Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[GGTharos]

Any of your AI named 'Agent Smith'? ....

[Falcon_S]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/600721/aim-7mpTEST2.acmi

 

OK. Live MP test. very different result. killed 1st shot. 2nd engagement was with maximum g-loading, same result. 1st shot dead.

 

So.... AI is starting to be suspicious.

 

I hope this is not some sprdačina. If it is not a sprdačina then we can close the topic.

[GGTharos]

This is correct behavior, it's well inside the 7M's maximum maneuvering capability. The AI is always suspicious. :P

 

Also max maneuvering target g is for when not yet established in-plane. If the missile has an in-plane intercept, pulling 11-12g might not lose it.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/600721/aim-7mpTEST2.acmi

 

OK. Live MP test. very different result. killed 1st shot. 2nd engagement was with maximum g-loading, same result. 1st shot dead.

 

So.... AI is starting to be suspicious.

Edited May 25, 2014 by GGTharos

[Bimbac]

Yeah, I'm tired of reading that people think that somehow an older (technology) and more poorly funded product is somehow better than a newer one, too. Sure, it could happen - but that's not the rule, it's the exception.

 

You're not the only one with knowledge, and frankly, everyone with knowledge (and by that I mean, people who worked in places the test fired opposition weapons and got to see the results side by side) so far have not been implying what you're implying. Same goes for people who have to train pilots (specifically MiG-29 in this case) vs AMRAAM platforms. Ways and methods exist, but they make no secret of being at a disadvantage.

 

In all cases it has been 'I'd rather be flying the AMRAAM platform'.

 

Sorry, it must be my bad English. My point was that R-27ER is superior to AMRAAM in range and kinematic performance, but definitely NOT the seeker wise - it was improved over time but still SARH. Western aircraft are superior to Russian ones in terms of avionics, electronics and radar performance, which, combined with AMRAAM, makes them lethal in Air-to-Air combat (Russians are superior in aerodynamics and recent engine technology). Also, Western pilots generally get much more flying hours and get better training, which increases the effectiveness even more. But as a matter-of-fact, Russian missiles, if properly used, still present a significant threat that would be unwise to ignore - they are far from being harmless. Also stating that a weapon or a plane didn't achieve any kills in real combat doesn't necessarily mean they are not effective. The best fighter aircraft in the world would be a heap of scrap metal if it doesn't get a pilot who can use it to his advantage and vice versa. It's a combat system and the airplane is just one part of it.

 

If, for example, a MiG-35 would have (and I guess it has) a radar and missile of the same quality as F-16 bk. 52 with AMRAAM, it would probably, and I emphasize probably, win a fight. But no one can be sure, before it actually happens.

 

You are right about your statements, but latest fighter aircraft generation and AMRAAM especially were designed to combat and negate the Su-27/R-27ER combo. If it wasn't worth it, a lot of money could be saved, don't you think? As I said before, you are right in many things. But so am I.

 

This thread was originally about poor missile performance in latest build of DCS, and we should stick to that.

[karambiatos]

Woe is you, when you try to show something that needs fixing on russian aircraft on this forum.

[TAW_Blaze]

Woe is you, when you try to show something that needs fixing on russian aircraft on this forum.

 

Not trying to prove ER is flawless, but as you see what the OP claimed is related to AI. You can do a MP test with ERs, but I can guarantee you'll have the same result as we did.

[Falcon_S]

...but as you see what the OP claimed is related to AI. ...

 

Could you please elaborate on that a little?

[TAW_Blaze]

Could you please elaborate on that a little?

 

Did you have a look at Riptide's ACMI? It's pretty self explanatory. The only other issue could be being online, but unless you can test LAN with other players, we can't get to know that.

[GGTharos]

Sorry, it must be my bad English. My point was that R-27ER is superior to AMRAAM in range and kinematic performance, but definitely NOT the seeker wise - it was improved over time but still SARH.

