Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[Bimbac]

Sorry, sarcasm is coming back out because of the dumb. If you have a classified document from 1970 that is now deemed unclassified and viewable by the public doesn't suddenly make all the information in it made up. What it makes it is valid and correct information that has since become no longer a threat of national security because of more advanced replacements. Hence why you can get all the spec on AIM-9's all the way up to the L but now further. Why you can get specs on all the AIM-7's all the way up to the F but not further.

 

Moreover, physics doesn't give a **** if you're classified or not. Laws of nature don't change because sometimes they're used under secrecy and sometimes they aren't.

 

 

 

If you obtain correct missile data and it says a missile behaves in a specific way under specific circumstances and you then build a curve that makes the missile mirror that, you have generated an accurate simulation of real world performance. Just because the numbers you're using in the back engine might not be right. The Cd curves, the A curves, the rho curves might all be off. The way the engine interpolates them might be off. Ultimately, if you have a set of curves that say how the missile flies in the real world, and your sim missiles fly the same, what's the problem?

 

 

 

I'd imagine they're assumed as well, except for maybe the R27 family. And yes, it is worse. Else the Russians wouldn't replace it. In the computing world, 20 years is a long ****ing time. I'm just gonna assume you're either kidding or incredibly ignorant.

 

 

 

This is where you're again, hilariously wrong. You just dropped the assumption that most of us don't know what we're talking about. Granted, most of the people (You included) have no idea what you're talking about. You are pulling numbers out your arse without providing any sources what so ever. Since we know what the thrust output of the R-27ER is from Russian Air Force sources, and we know (Close enough) what the thrust output of the AIM-120C is from US sources, we can see who is able to go faster under what circumstances. The delta V on the ER is not more than twice that of the C. Therefore even under frictionless vacuum circumstances, the ER will not go twice as fast as the Charlie. You're just incredibly wrong or you have information I haven't seen. If you have got new information regarding the specific thrust output/fuel grain/motor specs, I'd love to see them.

 

 

 

And then the conversation about missiles ends and so does my interest

 

Edit: A word.

 

Missile performance data of the latest versions is still classified, unfortunately, these missiles are now in DCS. That's why I said that no one is able to model it correctly. You are never able to precisely simulate any missile performance in computer simulation, no matter how accurate, because of many variable you need to take into account, say air humidity, temperature and density/composition. The aerodynamics is a very complicated science. Also, computers are used to DESIGN and COMPUTE, live fires exist to EVALUATE and VERIFY.

 

You have answered the question yourself and proved that my thesis is correct. You are denying your own statements. Physics work for everyone on Earth the same way. 20 years can be a long time in computer world, that's exactly the reason why the airframe of the missile remains the same (rules of physics), while the internals get upgraded all the time. Same goes for the airplanes.

 

You just have to assume that my knowledge may be superior, I am just not in the liberty to disclose it. Believe me, or don't. Since I am in the military, I certainly have that knowledge along with reliable sources. This debate is pointless because I'm saying something and you are saying: "No, it can't be right." See, you ASSUME I'm wrong, because you just cannot accept the fact that I know something you don't and since you are unable to confirm or verify the information, you ASSUME I'm lying. Why would I? If you have an answer to that, we could get rid of the ballast and start a good discussion. And please, watch your language. I think that even a heated debate can be run in civilized manner. Thank you.

 

P.S. If you really think that missile instantaneous and top airspeed is affected ONLY by its motor's dry thrust, you either don't know, or you didn't state it.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Bimbac

[IASGATG]

Missile performance data of the latest versions is still classified, unfortunately, these missiles are now in DCS. That's why I said that no one is able to model it correctly. You are never able to precisely simulate any missile performance in computer simulation, no matter how accurate, because of many variable you need to take into account, say air humidity, temperature and density/composition. The aerodynamics is a very complicated science. Also, computers are used to DESIGN and COMPUTE, live fires exist to EVALUATE and VERIFY.

