How has missile performance affected your combat style?

[Shein]

As missiles are an ongoing project, and are currently quite short ranged, I find myself changing my fighting style and loadout. Where I used to take a full compliment of 27ER's before, now I take the two 27ET's (why can't the center fuselage carry them anyway?) and 73's instead of jaming pods. I find that almost all fights, if it's more than 2v2, end up WVR and the HMD with IR missiles is king in this fight. When I find myself out numbered, I end up trying to reel the opponent in, dodging his low energy amraams with ease to close for the IR or gun kill. While obviously not realistic, it is kind of fun in its own way. The russian birds have the americans outclassed (with what's modeled in this sim) with turn rates and IR missiles. Anyone else with similar experience? how has the missile's current state affected your style? :pilotfly:

[RIPTIDE]

As missiles are an ongoing project, and are currently quite short ranged, I find myself changing my fighting style and loadout. Where I used to take a full compliment of 27ER's before, now I take the two 27ET's (why can't the center fuselage carry them anyway?) and 73's instead of jaming pods. I find that almost all fights, if it's more than 2v2, end up WVR and the HMD with IR missiles is king in this fight. When I find myself out numbered, I end up trying to reel the opponent in, dodging his low energy amraams with ease to close for the IR or gun kill. While obviously not realistic, it is kind of fun in its own way. The russian birds have the americans outclassed (with what's modeled in this sim) with turn rates and IR missiles. Anyone else with similar experience? how has the missile's current state affected your style? :pilotfly:

The Inside Wing Pylons are plumbed for cooling liquid for the ET/T. The others aren't. Also... think about this.... what good is a fuselage ET when it can't get it's seeker to lock onto anything above the nose of the aircraft and in the case of the rear fuselage station... nothing at all. Remember the ET/T needs to lock it's seeker on before firing. :)

 

As for your current experience, the pilot quality counts. Definitely, the end game has gotten close to WVR now in most engagements, but it's hardly a whitewash on either side by any stretch.

[Dudikoff]

what good is a fuselage ET when it can't get it's seeker to lock onto anything above the nose of the aircraft and in the case of the rear fuselage station... nothing at all. Remember the ET/T needs to lock it's seeker on before firing. :)

 

I'd say it's not mainly a question of restricted lock; since the seeker IR head must be locked on before launch, it also has to be rail-launched not to lose the lock (compared to being catapulted down as the R/ER missiles are). Thus, if it was carried under the engines, the exhaust fumes from the launch could very well stall the engine (I don't mention the pylons between the engines as there are also various fuselage clearance issues coming to mind).

Edited May 24, 2013 by Dudikoff

[Hotarubi]

As missiles are an ongoing project, and are currently quite short ranged, I find myself changing my fighting style and loadout. Where I used to take a full compliment of 27ER's before, now I take the two 27ET's (why can't the center fuselage carry them anyway?) and 73's instead of jaming pods. I find that almost all fights, if it's more than 2v2, end up WVR and the HMD with IR missiles is king in this fight. When I find myself out numbered, I end up trying to reel the opponent in, dodging his low energy amraams with ease to close for the IR or gun kill. While obviously not realistic, it is kind of fun in its own way. The russian birds have the americans outclassed (with what's modeled in this sim) with turn rates and IR missiles. Anyone else with similar experience? how has the missile's current state affected your style? :pilotfly:

 

Don't be so sure it's unrealistic.

Think about why the US Air Force (for example) implements vectored thrust, or why they implement so much technology into their planes that is needed in close combat - if it is BVR all the way in real life... In reality, the chance of hit in BVR is not so high as we can think. And consider that no pilot in Real Life will act as in SIM - regarding the "easynes" of engagement and the amount of fired missiles. Whenever you engage your enemy in any way (either by means of scanning, or engaging with weapons) you expose yourself. If you are not having the upper hand - your chance of being shot down increases. And in BVR you don't really have so much idea as in Sim what is actually happening.

