Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[kk0425]

First I'm going to dispel the theory that he dove for cover. Unless it was a flying submarine I doubt he had anywhere to go. Even so, from that angle and altitude there wouldn't have been anywhere to go.

 

Second, waiting at least 15 seconds to do a split-S then outrunning it? Not likely.

 

Third, I know I said it's possible he notched but at those altitudes at that range? Probably not but I'm not throwing out that possibility.

 

Fourth, I'm not one to spaamram. Just in that case I was tired of missiles not hitting. And I still didn't get a hit after six. Say bad tactics all you want but unless you know what I do then you can't say otherwise. They have even missed at less than 6-8 miles at AI targets from a head on aspect. I know tail is better but you don't always get that.

 

Fifth, your guesses on what happened are no more legitimate than mine so saying that I didn't stick around to see what happened isn't a good argument either. Just so that everybody is aware, he was cranking at me when he went past my radar gimbals. Unless I was up against Superman, I would imagine that at least one of six should have hit.

 

And just to clarify, I know that IRL AIM-120Cs aren't instant kill weapons when used at X distance from the target, however seeing this poor of performance doesn't quite add up. And GG, even you said that inside of 15 NM the bandit is pretty much dead. Anyway, I've said my piece on the topic. It's frustrating to play BVR combat in this state.

[TAW_Blaze]

It's frustrating to play BVR combat in this state.

 

If you're stuck at the point where you expect your missiles to be lethal at much longer ranges while the opponent's missiles are as good as now you're living in a dream.

 

As I said, kinematics are something that you can easily adapt. It's still the same thing except the numbers are smaller.

 

What you can't adapt to, is the god awful guidance.

[Exorcet]

First I'm going to dispel the theory that he dove for cover. Unless it was a flying submarine I doubt he had anywhere to go. Even so, from that angle and altitude there wouldn't have been anywhere to go.

Where were you flying? It doesn't sound hard to believe that the plane could have taken cover. Even if the missiles tracked for a while, they would have followed the target lower, putting their radars lower and making it easier for the terrain to get between them and their target.

 

 

Fourth, I'm not one to spaamram. Just in that case I was tired of missiles not hitting. And I still didn't get a hit after six. Say bad tactics all you want but unless you know what I do then you can't say otherwise. They have even missed at less than 6-8 miles at AI targets from a head on aspect. I know tail is better but you don't always get that.

Head on is generally better.

 

Fifth, your guesses on what happened are no more legitimate than mine so saying that I didn't stick around to see what happened isn't a good argument either.

Why not? It's exactly what happened. No one knows what happened because you turned around before seeing what the missiles or bandit did.

 

Unless I was up against Superman, I would imagine that at least one of six should have hit.

Closely spaced shots only help if your missiles are prone to failure (as engine failure, or perhaps have a high chance of going after counter measures and decoys). Firing en masse does nothing to help missile agility or range. And of course if they're too close together, they collide.

 

It's frustrating to play BVR combat in this state.

The missiles may not reflect reality, and it's fair to be frustrated with that, but it's that way on both sides. BVR as it is now is "fair". Doing poorly in BVR means your tactics aren't good. Good tactics right now may or may not match with reality, but BVR combat is still a big part of the sim.

[USARStarkey]

No, you're not.

 

No, it isn't. 10nm is not close. In particular, a low-to-low shot is out of Rtr at that range for any of the playable missiles in the game with the possible exception of the AIM-7, and even that's up for debate.

 

It's been done RL, so, what exactly is it you're so certain of?

 

Just a few comments made by you rather recently. You have made many many others to a similar effect, but I havent had the time to dig them all up yet.

 

 

"Gamey stuff highlighted as things that are to be fixed. Inside 10nm, MRMs should almost always out-turn you, unless you've got them in Rmin. Rmin is pretty short, and if you fly to within 5nm of someone carrying a slammer or R-77 without having your own weapons in flight, you should be smokin' bbq. If the first one didn't nail you (because you notched successfully, and with difficulty) the next one should. Every time it doesn't, the game is just helping you out.

 

 

 

 

 

My point is, right now you can do ridiculous missile evasions. I don't know if it will be corrected, but it really gives people a skewed view of BVR, how missiles work, and how missile evasion works. These things are really quite capable, and because of the way the game works, using realistic tactics does not work as well as it ought to - at least against those who have figured out how to game the game."

[USARStarkey]

No such thing has been stated. This is a lot of bad information in one spot, not to mention bad math that results from not doing the math, while talking about the math.

 

I am making a generalization. Excuse me for not spelling it out with equations.

[kk0425]

If you're stuck at the point where you expect your missiles to be lethal at much longer ranges while the opponent's missiles are as good as now you're living in a dream.

 

As I said, kinematics are something that you can easily adapt. It's still the same thing except the numbers are smaller.

 

What you can't adapt to, is the god awful guidance.