 

A lot of information around modern missiles is classified, yes. But, more than enough is unclassified (But perhaps not public) that can be used to generated a very close approximation of it's kinematic behaviour. This is more than enough for a video game. You are right, you wont be able to accurately model how a missile behaves in real life in a game. Nobody is trying to. You physically cannot run CFD in real time like this, and even if you could, it's still not as accurate as real life.

 

The variables that are required to build a flight model are in the game, the accuracy of them and the reliability of them is entirely down to the physics engine of the game that we are beholdent to. However, if you know that the motor has x Newtons of thrust for x number of seconds, you can put that into the game engine. And if you know that it decelerates from Mach 3 to Mach 2.5 in x seconds at 5 different altitudes, and you build a Cd curve that matches this, you can start to build a drag profile. You do this for the full spectrum from M4+ to M0.8 and you match the curves up.

 

You don't need Raytheon's classified data on the ECCM algorithms to do this. Nobody is trying to do this. Nobody is even suggesting to do this.

 

You haven't provided me any sources from anything you've said. You haven't even said where you got your sources from. It still sounds like you're making them up. Everything I've gotten was from either ditc.mil or from ATK or Raytheon or US Navy Dept of Research, etc.

 

Tell me exactly how much information you want to know before you believe that the missile behaves correctly? You're asking for the burden of proof, I'm asking you what is required to make you believe?

 

 

You have answered the question yourself and proved that my thesis is correct. You are denying your own statements. Physics work for everyone on Earth the same way. 20 years can be a long time in computer world, that's exactly the reason why the airframe of the missile remains the same (rules of physics), while the internals get upgraded all the time. Same goes for the airplanes.

 

I don't even know what this paragraph means, I'll assume language barrier. Yes, the shape of the 120 hasn't changed much. So? Please rephrase.

 

You just have to assume that my knowledge may be superior, I am just not in the liberty to disclose it. Believe me, or don't. Since I am in the military, I certainly have that knowledge along with reliable sources. This debate is pointless because I'm saying something and you are saying: "No, it can't be right." See, you ASSUME I'm wrong, because you just cannot accept the fact that I know something you don't and since you are unable to confirm or verify the information, you ASSUME I'm lying. Why would I? If you have an answer to that, we could get rid of the ballast and start a good discussion. And please, watch your language. I think that even a heated debate can be run in civilized manner. Thank you.

 

I don't have to assume your knowledge is superior. If you know what you say you know, then you know there is more than enough public and unclassified information out there to generate a reliable missile model for a video game. I am saying you're wrong because you're saying "My mate in the pub said" whilst doing nothing to verify your point. For example. I can easily say that "I am RAF and I know exactly what the 120 can do and having flown with Indian Air Force I know exactly what the R-27 family can do and I know for a fact the 120 out performs it in all arenas, you just have to trust me!"

 

See how retarded that sounds?

 

P.S. If you really think that missile instantaneous and top airspeed is affected ONLY by its motor's dry thrust, you either don't know, or you didn't state it.

 

I think that in a frictionless vacuum the only thing that affects it's top speed is the force applied to it yes. In this instance the force is thrust of a solid rocket motor.

[Esac_mirmidon]

But taking in count all you have said Bimbac, we will hope to have in the future a better simulation of missiles behaviour than the one we have now.

 

Don´t you think there are room enough to improve missiles in DCS? Not only the physics but also the guidance. At least to a better degree taking in count the data will be not perfect or very accurated.

[TAW_Blaze]

I would say the priority would be to fix missiles first than AI. Might be easier as well

 

What?! From 10-15km as long as the lock is maintained it doesnt matter from that range. It is almost WVR. We are not talking about BVR tactics and resultant pKs. We are talking about why ERs fired in the NEZ with a maintained lock and NO COUNTERMEASURES still act stupidly.

 

So how exactly do you know that all AI maintained lock all along?

[Bimbac]

OK, maybe I didn't express myself correctly. You were right that given the data available it is possible to make a good model for commercial military aircraft simulation, such as DCS. My initial post was about the people's thinking.

