Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[wilky510]

 

The AMRAAM is supposed to be a Mach 4 missile, it's struggling to reach Mach 3 under decent launch conditions.

If this is true, i hope it's fixed.

[theChris]

motion sickness :). I use a ps3 controller because im a poor student and cant afford buying a joystick lol.

[IASGATG]

If this is true, i hope it's fixed.

 

It is true. I fired an AIM-120C, whilst nose down at Mach 2. The missile slowly accelerated up to about Mach 3, before slowing down to Mach 2 before splashing into the ocean.

[EtherealN]

It is true. I fired an AIM-120C, whilst nose down at Mach 2. The missile slowly accelerated up to about Mach 3, before slowing down to Mach 2 before splashing into the ocean.

 

One note: if you send the missile down into thick air, it will not get as fast.

[RIPTIDE]

One note: if you send the missile down into thick air, it will not get as fast.

Danny. Y U break the missiles. lol

[IASGATG]

If this is true, i hope it's fixed.

 

One note: if you send the missile down into thick air, it will not get as fast.

 

Yes, but having tested firing the Charlie at different altitudes and different speeds, this way makes the missile travel fastest. Even at 36'000 feet at Mach 2.4, the missile doesn't go as fast as shooting it straight down at Mach 2.

[GGTharos]

Shooting it straight down is pretty meaningless.

[Frostie]

Yes, but having tested firing the Charlie at different altitudes and different speeds, this way makes the missile travel fastest. Even at 36'000 feet at Mach 2.4, the missile doesn't go as fast as shooting it straight down at Mach 2.

I just fired three AIM-120C while flying Mach 1.4 at 35,000ft on a target 40NM away, they all reached at least Mach 3.5.

[GGTharos]

And they should have been over mach 4 in this scenario (In fact, they should have been over mach 4 if you had launched them from M0.9).

[IASGATG]

Fine, to prove a point I'll upload a track.

 

Edit:

 

It seems I am somewhat mistaken, I apologize for spreading misinformation. These are the updated results.

 

19,000 ASL. Mach 0.9. Missile hits Mach 2.6

36,000 ASL. Mach 0.9. Missile hits Mach Mach 3.2

36,000 ASL. Mach 2.4 Missile hits Mach 4.1

 

I'm sorry. In order to make your Mach 4 missile go Mach 4, you have to be at Mach 2+ at high altitude.

server-20130308-153002.trk

Edited March 8, 2013 by IASGATG

[danilop]

Do you remember 16vs16 AIvsAI mission I wrote about where in 1.2.2 F15c/AIM120C always win with laughably huge difference against Reds (like 90%:10%, even more)?

 

Guess what?

 

It still win in 1.2.3 (as it should due to more advanced avionics), however odds are between 60-70% which is much more, how to say ... "realistic"? It could be that BVR AI got better, it could be downgrading of AMRAAMS or upgrading Red's missiles; I'm not judging - however R77s have PK greater than 0.003 now :D and actually hits something ...

Edited March 8, 2013 by danilop

[GGTharos]

I don't particularly care about AI that much; the AI doesn't even employ the most basic of BVR tactics.

 

While people are complaining about the 120, all missiles need a review. The R-27 family and the SRM's (Sidewinder, R-73) are best tuned. AIM-7 isn't bad either.

 

The 120 and 77 have been under review for a while now, and they've turned out to be rather challenging subjects.

 

Do you remember 16vs16 AIvsAI mission I wrote about where in 1.2.2 F15c/AIM120C always win with laughably huge difference against Reds (like 90%:10%, even more)?

 

Guess what?

 

It still win in 1.2.3 (as it should due to more advanced avionics), however odds are between 60-70% which is much more "realistic". It could be that AI got better, it could be downgrading of AMRAAMS, I'm not judging - however R77s have PK greater than 0.003 now :D and actually hits something now ...

[IASGATG]

The R-27 family

 

Just a quick question on this.

 

The R-27 does seem to behave best, I agree and props to that. The question I have is they seem very, very easy to defeat.

 

In about 2 hours of testing ER's being shot at my F-15. The ER loses look as soon as I begin a split S. I have ER's shooting over the top of my aircraft at Mach 3 within 50feet to no effect. If I don't properly defend, then yes, they home all the way to me.

 

I'm just curious to why why the Su would lose lock from a split S, as I'm not notching the radar.. if anything I'm making myself a lot larger by showing my belly.

server-20130305-015614.trk

[Frostie]

Fine, to prove a point I'll upload a track.

 

Edit:

 

It seems I am somewhat mistaken, I apologize for spreading misinformation. These are the updated results.

