Amraams in the recent updates

Over the last 20 years considering the opposition has been extremely inferior there has been quite a few radar guided hits on NATO aircraft.

I agree with that regarding losses due to SAMs. The only loss I can recall is that F-18C shot down by a Mig-25 during the Gulf War back in 91 (and I'm not even sure if that's a confirmed kill).

Going back to the root issue of this thread, most of 104th pilots would say that missiles are behaving even worse after the last update: not only the AMRAAMs, but also the 27s(ET and ER) and the 73s as well, having been in situations where the launch parameters were optimal but the missiles just refused to even lock on the bandit and went dud straight away. So for now the only thing that we can do is wait for the final DCS 2.5 and just launch missiles at bandits like if it was a Veritech fighter in Robotech

Best Regards,

Veritech

Aparently that loss is confirmed.

Again, Wikipiedia sometimes is the second to worst source of information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign#Losses

I agree with that regarding losses due to SAMs. The only loss I can recall is that F-18C shot down by a Mig-25 during the Gulf War back in 91 (and I'm not even sure if that's a confirmed kill).

 

Going back to the root issue of this thread, most of 104th pilots would say that missiles are behaving even worse after the last update: not only the AMRAAMs, but also the 27s(ET and ER) and the 73s as well, having been in situations where the launch parameters were optimal but the missiles just refused to even lock on the bandit and went dud straight away. So for now the only thing that we can do is wait for the final DCS 2.5 and just launch missiles at bandits like if it was a Veritech fighter in Robotech

 

Best Regards,

 

Veritech

I dont think the missiles became worse.. At least i did not notice any change. The only big change i noticed is that the MP pilots are becoming better and better in defeating them. And they are doing the right thing at the right time. Try to fly at different time frames and you notice this. In between 6 AM GMT and 5 PM GMT you need to do anything to survive and hit a guy. Around 6 PM till 5 AM GMT you can happily fly around killing up to 5 people in one sortie. Disperse them and kill them one by one. Now try that around 6 AM GMT and it becomes considerably harder to get up to 3 or 4 kills in a sortie. And a lot of times you just have to do with only 1 or 2 kills.

I dont think the missiles became worse.. At least i did not notice any change. The only big change i noticed is that the MP pilots are becoming better and better in defeating them. And they are doing the right thing at the right time. Try to fly at different time frames and you notice this. In between 6 AM GMT and 5 PM GMT you need to do anything to survive and hit a guy. Around 6 PM till 5 AM GMT you can happily fly around killing up to 5 people in one sortie. Disperse them and kill them one by one. Now try that around 6 AM GMT and it becomes considerably harder to get up to 3 or 4 kills in a sortie. And a lot of times you just have to do with only 1 or 2 kills.

I do agree that skill can variate a lot with the time when you are in the server, but other pilota noticed a sudden change after the update, is not only me. But again, your point is as well right.

I dont think the missiles became worse.. At least i did not notice any change. The only big change i noticed is that the MP pilots are becoming better and better in defeating them. And they are doing the right thing at the right time. Try to fly at different time frames and you notice this. In between 6 AM GMT and 5 PM GMT you need to do anything to survive and hit a guy. Around 6 PM till 5 AM GMT you can happily fly around killing up to 5 people in one sortie. Disperse them and kill them one by one. Now try that around 6 AM GMT and it becomes considerably harder to get up to 3 or 4 kills in a sortie. And a lot of times you just have to do with only 1 or 2 kills.

Lol are you implying the europeans are less proficient than the north americans?!

I beg to differ:)

 

Btw, IR is not an active but a passive seeker.

I know that, which is why I "included" them in the active section because they still "look for targets"...the fact they don´t give off emissions on their own makes them passive, but they still "actively" look for targets on their own, thus making them lag-resistant.

Instead of relying on your AC to tell them where to go.

My phrasing might be off.

Also, I did some experimentation with the AMRAAM...I heard alot of complaints that the AIM-120s maximum range would be somewhere around 15 nautical miles ingame and people complained and complained.

So I went up to 40000 feet+, acelerated to over Mach-1 and launched on a similarily fast enemy on hot aspect from 40 nm...my Radar didn´t even lock him before Rmax, which was around 45-50nm...

Similar results in the Flanker, 90km launch range for R27ER

Ya´ll want BVR right now, gotta go high and fast, not play airquake XD

Yeah, the phrasing is very misleading, because active literally means to emit to receive. Passive literally means not to emit to receive.

As for these "Long range, high alt, high speed shots". You're free to try them but you'll still miss every shot until around 12nmi. Shooting against easy AI that does a 2g pull to the left 10 seconds before impact isn't the same as fighting a player.

I know that, which is why I "included" them in the active section because they still "look for targets"...the fact they don´t give off emissions on their own makes them passive, but they still "actively" look for targets on their own, thus making them lag-resistant.

 

Instead of relying on your AC to tell them where to go.

My phrasing might be off.

''Fire and forget'' is the term you are looking for i think.

