Missile effectiveness

[rlogue]

Yes, you can judge a game based on a person's actions. There are many things you can do in a game that for some reason is like a cheat, and will probably get you killed in real life. Example, pulling up just before a missile hits you would almost always gaurantee your survival, even if your sitting in the NEZ - you think this will save you in real life?

 

 

 

You're just proving my point. The only difference AWACs should make to an A-10/Su-25T is provide warning that it's time to hike up your skirts and run, not take your chances against the incoming, top-of-the line fighter.

 

 

 

I said WVR, which can include a turning fight or an energy fight. And yes, an Archer fired at a Su-27 head on will have less of a chance of hitting then if it was fired at a Su-25T, IMO. In no way would I expect a Frogfoot survive and kill 5 to 0 against a Su-27/F-15, turning or not.

 

 

 

That's not the point. The point is you stayed and killed 5 F-15s/Su-27s with a maximum of 4 R-73s between two Su-25Ts. This should never happen in a simulation.

 

 

 

Why? If the guy in a F-15 gets a tally on you, even assuming he's alone and a complete noob, he should STILL kill you. I don't see how the Su-25T being a "decent aircraft" makes it "even better" against such opponents.

 

I'd probably only buy this story if the same guy came at you 5 times, and each time he didn't fire any AMRAAMs or winders at either of your weapon-laden Frogfeet, deployed the brakes and flaps and tried a guns kill at 250 knots, and you killed him like that each of the 5 times.

 

Ya, the reason I brought the post up in the 1st place was frustration over my situation the other night. I'm flying at a 25T over flat terrain, he's nothching me, very lazily but I have something better than 90 aspect and he's locked, so I throw a total of four missiles at him, he just keeps nothching not reacting, they miss, he pulls his nose around and bang, i'm dead. Not knocking the pilot at all .. .knocking the sim .. that should not have happened. A couple if not all of those missiles shouldve hit, or at least forced a defensive maneuver.

[rlogue]

Yes, you can judge a game based on a person's actions. There are many things you can do in a game that for some reason is like a cheat, and will probably get you killed in real life. Example, pulling up just before a missile hits you would almost always gaurantee your survival, even if your sitting in the NEZ - you think this will save you in real life?

 

 

 

You're just proving my point. The only difference AWACs should make to an A-10/Su-25T is provide warning that it's time to hike up your skirts and run, not take your chances against the incoming, top-of-the line fighter.

 

 

 

I said WVR, which can include a turning fight or an energy fight. And yes, an Archer fired at a Su-27 head on will have less of a chance of hitting then if it was fired at a Su-25T, IMO. In no way would I expect a Frogfoot survive and kill 5 to 0 against a Su-27/F-15, turning or not.

 

 

 

That's not the point. The point is you stayed and killed 5 F-15s/Su-27s with a maximum of 4 R-73s between two Su-25Ts. This should never happen in a simulation.

 

 

 

Why? If the guy in a F-15 gets a tally on you, even assuming he's alone and a complete noob, he should STILL kill you. I don't see how the Su-25T being a "decent aircraft" makes it "even better" against such opponents.

 

I'd probably only buy this story if the same guy came at you 5 times, and each time he didn't fire any AMRAAMs or winders at either of your weapon-laden Frogfeet, deployed the brakes and flaps and tried a guns kill at 250 knots, and you killed him like that each of the 5 times.

 

Ya, the reason I brought the post up in the 1st place was frustration over my situation the other night. I'm flying at a 25T over flat terrain, he's nothching me, very lazily but I have something better than 90 aspect and he's locked, so I throw a total of four missiles at him, he just keeps nothching not reacting, they miss, he pulls his nose around and bang, i'm dead. Not knocking the pilot at all .. .knocking the sim .. that should not have happened. A couple if not all of those missiles shouldve hit, or at least forced a defensive maneuver. In nutshell, my nose is pointing at you , yours isn't pointing at me, I'm better than 10 nm with missiles in the air .. should've been definately my advantage in that scenario.

[D-Scythe]

If a slammer goes active and has a descent aspect on you , you better give it all you got, a simple notch should not work. I think the notch is just to break the lock, you still have to do something following the notch or it'll pick you back up. I could be totally wrong .. this would be a good topic for real guys from either side .. wouldn't that be a fascinating conversation... funny thing is those guys all tend to dodge these conversations ! lol .. they must be smarter than us !

