<10m tracking limit? (aka Amraam immunity mode)

I recall flying under a Tor's radar coverage at some point - in any case, you could use heat-seekers ... but then, people load up their Su-27's or MiG's with A2G ordnance and the Avengers for example can't keep up with the speeds they develop, IIRC (I try not to mix sides in my missions, but sometimes you just don't have a choice)

I've been smacked by a Tor at below treetop level during testing. The lack of ability of smaller SAMs to deal with > Mach1 targets is a different problem that needs to be addressed as well. Even a network of Dog Ears isn't immune.

Well, the problem is somewhat realistic, but there's no 'counter-problem' for flying this low and this fast.

This thread has grown pretty large......didn't expect this much :)

It could go on many, many more pages. We haven't even started in about missiles shooting down missiles yet. :music_whistling:

I wouldn't be so bothered with that if the intercept rate was lowered - right now it somewhat makes up for a lack of any sort of evasive capability on the part of the target.

It's just that it 'makes up too much' for it.

This is a case where an unrealistic unit capability might yield a more realistic 'feel' to weapons employment in terms of how much you can count on every weapon hitting; unfortunately, the way the intercept rate is now, it doesn't do that, either :P

EDIT: Now, as for IRH hitting other AAMs ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiculous.

Well, the problem is somewhat realistic, but there's no 'counter-problem' for flying this low and this fast.

Altitude is not a factor in the > Mach 1 problem.

EDIT: Now, as for IRH hitting other AAMs ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiculous.

Like Strelas?

EDIT: Now, as for IRH hitting other AAMs ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiculous.

Did you not lobby for this very thing? Or was that just the Tungs' "enhancement"

Altitude is not a factor in the > Mach 1 problem.

That is a point - you could fly at a reasonable altitude. IIRC the limit for the Stinger is something like 320m/s? That's just barely supersonic I think. Then again a head-on or tail-on attack should still work, as I (opinion) don't think that there tracking issues in that case. In other words, if a vikhr can do it - a stinger should, too.

Like Strelas?

No, I'm talking AAM's shooting down AAM's. The ground attack thing is a little different - some tactical missiles arrive with too much speed (in my opinion anyway, as compared to a report here and there) and gound vehicles have basically nil defensive capability against them anyway, save for shooting them down.

There's no smoke, there's no maneuvering - and it's not going to be implemented for some time. In that case, I personally don't mind if they can shoot down a tactical missile here and there - especially a big one. On the other hand, they just plain do it too often right now.

Did you not lobby for this very thing? Or was that just the Tungs' "enhancement"

I have refined my opinion; but no, I didn't actively lobby for it, I just didn't mind it (defining 'actively lobby' here as telling ED 'do this do this!'). At least I don't think I did.

I specifically however found proof supporting the capability of Patriot batteries to shoot down incoming ARMs, which is different.

Also, see my other post.

EDIT: Maybe I should try to clarify further.

With the tactical missiles being shot down, you have an unrealistic capability in certain units in that they can shoot down those missiles.

But taking this capability away leaves the ground units unrealistically defenseless against aircraft (in my opinion, anyway) and makes air to ground a virtual milk-run, at least against 'easily seen' air defenses.

It's now basically down to what one would consider more realistic: Does having more realistic unit capabilities make things more realistic, or does the overall outcome make things more realistic?

Ideally, you should have the first - the only problem is that there are capabilities which are not modelled at all which do exist in real life, and we also know that those will not be modelled any time soon.

Unfortunately there are by-products of all this ... the capability of AAMs to shoot down other AAMs etc - although this is more strictly a 'missile fuze modelling' problem than anything else. Huge trade-offs either way, and I don't think either is 'right', I just happen to have a preference for one of the two.

IR AAMS could shoot down other AAMs before SAMs were given the magic missile capability.

Using the Stinger to illustrate realism in the > Mach1 bug has some merit. However, every unit smaller than a Tung is affected. With most of those units you can throw the argument "It's beyond that weapon's capability" out the window. The fact that those unit's radar spikes disappear from an RWR as one crosses past supersonic is just silly.

Ah, that issue - yep. Things just 'don't see you' quite literally when you exceed parameters.

Problem is that most people wont do it because they are from the eastern europe.