F-15C combat questions

[Pyroflash]

The AMRAAM currently reaches mach 4 when launched from 40,000ft, it has lost speed since a few patches ago when it was reaching mach 6 but it still missed the same back then. The notch is really effective in DCS.

 

It's not really the notch. It's the missile guidance as a whole. Even when aircraft don't make any super effort to evade, the missiles just go dumb. The seeker logic could use a lot of work as well.

 

That being said, Yes. The notch is a really effective maneuver in this game. No clue if it is this effective IRL. Probably not with some of the newer generation signal processors and associated RADAR systems.

[Frostie]

That being said, Yes. The notch is a really effective maneuver in this game. No clue if it is this effective IRL. Probably not with some of the newer generation signal processors and associated RADAR systems.

 

That is part of the problem the actual true performance of the real life AMRAAM is classified, yes it is labeled a mach4 missile with x amount of range but there are no parameters to say at what altitude these figures came about. People will point to figures and stated claims such as 'chaff resistant', 'doppler notch resistant' etc. but there are no unclassified hard facts to back up these claims. The AIM-120 was supposed to be 'fire and forget' and not needing of MCU, that was soon discovered by the RAF to be an audacious claim after abysmal Pk results from tests.

 

Another is HOJ, against a barrage jammer its understandable how this could be effective but modern fighters use DRFM and deception jamming techniques who are we to claim it would be just as effective. How do missile seekers really perform is classified all we have to go on are 'buy our uber missile documents' or actual combat performance with the later showing fairly poor performance from all missiles.

[TAW_Blaze]

IMO fire 'n forget is not necessarily about killing the enemy without having to support your shot all the way, but rather presenting a very firm threat regardless of your aspect past MPRF range. As in a classic fight, against SARH would force him to ditch his missile (unless for some reason he had a better position at the start and maintained it). Now I don't know how much your support gives the missile in DCS past pitbull but I reckon nowhere as much as it does IRL.

[Frostie]

The concept of fire and forget with regards to the AMRAAM is to give the missile all the avaliable info on the target (altitude, speed, aspect etc.) before launch. Then it uses this info combined with its INS to plot an intercept course to the target where it will automatically activate its own radar once it has reached the basket range, all this while the shooter is free to turn away immediately after launch. What looks a perfect way of employing a weapon without risk was proven to be overrated. A good pk method is the cheapshot which is when lock is dropped when HPRF is achieved by the ARH, this is also known as husky and is the first active stage of the missile, the next stage is called pitbull which is when the ARH reaches MPRF at this stage pk should be great. I would imagine the missile is non reliant on the aircraft at locked on active stage.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Frostie

[IASGATG]

Apart from the fact that the type of fuel is publicly known, so the Isp is publicly known. Also the amount of fuel is publicly known, so you can generate a thrust profile of the missile. The shape of the missile is publicly known along with the shell casing material. From this you can generate a CAD model. This can then be run through a CFD to generate a Cd curve. And from this you can work out a relatively accurate approximation of the missile.

 

Apart from all of that yeah, there is no information on the AMRAAM.

 

P.S. Frostie, that PM offer still stands. :)

[GGTharos]

There is more documentation out there than most people know. And we have it.

 

IASGATG is right though, that information may not exist in terms of public accessibility. Doesn't mean it's classified. :)

 

That is part of the problem the actual true performance of the real life AMRAAM is classified, yes it is labeled a mach4 missile with x amount of range but there are no parameters to say at what altitude these figures came about. People will point to figures and stated claims such as 'chaff resistant', 'doppler notch resistant' etc. but there are no unclassified hard facts to back up these claims. The AIM-120 was supposed to be 'fire and forget' and not needing of MCU, that was soon discovered by the RAF to be an audacious claim after abysmal Pk results from tests.

 

Another is HOJ, against a barrage jammer its understandable how this could be effective but modern fighters use DRFM and deception jamming techniques who are we to claim it would be just as effective. How do missile seekers really perform is classified all we have to go on are 'buy our uber missile documents' or actual combat performance with the later showing fairly poor performance from all missiles.

[Frostie]

Apart from the fact that the type of fuel is publicly known, so the Isp is publicly known. Also the amount of fuel is publicly known, so you can generate a thrust profile of the missile. The shape of the missile is publicly known along with the shell casing material. From this you can generate a CAD model. This can then be run through a CFD to generate a Cd curve. And from this you can work out a relatively accurate approximation of the missile.

A CFD is only as accurate as the program, data collected and the user, it's not enough to confirm actual real life performance on a whim, there are so many computations such as balance and weight distribution, strake mechanics and effect, and the effect of turbulence, that will not be known.