 

It has been stated that there are ways for an AMRAAM's seeker (Phoenix's even) to defeat a target trying to hide in the seeker notch, but so far, absolutely nothing unclassified have even remotely suggested how this would work. But given the fact that notching was "invented" in the U.S. during the late 70s in top secret AIM-ACEVAL exercises, and that both the AIM-54C and the AIM-120 were developed well after that time period, IMO there exists a strong possibility that both missiles should be able to defeat a notch maneuver.

 

And yes, monopulse radar missiles are porked, but so far, there doesn't seem to be anything that is about to be done to fix this with the delay of WAFM. I hope I'm wrong, but I find it better to be pleasantly surprised than be disappointed when V1.2 comes out and I find that radar missiles are the same as before.

 

The missile that suffers from this the most is the AMRAAM, due to the fact that its strength lies in its guidance seeker. ED has already modelled the stronger performance qualities of the R-77, but the AMRAAM unfortunately has recieved no such treatment in terms of its seeker.

[GGTharos]

Maybe he's flying in the 'no radar missile tracking' zone. First of all, notching + chaff works perfectly - why? The missile loses lock on plane, sees chaff. There's little reason why this -shouldn't- work if done correctly.

 

The question now becomes, why spam missiles at him when he's flying a profile that lowers your Pk? Get about a half mile behind him and then use a slammer (not sidewinder! The T's have an IR jammer in the tail).

 

If he's flying ridiculously low, fly until you are on top of him at 20000 or more, then dive at him and use a sidewinder or slammer from the top.

 

And for cryin' out loud, look for his missiles ;)

[D-Scythe]

Maybe he's flying in the 'no radar missile tracking' zone.

 

The "no radar missile tracking" zone must be pretty big to notch 4 Slammers.

 

First of all, notching + chaff works perfectly - why? The missile loses lock on plane, sees chaff. There's little reason why this -shouldn't- work if done correctly.

 

Too bad notching is about 30 years old. Someone must've come up with something during that time to defeat it (or at the very least, fight it), or else it would be the simple greatest manuever ever devised if it's able to defeat two generations of radar technology.

 

I only know of one other thing that can claim this, and it's called "stealth" ;)

[GGTharos]

It's exactly 20m AGL or below actually as far as AMRAAMs are concerned.

 

As for nothing being old, yeah, maybe, MAYBE they came up with something, but physics is still physics. you still need to guide your own missiles to target, ARH or not, and if you notch too early you spoil your shot.

 

THings aren't as simple as LOMAC or F4.

[D-Scythe]

It's exactly 20m AGL or below actually as far as AMRAAMs are concerned.

 

As for nothing being old, yeah, maybe, MAYBE they came up with something, but physics is still physics. you still need to guide your own missiles to target, ARH or not, and if you notch too early you spoil your shot.

 

THings aren't as simple as LOMAC or F4.

 

The question isn't whether the AMRAAM can hit its target if you notch before TTA; the question is whether the AMRAAM can hit its target if the target notches after TTA.

 

Keep in mind, the point is not to make the AMRAAM invulnerable to notching. Any imaginary way to counter notching would probably not involve doppler, which in turn would make the AMRAAM much more sensitive to clutter. But having the AMRAAM (or any radar missile for that matter) do something is a whole lot better than having it do nothing.

[rlogue]

Maybe he's flying in the 'no radar missile tracking' zone. First of all, notching + chaff works perfectly - why? The missile loses lock on plane, sees chaff. There's little reason why this -shouldn't- work if done correctly.

 

The question now becomes, why spam missiles at him when he's flying a profile that lowers your Pk? Get about a half mile behind him and then use a slammer (not sidewinder! The T's have an IR jammer in the tail).

 

If he's flying ridiculously low, fly until you are on top of him at 20000 or more, then dive at him and use a sidewinder or slammer from the top.

 

And for cryin' out loud, look for his missiles ;)

 

LOL we are coming full circle, the reason I dont' fly up behind him is because I wasn't looking for a dogfight or a visual fight ... I should be able to kill him without flying at his elbow.

[rlogue]

Keep in mind here, I am aware that it's not real and that certain tactics can be made from the flukes of the game. But, I think it's good to throw out discussions like this to the developers forum .. I don't think the answer is to learn every fluke of the game and use it to your advantage, I think it's to hold out hope that the flukes go away via patches and realism begins to surface.