So, I can discuss this for hours, but let's just conclude that (even though missiles are WIP) ED would make a great step toward reality if they'd make missiles to be apparently less scripted by means of creating a wider scenario possibility in the missile scripts. Now - that takes time.

Consider that playability may be DECREASED if they make missiles far more accurate than in Real Life because every aspect that eases the players work makes the sim itself more "easy", thus killing the need for tactical engagement.

We all talk about new theaters, about scripring engine and it's greatness, but what is the use of all that if missiles are over-precise?

I am just spilling the thoughts, but this had become too long post as it is. But I hope it will make people think about realism, about the need of forcing the tactical aspect of this sim and some other things... Let's not act as if this is an arcade game where you put your crosshair and fire - knowing that you will get a kill if you fire long enough.

Think about it.

[RIPTIDE]

I'd say it's not mainly a question of restricted lock; since the seeker IR head must be locked on before launch, it also has to be rail-launched not to lose the lock (compared to being catapulted down as the R/ER missiles are). Thus, if it was carried under the engines, the exhaust fumes from the launch could very well stall the engine (I don't mention the pylons between the engines as there are also various fuselage clearance issues coming to mind).

Yeah. Ever see a MiG-23's R-60 placement? Terrible idea.

 

[Dudikoff]

Yeah. Ever see a MiG-23's R-60 placement? Terrible idea.

 

Terrible sounds rather harsh.. It doesn't seem likely that what's so "obvious" from one look at the photo would have somehow eluded its designers and all those state acceptance trials (it's not a dogfighter, anyway).

 

IMHO, the fuselage is not blocking the IR seeker FOV that much (there are some blindspots obviously, but the pilot knows which missile is active and can compensate by positioning the nose accordingly) as those missiles' seekers had a rather restricted FOV anyway (+/- 20 degrees for the upgraded R-60M variant so no high off-boresight shots) and the the radar system (or even IRST) would be primarily used to search and lock the targets and then cage the IR seeker to it (i.e. it's not like the MiG-23 is using uncaged wide FOV missile seekers as primary means to search and track targets and hence it's somewhat blinded by the fuselage). For an R-73 + HMD upgrade, it would have been a bigger issue, but that's not going to happen anyway.

 

And related to the Su-27 case, I still think the FOV restriction is not the primary reason - the ET is not a dogfighting missile anyway, so they could have technically used the pylons under the engines (provided that a suitable place is found to put the coolant tank somewhere in the engine nacelles) to lock a target ahead with no problems, but still the main issue is IMHO that it shouldn't be rail launched from there as it's hazardous for the engines.

 

This is all IMHO, of course, so I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Dudikoff

[Shein]

if the exhaust fumes could stall the engine, then why do they mount the missiles there at all? do the er and et not share the same motor?

[RIPTIDE]

Terrible sounds rather harsh.. It doesn't seem likely that what's so "obvious" from one look at the photo would have somehow eluded its designers and all those state acceptance trials (it's not a dogfighter, anyway).

 

IMHO, the fuselage is not blocking the IR seeker FOV that much (there are some blindspots obviously, but the pilot knows which missile is active and can compensate by positioning the nose accordingly) as those missiles' seekers had a rather restricted FOV anyway (+/- 20 degrees for the upgraded R-60M variant so no high off-boresight shots) and the the radar system (or even IRST) would be primarily used to search and lock the targets and then cage the IR seeker to it (i.e. it's not like the MiG-23 is using uncaged wide FOV missile seekers as primary means to search and track targets and hence it's somewhat blinded by the fuselage). For an R-73 + HMD upgrade, it would have been a bigger issue, but that's not going to happen anyway.

 

And related to the Su-27 case, I still think the FOV restriction is not the primary reason - the ET is not a dogfighting missile anyway, so they could have technically used the pylons under the engines (provided that a suitable place is found to put the coolant tank somewhere in the engine nacelles) to lock a target ahead with no problems, but still the main issue is IMHO that it shouldn't be rail launched from there as it's hazardous for the engines.