 

Throw into that any discrepencies with the CAD model and the experience of the CFD user, just because someone comes up with a representation on a CFD doesn't mean it is correct, a little tweak and you will have a totally different result, there is a reason why aerospace equipment is measured in microns rather than centimetres, without accurate data all you're really doing is making assumptions that your results are correct.

[GGTharos]

While some might operate CFDs without really knowing the subject matter, that isn't what's happening here. So that CFD is actually quite valuable. Not only is the CFD valuable, it can be checked against RL data that we do have.

 

Your philosophizing is nothing short of throwing FUD at the subject.

 

A CFD is only as accurate as the program, data collected and the user, it's not enough to confirm actual real life performance on a whim, there are so many computations such as balance and weight distribution, strake mechanics and effect, and the effect of turbulence, that will not be known.

 

Throw into that any discrepencies with the CAD model and the experience of the CFD user, just because someone comes up with a representation on a CFD doesn't mean it is correct, a little tweak and you will have a totally different result, there is a reason why aerospace equipment is measured in microns rather than centimetres, without accurate data all you're really doing is making assumptions that your results are correct.

[IASGATG]

Well established fact that a 640x320 pixel JPG was imported into CFD xtreme edition and ran for fifteen minutes to generate a 1DOF Cd curve.

[simis]

Frostie, your a make believe fighter pilot on a GAME, stop coming across as an expert. Your displaying nothing but arrogance as well as ignorance.. The 120c in this game is terrible, for every 20 120's I fire I'm lucky if 2 hit. That hit ratio is way off. Stop acting like there isn't something terribly wrong with the 120c because there is. IASGATG knows what hes talking about, I know that for a fact.

[FLANKERATOR]

As far as I read, Frostie has been on the receiving end when it comes to 'insulting'...matter of fact, He IS an expert in DCS and knows what he is talking about especially BVR.

 

It is known that missiles are WIP in DCS, almost all of them, that doesn't mean they're not decently modeled and serve their purpose well in the game. There is always room for improvement but let's not forget that after all, a missile remains a MISSile no matter what, sometimes it will miss for no obvious reason even on a perfectly cooperative target and sometimes, it will hit against all the odds. The R-27ER is still failing when 'on paper' it should hit, the R-77 is much worse...I don't test the AMRAAM much but I believe it needs some tweaking too. Missiles are constantly being improved in DCS just like in RL! The mindset of "I'm that fast, that high, that close so I MUST kill" is not working and will never work. The opponent, the situation and respective awareness play a major role on whether there will be a kill or not, so you may end up firing all your payload on the same guy and still miss. The other way around is also true, you may pull the trigger 3 times in TWS and end up with 3 kills! It all depends on many things besides luck.

[*Rage*]

Frostie, your a make believe fighter pilot on a GAME, stop coming across as an expert. Your displaying nothing but arrogance as well as ignorance.. The 120c in this game is terrible, for every 20 120's I fire I'm lucky if 2 hit. That hit ratio is way off. Stop acting like there isn't something terribly wrong with the 120c because there is. IASGATG knows what hes talking about, I know that for a fact.

 

Have you considered it may be your flying/fighting that is deficit?

[Exorcet]

Frostie, your a make believe fighter pilot on a GAME, stop coming across as an expert.

I don't think he's trying to, at least not an expert outside of the game. He's knowledgeable in game. He's making valid points and I don't think they are for the sake of insults.

 

Your displaying nothing but arrogance as well as ignorance.. The 120c in this game is terrible, for every 20 120's I fire I'm lucky if 2 hit. That hit ratio is way off. Stop acting like there isn't something terribly wrong with the 120c because there is. IASGATG knows what hes talking about, I know that for a fact.

 

I also think AMRAAM is underperforming (and the R-77 probably as well), but what you said above, just giving a Pk, isn't much of a rebuttal. You can get any Pk you want with any weapon by launching only under certain conditions.

 

Frostie, your statement is insulting. We performing the study are professional engineers working in industry, and trying to make our comparisons, as Mr. Tharos stated, to actual released data, technical documents, and manufacturer specifications.

 

I don't think it was an insult, and what was said has some truth in it. Validation is important no matter the level of experience you have. Error management is part of engineering, and there is no limit to how much error you can have, regardless of experience or ability.

 

However, CFD is in general accurate enough that when used correctly, you do get results on par with real life testing. I don't have a problem with your method.

[lunaticfringe]

As far as I read, Frostie has been on the receiving end when it comes to 'insulting'...matter of fact, He IS an expert in DCS and knows what he is talking about especially BVR.