[GGTharos]

No, 'should' is a misconception. We actually don't know. Low-altitude intercepts in fact, IIRC, do require close engagement ranges in real life, or so I've glimpsed in some F-15C procedure manual. At low altitudes all the rules change - there's more noise for one thing, and there's radar ground-bounce, and who knows what else.

 

Wether the game models what's happening there with any sort of realism is questionable, however at the same time, what -should- be happening is also questionable. So, learn to fight in a way that works in the game, and not in a way that you -think- it should work. ;)

[rlogue]

"So, learn to fight in a way that works in the game, and not in a way that you -think- it should work."

 

I disagree ! lol I'll shut up now

[GGTharos]

You can disagree all you want, but you'll be getting shot down! ;)

[Rhen]

You can disagree all you want, but you'll be getting shot down! ;)

 

Now THAT'S a helpful comment! :p

[Rhen]

"So, learn to fight in a way that works in the game, and not in a way that you -think- it should work."

 

I disagree ! lol I'll shut up now

 

No, you shouldn't shut up. Voice your opinion! :horseback

 

Reality is that in the last several conflicts, Air-to-Air kills were strictly by missiles. SO, why izzit that missiles are porked in lomac. If all i need to outwit a missile is stay below 100ft and slow, and nothing except cannon rounds can touch me, then why call it a sim. Let's call it .... a GAME about how someone THINKS it should be because that's the way it's coded.

 

No offense and I don't mean to disparage ED or it's wonderful product, I still love it... It's just that I'd like some reality please.

 

(please don't ask me to post my proof that it's not modeling real life, just think about what rlogue is asking you to think about).

[Prophet_169th]

Yes, you can judge a game based on a person's actions. There are many things you can do in a game that for some reason is like a cheat, and will probably get you killed in real life. Example, pulling up just before a missile hits you would almost always gaurantee your survival, even if your sitting in the NEZ - you think this will save you in real life?[/Quote]

 

I never suggested it would, so I dont know why you try and put this suggestion on me.

 

You're just proving my point. The only difference AWACs should make to an A-10/Su-25T is provide warning that it's time to hike up your skirts and run, not take your chances against the incoming, top-of-the line fighter.[/Quote]

 

No, what I am proving is, that knowing your opponent is just as important as knowing what your plane can do. The game is not supposed to make everyone a good fighter pilot. And the fact is, even if you want to argue it, that a bad pilot in a good aircraft is no match for a better pilot in an older aircraft.

 

I said WVR, which can include a turning fight or an energy fight. But do you honestly expect a Su-25T to win in an energy fight?[/Quote]

 

WVR does not always mean a turning fight. I never suggested that an Su25T should or would win a turn fight. In fact, I said just the opposite, where I was losing the turn fight and should have died. You must have read past that part.

 

Head on Archer shots should at least have a 50-50 win/lose scenario, but I think the advantage goes to the Flanker/Eagle since they have more energy and can pull more Gs. So yes, an Archer fired at a Su-27 head on will have less of a chance of hitting then if it was fired at a Su-25T, IMO. In no way would I expect a Frogfoot survive and kill 5 to 0 against a Su-27/F-15, turning or not.[/Quote]

 

No I dont expect it either. But expectation are not always the end result. Fact being, an Su25T who does fire a missle, has more chance of killing his opponent, than a F15 who never fires. You cant argue that. Also, as I have said before, if the F15 is low, and fires a 120 at me when I am low, and all I have to do is duck behind a hill to trash the missle........ I dont see whats wrong with that. The F15 shouldnt have been flying low. But you seem to want the game to compensate for a bad pilot. I hope that never happens.

 

So bottom line, it doesn't matter how you killed 5 F-15s or Flankers, you should've died, no matter how good you and your friend are.[/Quote]

 

I will never fly this Sim, if this is how it turns out. The logic is severely flawed.

 

That's not the point. The point is you stayed and killed 5 F-15s/Su-27s with a maximum of 4 R-73s between two Su-25Ts. This should never happen in a simulation.

 

Once again, the Sim doesnt compensate for a bad pilot, and I hope it never does. But keep missing that fact. If we were flying against any 169er or any other pilot that knew how to fly, we would have died. I dont understand why you cant understand that.

 

Why? If the guy in a F-15 gets a tally on you, even assuming he's alone and a complete noob, he should STILL kill you. I don't see how the Su-25T being a "decent aircraft" makes it "even better" against such opponents.

