Missile effectiveness

[D-Scythe]

you lost track of what I said earlier. Of course I know notching defeats missiles, this is Why Im wondering some people think IT SHOULDNT BE SO with the missed SU-25's unless they have recordds saying otherwise.

 

Um, didn't I just post something that stated that the AMRAAM has some ways of defeating notching targets?

 

And as I said, again, we've concrete examples of missiles both hitting AND missing at low altitudes ... under different circumstances. There's even a video which seems to show a 120 missing a co-alt beaming target, though it's hard to see and uncertain.

 

Well, I wouldn't expect the AMRAAM, or any missile, to be perfect. Just because someone caught it missing a beaming target on camera doesn't mean that it misses a beaming target all the time. Maybe something failed? I dunno :p

[Pilotasso]

Um, didn't I just post something that stated that the AMRAAM has some ways of defeating notching targets?

 

YOU did, but my conversation was going after those who think the game is porked in this respect, so oviously my comments were not directed at you. You just assumed so. ;)

 

And as I said, again, we've concrete examples of missiles both hitting AND missing at low altitudes ... under different circumstances. There's even a video which seems to show a 120 missing a co-alt beaming target, though it's hard to see and uncertain.

 

Its the second time you or another tester said to have such videos...where are they? o_O

 

I Have AIM-9X videos from Patricks aviation, a few with the 120 but all pretty much straight forward are shown blowing their targets everytime (drones).

[rlogue]

Well, lemme restate my problem just so you guys no where I stand in my point. The "unsupported flaw" as I see it: If a guy has a missile warning, or better yet sees several missiles coming at him .. and knows that he can continue to do what he is doing with no fear of being hit, there is proof that does not need supported that there is a bug. The missiles need to be atleast accurate enough to scare someone when one is inbound. I don't have any proof that in the real world pilot's are afraid of missiles, but I suspect that any missile coming from a relatively short range is a dangerous threat and multiples would put them on the defensive. I can't talk numbers or radars with you guys ... but how can you argue this ? This has to be proof that the missiles are buggy ! Noone should have that much confidence that they won't be hit unless there is a flaw in the game that they know about (e.g. notching or flying low) this type of thing is what ruins the F-15, it takes away every strength it has, forces you to get into the knife fight for the kill .. you shouldn't have to do this .. and I don't believe for a minute that this is how it really works. I know i'm repeating myself ... I just want to refocus myself and you all on what my original post and problem is about. Missiles should be scary !

[Pilotasso]

Well, lemme restate my problem just so you guys no where I stand in my point. The "unsupported flaw" as I see it: If a guy has a missile warning, or better yet sees several missiles coming at him .. and knows that he can continue to do what he is doing with no fear of being hit, there is proof that does not need supported that there is a bug. The missiles need to be atleast accurate enough to scare someone when one is inbound. I don't have any proof that in the real world pilot's are afraid of missiles, but I suspect that any missile coming from a relatively short range is a dangerous threat and multiples would put them on the defensive. I can't talk numbers or radars with you guys ... but how can you argue this ? This has to be proof that the missiles are buggy ! Noone should have that much confidence that they won't be hit unless there is a flaw in the game that they know about (e.g. notching or flying low) this type of thing is what ruins the F-15, it takes away every strength it has, forces you to get into the knife fight for the kill .. you shouldn't have to do this .. and I don't believe for a minute that this is how it really works. I know i'm repeating myself ... I just want to refocus myself and you all on what my original post and problem is about. Missiles should be scary !

 

Glad you finaly elaborated correctly your Idea. :)

 

What you apear to be complaining about is unrealistic excess of confidence online (L.O.L.!). Its not a bug, rather the lack of fear to be dead on the part of the player. Sometimes, to be afraid is actualy the thing that gets you killed. Flying straight and have missiles inpact the ground tells you, probably the missile went short of its target, not quite the same as stating the seeker lost track. If he turns to defeat that missile he may do so but hes dead if you make a second shot. I use this many times to lure targets into my no escape zone. Its called "spoiler shot" Its a bluff to deny him any future window of escape.