 

He's an expert *in DCS* and I give him credit for it. However, an SML in DCS does not constitute SML with regards to real life; which is what DCS attempts to simulate. And so when individuals come forward with better derived information than that which DCS currently has available which discredits his contention, no amount of "what it does in DCS" matters; values generated by the laws of physics attributed to known information trumps what the system says.

 

It is known that missiles are WIP in DCS, almost all of them, that doesn't mean they're not decently modeled and serve their purpose well in the game.

 

It actually *does* undermine their utility (that is, damages their ability to "serve their purpose") in the simulation.

 

There is always room for improvement but let's not forget that after all, a missile remains a MISSile no matter what, sometimes it will miss for no obvious reason even on a perfectly cooperative target and sometimes, it will hit against all the odds.

 

That's excusing poor or low quality modeling by attributing multiple aspects of real world tendencies; such is a mistaken methodology when attempting to simulate what happens in real life. The reasons that a weapon will fail when in parameters, or succeed on the edges of them, are a known quantity.

 

Weapons should be poor because they are poorly designed on the hardware level, and fail based on their employment (with some averaging towards pure "duds" on a very small basis). They shouldn't just suck because "sometimes a missile sucks".

 

The R-27ER is still failing when 'on paper' it should hit

 

By your logic as presented with respect to missiles being "missiles", and using what the data says, the real world Pk of the R-27 and its derivatives are so poor that they should *never* hit within the DCS simulation.

 

Missiles are constantly being improved in DCS just like in RL!

 

And yet, missiles in DCS have nowhere near their real world Pks; subsequently, this angle amounts to pissing on the assembled and telling them its raining.

[kk0425]

Have you considered it may be your flying/fighting that is deficit?

 

How does poor flying compare to poor missile dynamics?

[*Rage*]

How does poor flying compare to poor missile dynamics?

 

Is an inability to shoot someone down purely the missiles fault?

[kk0425]

Is an inability to shoot someone down purely the missiles fault?

 

I don't think anybody is shooting at rmax with an expectation of a high pk. And you didn't really answer my question.

[Pyroflash]

Is an inability to shoot someone down purely the missiles fault?

 

No, of course not, but if the pilot is doing everything right and things are still not working, then something is going wrong. In the current state of this game, you have to get dangerously close to (or inside of) the A-pole in order to achieve an effective shot. The way it works right now basically almost forces a pilot using the AIM-120 to make a decision that forces him to the merge in order to chance a hit, or to continuously turn tail and run in order to generate spacing; all the while praying to god that the missile does something. ~10 nm is too close to be using effective BVR tactics.

[IASGATG]

To clarify this whole mess, my point has and had nothing to do with pilot skill. It was entirely to do with missile characteristics. As a result Pk is not a factor. Pk is an abstract built around the physics. I'm only interested in the physics, not your abstract, not your skill, not your emotion.

[simis]

@///Rage, I have videos on youtube of me owning people in 104th server as well as others. I'm a very good pilot, whether it be aerobatics or combat. I most definitely fly with some of the best. I can back my talk up, your just throwing out assumptions because your just another ED fanboy who believes ED can do no wrong. I'd love to see your flying abilities because I'll school you anytime buddy. Again Frostie is no expert, not even close. If he was then he would agree that the 120c's are way off as I stated above, that's the bottom line period. Furthermore, people can accuse me of insulting Frostie all they want, he's coming across as arrogant and ignorant, he wants to argue with people who do in fact know what they're talking about. That to me is insulting due to him thinking he's a know it all. It would just be nice if people could be on board with improving the American missiles, because in comparison to all the other missiles the American missiles are garbage, seems to me that theres a lot of flanker fanboys up in here.

[TAW_Blaze]

No, of course not, but if the pilot is doing everything right and things are still not working, then something is going wrong. In the current state of this game, you have to get dangerously close to (or inside of) the A-pole in order to achieve an effective shot. The way it works right now basically almost forces a pilot using the AIM-120 to make a decision that forces him to the merge in order to chance a hit, or to continuously turn tail and run in order to generate spacing; all the while praying to god that the missile does something. ~10 nm is too close to be using effective BVR tactics.

 

In my observation the most notable issue is that nearly every guy you'll face will drag your missiles. Provided the enemy has some kind of altitude he'll shrink your DLZ and unless you were inside NEZ (and it's hard to tell where that is) the missile won't reach him. Now if you're inside NEZ you're most likely inside E-pole aswell so more often than not you'll have a hard time defeating anything that he lobs at you (not so much if you're off already when he fires, but that would imply he either lost you or didn't see you in the first place). Saying that because you may or may not want to get inside E-pole depending on a bunch of things, but generally the answer is not.