 

It's superior if you shot them side by side, for some amount of time. But it's also more draggy, so it's going to be faster right off the rail (big booster rocket, after all), then cruise and accelerate some more, than it'll slowing faster than a 120. The 120 won't end up as far/fast at rocket burnout, but it should in theory coast longer. If the range is long enough for the 120 to loft, then it will out-perform the 27ER. And you should know this. If you know this, and can't confirm/deny, why did you start the conversation? :)

 

I know the 120A will out-perform the 27ER in max range at 6000m.

 

(Russians are superior in aerodynamics and recent engine technology).

 

I haven't seen any evidence of either thing. Aerodynamics are about the same when you look at contemporary aircraft design, and they're just catching up to F-119 technology. That's just what it looks like to me.

 

Russian missiles, if properly used, still present a significant threat that would be unwise to ignore - they are far from being harmless.

 

Yes. But no one who knows anything is arguing this. Otherwise we'd be all like 'Well they didn't hit anything in the E-E conflict'.

 

This thread was originally about poor missile performance in latest build of DCS, and we should stick to that.

 

That is correct, but we also need some RL baselines if we're talking about RL simulation. For the moment, this is about kinematics. We can't really do anything with guidance.

[karambiatos]

Not trying to prove ER is flawless' date=' but as you see what the OP claimed is related to AI. You can do a MP test with ERs, but I can guarantee you'll have the same result as we did.[/quote']

well i tested it, they did hit without maneuvering.

Without maneuvering and 1 chaff every 1-2 seconds, all the ERs and aim7s missed from the rear hemisphere.

 

MP is not good either, because of bouncy planes.

[TAW_Blaze]

well i tested it, they did hit without maneuvering.

Without maneuvering and 1 chaff every 1-2 seconds, all the ERs and aim7s missed from the rear hemisphere.

 

MP is not good either, because of bouncy planes.

 

This entire thread had nothing to do with chaff.

[FLANKERATOR]

I'm quite sure Falcon or anyone else wouldn't have survived that if those 27's were not AI. Let's face it, all were look-down shots, and Falcon was maintaining 6G all the time, if you want to use an ER, you would need at least to adjust PRF as the target's aspect changes, not to mention ground clutter.

I know all of you know this stuff, but many keep arguing AI does not matter...how does that make sense? Nobody said missiles do not need an overhaul, but let's just face the fact that AI logic sucks big time.

 

I remember a very similar video posted a while ago by an RvE member (Surrounded by a bunch of AI 27's firing ER's from above and all missing), exploits in lomac/fc have always existed, you remember the under 10m exploit or invincible barrel roll?)....bottom line: AI just sucks big time.

No need to put a plethora of useless AI, take 2 human pilots who know their stuff and try to fool their ER's from that range.

 

ER's and other missiles do need a revision, but in this case, most of the blame in on broken AI.

[JNASova]

It's superior if you shot them side by side, for some amount of time. But it's also more draggy, so it's going to be faster right off the rail (big booster rocket, after all), then cruise and accelerate some more, than it'll slowing faster than a 120.

 

Incorrect.If the car and the train speed up to 200 km/h, and then cut them power of and then let them move freely,wich one will stop first?

 

Suppose thay are both moving on a horizontal surface and have the same system of wheels.Wich need biger force to be stoped?

[GGTharos]

We aren't comparing trains and cars, and besides your example is incredibly poor. How about redoing it with more realistic scenarios that include drag forces etc?

 

Incorrect.If the car and the train speed up to 200 km/h, and then cut them power of and then let them move freely,wich one will stop first?

 

Suppose thay are both moving on a horizontal surface and have the same system of wheels.Wich need biger force to be stoped?

[Kuky]

I am pretty sure heavier missile (R-27ER vs AMRAAM) will maintain speed better due to higher inertia.

[GGTharos]

Are we shooting missiles in space here or something? The R27ER is a much draggier missile. What is the contribution of mass to KE?

[lunaticfringe]

Not with induced drag. Inertia is nice. A clean profile counts more. And the AiM-120 in all variants is significantly cleaner.

