stats on missile effectiveness.

 

It has half the Pk in-game compared to what it has in RL.

 

 

Same story for ERs, I would assume ERs miss three to two times more then aim-120 in FC2. especially in 15km range.

I can get the numbers if needed.

 

And its har to compere it that way since it is pilot based. Still the simulator would not become more unrealistic if the aim-120 was poked down in active state (it should still be the best BVR missile, GG plz dont come whit arguments that you know how good they are in RL:)

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Frostie]

I think Tek's point has nothing to do with tactics, ths problem I think he is trying to highlight has very much INS at the heart of the problem. His point was totally lost on one guy who went on some self glorified waffle.

 

In FC 120s have a gamey seeker performance when they are flying dead, this after say a TWS shot which was dropped early, to make up for the poorly modeled INS the seeker seems to randomise acquirement well outside its boresight creating an almost immediate fire and forget from long range with outstanding pk potential.

 

Compare this with the R27 that suffers from it seems a simple crank to make this missile loose track even though a lock is persistent, if this is using INS why is it losing track while the radar is still locking.

 

This I where I believe Tek feels realism is skewed infavour of the 120.

[GGTharos]

No, the ER's have ten times the Pk of what the R-27R should have if you go by the E-E encouters. Then again, we try not to take the E-E conflict too seriously because no one believes that the R-27 could be that bad.

 

The R-27ER is exactly where we might expect its Pk to be if it was modernized to be equivalent to an 80's version of the AIM-7.

 

same story for ERs lol.

[GGTharos]

I think Tek's point has nothing to do with tactics, ths problem I think he is trying to highlight has very much INS at the heart of the problem. His point was totally lost on one guy who went on some self glorified waffle.

 

You're waffling, and I'll tell you why at the end.

 

In FC 120s have a gamey seeker performance when they are flying dead, this after say a TWS shot which was dropped early, to make up for the poorly modeled INS the seeker seems to randomise acquirement well outside its boresight creating an almost immediate fire and forget from long range with outstanding pk potential.

 

There is no INS. We've been over this. It does not exist in-game for missiles.

 

Compare this with the R27 that suffers from it seems a simple crank to make this missile loose track even though a lock is persistent, if this is using INS why is it losing track while the radar is still locking.

 

Oh poor you. You just can't get off this subject. To make this very simple, a 120 with any more intelligence (and an INS) than it has now, would make your life harder, not easier. To make a second point, new missile > old missile, and frankly that isn't represented in game as shown by Case's stats, despite your comaplaining about this.

 

An R-27 would certainly do a little better as well in certain circumstances.

 

This I where I believe Tek feels realism is skewed infavour of the 120.

 

Tek doesn't know how to tell anyone what it is he's saying, and he's often wrong on technical points which is confusing and very unhelpful when trying to adjust a simulation. His heart's in the right place, but better realism won't lead to what you or he thinks it will.

 

120's won't become easier to deal with. They'll become deadlier ... and SARH won't really improve much, though there are definitely a few things that can be done (And hopefully will be done) to improve them, as well.

[Frostie]

You're waffling, and I'll tell you why at the end.

 

 

 

There is no INS. We've been over this. It does not exist in-game for missiles.

 

 

 

Oh poor you. You just can't get off this subject. To make this very simple, a 120 with any more intelligence (and an INS) than it has now, would make your life harder, not easier. To make a second point, new missile > old missile, and frankly that isn't represented in game as shown by Case's stats, despite your comaplaining about this.

 

An R-27 would certainly do a little better as well in certain circumstances.

 

 

 

Tek doesn't know how to tell anyone what it kiis he's saying, and he's often wrong on technical points which is confusing and very unhelpful when trying to adjust a simulation. His heart's in the right place, but better realism won't lead to what you or he thinks it will.

 

120's won't become easier to deal with. They'll become deadlier ... and SARH won't really improve much, though there are definitely a few things that can be done (And hopefully will be done) to improve them, as well.