 

What you can do is use one slammer early to make him defensive (20-14nm, depending on altitude). Support till it's active then drag his missile to the sides or notch and press again once you think you beat his missile. Provided you were higher on energy you'll be the first to do this since he's still gonna be messing with your first slammer, leaving all that time for you to close the distance and if he decides to re-engage you can just pop one more with a much higher pk and little chance of return fire (good luck for him finding you in a matter of 2 seconds before he has to deal with your new missile). If the situation allows you can maintain the crank and observe what happens, if he couldn't return fire you can follow up for a third shot in case the second missed, although I'd expect to see heavy dragging from the opponent at this point.

 

I'm not saying that's going to work everytime, but I'm not expecting to kill a seasoned enemy pilot with one missile (unless I managed to ambush him). In the meantime, I won't bother to talk how good the missiles are IRL or how bad they are ingame, I have no clue about it so I'll leave it to those who know it better. Hopefully in the future they'll get it right, until then I can only use what I got. :)

Edited February 10, 2014 by <Blaze>

[FLANKERATOR]

@lunaticfringe:

 

We are all open to anything that could make DCS a better simulation and as I already mentioned, the sim is not perfect, there is and there will always be room for improvement just like the missile will never be 100% foolproof no matter how you implement it in the game. There are way too many parameters and factors that affect the performance in RL and no algorithm can deal with all of that.

You remember that missile effectiveness slider in earlier versions? all you can do is bring it all the way to the right, you can keep enhancing all you want, you may end up with an over modeled version similar to what we had in the past and I think this also plays a significant factor in frustrating average Eagle drivers that got used to easy TWS kills or even new comers with less to no experience in the sim. You don't see proficient F-15 pilots moaning about it because of the right mindset and true understanding of BVR in the sim.

 

So once again, no one is discrediting those guys' work, if it can improve the sim and bring it closer to RL, let it be. No one is 'pissing on the assembled', there are just different opinions going into the mix. Has anyone of you guys tried the R-77? it's a joke compared to the 120.

 

Little suggestion for all as a bottom line: how about including an acmi to back up claims, we would have a more constructive conversation.

[*Rage*]

Little suggestion for all as a bottom line: how about including an acmi to back up claims, we would have a more constructive conversation.

 

Precisely. Crying about a low pK is meaningless without context. I would even argue one acmi is not enough. Show a consistent and reproducible fault and then we have something to talk about.

[Frostie]

Frostie, your statement is insulting. We performing the study are professional engineers working in industry, and trying to make our comparisons, as Mr. Tharos stated, to actual released data, technical documents, and manufacturer specifications.

 

We are using ANSYS CFX and Matlab. Please tell me how much experience you have with these programs. Could you also please tell us how we could show that a CFD model and missile drag or lift curve generated with computer code matches that of reality? I'm curious what your criteria are. I agree that an uneducated user could easily botch an analysis, but we are not uneducated users. :joystick:

I am genuinely sorry if you find my statement insulting but you've never presented yourself as a missile tester producing results for ED before now, so how can you read my statements as being directed at you. I listed some possible requirements and how hard it could be to achieve accurate results and never once mentioned your credentials or that someone in particular is not up to the task. I just found it hard to believe that someone could take apart an AMRAAM and measure every part to conclude its proportions. If you say you have an accurate measurement of every part of an AMRAAM within 200 microns then that is a fairly accurate representation, though some parts would probably be toleranced to 50 microns.

Even so as GG says just having actual RL data to compare with what figures you come up with can benefit all.

 

I'm am grateful for your work on improving the AMRAAM in this regard but surely I have the right to question what sort of input is going into this sim and surely by doing so it shouldn't have to degenerate into insults, statements such as its right because we say so just create questions of doubt.

 

Part of the notion of the AMRAAM is screwed in DCS comes from the fact that people have come accustomed to Falcons AMRAAM being almost a death ray for the last 15 years, which is right and which is wrong, who knows but a lot of people hold out for Falcon as being the pinnacle of simulation, this IMO is where it gets ugly. Its as though Falcon has set the benchmark for many of what an AMRAAM should be like, almost brainwashed. There are issues with all the missiles in DCS that are not AFM WIP but these are seeker/chaff/notch related, I did ask a few years back if we were going to have a DCS:AMRAAM but that seemed a long way off, lets hope ED can sort it and all missiles out.

[karambiatos]

The main issue i find in the game is that the missiles do crazy high G maneuvers to intercept an enemy thats far away and not doing much of anything, losing a lot of speed in the process, this inherent tracking issue, becomes even more obvious in MP, where planes are very jumpy, you can lose lock on an enemy, just because when you shoot his connection decides to launch him in outer space. That is an extreme example, but there are plenty of small yet jerky jumps when you look at a client in DCS World.