 

I never said such a thing. What I did say or actually implied was that at those ranges the missile shouldn't have run out of energy. That's why I fired at close range instead of 25 NM expecting a kill.

 

Where were you flying? It doesn't sound hard to believe that the plane could have taken cover. Even if the missiles tracked for a while, they would have followed the target lower, putting their radars lower and making it easier for the terrain to get between them and their target.

 

Head on is generally better.

 

 

Why not? It's exactly what happened. No one knows what happened because you turned around before seeing what the missiles or bandit did.

 

 

Closely spaced shots only help if your missiles are prone to failure (as engine failure, or perhaps have a high chance of going after counter measures and decoys). Firing en masse does nothing to help missile agility or range. And of course if they're too close together, they collide.

 

 

The missiles may not reflect reality, and it's fair to be frustrated with that, but it's that way on both sides. BVR as it is now is "fair". Doing poorly in BVR means your tactics aren't good. Good tactics right now may or may not match with reality, but BVR combat is still a big part of the sim.

 

We were both over the ocean. Not many places to hide. Even so the land near the shore was pretty flat for quite a ways.

 

In that case I learned something.

 

Let's be fair here. Even if I didn't turn around I wouldn't have seen what happened anyway. I might have been able to visually track his plane at max zoom but I'm not going to see the missiles. As for radar tracking, I had him locked at all times until radar gimbals at which point he was still coming at me, a good deal after the first missile. Cranked but certainly not in a notch. The first missile should have hit by then.

 

Firing en mass didn't help anyway as all missed. Of course I don't expect range or agility to increase, I was hoping at least one would track.

 

I get that it's fair. It's just as bad for the Russian birds too. I've argued that its bad for both many times on these forums. And I did say I'm not a great virtual pilot but tactics or not, 6 missiles shouldn't have missed from that kind of shot. Nowhere to run or hide.

 

And to add, I don't expect to be a better pilot with improved missiles. That's not what I'm saying. I would like to score some hits more often though. Especially in my situation that I had last night. With every advantage like that, there shouldn't have been 6 misses.

Edited July 13, 2014 by kk0425

[*Rage*]

No, you're not.

 

No, it isn't. 10nm is not close. In particular, a low-to-low shot is out of Rtr at that range for any of the playable missiles in the game with the possible exception of the AIM-7, and even that's up for debate.

 

It's been done RL, so, what exactly is it you're so certain of?

 

+1

 

Yes. I just agreed with GGT :-)

[*Rage*]

Perhaps?

 

Max range is lethal against a non maneuvering target isn't it.

 

Albeit that link doesn't say a lot more either. No launch speed specified, no target parameters either. This is far from open information.

 

Its gives a rough idea of relative range at different altitudes.

[Exorcet]

We were both over the ocean. Not many places to hide. Even so the land near the shore was pretty flat for quite a ways.

That takes out hiding behind cover, but not necessarily hiding in ground clutter. If the pilot managed to fly extremely low, he may have broke the seekers locks, or just helped them crash into the water.

 

Let's be fair here. Even if I didn't turn around I wouldn't have seen what happened anyway. I might have been able to visually track his plane at max zoom but I'm not going to see the missiles. As for radar tracking, I had him locked at all times until radar gimbals at which point he was still coming at me, a good deal after the first missile. Cranked but certainly not in a notch. The first missile should have hit by then.

I'm not trying to pass blame on anyone, I'm just stating the obvious.

 

You said:

 

"Fifth, your guesses on what happened are no more legitimate than mine so saying that I didn't stick around to see what happened isn't a good argument either."

 

I don't think it's a bad argument, because it's what happened. We can't tell what the missiles did so there is an element of uncertainty. That makes it unfair to simply blame the missile physics/guidance. For all we know, the plane warped into space, it happens online.

 

 

Firing en mass didn't help anyway as all missed. Of course I don't expect range or agility to increase, I was hoping at least one would track.

We don't know if they were outmaneuvered or spoofed or what. If they were outmaneuvered, then firing six doesn't help anything.

 

6 missiles shouldn't have missed from that kind of shot. Nowhere to run or hide.

I wouldn't rule it out if only because we don't know exactly what happened.

[Frostie]

It happens so often that what we thought happened actually wasn't quite the same when we run the replay or tacview. Besides genuine evasion there is also missile collisions (happens a lot), lag and bad missle trajectory eg. Into the ground amongst many more explanations that could explain just a one off recall is not even half a story.

[SatThuVoBui]

So I'm just wondering. Is the balancing only done on the flaming cliffs 3 module, or are the other single aircraft modules balanced in some way too?

[MacEwan]

Hopefully after the devs are done with EDGE they can focus on improving the missile dynamics. It's such a crucial part of any combat flight sim.

[Zurich]

Hopefully after the devs are done with EDGE they can focus on improving the missile dynamics. It's such a crucial part of any combat flight sim.

 

I thought that was going to be part of EDGE? Or am I just hallucinating things?