 

I guess we are discussing different problems. Of course, right now the missile performance in DCS is poor and it could be improved with current data available for sure. I'm just tired of reading that, for example, AMRAAM has to be better that R-27 or R-77 because it's newer or it's American made, that was my point.

 

I overreacted a little, so please, excuse me.

 

It's kinda frustrating if you have the knowledge that could be a real game changer, but you cannot disclose it. Please accept the fact and forgive my ignorance. :cry:

 

If there cannot be peace around the world, let's try to have it here, at least. :thumbup:

[Bimbac]

My point was that AIM-120A and B are the same missiles, only the B has better warhead, radar and computer, along with other adjustments, but aerodynamically, they are the same. Yet the B is better than A in both body and seeker performance. I hope I made myself clear this time.

 

I don't want to fight, really.

[Alper22]

Is there any news about fixing the current missiles? Perhaps in the next patch? Also is there any missiles that working properly? We know that aim-120 and R-27ER is broken, but what about aim-7, r-77?

[Falcon_S]

So how exactly do you know that all AI maintained lock all along?

 

And how do you know that do not maintain? (Actually it does not matter.) In last ACMI that AI, Pilot #005 find a way to maintain lock and hit leaving the target from 5200m distance (before him, two have failed from 10km distance but it's not their fault but the rocket did not have the power) - interestingly. Should I mention that I was a sitting target, no defensive maneuvers. :smilewink:

 

From our side - all of us, DCS Su27 pilots, can confirm maintained lock all the time and still have this problem with R-27ER on the servers.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Falcon_S

[Lord_Pyro]

Must be a Serverproblem. We fly Su27/33s all day long and can't complain about a bad hittingratio.

[lunaticfringe]

Wait a tick-

 

You defend against the R-27ER, a weapon that's RL counterpart, in either trim (R or ER) has never scored a combat kill, by diving against that SARH weapon into ground clutter, and you're wondering why they don't score?

 

That's funny.

[TAW_Blaze]

And how do you know that do not maintain?

 

I don't need to know. You're the one who needs to prove that they maintained the lock. You're claiming a missile guidance problem and can't even tell if the pilot who launched the missile could maintain his lock or not? I don't think I need to go further..

 

(Actually it does not matter.)

 

You have to be joking, honestly. How does it not matter that he maintains lock or not, trying to guide a SARH? Wow..

 

In last ACMI that AI, Pilot #005 find a way to maintain lock and hit leaving the target from 5200m distance (before him, two have failed from 10km distance but it's not their fault but the rocket did not have the power) - interestingly. Should I mention that I was a sitting target, no defensive maneuvers.

 

I don't even understand what this means. 10km rear aspect shots with any missile in DCS on a running bandit at low altitude are 0 pk if the target is at or above corner. You forget that AI can lose lock aswell and then pick you up again. Just because he missed his first missile and then killed you with the second it doesn't mean he never lost his lock.

 

For a reasonable test you need a controlled environment and AI simply doesn't provide that. Do the test with humans.

[GGTharos]

I guess we are discussing different problems. Of course, right now the missile performance in DCS is poor and it could be improved with current data available for sure. I'm just tired of reading that, for example, AMRAAM has to be better that R-27 or R-77 because it's newer or it's American made, that was my point.

 

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.

 

It's kinda frustrating if you have the knowledge that could be a real game changer, but you cannot disclose it. Please accept the fact and forgive my ignorance. :cry:

 

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'.

[GGTharos]

No, there are no news.

 

Is there any news about fixing the current missiles? Perhaps in the next patch? Also is there any missiles that working properly? We know that aim-120 and R-27ER is broken, but what about aim-7, r-77?

[GGTharos]

No, that isn't clear at all. That AIM-120A and B are the same body and rocket motor we're well aware of, so what are you saying about AIM-120B being better than AIM-120A in terms of body?

 

Should AIM-120B be better than AIM-120A in seeker performance? I suppose if you extract the seekers and put them side by side, maybe not. Once you put that nifty 'better computer' in there though, something changes. And this is also why the MLU tapes for the F-16 state that 'the DLZ is the same for AIM-120A and AIM--120B, but performance is not'.