 

Yes, the game should detect noobs, and give them magical missles.

 

I'd probably only buy this story if the same guy came at you 5 times, and each time he didn't fire any AMRAAMs or winders at either of your weapon-laden Frogfeet, deployed the brakes and flaps and tried a guns kill at 250 knots, and you killed him like that each of the 5 times.

 

Missle can be dodged. And 120's rather easy. All missles will fly into hills, none will magically fly around them.

 

And you dont have to buy it, no one ever asked you to. But just because you dont buy it, doesnt change anything, I believe Fudd has the track of the last engagement.

[Rhen]

Hi all, don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I have a question. I am fully aware of some of the radar / missile bugs or flukes. I was online the other night and while in the F-15 came up upon a Mig 25T. I am sure the guy saw me as he kind of leisurely notched me. I still kept the aspect well enough to keep a lock on him, flew to within about 7 nm or so, became visual, still locked up launched two slammers and two Aim 7's at him. He did not appear to do anything but notch somewhat. Every missile easily missed him with no apparant evasive manuevering, so then he pulls his nose toward me and launches a heater and kills me. Is the 25 a better air to air fighter than the F15 is ? Plus notching may work sometimes but is it automatic ? especially close in. Please explain ... and after patches, etc will the 15 be able to hold it's own against the 25 ? Also, when I asked the guy how he defeated the missiles, he said that he was using the IR Jammer ????? Should that work against radar guided missiles ?

 

Rhen to SU-25T pilot:

Did you really have to use any of that pilot shit or just a fluke in the game?:confused:

 

Where's the realism in that??? Fighter skill?

[GGTharos]

No, you shouldn't shut up. Voice your opinion! :horseback

 

Reality is that in the last several conflicts, Air-to-Air kills were strictly by missiles. SO, why izzit that missiles are porked in lomac. If all i need to outwit a missile is stay below 100ft and slow, and nothing except cannon rounds can touch me, then why call it a sim. Let's call it .... a GAME about how someone THINKS it should be because that's the way it's coded.

 

No offense and I don't mean to disparage ED or it's wonderful product, I still love it... It's just that I'd like some reality please.

 

(please don't ask me to post my proof that it's not modeling real life, just think about what rlogue is asking you to think about).

 

How can you ask that when you just asked for 'a little reality'?

[D-Scythe]

I never suggested it would, so I dont know why you try and put this suggestion on me.

 

Yes, you actually did. I'm not going to re-quote your previous post, because that's just silly. Why would I have to prove something you just said?

 

 

 

No, what I am proving is, that knowing your opponent is just as important as knowing what your plane can do. The game is not supposed to make everyone a good fighter pilot. And the fact is, even if you want to argue it, that a bad pilot in a good aircraft is no match for a better pilot in an older aircraft.

 

So a newb F-15 pilot killing a veteran Su-25T pilot should be seen as the game compensating for the newb? That is ridiculous.

 

And the line about the best pilot wins only applies to aircraft of the same type. I dunno about you, but last time I checked, an F-15C/Su-27 is a completely different type of military aircraft than a Su-25T.

 

WVR does not always mean a turning fight. I never suggested that an Su25T should or would win a turn fight. In fact, I said just the opposite, where I was losing the turn fight and should have died. You must have read past that part.

 

You must've read past the part where I said a Su-25T shoulda died in a head on Archer engagement.

 

No I dont expect it either. But expectation are not always the end result. Fact being, an Su25T who does fire a missle, has more chance of killing his opponent, than a F15 who never fires.

 

Funny how you never mentioned how your opponents never fired. Interesting.

 

Also, as I have said before, if the F15 is low, and fires a 120 at me when I am low, and all I have to do is duck behind a hill to trash the missle........ I dont see whats wrong with that.

 

What's wrong with that is an F-15 can also carry AIM-9Ms, or fire AIM-120s from AIM-9M range. You seem to be missing the idea that if you have enough time to run incoming missiles to the ground, so does your opponent against your missiles. It's an easy concept: if you can hit him, he can hit you.

 

The F15 shouldnt have been flying low. But you seem to want the game to compensate for a bad pilot.

 

Right, I said that.

 

I will never fly this Sim, if this is how it turns out. The logic is severely flawed.

 

What logic is flawed? The fact that if an F-15 launches an AIM-9/AIM-120 at 2 miles at a Su-25T beak to beak who fires back with a R-73 that chances are both jets should die?