[Kuky]

R-27R has double the mass of AMRAAM? And ER is even biger than R version? what is the ratio of drag coeff for the 2?

 

PS: if in space the ER would be faster also :)

[lunaticfringe]

Yeah, and I can accelerate a mason block through the Mach versus a javelin- which do you actually think is going farther?

[GGTharos]

R-27R has double the mass of AMRAAM? And ER is even biger than R version? what is the ratio of drag coeff for the 2?

 

PS: if in space the ER would be faster also :)

 

In space it should go faster, but we are neither in space nor do those missiles fly the same.

[Kuky]

In space no matter the mass of an object, they all keep their velocity the same. In air, object with more inertia keeps their velocity better, which is why Train is much harder to stop than a light weight car even if it has more drag... even a large SUV which has lot more drag than sports car, is again much harder to stop.

 

Inertia = tendency of a body to keep its velocity and direction

[JNASova]

We aren't comparing trains and cars, and besides your example is incredibly poor. How about redoing it with more realistic scenarios that include drag forces etc?

 

Your comment has been poor.I guess that's one of your "evidence" and piles of confidential documents you possess, and from whom do you get your "extensive" knowledge of aviation.

Kuku,thats what am I talking about.Thank you to finely defined and explained in English.

Edited May 25, 2014 by =JNA=Sova

[kk0425]

Let's see how fast that big smokey train stops when it's going mach 4 vs. the smaller car.

[GGTharos]

Kuky, for a guy who wants to bank on physics ... I have to do the physics for you, very, VERY back of the envelope and simplified:

 

Fd = -1/2p(v^2)CA

 

We will assume air density to be 1.22kg/m^3, about +15C at SL.

We will use the same velocity, mach 2 or 680.54m/s

And for now, we will assume the coefficient of zero-lift drag is exactly the same, an arbitrary 0.3, so Cd at Mach 2 = 0.3.

 

 

For R-27ER:

 

A = 0.055m^2

 

FdR = -4673

 

For AIM-120B, A = 0.025m^2

 

FdA = -2124

 

FdA/FdR = 0.45

 

But, if the AMRAAM is a cleaner, less draggy vehicle (and it really should be), and we take C = 0.28 for AMRAAM, we get

 

FdA = -1983

 

At all times the AMRAAM has less that half of drag forces acting on it than the 27ER. What does this mean? The ER slows down faster.

 

Next time you go trying to explain the physics to me, please do the physics on the back of the envelope at least.

 

 

By the way, notice how I said 'zero lift coefficient'? That's a big'un too. And notice how I did not assume any loft ... which would decrease the drag force on AMRAAM further while it's cruising at higher altitude, not to mention maintain a curve closer to Cd during the terminal dive.

 

In other words, over it's entire range of flight, the total amount of drag force experienced by the AIM-120 will very likely be significantly less than the R-27ER.

 

 

Emphasis mine, along with all caveats that go with back-of the envelope calculations.

 

 

It is quite disappointing to me that you guys call on physics, and you try to imply that I can't comprehend highschool physics when you obviously haven't even bothered to look into the actual physics of the subject yourselves. This is a waste of time, and makes me not want to deal with making this sim more realistic.

 

In space no matter the mass of an object, they all keep their velocity the same. In air, object with more inertia keeps their velocity better, which is why Train is much harder to stop than a light weight car even if it has more drag... even a large SUV which has lot more drag than sports car, is again much harder to stop.

 

Inertia = tendency of a body to keep its velocity and direction

Edited May 26, 2014 by GGTharos
Because I used wrong area. Wrong on the internets, duh!

[dumgrunt]

errr, i failed year 11 physics at school, and even i can tell you that drag matters alot.

the freight train analogy is ridiculous since you are talking a 100 times difference in mass.

 

and that SUV analogy kuky, maybe at 100km/h yes, but at 300 km/h, absolutely no way. when they were doing top speed tests of the porsche SUV when it came out a few years ago, folding in the MIRRORS made about a 20km/h difference in top speed. the faster you go the more drag works against you.