Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

I can think of another example where it would be beneficial to make enemy think you have fired at him... and this is when you have numbers advantage and have multiple groups approaching from different directions... you might want to have one group getting the STT lock and bait... while secondary is approaching with real missile inbound or about to be fired.

 

And as Weta already said, sometimes all you want is enemy to go defensive and abort.

Today, wars are fought differently then in 20th century, and modern aerial warfare is no exception. Shooting down an aircraft is the just an icing on a cake. For example, if you shoot a missile at the enemy bomber that doesn't hit it but just forces him to jettison ordnance and head back, you have accomplished your mission (the bomber didn't destroy his intended target). Same goes for air superiority: good example was the First war in the Gulf. If you force your enemy to sit on the ground or flee, you have won.

Today, wars are fought differently then in 20th century, and modern aerial warfare is no exception. Shooting down an aircraft is the just an icing on a cake. For example, if you shoot a missile at the enemy bomber that doesn't hit it but just forces him to jettison ordnance and head back, you have accomplished your mission (the bomber didn't destroy his intended target). Same goes for air superiority: good example was the First war in the Gulf. If you force your enemy to sit on the ground or flee, you have won.

That's why I think the AMRAAM isn't that useless in the game after all. If I apply the right tactics and manage to get in good enough launch parameters one time after another to keep the bandits busy or cause them to retreat I'm content in fulfilling my mission (air superiority). That works quite well with the actual AMRAAM. Of course most bandits when having shot their ERs and ETs don't want to just retreat and do some silly things and then You get them. And sometimes they're just unpatient and do this before that. :D

To get back on topic. I think that the problem is the ER is coded to currently lose guidance on a blind corner(3-9), there is not encoded latent period of a few seconds for these condition. Is not needed as much as five seconds like fighters radar. That is just a second or two, the problem to be solved. Large angle deflection in these conditions not allowed ER to return back to the target.

Indeed. And not just for purely aeronautical reasons. The russian drivers would be screaming hell and damnation unless it was 'balanced' out somehow :music_whistling::smilewink:

i dont fly the f-15 :thumbup:

This is not an ER problem specifically.

But, in the case of ER, the carrier aircraft already uses radar memory, so you get those 4 sec of an aircraft flying through the notch.

Contrast with TWS in F-15 where a plane that does a 180 drop the bug because it went through the notch.

With an AIM-7 or R-27, guiding with STT from their respective planes, you won't lose guidance against someone who always ducks into or through the notch for less than those few seconds. Now, if he uses chaff ...

To get back on topic. I think that the problem is the ER is coded to currently lose guidance on a blind corner(3-9), there is not encoded latent period of a few seconds for these condition. Is not needed as much as five seconds like fighters radar. That is just a second or two, the problem to be solved. Large angle deflection in these conditions not allowed ER to return back to the target.

Contrast with TWS in F-15 where a plane that does a 180 drop the bug because it went through the notch.

Indeed, that's a pretty annoying 'feature'. :D

...guiding with STT from their respective planes, you won't lose guidance against someone who always ducks into or through the notch for less than those few seconds. Now, if he uses chaff ...

I think A2A-SARH will slip if the yaw angle large, and if the distance is small for a small fraction of a second (without chaff), although I'm not sure whether the difference with pings between players in multyplay has an impact...

Contrast with TWS in F-15 where a plane that does a 180 drop the bug because it went through the notch.

It is difficult to say whether each situation is identical result. e.g. is not the same whether the ground effect as water and rocks (high effect), forests or arable land (low effect). I am understand software-gyroscopic memory, but this has limited under different conditions.

I think A2A-SARH will slip if the yaw angle large, and if the distance is small for a small fraction of a second (without chaff), although I'm not sure whether the difference with pings between players in multyplay has an impact...

Network latency and jitter has some effect, but it shouldn't be huge IMHO unless it's a really bad connection.

Regarding yaw angle etc, now we are talking about different things - are we talking about the gimbal tracking rate being defeated or something else? Small distances can and do cause large problems, but it's a complex subject and difficult to say what's wrong and what's not without knowing what the guidance circuits do :)

It is difficult to say whether each situation is identical result. e.g. is not the same whether the ground effect as water and rocks (high effect), forests or arable land (low effect). I am understand software-gyroscopic memory, but this has limited under different conditions.

For AMRAAM, you have AIM-120 memory + intercept plan + datalinked target position. As a realistic (not in-game) example. The APG-63 will keep the track alive for as long as you programmed it to, so target turning right around and dropping the track is not likely, I'd even say may not possible. If he goes into the notch, he has to stay there for a long time depending on the exact TWS mode he's being tracked in. The TWS track file is pretty serious computing business in this arena, but it's not implement in DCS for any of the planes :)

Regarding yaw angle etc, now we are talking about different things - are we talking about the gimbal tracking rate being defeated or something else?

Yep, mistake. Difficulties in translation. Sorry

Quick question, the game is simulated V1 or V2 radar?

Today, wars are fought differently then in 20th century, and modern aerial warfare is no exception. Shooting down an aircraft is the just an icing on a cake. For example, if you shoot a missile at the enemy bomber that doesn't hit it but just forces him to jettison ordnance and head back, you have accomplished your mission (the bomber didn't destroy his intended target).