That was the point. There is no INS in the game. The 120 has its gamey backup to help this problem the R27 had nothing. Without mid course updates there is no chance for a 120 to find its target ask the RAF, not so in FC. I'm not saying the 120 needs adjusting more the R27 has a bum deal. So quit with the condescending attitude its infectious.

[Teknetinium]

You're waffling, and I'll tell you why at the end.

 

 

 

There is no INS. We've been over this. It does not exist in-game for missiles.

 

 

 

Oh poor you. You just can't get off this subject. To make this very simple, a 120 with any more intelligence (and an INS) than it has now, would make your life harder, not easier. To make a second point, new missile > old missile, and frankly that isn't represented in game as shown by Case's stats, despite your comaplaining about this.

 

An R-27 would certainly do a little better as well in certain circumstances.

 

 

 

Tek doesn't know how to tell anyone what it is he's saying, and he's often wrong on technical points which is confusing and very unhelpful when trying to adjust a simulation. His heart's in the right place, but better realism won't lead to what you or he thinks it will.

 

120's won't become easier to deal with. They'll become deadlier ... and SARH won't really improve much, though there are definitely a few things that can be done (And hopefully will be done) to improve them, as well.

 

I would say you fly to little as team in this simulator, As you mentioned you self in RL you take threats more seriously, At the moment the case is that ER are not taken seriously witch downgrade the realism ,You are promoting something that is not a simulation GG, Even if you are more read upon about the technical part.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[lunaticfringe]

And

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

 

GG has already told you, up to and including post #43. As it stands, the generation of MiG-29 modeled cannot shoot through TWS. Period. End of sentence.

 

Tell you what- I'll trade you a MiG-29S with TWS 2-bug for an F-15C MSIP II carrying an MPCD with more than a PACS page; namely, the HSD with FDL data. An APG-63 with proper azimuth control; no need for AESA. And you can leave the broken "announce my presence to the world" TEWS.

 

I promise you- you won't like that trade one bit, and you'll come back saying that things are broken yet again; not because ED, GG, and everyone confronting you is biased (with a bias towards data), but because *you* are biased.

[Teknetinium]

GG has already told you, up to and including post #43. As it stands, the generation of MiG-29 modeled cannot shoot through TWS. Period. End of sentence.

 

Tell you what- I'll trade you a MiG-29S with TWS 2-bug for an F-15C MSIP II carrying an MPCD with more than a PACS page; namely, the HSD with FDL data. An APG-63 with proper azimuth control; no need for AESA. And you can leave the broken "announce my presence to the world" TEWS.

 

I promise you- you won't like that trade one bit, and you'll come back saying that things are broken yet again; not because ED, GG, and everyone confronting you is biased (with a bias towards data), but because *you* are biased.

 

LOL, is it how you see it, its very productive for your beloved simulator.

Dont worry It will be easier for me to shot you down in F-18 soon enoght.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Don't worry, it won't have that bum deal if things go well.

 

That was the point. There is no INS in the game. The 120 has its gamey backup to help this problem the R27 had nothing. Without mid course updates there is no chance for a 120 to find its target ask the RAF, not so in FC. I'm not saying the 120 needs adjusting more the R27 has a bum deal. So quit with the condescending attitude its infectious.

[GGTharos]

I fly as a team in this sim almost exclusively.

 

I would say you fly to little as team in this simulator

[GGTharos]

Ok, let's cool down a bit.

 

I'll just say this:

 

I've put missile INS feature in mantis well before this thread even appeared. It may make it into FC3. If not, missiles are part of the ever-developing DCS world now.

 

As I did say, only a few of the MiG-29S could support 2-TWS, but I would not be adverse to modeling this for the MiG-29S if possible.

 

lunaticfringe is right: A DCS level western fighter even from the late 80's would be likely to crush a DCS MiG-29A/B/C in BVR

 

Tek is also right: If everyone ends up flying western fighters, well ...

 

 

The fact going forward is this: Missiles will be improving.