The missile is slaved to a IR signature and then it simply tracks that signature until something else turns up or it impacts. That is not the same as the missile actively looks for targets. You can kind of compare it to a SARH in HOJ mode.

Also, I did some experimentation with the AMRAAM...I heard alot of complaints that the AIM-120s maximum range would be somewhere around 15 nautical miles ingame and people complained and complained.

 

So I went up to 40000 feet+, acelerated to over Mach-1 and launched on a similarily fast enemy on hot aspect from 40 nm...my Radar didn´t even lock him before Rmax, which was around 45-50nm...

Similar results in the Flanker, 90km launch range for R27ER

 

Ya´ll want BVR right now, gotta go high and fast, not play airquake XD

Lucky shot I'd say. ;)

The missile ranges are fine in my opinion. Its the guidance that lets them down.

Over the last 20 years considering the opposition has been extremely inferior there has been quite a few radar guided hits on NATO aircraft.

Uhummmm...this statement is unsubstantiated. Aside from the F-15 loss previously mentioned, I can find no other references to US combat Aircraft being shot down during Air to Air combat. Surface to Air, yes. Air to Air, no.

Sierra

Uhummmm...this statement is unsubstantiated. Aside from the F-15 loss previously mentioned, I can find no other references to US combat Aircraft being shot down during Air to Air combat. Surface to Air, yes. Air to Air, no.

 

Sierra

F/A-18 was believed to have been shot down by a MIG-25 in the Gulf.

But regardless my point was surface to air without doubt, do you really believe there have been many launches against NATO aircraft from enemy aircraft, I don't think what they have faced in the air can be deemed as a threat to air superiority do you?

The missile ranges are fine in my opinion. Its the guidance that lets them down.

exactly

No more 2-3G continuous guidance vs non-maneuvering target with the missile making a 10-20G S-jink half way to it - again vs non-maneuvering target:). That + Loft + im sure you discovered more stuff yourself - I haven't played much myself since I came back to the game.

F/A-18 was believed to have been shot down by a MIG-25 in the Gulf.

R-40T was suspected, that F-18 was not allowed to engage the MiG-25 ...serious USAF/USN bruhaha ensued.

But regardless my point was surface to air without doubt, do you really believe there has been many launches against NATO aircraft from enemy aircraft, I don't think what they have faced in the air can be deemed as a threat to air superiority do you?

There have been thousands of SAM launches against NATO aircraft from the 90's on. They weren't terribly successful.

Further, as far as F-15 are concerned specifically, it is public knowledge* that the low-band part of the TEWS jamming equipment was not very good at dealing with SA-2, SA-3 and a couple other SAMs. Combined with SOJ ships missing their on-station time, this resulted in shoot-downs.

* Comments from people in the know, thought who knows what really goes on

R-40T was suspected, that F-18 was not allowed to engage the MiG-25 ...serious USAF/USN bruhaha ensued.

 

They suspected R-40TD the T was the older variant, what actually hit will probably never be known.

F/A-18 was believed to have been shot down by a MIG-25 in the Gulf.

 

But regardless my point was surface to air without doubt, do you really believe there have been many launches against NATO aircraft from enemy aircraft, I don't think what they have faced in the air can be deemed as a threat to air superiority do you?

TWICE I wrote F-15 meaning F-18. You are correct. Your original post was about AIR to AIR missiles, engagements not Surface to Air. Air to Air there have been very few missiles fired at US fighters...with the exception of the F-18 I know of no other fighters a damaged by an Air to Air missile.

Surface to Air, sure. However, I am more inclined to believe the majority of those successful encounters were the result of poor SA / Tactics on the part of the pilots...not superior missile performance. NOT passing judgement on the pilots.

Sierra

TWICE I wrote F-15 meaning F-18. You are correct. Your original post was about AIR to AIR missiles, engagements not Surface to Air. Air to Air there have been very few missiles fired at US fighters...with the exception of the F-18 I know of no other fighters a damaged by an Air to Air missile.

 

I'm sorry but I never once mentioned A2A, my response was to the claim that numerous radar missiles have been launched on NATO aircraft. I doubt very much that original statement was intended as A2A.

I'm sorry but I never once mentioned A2A, my response was to the claim that numerous radar missiles have been launched on NATO aircraft. I doubt very much that original statement was intended as A2A.

A quick look back through the thread finds no mention of Surface to Air in the context you referenced. The fact the thread has AAMRAM in the title lead me to believe you comment was referring to A2A engagements, not Surface to Air. That being said,

A little more research shows that despite there being quite a few combat losses in the past 20 years, the number that can be attributed to Radar Guided SAMs is actually pretty low. MANPADs and AAA claim a fair share of credit as well. The weapon of choice is tied to the state of conflict when the weapon is employed. More SAM loses can be attributed to Radar Guided SAMS early in a conflict, more MANPAD losses later. This reflects whats available and feasible Not the capability of the weapon systems.