Yep. THat's what I have said many times here regarding IAD. It doesn't have to hit anything all the time. Merely forcing certain flight restrictions on the opponent (eg. 15kft deck) is one example.

No problem.

The radar in game is at most APG-70/63v1. Actually, that is the intent, but it is missing capability that pre-MSIP radars had.

If it was v2, you could forget about having the simulated MiGs or Sus that are user playable of ever doing BVR with an Eagle - they'd never jam it, they'd never get a lock on it.

And we wouldn't care to switch between RWS/TWS ... in fact, it might not exist or make sense, as those radars like to run in SWT mode :)

Yep, mistake. Difficulties in translation. Sorry

 

Quick question, the game is simulated V1 or V2 radar?

No problem.

 

in fact, it might not exist or make sense, as those radars like to run in SWT mode :)

Care to say what SWT stands for? And what does this mode do? Never heard of it, just a vague description is enough :)

Care to say what SWT stands for? And what does this mode do? Never heard of it, just a vague description is enough :)

This

Scan While Track

Care to say what SWT stands for? And what does this mode do? Never heard of it, just a vague description is enough :)

here's where you can read some stuff on it

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-63.htm

It's not always going to be there to take - particularly if they already know where you are, are heading your way, and already show every sign of being about to send something your way.

Not true, logically. If he's already prepped to send something of commiserate range at you, he's also smart enough to manage the poles to avoid a real round coming his way while getting his shot off. These things do not function in a vacuum. And your prospective "non-shooter" now has a problem- lay odds in closing to take what may be a shot that will never come, sucking on a BVR weapon that he will likely never pick up visually, or pull a split-S, unload, and live to fight another day?

He gets out. Otherwise, the guy with the BVR weapon is going to know real quick that something is up based on the response, and be ready for it.

The only time a pilot is going to employ SIM mode (which exactly what is being discussed here) on a radar to scare an opponent is due to ROE. You are letting an opponent who is in an aggressive stance that has not fired that you are well in position to kill him with the shift in information available to his RWR, and that if he doesn't get his act together, you will do just that. I have spoken with a number of pilots who, based on specific circumstances, have done just that with opposing aircraft in multiple corners of the world.

And every one of them will tell you- if they were permitted to lob a live weapon, they'd have done that instead.

ROE isn't a factor here; this is a weapons hot environment, thus you get out when you're winchester. If you're forced to press a bad situation and close without the pertinent stick, it's because either you screwed up, or someone above your paygrade screwed up for you. But don't think for one second that you're being smart, coy, sly, or fooling anybody.

Hi,

I’ve made a bunch of tests were I was flying the Su-27 with R-27ER against the AI F-4E armed with the AIM-7 and the AI F/A-18C armed with the 120C. Both excellent.

It was a head on encounter with start speed of 500 km/h and 4,000 meters of altitude for each aircraft and the distance between then was 80 km.

For the first test against the F-4E I’ve discovered that if you do not follow a few procedures the missile will simple miss no matter if you have a radar lock all the time.

After the determination of the fire procedure I managed 95% kill ratio with the R-27ER against the F-4E. I’ve fired 45 missiles in this test.

The procedure is a little complex and if you don`t follow it the missile is going to miss.

Procedure:

Speed. Before firing your speed has to be at least 1,200 km/h (It has to me more than 1,170km/h). In the game, I discovered that if the R-27ER reaches the target with a speed less than 1,180km/h the proximity fuse will not work and with a speed less than 1,080km/h the missile will lose the target lock no matter if you have a radar lock. (I’ve observed this firing the R-27ER without using the procedure. I’ve fired 60 missiles to reach this conclusion).

Altitude. Before firing your plane has to be 2,000 above the target. You cannot be more or less higher than that.

Time. As soon as you receive the launch authorized (LA) star the plane’s clock and wait 15 seconds to fire your missile. Wait the clock reach the 15 seconds to pull the trigger. In fact, with the delay, the missile will be fired at the 17 second.

As soon as you fire the missile you have to lose altitude and turn to keep the enemy aircraft at 45o from you. You have to keep your plane’s altitude always 200 meters under the target (I don`t know if I’m using the correct English, so I will give an example – If your target has an altitude of 6,000 meters your altitude cannot be more than 5,800).

When the clock that you have started when you received the LA reaches 50 seconds the missile will probably hit the F-4E.

Now the F/A-18! Using the same procedure and testing the same 45 time my kill ratio was 0%! When the missile reaches a speed of 2,000km/h it goes directly to the chaff.

This test was made with the version 1.2.8.

A few points: I haven’t the FC3 with the version 1.2.7, but I’ve made a lot of AI vs AI tests and the R-27ER was deadly. I believe that with this version it would not be necessary to create a special procedure to fire the missile.

I don’t know if this is a bug or intentional, but this started to occur because of the “Reworked chaff and flare rejecting logic for AA and SAM missiles” on the version 1.2.8.

The AIM-120C is useless no matter the version.

All of this tests are made in the single player environment only.

80Km.

Can you customize your procedure to 10km?

But :thumbup: for topic refresh :)

Yes, the R-27ER WILL lose lock at 60 sec or will appear to, because that is how long the missile is powered/has hydraulics.

Speed. Before firing your speed has to be at least 1,200 km/h (It has to me more than 1,170km/h). In the game, I discovered that if the R-27ER reaches the target with a speed less than 1,180km/h the proximity fuse will not work and with a speed less than 1,080km/h the missile will lose the target lock no matter if you have a radar lock. (I’ve observed this firing the R-27ER without using the procedure. I’ve fired 60 missiles to reach this conclusion).

If you've seen some drag charts for DCS missiles this is not so surprising.

Altitude. Before firing your plane has to be 2,000 above the target. You cannot be more or less higher than that.

I doubt it. You could be higher up if the range is not extremely short (such as 20km or less), but it might be useful to fire in a dive in that case.

Time. As soon as you receive the launch authorized (LA) star the plane’s clock and wait 15 seconds to fire your missile. Wait the clock reach the 15 seconds to pull the trigger. In fact, with the delay, the missile will be fired at the 17 second.

It's a matter of range, your speed, his speed, your altitude, his altitude, both aspects, and another set of things. Saying the time when you fired is essentially useless especially because you didn't describe any of the above mentioned.

As soon as you fire the missile you have to lose altitude and turn to keep the enemy aircraft at 45o from you. You have to keep your plane’s altitude always 200 meters under the target (I don`t know if I’m using the correct English, so I will give an example – If your target has an altitude of 6,000 meters your altitude cannot be more than 5,800).

Well, anything inside the gimbal will work, if you go closer to the gimbals it might lose lock. If you dive too hard the radar might not be able to point at the target because of physical limits. Other than that, of course you want to be below the target, the russian radars are nowhere as good in a look down situation. How much you're below him doesn't matter as long as he's within the radar's physical limits (probably advisable to keep him from being too close to the limits, if he maneuvers you'll lose him).

Now the F/A-18! Using the same procedure and testing the same 45 time my kill ratio was 0%! When the missile reaches a speed of 2,000km/h it goes directly to the chaff.

I haven't seen your test so I can't be sure but I've seen the AI do some pretty sick notches and they'll do it quite reliably if you're the first guy shooting at them. If that's the case, no wonder it'll go for the chaff.

I believe that with this version it would not be necessary to create a special procedure to fire the missile.

It isn't.

My suggestion is that they dont have enough space....I've noticed that they are not very good at close range as they need some time to pick up the radar lock.... I am pretty sure they will hit if you move them further back like 15 miles or smthing....On a second watch tho....What do u expect from bots...He fired at you and then he started climbing with burner when you were going for the deck...He is not even trying to guide the missiles (talking about the furthest one from the track)

Launch R-27ER with range, at the moment of impact it has the speed 2300km / h. Stay below the enemy, switch to the frequency of the outgoing targets. Chance to hit is enormous! :thumbup: Over it don't be surprised if something does not hit... And watch out of AMRAAM :D

You did not need 60 launch. Don't waste time. Calculate at what speed and altitude missile can pull 7G and that is it.

You did not need 60 launch. Don't waste time. Calculate at what speed and altitude missile can pull 7G and that is it.

Hi,

Well I had time to fire 60 missiles (in fact more than that). The Brazilian game in the world cup is a holiday here. Well, I don’t care about football (A Brazilian that doesn’t care about football, that’s the end of the world!), my wife was sleeping and nobody wanted to climb with me. So let’s fire some R-27s.

As I work with statistics (I’m a risk manager), I need a good sample!

Ok, I committed a mistake on my last report. The pilot skill of the F-4E wasn’t excellent. It was in high! Sorry!

With excellent skill it is impossible to hit! Same result with the excellent F/A-18C!

Other point is that I only score a kill against the Turkish F-4E, with the German one it’s impossible even with the skill level in high (I haven’t tried many shoots this time).

Anyway, I’ve attached the track against the F-4, please tell me if I can do anything different.

Thank you

F-4E High Turk.trk

I have the impression that you're flying only single player. For it, your tactic is good.

Missile Guidance

So, I know that is a well known issue that the missiles with the AFM have terrible accuracy mainly due to their awful guidance. In FC2, lock on, etc, there was no AFM but the missiles were far more useful at longer ranges. If there is anyone who knows, what exactly went wrong with the guidance and why is it taking so long to fix? I've been watching the missiles in tacview and F6 and they do the stupidest most unexplainable things, such as pointing to the left while trying to lead a target going down and right.......

The guidance is the same. AFM didn't create guidance problems (and may have helped a few things). The thing is, there is a far greater penalty for poor guidance methods with AFM than without, which is why range fell. With proper lofting and smarter tracking range should go up for high speed, high altitude launches, probably.

So basically, ED needs to add advanced guidance which will be a process like adding AFM to missiles.

Despite the issues I'm glad that AFM was added. I wouldn't mind a temporary fudging of numbers until we get advanced guidance, but ED feels that's not the right route to take.