 

Once again, the Sim doesnt compensate for a bad pilot, and I hope it never does.

 

That is exactly the point. Lock On shouldn't compensate for bad pilots, but it shouldn't allow good pilots live forever, which it currently does. A good pilot will have a ridiculously easy time evading enemy missiles in LOMAC, something no one can deny. Such a pilot is almost gauranteed to survive even if he's in a high threat zone, like an enemy's NEZ.

 

I'm sorry, but that pilot should get shot down. Avoiding high threat zones/situations should be more important to being a good pilot than being able to waltz around missiles, which shouldn't happen.

 

And this is one aspect of missile combat that Lock On has failed to simulate. That avoiding the lethal envelope of an enemy's weapon employment zone is more important than evading the weapons fired at you. I can't get why you can't understand this concept, that Lock On rewards skilled pilots too much sometimes.

 

Yes, the game should detect noobs, and give them magical missles.

 

Yet, it also allows skilled pilots to live forever. Yay, we have a fun game...

[Rhen]

How can you ask that when you just asked for 'a little reality'?

 

How can you hang on to those things that make lomac a fair game and eschew the reality that would make it a great game.

 

If you conclude that flying below 100ft is a viable tactic IRL that makes you immune from missiles, well... then... let me buy you a Guinnes and we can discuss politics and religion, where we might agree more....:icon_jook

[Rhen]

Yet, it also allows skilled pilots to live forever. Yay, we have a fun game...

 

Not skilled - they just know where to take advantage of those things in LOMAC that aren't modeled well - Just like a lawyer looking for a loophole in a contract, we have a pilot playing LAWYER not fighter pilot.

 

I reiterate: Where's the skill in that?:confused:

[GGTharos]

/What/ bloody reality? :)

 

What's reality? Why would a missile miss or hit a low-flying target, and under what circumstances? We've had a sparrow blow up a truck, yet a volley of them didn't touch a pair of landing MiG-25's.

 

If I conclude that it is or ISN't a viable tactic, I have at least done my research to support my view.

[Rhen]

I have at least done my research to support my view.

 

Ok you got me... I don't do my homework. I play lomac instead and stay up late on school nights when i should be in bed.:p

 

I guess if you were king of the world, I'd be flying around in an F-4G using HARMs to take out B-52s by locking onto their AN/ASG-21 target tracking radar because it's happened IRL. Hey, I'll have to try that in LOMAC tonight. :D

[GGTharos]

Yeah. You just babble on, Sir! :D

[Rhen]

Very astute argument! But can you please expound with all your knowledge. I remain unconvinced of your logic... :icon_jook

 

At any rate, back to the argument at hand...

 

So, the facts are that a good lawyer... er pilot... can outfly an F-15 equipped with slammers and heaters as long as he stays low, & just has to notch "a little" (like being a little pregnant, neh?) to defeat the F-15 pilot. Oh yeah, if the Froggy is flown by some pilots, then 2 Eagles don't stand a chance. So is that the argument for the reality of the situation?

[GGTharos]

 

 

Reality is that in the last several conflicts, Air-to-Air kills were strictly by missiles. SO, why izzit that missiles are porked in lomac. If all i need to outwit a missile is stay below 100ft and slow, and nothing except cannon rounds can touch me, then why call it a sim. Let's call it .... a GAME about how someone THINKS it should be because that's the way it's coded.

Look at your last sentence.

 

So, where's your homework?

Or are you just -thinking- it should be done in one way or another?

We already know that the way it's coded is lacking, it's no newsflash.

 

This shouldn't be a newsflash either:

If you want to be successful in the game (Oh, gasp! HE SAID GAME! ... yeah, and I'll keep calling it that since I've seen a real simulator or two and ah ... Falcon 4 (any iteration) wasn't it. ;) ) you'll need to take advantage of what the game offers. Some of these things are lame and just shouldn't be done, but they WILL be done, so learn to live with it until they're fixed (or not!)

 

In addition, I asked:

 

How can you ask that when you just asked for 'a little reality'?

Which referred to this:

 

(please don't ask me to post my proof that it's not modeling real life, just think about what rlogue is asking you to think about).

And you went and assumed I was talking about the altitude-related missile tracking problem - but that's fine, I didn't make that part clear.

 

 

So, go ahead. Babble on ;)