Sierra

A quick look back through the thread finds no mention of Surface to Air in the context you referenced. The fact the thread has AAMRAM in the title lead me to believe you comment was referring to A2A engagements, not Surface to Air. That being said,

 

A little more research shows that despite there being quite a few combat losses in the past 20 years, the number that can be attributed to Radar Guided SAMs is actually pretty low. MANPADs and AAA claim a fair share of credit as well. The weapon of choice is tied to the state of conflict when the weapon is employed. More SAM loses can be attributed to Radar Guided SAMS early in a conflict, more MANPAD losses later. This reflects whats available and feasible Not the capability of the weapon systems.

 

Sierra

So basically you're agreeing with me that radar guided missiles have shot down NATO aircraft in recent times as opposed to NATO aircraft have not been shot down by radar guided missiles. Why try and make something more than what it is.

Have you considered the amount of A2A shots that have actually been taken on NATO aircraft in recent times, after doing so you can then come to the conclusion of the original claim of numerous radar guided missiles being fired at NATO aircraft in recent times swinging a long way in favour of SAM systems.

So basically you're agreeing with me that radar guided missiles have shot down NATO aircraft in recent times as opposed to NATO aircraft have not been shot down by radar guided missiles. Why try and make something more than what it is.

 

Have you considered the amount of A2A shots that have actually been taken on NATO aircraft in recent times, after doing so you can then come to the conclusion of the original claim of numerous radar guided missiles being fired at NATO aircraft in recent times swinging a long way in favour of SAM systems.

There is a distinct difference between what you are saying now and what was said before. I agree NATO aircraft have been shot down by Surface to Air Missiles...however, that's not what this thread is about. As far as the second paragraph, obviously there have been Radar Guided SAMs fired at NATO Aircraft. However when compared to AAA and MANPADs they account for less than a third of actual damage / losses reported. (This is based on limited time and research while at work)

There is a distinct difference between what you are saying now and what was said before. I agree NATO aircraft have been shot down by Surface to Air Missiles...however, that's not what this thread is about. As far as the second paragraph, obviously there have been Radar Guided SAMs fired at NATO Aircraft. However when compared to AAA and MANPADs they account for less than a third of actual damage / losses reported. (This is based on limited time and research while at work)

I believe his point is that there is very little functional difference between the guidance systems of SAMs and AAMs. Therefore, if Radar guided SAM systems have been successful in hitting western aircraft, there is no reason that air launched weapons incorporating similar features should be any less effective. In fact (discounting the potential for better ECM resistance in a larger ground based radar) A2A weapons should have a better probability of hitting their target: a SAM has to accelerate from a standstill, so it will always be larger, heavier and less maneuverable than an air to air missile of the same maximum range.

That's a pretty huge bunch of mostly incorrect assumptions :-)

That's a pretty huge bunch of mostly incorrect assumptions :-)

But, seeing as how they are fairly intuitive and reasonable assumptions to make, how about clarifying what exactly is wrong with them, instead of just saying "LOL dude ur so rong"?

I don't think it's very difficult to examine the differences in the systems; most SAMs shot at US jets recently were of the SACLOS variety - nothing like an AAM at all.

Maneuverability isn't really an issue - not only the size is not necessarily a problem, but if the maneuver is less (and thus the miss distance greater) you stick a bigger warhead on it.

Most maneuvering problems were solved as long ago as the 50's.

I don't think it's very difficult to examine the differences in the systems; most SAMs shot at US jets recently were of the SACLOS variety - nothing like an AAM at all.

Maneuverability isn't really an issue - not only the size is not necessarily a problem, but if the maneuver is less (and thus the miss distance greater) you stick a bigger warhead on it.

Most maneuvering problems were solved as long ago as the 50's.

SACLOS as in optical tracking by a gunner looking through a scope? Or do you mean ACLOS guidance as seen in the likes of the 50 year old SA-2 or SA-3 systems?

You can't solve every maneuverability problem by just adding a bigger warhead. The reason for this is pretty simple- the bigger the warhead, the bigger the missile you need to propel it to the target. Few armed forces would purchase a SAM that required a 20 tonne truck to transport and fire a single round, which is why you're not likely to see a SAM system with a missile the size of a Scud (a 1000kg warhead ought to solve all maneuver problems, yes?). YOu could scale this back a bit by replacing the traditional chemical explosive with a small nuclear bomb, but that's another can of worms.

SACLOS as in optical tracking by a gunner looking through a scope? Or do you mean ACLOS guidance as seen in the likes of the 50 year old SA-2 or SA-3 systems?

Either/or. That has been the vast, bast majority of systems that have engaged NATO aircraft in those modes and more.

You can't solve every maneuverability problem by just adding a bigger warhead.

The reason for this is pretty simple- the bigger the warhead, the bigger the missile you need to propel it to the target.

Few armed forces would purchase a SAM that required a 20 tonne truck to transport and fire a single round, which is why you're not likely to see a SAM system with a missile the size of a Scud (a 1000kg warhead ought to solve all maneuver problems, yes?). YOu could scale this back a bit by replacing the traditional chemical explosive with a small nuclear bomb, but that's another can of worms.

AAMs have a 40kg warhead at most (with the exception of the very largest AAMs) and that's still shrinking as miss distance decreases and smarter fuzes are implemented.