S77th-GOYA Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 I just ran a test mission with three excellent tungs spaced 10 nm apart. I fired 1 maverick D at each from max range and the Tungs didn't engage the mavs once. Boom, boom and boom. Can someone confirm that this is fixed?
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Not sure about the S6, Goya, but the 13s still gave a valiant, but completely fruitless effort at shooting down my 65Ds. I'm still not sure why a vehicle with limited armament would attempt something like shooting down the missile itself. The laws of physics are against their survival...but they still try. Sad. Oh well...they're only targets.
Yellonet Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 If I couldn't get to cover or exit my vehicle I would try to fire the missile down even with bad odds. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Oh, absolutely. But they're not firing on a missile guiding on them. Many times they fire after the missile has already flown by them and has just a couple hundred more feet to fly to hit another vehicle. They miss every time.
nscode Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 It shouldn't be like thet.. they shouldn't miss every time. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
ARM505 Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 No, they shouldn't take futile shots that could never have hit, ever.....
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 It shouldn't be like thet.. they shouldn't miss every time. In that situtation, yes, they should miss every time. The SAM has to catch up with the Maverick that has flown by and, if the Mav is close enough to its target...well...boom. ;) Wasted missile. The real ones don't have an unlimited supply of missiles, so I can't imagine they'd take a shot like that.
192nd_Erdem Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Here we go again... Russki vs American "lovers".
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Here we go again... Russki vs American "lovers". Nah...I just failed to explain the scenario I was referring to in my first post. No complaints really. I just thought the SAM behavior was a little silly and futile. :D
Force_Feedback Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Meh, too bad, after all, it was proven that the Tung was designed with a capability to successfully engage cruise missiles and "Standard Arm" missiles. Oh well, I guess it was to statisfy the people that only fly the F-15 and A-10 out of principles ;) Am I the only one, or are the Aim-120, r-77 and MICA RF even worse at homing in on their targets than in 1.11? I set the missile slider at 65-70% and even then those missiles miss, on all occasions, to hit a F-16C on Average with ECM, within 10nm/14 km :p Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
nscode Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 ough, it's a sam... sorry, i thought you was talking about some AAA, didn't pay enough attention.. yes, I agree in that case.. one other thing is a storry that happens in ironhands strela hunt tutorial, where he goes against a strela that is assigned to protect some vehicels. If crew knows they have just 4 trys, they would never try to down a plane that is not yet attaking, or at least not with all 4 missiles. On other hand, if the attacking missile was far away enough and spotted on time, it should have good chance of hit. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Meh, too bad, after all, it was proven that the Tung was designed with a capability to successfully engage cruise missiles and "Standard Arm" missiles. Categories that don't cover missiles like the Maverick. ;)
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 On other hand, if the attacking missile was far away enough and spotted on time, it should have good chance of hit. Agreed. From where I usually launch though, there isn't much time for a SAM to engage my missile.
SwingKid Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Meh, too bad, after all, it was proven that the Tung was designed with a capability to successfully engage cruise missiles and "Standard Arm" missiles. Link? -SK
192nd_Erdem Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Categories that don't cover missiles like the Maverick. ;) Well you can put an only 800kmh flying "huge for it's size" missile in these categories ;)
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 MUCH shorter flight duration than missiles in those categories. ;)
192nd_Erdem Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 On the contrary, I can understand that a low and slow flying cruise missile doesn't get intercepted, because it's "undetected" by the Tunguska, Thor and whatever because it's their coffee time; but you would be ready to intercept a Maverick the moment it's launched when a roaring A-10 comes by and brings destruction to your scene ;) :)
nscode Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 ...or just shoot down the A10 :) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Force_Feedback Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Link? -SK Browse the famous Tunguska thread, there is a link for a .rar with the Russian article in it, describing the Tung in detail (up to the capabilities of the search, tracking and fire control systems). It's called tung.rar. The pantsyr system is even designed for AGM interception, it can engage, marvericks, hellfires and Walleyes, but is 10 years newer than the Tunguska. The Tunguska-M has an improved anti-missile capability, due to the radio fused missiles. BTW, the vanilla Tunguska's missiles are moddeled all wrong in lomac, the second stage in unpowered and has no smoke train, while the 1st stage accelerates the penetrator to 960/980 m/s in 2.6 seconds. (also from that article) Just read that article section, it states the vanilla Tunguska was designed with a capability to defend ground forces from missiles of the type "Shrike" and "Standard Arm" Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 On the contrary, I can understand that a low and slow flying cruise missile doesn't get intercepted, because it's "undetected" by the Tunguska, Thor and whatever because it's their coffee time; but you would be ready to intercept a Maverick the moment it's launched when a roaring A-10 comes by and brings destruction to your scene ;) :) Yup...understood. The problem I was talking about is the closure rate between the two missiles. ;)
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 ...or just shoot down the A10 :) That's what I'd do if I were a SAM operator. It doesn't make sense to wait until the A-10 launches. :D
SwingKid Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Browse the famous Tunguska thread, there is a link for a .rar with the Russian article in it, describing the Tung in detail (up to the capabilities of the search, tracking and fire control systems). It's called tung.rar. That's not a link. http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=134143&postcount=124 That's a link. Hmm, handsome fellow... I wonder if he read the article. -SK
169th_Crusty Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Meh, too bad, after all, it was proven that the Tung was designed with a capability to successfully engage cruise missiles and "Standard Arm" missiles. Oh well, I guess it was to statisfy the people that only fly the F-15 and A-10 out of principles ;) Am I the only one, or are the Aim-120, r-77 and MICA RF even worse at homing in on their targets than in 1.11? I set the missile slider at 65-70% and even then those missiles miss, on all occasions, to hit a F-16C on Average with ECM, within 10nm/14 km :p Although this thread is not about ARH missiles, but... since mentioned it; I noticed one thing with IA set on excellent, they will do a "perfect notch" every time at exactly the right time :)... I spent 8 slammers before wacking an AI Flanker armed with ERs
Force_Feedback Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Although this thread is not about ARH missiles, but... since mentioned it; I noticed one thing with IA set on excellent, they will do a "perfect notch" every time at exactly the right time :)... I spent 8 slammers before wacking an AI Flanker armed with ERs Same here, the AI does a text book notch, even on average, spent all slammers and winders to nail them (still 2 f16s survived), had to gun them down, lol, notch that. Hmm, handsome fellow... I wonder if he read the article. I translated it for you, you silly :p Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
nscode Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Although this thread is not about ARH missiles, but... since mentioned it; I noticed one thing with IA set on excellent, they will do a "perfect notch" every time at exactly the right time :)... I spent 8 slammers before wacking an AI Flanker armed with ERs That's what I do :) except for the every time bit :D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Recommended Posts