 

Modules will be coming, but due to RL cirumstances, more modern western jets can be modeled, while only somewhat older eastern jets can be modeled to DCS standards by comparison.

 

THe king of BVR is the F-15. Always expect it to have a significant BVR advantage, but it doesn't mean you can't beat it.

 

As far as turning fights go, I really don't want to turn with any of you eastern plane flying guys in my F-15, but it doesn't mean I can't beat you.

Edited December 4, 2012 by GGTharos

[Weta43]

GG wrote:

That was the point. There is no INS in the game. The 120 has its gamey backup to help this problem the R27 had nothing. [/Quote]

From reading (the last few pages of) this thread, this does seem to be the core of the problem.

There is no INS in game.

 

However, in game, the modelled active seeker of the 120 will re-aquire a target of it's own accord if the missile seeker looses lock.

 

I may have the wrong end of the stick, but I read this as in in game, the sim fakes the SAR seeker + INS combination by having the SAR seeker PN guide from launch. Without INS this means that if the R-27 seeker looses lock - even if this is early in the missile's flight & the guiding radar has held lock - the missile's ballistic. If it had INS & updates, it would be directed to a place where it's seeker would actually aquire the target...

[Frostie]

Must spread rep first. Thanks GG.

[lunaticfringe]

The 120 has its gamey backup to help this problem the R27 had nothing.

 

R-27 has no backup because it lacks the intelligence to search for a new target. Whether ED is intentionally modeling an aspect of the AIM-120 that they know about or not, AMRAAM *has* a solution for loss of MCU/shooter data; same one you use up close and personal, the design of which was intended to overcome flight sort error (as in, FL's missile gets to active range, and his wingman's missile has destroyed the target), as opposed to giving the pilot an off-rail LOAL mode.

 

Now, you can proceed to debate as to whether or not the AIM-120 turning based on ED's logic is fair, or whether the margin of correction at the point of "cheapshot" is too small, too wide, or just right; the fact of the matter is, the R-27 has no function to re-acquire anything once the shooter's lock is defeated; the Slammer can, and if the bandit is dumb enough to drive down main street and get close enough that the seeker sees him, it's his problem.

 

And if ED is doing this based on such information concerning the capabilities of AMRAAM, good on them, and woe if they bend to uneducated protest.

 

That said, correction of the R-27's deficiencies on the part of Red Air *is* a matter of tactics, and has everything to do with not operating as individual shooters on separate targets. A mile of offset in a line-abreast or echelon formation (not even beginning to consider the dynamics of high/low splits of even just a few thousand feet), and a few seconds worth of separation at the time of launch bring all sorts of problems to the defender receiving the second shot- loss of energy, position, and ability to respond. Putting one weapon on the pole will often solve the problem for second and third shots.

 

But it's apparently a problem to tell multiple AI wingmen to shoot at a given target, let alone function with a little coordination in MP. :lol:

 

Slather that on your waffle.

[GGTharos]

@Weta

 

As a technical aside, the 120 will always have a much better chance of reacquisition than the R-27. The R-27 relies on the carrier's radar's MEM mode when the target is lost, which doesn't search for the target very long. Once the mem mode goes, so do the MCUs, and the missile itself may in fact self-destruct or otherwise go ballistic at this point, I don't recall the RL behaviour of it very well, it's been a while.

 

A 120 and typically its carrier radars can and do do much better with their radar tracks (note: Absolutely NOT represented in FC). It doesn't mean you can't fool it, but the 'gamey' stuff that's happening represents reality a little better than if you had the seeker just stare straight ahead. The strange angles that the 120 reacquires from right now may sort of suck, but they represent it's advantage over most SARH missiles reasonably well.

 

The trick is to now make all of this more realistic, so with respect to Frostie's complaint that this should be happening in a different manner, he is correct.

Edited December 4, 2012 by GGTharos

[Weta43]

It seems uncontroversial that it should re-aquire better than the R-27 series.