 

Of course, they don't say what they mean by 'performance', and almost any well reasoned guess is probably a good guess :)

 

My point was that AIM-120A and B are the same missiles, only the B has better warhead, radar and computer, along with other adjustments, but aerodynamically, they are the same. Yet the B is better than A in both body and seeker performance. I hope I made myself clear this time.

[RIPTIDE]

It's also an issue on the other popular SAHR missile, the AIM-7

 

(Caveat, no G-effects for demonstration purposes)

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/600721/AIM-7test.acmi

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/600721/AIM-78g%20Test.acmi

[*Rage*]

So how exactly do you know that all AI maintained lock all along?

 

At first launch at least 12 missiles track till just before impact then develop a deep respect for human life and decide against the kill at the very last moment. Are you saying those 12 AI planes all dropped locked simultaneously as well having developed the very same affliction?

[*Rage*]

It's also an issue on the other popular SAHR missile, the AIM-7

 

(Caveat, no G-effects for demonstration purposes)

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/600721/AIM-7test.acmi

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/600721/AIM-78g%20Test.acmi

 

Dont be ridiculous Riptide you must test with real life pilots only :P

[TAW_Blaze]

At first launch at least 12 missiles track till just before impact then develop a deep respect for human life and decide against the kill at the very last moment. Are you saying those 12 AI planes all dropped locked simultaneously as well having developed the very same affliction?

 

Considering they are AI it's not out of the realms of possibility..

[RIPTIDE]

Dont be ridiculous Riptide you must test with real life pilots only :P

What I found was that about the 8Gish mark... eventually I would get tagged. but not easy. A continual 7.5G I would not survive long. 9G... or above I'll survive indefinitely lol

 

of course, this is a broader discussion.... AI behaviour, which is why I included 4xF-15C ships... not just lone F-15Cs. ;)

[*Rage*]

Considering they are AI it's not out of the realms of possibility..

 

Aha...right...I suppose the gazillions of F15s in Riptides Aim7 testing also lose lock at the very last second....

[TAW_Blaze]

Aha...right...I suppose the gazillions of F15s in Riptides Aim7 testing also lose lock at the very last second....

 

I've fired enough AIM-7s to know, even under those circumstances some of them won't miss. Just because the guy is continously pulling 8-9G they won't miss (provided they have the energy and the lock wasn't lost). The main problem of that missile is bandits hugging the deck, if they fly really low it'll often miss. Other than that, they sometimes fail after launch, but usually they work perfectly.

 

Try it against humans. You don't even know how the AI works, especially as it's been changed. Can easily happen that if there's a flaw in their logic, indeed all gazillion planes will do the exact same bs.

[Falcon_S]

And how do you know that do not maintain? (Actually it does not matter.)

You have to be joking' date=' honestly. How does it not matter that he maintains lock or not, trying to guide a SARH? Wow..[/quote']

I asked - answer is not matter. You did not understand me

 

I don't even understand what this means. 10km rear aspect shots with any missile in DCS on a running bandit at low altitude are 0 pk if the target is at or above corner.

It is well known and it is not disputed.

 

..(before him, two have failed from 10km distance but it's not their fault but the rocket did not have the power) - interestingly. Should I mention that I was a sitting target, no defensive maneuvers. :smilewink:

...Just because he missed his first missile and then killed you with the second it doesn't mean he never lost his lock.

I said: "before him, two failed..." - Before him AI Pilots #012 and Pilot #014 failed but it's not their fault but the rocket did not have the power.

 

For a reasonable test you need a controlled environment and AI simply doesn't provide that. Do the test with humans.

We test every day but it is not a problem this can be arranged.

[RIPTIDE]

Aha...right...I suppose the gazillions of F15s in Riptides Aim7 testing also lose lock at the very last second....

On the R-27ET tests, I don't last long, even under maximum g-loading.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/600721/R-27ETtest.acmi

 

 

But.. there are quite a few misses, at the same time.

[RIPTIDE]

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.

[Falcon_S]

@ RIPTIDE :megalol: