ALARM missile range and behavior

Having worked on aircraft armed with these in the past, I was curious as to how they've been modeled in DCS. Answer is not very well....I realize some things have to be compromised in simulations but it would be nice if the missiles behavior and range was a bit more accurate:

1. There are a number of launch modes with the real missile. If there is have no radiation source the missile can be launched passive, it then climbs and hangs around on a chute until it detects a threat. That would be useful to model.

2. The range seems somewhat limited (or the AI wait too long before launching) The real range of the missile is around 94km.

I get the feeling sometimes that Russian weapons are modeled more accurately than the NATO ones, this gives a rather one sided slant to red on blue confrontations.....

Nice point to raise about weapon balancing pyates, I've noticed I seem to get more hits with Russian A2A then with NATO.

Also to digress on the Alarm, the mode your talking about was named it's Loiter Mode. It could also choose this itself after being fired when in Dual Mode if the active radar it was targeted at switched off whilst the missle was heading towards it. Then as you say climb high, deploy a chute and slowly decend loitering around waiting for the target radar to become active again, fire a secondary motor and bang your dead. There were 5 modes in all but cant remember the specifics. Just had somthing to do with wether you allready knew location/distence and if it was static or moblie.

Would be nifty to see it work in game if any of the devs are reading. And not to seem like i'm issuing a challange:music_whistling: but for those who can remember "Tornado" on the Amiga the Alarm model in that did actually loiter.

I get the feeling sometimes that Russian weapons are modeled more accurately than the NATO ones, this gives a rather one sided slant to red on blue confrontations.....

All weapons are modeled as accurately as is possible given the following constraints:

1) Legally useable documentation.

2) Applicability to relevant player-controled modules.

3) Time constraints; weapons that are used more commonly by users will be given more attention.

Basically, all weapons will have "errors", but different weapons will have different errors.

If you have documentation that you are legally able to share, please do so. :)

But please note that sometimes such documents are able to be shared, but they are still illegal to use. In sweden, for example, you can have a bunch of documents that are legal to share (not "secret") each on their own, but the moment you use them together you become a felon (they are "secret" when used together; yes, this is weird as heck, but I guess that's why it does take a while to study for a law degree. :P ).

I was thinking about this just the other day, hopefully the Alarm modelling will get changed when the third party Tornado is finished.

Currently the way it works is way off, apart from the the lack of loiter mode the attack profile is also wrong. Alarm is design to home on the Side lobes of radars, when it is launched, it should go into a steep climb and then run towards the target at high altitude 70K +(possible why the in game range is quite low).

It should then attack the radar almost vertically, this makes it much more accurate than most ARMS and allows a smaller warhead. It also means that once it is over the target it isn`t detectable by the radar opearator and there fore less likely they will shut down.

It also has the ability to be programmed with a series of way points, so it could for example be progammed to overfly a series of know SAM sites and attack any that are transmitting.

I don`t know if it would be possible to write a script in game that sets a way point at 70K and have the missile target it, this would mimic the loiter mode? (with out the chute)

Very cool weapon, I also would like to see a more accurate depiction of it.

Is the ALARM only used by the Brits and the Saudis and only on the Tornado? Why is that? Is the ALARM so much more expensive? According to Wikipedia, one HARM is $284 000 and the Brits payed £400 million for 750 missiles (in the 80's) which would make it approaching $800 000 per missile (disregarding inflation). Could it really be so expensive?

The Typhoon is likely to be the first 3rd party aircraft to be released that can carry the ALARM, not sure anyone has announced they are doing a Tornado yet. I assume it will be up to the 3rd party developers to simulate the weapons on their aircraft??

I fondly remember using ALARMs in DIs' Tornado and they are so much more tactically useful than HARMs or the russian ARMs.

Is the ALARM only used by the Brits and the Saudis and only on the Tornado? Why is that? Is the ALARM so much more expensive? According to Wikipedia, one HARM is $284 000 and the Brits payed £400 million for 750 missiles (in the 80's) which would make it approaching $800 000 per missile (disregarding inflation). Could it really be so expensive?

Its about economys of scale, the $800 000 includes development cost. I would guess that thousands of HARMS have been built, giving a lower unit cost.

Its about economys of scale, the $800 000 includes development cost. I would guess that thousands of HARMS have been built, giving a lower unit cost.

And dont forget about good old British politics where some old fart gets a back hander from the manufacturer to top up his pension. :doh:Doh, did i say that out loud.

Plus cost over runs and all that..

British missiles are cool lol. :) Some more info here on the different launch modes.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/alarm.cfm

In Area Suppression mode the missile can be fired in the direction of radars whose positions are unknown and it will engage the highest priority target for attack. In Direct mode the missile is pre-programmed with threat radars and executes a box-search for them after launch, homing onto the highest priority target.The missile can be pre-loaded with a prioritised file of hostile radars, for which it will search after launch.

Some Tornado F3s were modified to carry ALARMs for operations over Iraq during 2003.

I'd love to see Brimstone modelled at some point in the future too.

I recall reading or seeing on TV that when the RAF first tested and fired these things for real, the pilots were shocked and thought that the missiles had misfired and went ballistic, as they didn't know or weren't told that directly after launch the ALARM missile climbs up past the launching aircraft and then dives towards its target in a near vertical profile.

The pilots didn't know before firing them that the missile once fired goes into a steep climb, which then made them think that something had gone wrong, but after a few minutes or so they realised that they did indeed destroy the target/s.

It would feel like I'll be cheating if I use the ALARM missile.... In MP anyway..

It would feel like I'll be cheating if I use the ALARM missile.... In MP anyway..

Why?

I'd love to see Brimstone modelled at some point in the future too.

But it would only vear off and go chasing after a caravan. :megalol:

But it would only vear off and go chasing after a caravan. :megalol:

Or Vanessa Feltz. Much the same thing. :D

:megalol::megalol::megalol::lol::lol::lol::megalol::megalol::megalol::lol::lol::lol:

And dont forget about good old British politics where some old fart gets a back hander from the manufacturer to top up his pension. :doh:Doh, did i say that out loud.

Ha, I was just about to say something along those lines. The MOD seems to adopt the X2 +0 technique of procurement....

Or Vanessa Feltz. Much the same thing. :D

Biggles,

Is that the Biggles from RAFG who had an ejection seat in his house?:pilotfly:

All weapons are modeled as accurately as is possible given the following constraints:

 

1) Legally useable documentation.

2) Applicability to relevant player-controled modules.

3) Time constraints; weapons that are used more commonly by users will be given more attention.

 

Basically, all weapons will have "errors", but different weapons will have different errors.

If you have documentation that you are legally able to share, please do so. :)

But please note that sometimes such documents are able to be shared, but they are still illegal to use. In sweden, for example, you can have a bunch of documents that are legal to share (not "secret") each on their own, but the moment you use them together you become a felon (they are "secret" when used together; yes, this is weird as heck, but I guess that's why it does take a while to study for a law degree. :P ).

I was thinking that was the case...I don't think the launch modes are public domain, so I'd have to kill myself if I had any remaining documentation, which I don't. BUT... I'm suspecting the reason is time, or are you saying you can't model anything without fully supporting documentation?