If he keeps straight theres less chance of a missile hit while hes outside the no escape zone (but it does give the "yikes" factor a punch).

 

In reality youll ALWAYS be tempted to turn, specialy because youll have much less SA than that what the game provides and in uncertainty you turn anyway.

[D-Scythe]

Glad you finaly elaborated correctly your Idea. :)

 

What you apear to be complaining about is unrealistic excess of confidence online (L.O.L.!). Its not a bug, rather the lack of fear to be dead on the part of the player. Sometimes, to be afraid is actualy the thing that gets you killed. Flying straight and have missiles inpact the ground tells you, probably the missile went short of its target, not quite the same as stating the seeker lost track. If he turns to defeat that missile he may do so but hes dead if you make a second shot. I use this many times to lure targets into my no escape zone. Its called "spoiler shot" Its a bluff to deny him any future window of escape.

If he keeps straight theres less chance of a missile hit while hes outside the no escape zone (but it does give the "yikes" factor a punch).

 

In reality youll ALWAYS be tempted to turn, specialy because youll have much less SA than that what the game provides and in uncertainty you turn anyway.

 

I think his main point is that Lock On's missiles are not deadly enough to be feared. Which is true, from what I've seen.

[rlogue]

Yes and no ... what my wish is, and I strongly suspect that if the missile was more accurate, a guy would not continue to let an F15 target him, he would fly some sort of tactic to change the situation, he knows that there is a bug that will allow him to not get shot, I believe it is a bug and it's being exploited as a tactic.

[Weta43]

Actualy, this statement:

"Though never openly stated, Amraam is likely to use many of the processing algorithms developed for the C model Phoenix, these are reputedly able to defeat the beam turn, a favourite evasive manoeuvre which breaks lock on Doppler radars by rapidly changing both the Doppler and the strength of the reflected return (the latter is termed scintillation; an aircraft reflects different amounts of microwave energy from different angles)."

Is not proof - in fact not even a firm assertion - that the AIM-120 can defeat the "beam", only supposition (on hearsay) that these missiles might be able to.

Reputed: Generaly reckoned or considered; SUPPOSED.

[rlogue]

I think his main point is that Lock On's missiles are not deadly enough to be feared. Which is true, from what I've seen.

 

That's exactly my point !!!!!!!! Holy cow, 2 sentences summed up 30 posts of mine !! geeze, I have a way with words huh ??? Thanks.

[Cosmonaut]

Well, lemme restate my problem just so you guys no where I stand in my point. The "unsupported flaw" as I see it: If a guy has a missile warning, or better yet sees several missiles coming at him .. and knows that he can continue to do what he is doing with no fear of being hit, there is proof that does not need supported that there is a bug. The missiles need to be atleast accurate enough to scare someone when one is inbound. I don't have any proof that in the real world pilot's are afraid of missiles, but I suspect that any missile coming from a relatively short range is a dangerous threat and multiples would put them on the defensive. I can't talk numbers or radars with you guys ... but how can you argue this ? This has to be proof that the missiles are buggy ! Noone should have that much confidence that they won't be hit unless there is a flaw in the game that they know about (e.g. notching or flying low) this type of thing is what ruins the F-15, it takes away every strength it has, forces you to get into the knife fight for the kill .. you shouldn't have to do this .. and I don't believe for a minute that this is how it really works. I know i'm repeating myself ... I just want to refocus myself and you all on what my original post and problem is about. Missiles should be scary !