 

19,000 ASL. Mach 0.9. Missile hits Mach 2.6

36,000 ASL. Mach 0.9. Missile hits Mach Mach 3.2

36,000 ASL. Mach 2.4 Missile hits Mach 4.1

 

I'm sorry. In order to make your Mach 4 missile go Mach 4, you have to be at Mach 2+ at high altitude.

50,000ft @ mach 1.4 = mach 4+ AIM-120C.

[Sov13t]

The question I have is they seem very, very easy to defeat.

 

Unfortunately, guidance/homing of the missiles is something that will be revisited at a later time. Missiles remain unchanged from FC2 in this department.

[GGTharos]

Depends on how far you are split-S'ing from.

 

There are certainly issues with radar, and older missiles will have more problems; right now, I don't want to comment on the game itself but I'll check this out some more.

 

To explain what I am talking about, for example, it is well known (to those who have access to a -34) that the sparrow needed to guide in to an HPRF waveform. If for any reason the radar was unable to maintain HPRF, it would switch to FLOOD so that the missile could continue guiding.

 

This is not modeled in the game.

 

Now, HPRF waveforms tend to have poor performance against low-aspect (ie. tail turned to you) targets, so if you're far enough, changing aspect that much could cause the radar to lose lock (though in reality, radars may attempt to transfer to different waveforms). On the other hand, MPRF and LPRF waveforms don't exactly have great range performance, so if you're far enough, and you go high-to-low aspect, lock may be lost. At relatively short ranges, this really shouldn't be an issue. (ie. inside say 30km).

 

What muddles this issue more is that the radar ought to continue to mini-raster your expected position for a while so you might be occasionally illuminated or it could even recover the lock (this is the STT MEM mode).

 

But again ... it's a somewhat complex issue.

 

Edit: And what Sov13t said.

Edited March 8, 2013 by GGTharos

[IASGATG]

50,000ft @ mach 1.4 = mach 4+ AIM-120C.

 

Be curious to see how fast it goes in a downward angle onto targets.

 

Depends on how far you are split-S'ing from.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the guidance stuff is easy. Just curious.

 

I split S'd from 15, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. (I believe, was a few days ago I did the test)

 

I then did the test again where he'd shoot at 15, then 10, then 8. I'd then defend at the 8nmi shot. (Which the 15 would kill me.)

 

However, if I defended just before the 15nmi shot hit me, I would defeat all of them.

Edited March 8, 2013 by IASGATG

[GGTharos]

Slower than it's going at burn-out, and the lower the target is, the slower the missile will get.

[GGTharos]

You defeated them all due to guidance, or because you could out-run them?

 

Defeating a 27ER at 6nm with a split-S is just not right.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the guidance stuff is easy. Just curious.

 

I split S'd from 15, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. (I believe, was a few days ago I did the test)

 

I then did the test again where he'd shoot at 15, then 10, then 8. I'd then defend at the 8nmi shot. (Which the 15 would kill me.)

 

However, if I defended just before the 15nmi shot hit me, I would defeat all of them.

[IASGATG]

You defeated them all due to guidance, or because you could out-run them?

 

Guidance. Don't quote me on the 6nmi shot. I'd have to check my data (Which I can do later) but definitely 7nmi shot.

 

There were missiles that I knew I was dead to, and I just watched to fly over the top of my cockpit. I could have reached out and touched it, and nothing, just screamed past at Mach 3.

[Frostie]

Be curious to see how fast it goes in a downward angle onto targets.

 

It shouldn't go much faster than Mach 4, 3.5+ is a realistic value when you consider a portion of the fuel load is used to sustain speed rather than increase speed.

[159th_Viper]

Guidance. Don't quote me on the 6nmi shot. I'd have to check my data (Which I can do later) but definitely 7nmi shot.

 

There were missiles that I knew I was dead to, and I just watched to fly over the top of my cockpit. I could have reached out and touched it, and nothing, just screamed past at Mach 3.

 

Got a track per chance?

[IASGATG]

It shouldn't go much faster than Mach 4, 3.5+ is a realistic value when you consider a portion of the fuel load is used to sustain speed rather than increase speed.

 

I didn't expect it to go faster, more if it could maintain the speed whilst it's undergoing G + pressure increase.

[IASGATG]

Got a track per chance?

 

Should be in the track I uploaded one page back. (The second track)

 

I have a third track of testing, but that was mostly R77's.

[Corrigan]

I know this thread is about AAMs, but is the SAM physics out of whack too? I was just playing about with an ('excellent') AI Tunguska, letting it fire at Blackhawks at very close range, say 1 km. It missed, much more than it hit. Should this be the case?

I know I'm not being very specific, I can upload a track if needed. Just want to know, should a slow-flying chopper at 1000 m be an easy target for a modern SAM?

 

EDIT: It may have been a bit longer range than 1 km, but no more than 10 km. In any case, the SAMs went flying past the choppers, only to start turning after they missed.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Corrigan