[NineLine]

I thought that was going to be part of EDGE? Or am I just hallucinating things?

 

EDGE is mostly for graphics... not sure it will do much for missiles beyond visuals....

[GGTharos]

Missile physics are fairly advanced in DCS, for those missiles equipped with such physics (all player A2A missiles, for example).

There are a couple of things to do still, but they're not super-urgent.

 

How those physics are applied, that I disagree with a bit and I have not idea if or when it will be addressed :)

 

Hopefully after the devs are done with EDGE they can focus on improving the missile dynamics. It's such a crucial part of any combat flight sim.

[Zurich]

EDGE is mostly for graphics... not sure it will do much for missiles beyond visuals....

 

Missile physics are fairly advanced in DCS, for those missiles equipped with such physics (all player A2A missiles, for example).

There are a couple of things to do still, but they're not super-urgent.

 

How those physics are applied, that I disagree with a bit and I have not idea if or when it will be addressed :)

 

Oh ok. I thought I read somewhere those changes were coming in EDGE. Must be my imagination

[GGTharos]

I forget which version brought missile AFM, it was 1.2.something, IIRC. So it has been a while.

[Zurich]

I forget which version brought missile AFM, it was 1.2.something, IIRC. So it has been a while.

 

And thats the version of the missiles thats in game right now I'm assuming?

[GGTharos]

Yep, that is correct.

[*Rage*]

Im quite happy with the missile AFM. What needs sorting is the tracking/guidance.

[85th_Maverick]

...It is nothing unusual to have Cd at supersonic speed lover than at subsonic speed. When talking about science common sense approach is not always a good approach...

.

 

 

Hi Spyro, now i don't want to veer off topic here, but for the case given by the AA missiles Cd vs Mach diagrams shown by "IASGATG", can you please share us one example where the supersonic Cd might actually get below the subsonic one? You might be right that common knowledge might not always be an approach for every situation (especially when something is still unknown), so could you please (if you like) share us a chart/diagram showing an object that travels through the air (involving shock waves, oblique or bow shocks) that has a Cd lower than subsonic?

 

Although, now as I write this down, I think the space shuttle's Cd on re-entry (at any steady alpha (AoA)) or the high speed projectiles might indeed be some examples to this, but only up to a point i guess, where the Cd will again rise above the subsonic values, because the temperature will gain more and more of the total Cd's proportion as the speed continues to rise, as the viscosity (translates to friction) rises with temperature (for gases).

 

Take a look at this:

 

http://aerorocket.com/tunnel/SSWT/CdvsMn.gif

 

In this illustration of CFD predictions and real test data for the shuttle, the CD in supersonic won't get lower than in subsonic until at least Mach = 2.5 to 3 is reached. Way different than the AIM-9 and AIM-120 missile charts here, where the Cd's get matching at much lower Mach numbers.

 

http://www.wetenschapsforum.nl/uploads/monthly_02_2013/post-8743-0-88999300-1361982547.jpg

http://home.sprintmail.com/~pejsa/artpic2.jpg

Here the bullet's Cd finds it very hard to get near the subsonic value again.

 

If you have a more realistic and conclusive example, please let us know.

 

Now, I hope I didn't mislead any important subject here, because I also want to make sure that the DCS's data is correct, whether predicted or taken from reality.

 

It's a tremendous happiness when DCS actually matches up the reality, but ONLY when it does it, of course. It's feels like you have a pot of gold in your PC and there's no other sim that ever reached this level before, or maybe this is just because i'm a flight sim fanatic!

[Exorcet]

I've been doing some informal testing and I think I found another missile issue that I haven't heard mentioned much on the forums. It's not so much the missiles themselves, but the steering dot. You can launch practically on the dot, but the missile might still end up pulling huge amount of g right off the rail and prevent itself from building speed at all. This is a pretty huge range killer.

 

I know the dot might not be perfect, but I feel like I've been seeing this more lately. Is it only me?

[Ragnarok]

I'm not 100 percent sure but I think there is a bug, client does not register that I was fired missiles. He seemed on his computer has no my missile, when I see my missile as it goes into space, does not follow the target. We have both external views, and a client except STT has no missile in the air. I dont know, whether it abundantly eject chaffs so that the server load, and fails to transmit specific information?

 

Let me know if you experience it any more. If you do, try to reproduce in short track. I will need all clients and server track, and I will log it as a bug.

 

Also please make sure that neither of you has a corrupted game.

 

loock at 6:34:51 and 7:03>18

First case happens to me quite often. Typically, missiles disappears after only 0.5 seconds. Here a little longer.

Second case I was forced to look track file, because I realized that something very strange happened. I knew that the missile lost power, but it hit me five lights to full on SPO-15. That to me was inexplicably!

 

My ping on server is 160, and Spade is 60!

[blkspade]

The 120 the got you was fired at relatively close range, though I've seen you routinely dodge 6-8nm shots plenty.

[Ragnarok]

Have you loocked tacview? What period are you talking about?