 

 

It sounds to me that you're making a large amount of assumptions about how effective you think a2a missiles should be. I think we're all aware of the bugs regarding certain BVR missiles in lomac but the scenario you described in your original post sounds too me that you let your frustrations get the better of you and got shot down because you employed poor tactics for the situation you were in. Firing four missiles at a target 7nm away seems way to excessive and then to just sit there like a sitting duck while an aircraft that has a pretty good a2a missile on board turns and faces you is just crazy in my mind.. and is also part of the problem here. That said Obviously a 25T is no match for an Eagle and that is represented in lockon as well however be careful when trying to compare real world missile effectiveness with flying lockon online.. or any sim/game for that matter. You could have absolutely the most realistic missile behavior in lockon but add some lag and the crazy way we can fly our aircraft when performing evasive maneuvers, as compared to r/l, then its more than likely your missiles will miss more often then you think they should but that doesnt mean it's not realistic. It just means you have to adjust your tactics to compensate for the environment you're fighting in... Like GGTharos said just move in behind and take a shot!

 

The Eagle and amraam are a great combination but if you don't employ the correct tactics then you could get shot down by anything. In Red Flag the aggressor squadron has a Russian helicopter (Mi-24) and during exercises it has shot down an F15 and a couple of F16s I think .. a few others too. Oh and you'd be surprised how hard the F16 is trying to get away from the A10 in the video that has been mentioned.. Also it doesn't ruin the F15 at all you may think that a r/l Eagle driver squeezes the trigger at 30nm and immediately turns around knowing that his missile will hit the bandit but things happen a lot closer than that ..I think most kills are made with in 10nms ..and why is a knife fight unrealistic? How many times has an F15 come up against an equal number of Mig29C's or Su-27's with equally trained pilots?

[Pilotasso]

That's exactly my point !!!!!!!! Holy cow, 2 sentences summed up 30 posts of mine !! geeze, I have a way with words huh ??? Thanks.

 

Yeah but you missed half of that sentence.

Regarding that part you missed:

If anyone shoots a R-27 at you in RL you would most likely turn. Though combat records only shows 1 (uncofirmed hit) out of dozens of shots. Despite knowing this youll probably not wanting to keep straight for anything in this world. If your unlucky youll fall inside the R-73 range though, very bad. This missile has proved to be far more deadly. In the game youll have much less fear to turn. And this is not a bug. You can keep straight either ingame or IRL it will always deny its range (wich IMHO is what you do not grasp) even if that gives you the impression of a much bigger "sweet Geezus" factor.

[D-Scythe]

Actualy, this statement:

"Though never openly stated, Amraam is likely to use many of the processing algorithms developed for the C model Phoenix, these are reputedly able to defeat the beam turn, a favourite evasive manoeuvre which breaks lock on Doppler radars by rapidly changing both the Doppler and the strength of the reflected return (the latter is termed scintillation; an aircraft reflects different amounts of microwave energy from different angles)."

Is not proof - in fact not even a firm assertion - that the AIM-120 can defeat the "beam", only supposition (on hearsay) that these missiles might be able to.

Reputed: Generaly reckoned or considered; SUPPOSED.

 

I never stated it was proof, but simply that there is some support for the idea that an AMRAAM can defeat a beam. This is probably the best info we're ever gonna get, because such things are highly classified.

 

Also keep in mind, as I stated earlier, that beaming is not new - it's almost 30 years old. I doubt that one simple maneuver can defeat the most advanced AAM two generations of missiles later the same way it did back in the late 70s when beaming was "invented," in the same country where the AMRAAM was developed no less. No, AMRAAM shouldn't be immune to notching, but it probably does something to help it adapt to a beaming target. What it does is classified, so we'll never know.

 

But I rather have in Lock On an AMRAAM that can kill a beaming target, perhaps less effectively than normal, than an AMRAAM that is helpless against beaming targets, which it currently is now.

[rlogue]

How is a knife fight unrealistic ???? when's the last guns kill you heard about ?? Vietnam maybe ? Sure they practice it .. but they don't do it much. That's what missiles are for, if the F-15 is in a knife fight, or even close range fight, it's because he made a bad mistake ...

[rlogue]

Yeah but you missed half of that sentence.