 

This is all IMHO, of course, so I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

He said Fuselage. I'm thinking Fuselage.... not the Nacelles. The middle pylons. Is the ET/T seeker head sensitive to Catapult launches just as a matter of interest? And plumbing the cramped nacelle body might be problematic. The front intake will be prone to heating.

 

As for the MiG-23, I don't have blueprints with installed R-60's. It seems that any manoeuvring that would have to be done restricts the pilot and the ability of the R-60. Now, I notice they are flared out away from the fuselage. Still it's far from ideal.

[RIPTIDE]

if the exhaust fumes could stall the engine, then why do they mount the missiles there at all? do the er and et not share the same motor?

He's assuming an ET would need to be rail launched as opposed to Catapult launched. Rail launch does not clear the missile from the aircraft before motor ignition.

[GGTharos]

Think about why the US Air Force (for example) implements vectored thrust,

 

Because it makes super-cruising efficient.

 

or why they implement so much technology into their planes that is needed in close combat - if it is BVR all the way in real life...

 

Most of it will be BVR, that doesn't mean you neglect your close-range WEZ's.

 

In reality, the chance of hit in BVR is not so high as we can think.

 

So far AMRAAMs have been showing us that the chance you'll be hit BVR is actually not so bad at all. This isn't your vietnam-era AIM-7's any more.

 

 

Actually you probably have more of an idea than in the sim, because you are well trained and you have instrumentation that is not available in the sim, among other things.

 

So, I can discuss this for hours, but let's just conclude that (even though missiles are WIP) ED would make a great step toward reality if they'd make missiles to be apparently less scripted by means of creating a wider scenario possibility in the missile scripts. Now - that takes time.

 

What?

 

Consider that playability may be DECREASED if they make missiles far more accurate than in Real Life because every aspect that eases the players work makes the sim itself more "easy", thus killing the need for tactical engagement.

 

They're less accurate than in real life right now. Far less accurate. You don't know what 'tactical engagement' is ... even with better missiles, tactics are pretty huge.

 

We all talk about new theaters, about scripring engine and it's greatness, but what is the use of all that if missiles are over-precise?

 

Such missiles never graced DCS in the air to air arena ;)

 

I am just spilling the thoughts, but this had become too long post as it is. But I hope it will make people think about realism, about the need of forcing the tactical aspect of this sim and some other things... Let's not act as if this is an arcade game where you put your crosshair and fire - knowing that you will get a kill if you fire long enough.

Think about it.

 

You think about it. That's exactly how it is in real life. You put the other guy under pressure, you put him on the defensive and you keep firing until he is shot down. That's all part of tactics.

[GGTharos]

Like the original versions of sidewinder, and of course the AIM-4, these were likely meant for bomber/striker intercepts.

 

As for the MiG-23, I don't have blueprints with installed R-60's. It seems that any manoeuvring that would have to be done restricts the pilot and the ability of the R-60. Now, I notice they are flared out away from the fuselage. Still it's far from ideal.

[RIPTIDE]

Like the original versions of sidewinder, and of course the AIM-4, these were likely meant for bomber/striker intercepts.

And that's the problem isn't it? An overbearing design bias for the much feared B-52/F-111 on all systems from aircraft to SAMS to Missiles but shoe horned into a fighter role /anti fighter role.

[GGTharos]

Well, the R-60 is/was a good missile for the job ... it isn't the first dogfight missile, but it sure filled a very short range niche, so I was wrong with my original anti-bomber assumption :)

It originally used an un-cooled seeker, so you probably had to be looking right down your target's tailpipe anyway.

 

And unlike where the R-27ET would be sitting between the nacelles, the R-60's on the MiG-23 got a pretty good forward view IMHO, well offset from the fuselage.

Edited May 24, 2013 by GGTharos