I also have no trouble believing that as modelled, it's inferior in sim to the capabilities (at least more modern) versions have IRL.

unfortunately, as modelled it's infinitely better at re-aquisition than the R-27s because the R-27s have no ability to re-aquire if the seeker looses lock.

Perhaps a work-around would be to have all the radar ( ARH + SARH, blue and red) absolutely immune to chaff while both the guiding radar has lock, and the distance between the missile and target is such that it IRL it would still be using updates and INS to navigate.

(so you have to defeat the attacking plane's radar till the missile is within say 10 to 15 km, then it changes to where you have to defeat the missiles seeker for ARH, or the radar or the seeker for SARH)

[Frostie]

R-27 has no backup because it lacks the intelligence to search for a new target. Whether ED is intentionally modeling an aspect of the AIM-120 that they know about or not, AMRAAM *has* a solution for loss of MCU/shooter data; same one you use up close and personal, the design of which was intended to overcome flight sort error (as in, FL's missile gets to active range, and his wingman's missile has destroyed the target), as opposed to giving the pilot an off-rail LOAL mode.

 

Now, you can proceed to debate as to whether or not the AIM-120 turning based on ED's logic is fair, or whether the margin of correction at the point of "cheapshot" is too small, too wide, or just right; the fact of the matter is, the R-27 has no function to re-acquire anything once the shooter's lock is defeated; the Slammer can, and if the bandit is dumb enough to drive down main street and get close enough that the seeker sees him, it's his problem.

 

And if ED is doing this based on such information concerning the capabilities of AMRAAM, good on them, and woe if they bend to uneducated protest.

 

That said, correction of the R-27's deficiencies on the part of Red Air *is* a matter of tactics, and has everything to do with not operating as individual shooters on separate targets. A mile of offset in a line-abreast or echelon formation (not even beginning to consider the dynamics of high/low splits of even just a few thousand feet), and a few seconds worth of separation at the time of launch bring all sorts of problems to the defender receiving the second shot- loss of energy, position, and ability to respond. Putting one weapon on the pole will often solve the problem for second and third shots.

 

But it's apparently a problem to tell multiple AI wingmen to shoot at a given target, let alone function with a little coordination in MP. :lol:

 

Slather that on your waffle.

Most of this is common knowledge mixed with a total misunderstanding of what you read. All you really needed to know was

Frostie is correct so save your fingers

And are you trying to say that teamwork doesn't exist in mp?

[GGTharos]

I'm just saying that most people wouldn't know teamwork if it kicked them in the butt :D

[GGTharos]

It seems uncontroversial that it should re-aquire better than the R-27 series.

I also have no trouble believing that as modelled, it's inferior in sim to the capabilities (at least more modern) versions have IRL.

unfortunately, as modelled it's infinitely better at re-aquisition than the R-27s because the R-27s have no ability to re-aquire if the seeker looses lock.

 

No, I think R-27's can still re-acquire but the circumstances are far narrower, which is realistic. INS may help with this, but there are no guarantees.

 

Perhaps a work-around would be to have all the radar ( ARH + SARH, blue and red) absolutely immune to chaff while both the guiding radar has lock, and the distance between the missile and target is such that it IRL it would still be using updates and INS to navigate.

 

No, I mean, this is already the case. A missile will not go for chaff until its seeker engages.

[IvanK]

"MCU/guidance waveforms stopping at the missile; that was pretty good."

 

Where did I say this Lunaticfringe ?

[Frostie]

"MCU/guidance waveforms stopping at the missile; that was pretty good."

 

Where did I say this Lunaticfringe ?

 

I think he was poking fun at me for suggesting the m-link doesn't create a launch warning.

[lunaticfringe]

"MCU/guidance waveforms stopping at the missile; that was pretty good."

 

Where did I say this Lunaticfringe ?

 

You didn't; Frostie did. I merely used your picture to illustrate the humorous earlier point made (I believe by Kuky) about those being "datalink antenna" as opposed to fuzing; your assessment was correct- the joke was cumulative between prior comments. :)