Regarding that part you missed:

If anyone shoots a R-27 at you in RL you would most likely turn. Though combat records only shows 1 (uncofirmed hit) out of dozens of shots. Despite knowing this youll probably not wanting to keep straight for anything in this world. If your unlucky youll fall inside the R-73 range though, very bad. This missile has proved to be far more deadly. In the game youll have much less fear to turn. And this is not a bug. You can keep straight either ingame or IRL it will always deny its range (wich IMHO is what you do not grasp) even if that gives you the impression of a much bigger "sweet Geezus" factor.

I can see situations where flying straight is a good idea, but not from close range with multiple missiles coming at you .. I think I grasp this as well as anybody does. The only right answer I think, is don't be in a position where 4 missiles are coming at you .. that's the tactic ... not let him shoot and spoof them ... don't let him shoot , in this game, it's not dangerous to be in this situation.

[Weta43]

I'm not arguing that the missile modelling / countermeasure modelling in this game is perfect, but I was looking at the stats page on the 504 server earlier. In this game the AIM-120 is still getting a lot of kills. There are players who can get away from them with a reasonable amount of confidence (though all the players at the top of the table still have losses to AIM-120), but remember that those players will by now have practiced against THOUSANDS of launches, orders of magnitude more than any real-life pilot could ever hope to do. This plus the lack of any sense of fear for these players means that they can be relaxed & take evasive strategies that would be nuts for a pilot in real life.

There will inevitably be players in a sim who out perform what would be expected of a real pilot - they get so much more practice.

[rlogue]

I'm not arguing that the missile modelling / countermeasure modelling in this game is perfect, but I was looking at the stats page on the 504 server earlier. In this game the AIM-120 is still getting a lot of kills. There are players who can get away from them with a reasonable amount of confidence (though all the players at the top of the table still have losses to AIM-120), but remember that those players will by now have practiced against THOUSANDS of launches, orders of magnitude more than any real-life pilot could ever hope to do. This plus the lack of any sense of fear for these players means that they can be relaxed & take evasive strategies that would be nuts for a pilot in real life.

There will inevitably be players in a sim who out perform what would be expected of a real pilot - they get so much more practice.

 

This is a true statement !

[Pilotasso]

Spot on weta.

[GGTharos]

Actually one F-15 got a BFM kill in Gulf War when he got into a turning fight with an Iraqi MiG-29 (the mig pilot flew himself into the ground)

 

Most of the kills in GF1 were accomplushed with AIM-7's and AIM-9's, with AIM-9's having the highest kill ratio.

 

Another F_15 in GF was cruising around at 30000' tracking a Mirage F1 at 6000', when the F1 notched him and the pilot ended up diving in a panic with autoguns on, trying to reacquire ... guess what? Knife fight.

 

So yeah, knife fights are pretty realistic ESPECIALLY against well-trained, aware opponents. The opponents the US has faced so far posess NONE of those qualities.

 

The RuAF pilots have always been confident they could press into WVR range where the R-73 would give them an advantage.

 

Do you think that this was wishful thinking on their part? ... so then, why the AIM-9X? ...

[rlogue]

I have ran across somewhere an article that the airforce is considering removing the guns from our fighters .. I realize that this doesn't mean anything .. but I'm sure that it has been tossed around quite a bit.

[GGTharos]

Yeah. They considered it before, too, and the gun came back after a short absence on a certain aircraft :)

[D-Scythe]

 

Another F_15 in GF was cruising around at 30000' tracking a Mirage F1 at 6000', when the F1 notched him and the pilot ended up diving in a panic with autoguns on, trying to reacquire ... guess what? Knife fight.

 

F-15s never engaged in a turning fight with a Mirage in GF1. I also never heard of this incident either. There was a similar incident involving F-15s and MiG-25s, but the F-15s picked em up again after they beams (albeit WVR), and when the Foxbats tried to beam again, the APG-70s held their lock.

 

Splash two.

 

The RuAF pilots have always been confident they could press into WVR range where the R-73 would give them an advantage.

 

Do you think that this was wishful thinking on their part? ... so then, why the AIM-9X? ...

 

Part of the reason why AIM-9X was introduced so late in the game (what? 20 years after the first Archer?) was because of the devastating PK of the AMRAAM at WVR. An F-15 wouldn't engage a MiG-29 with AIM-9Ms in a dogfight/WVR engagement - they would use AMRAAMs. Every single pilot account stated that within 5-6 miles, the AMRAAM is almost a deathray.

 

In Lock On, you'd be lucky to get a 40% PK at 6 miles with AMRAAM.

 

AIM-9X just provides more options to USAF pilots so they could adapt to the situation better. It offers IIR guidance, silent kill capability plus 90 degrees off boresight engagement, none of which AMRAAM has. I still gaurantee though that in a WVR fight between F-15s and MiG-29s that the MiGs are each getting a Slammer until the Eagles run out of em.

 

How many AIM-9s were launched in Allied Force? Oh yeah, none ;) No MiG got within 6 miles of an F-15. Compare that with GF1, when engagement ranges closed to within a few thousand feet on a couple occasions after missed Sparrow shots.

[GGTharos]

The only example I recall reading about where 25's are concerned was the one where they were landing ... so I guess we ran into different incidents.

 

As for the 120 being a death-ray, I'm sure they have specific circumstances in mind which they cannot attach to their claim.

[Cosmonaut]

How is a knife fight unrealistic ???? when's the last guns kill you heard about ?? Vietnam maybe ? Sure they practice it .. but they don't do it much. That's what missiles are for, if the F-15 is in a knife fight, or even close range fight, it's because he made a bad mistake ...

 

Not to press the point which has already been made a few times already but;

“How many times has an F15 come up against an equal number of Mig29C's or Su-27's with equally trained pilots?”

 

I think this is explains it better;

So yeah, knife fights are pretty realistic ESPECIALLY against well-trained, aware opponents. The opponents the US has faced so far posess NONE of those qualities.

 

Anyway:

Yeah. They considered it before, too, and the gun came back after a short absence on a certain aircraft :)

 

That was the F4 wasn’t it? I remember hearing a story of how some F4 pilots in Vietnam strapped a few gun pods on their Phantoms then went out and shot down 3 migs.. They then sent the defense department a run down of how much each kill cost hehe Something like 300 bucks for downing 2 migs with guns and ten thousand for one missile .. or something that crazy .. I don’t remember the exact figure.

[rlogue]

The RuAF pilots have always been confident they could press into WVR range where the R-73 would give them an advantage.

 

Do you think that this was wishful thinking on their part? ... so then, why the AIM-9X? ...

I'm not so sure that the idea was to survive the BVR engagement and "press" to a WVR, I think the whole idea is they use the datalink, AWACS, etc to vector them into a surprise intercept and fire undetected ... thus avoiding the BVR engagement. I'm definately not swearing to this ... but I am sure I've read this somewhere how the russians rely very heavily on AWACS. Which if this is true, ED has modelled this quite nicely .. the datalink is great in the game for sneaking around undetected.

[GGTharos]

Actually that pilot was specifically talking about surviving BVR and pressing in.

 

And yes, they do rely on GCI and AWACS a LOT in some cases (particularely MiG29) because their radars sucked, which is definitely NOT modelled.

 

US Aircraft also make great use of AWACS and datalinks currently - the difference is, they did not need them as much to aid in search of targets back -then-, compared to Russian fighter radars at the time (when locked on a target, the differences weren't that big ... it's the search that made the difference)

[nscode]

Maybe in some specific tasks, but the general idea was to do it all BVR. Most pilots were never even trained for close combat.

 

Serbian pilots did train for it, a lot, becouse they knew that nato knew they would rely on GCI - no AWACS here, offcorse. I knew where one GCI was, and my father knew, so did my grandmother, and I bett nato knew, but it never got one shot on it... hoped to jam/intercept it. The idea was to sneak up from low level, pop up and do what you can... But, as I sayed before, nothing much you can do if u'r weapon systems don't work... damn hard to fire R-73 on "сетка".

 

sry 4 spelling... no sleep long time ;)