Missile shooting zones

Do the shooting zones for air-to-air missiles worke right?

They always look way to big, for example (pic's below) in the

Hornet the enemy is from 27 miles away in the no escape

zone, whereas in the F15 its 11 miles(which looks about right).

So i never use the lunchzones in the hornet and shoot whenever i think

its right

am i missunderstanding somthing or does this not work right?

The first triangle in the hornet is not the no escape, it is the Raero, or maximum aerodynamic range, the no escape is the second triangle at around 2 oclock, it should be reached also around 9-12mn depending on altitude and closure velocity.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

The first triangle in the hornet is not the no escape, it is the Raero, or maximum aerodynamic range, the no escape is the second triangle at around 2 oclock, it should be reached also around 9-12mn depending on altitude and closure velocity.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

According to Early Access Guide, second triangle is Rne, third one(2 oclock triangle) is Rmin. And radar display clearly shows wrong indication of Rne too.

Sigh. Ok a few things to correct.

falcon_120: The first triangle (the one at six o'clock) is NOT Raero but it is Rmax. Raero is signified by a diamond not a triangle. This is easily verified by the F/A-18 DCS manual. The triangle at 3 o'clock ish is Rmin and Rne floats in between Rmin and Rmax depending (mostly) on target altitude, airspeed, and aspect.

DonBrot: The targets location on the Rmax, Rne, and Rmin matrix changes all the time. If you shot at that target in the first picture and it continued on course then yes it wouldn't be able to escape. As soon as the target goes defensive you will see a massive change in the matrix based on aspect alone. If the target also changes altitude and speed as well then even more so.

The display shows you were you are at at that moment specifically taking into account both you and the targets altitude, airspeed, and aspect to each other. Change the data you change the display. Those computers cannot predict what both people do it can only show you what it knows at that instant.

As to why there is a discrepancy in data between the two aircraft that I cannot speak to. Other than to suggest it might be because you are comparing a higher fidelity model to one not as high fidelity?

Sorry my bad, I stand corrected.

The targets location on the Rmax, Rne, and Rmin matrix changes all the time. If you shot at that target in the first picture and it continued on course then yes it wouldn't be able to escape. As soon as the target goes defensive you will see a massive change in the matrix based on aspect alone. If the target also changes altitude and speed as well then even more so.

The NEZ means that the missile will have enough kinetic energy to reach the target, even if the target goes defensive, pulls a certain amount of G and turns away. That's the point of the Rne cue, to show when you have a high Pk.

Doesn't mean that the missile will hit 100%, just means that its kinetic energy is enough to reach the target, no matter the target's actions. The missile might still miss because of chaff or might not be able to turn sharply enough, but in this case it'll overshoot the target, rather than be unable to reach it. The target can't drag the missile in order to bleed its speed within the NEZ.

Of course the Rne changes depending on both ownship and target speed, altitude and aspect, but it's the job of the MC to judge if the target has the capability to escape (eg, a contact can't reasonably go from Mach 0.7 to 2.2, in a way that will trash the missile).

And yes, I do think that the Rne cue is not working correctly now. I've engaged many targets well within Rne that managed to drag my missile and bleed its energy. Rne displays too soon.

Sigh. Ok a few things to correct.

 

falcon_120: The first triangle (the one at six o'clock) is NOT Raero but it is Rmax. Raero is signified but a diamond not a triangle. This is easily verified by the F/A-18 DCS manual. The triangle at 3 o'clock ish is Rmin and Rne floats in between Rmin and Rmax depending (mostly) on target altitude, airspeed, and aspect.

 

DonBrot: The targets location on the Rmax, Rne, and Rmin matrix changes all the time. If you shot at that target in the first picture and it continued on course then yes it wouldn't be able to escape. As soon as the target goes defensive you will see a massive change in the matrix based on aspect alone. If the target also changes altitude and speed as well then even more so.

 

The display shows you were you are at at that moment specifically taking into account both you and the targets altitude, airspeed, and aspect to each other. Change the data you change the display. Those computers cannot predict what both people do it can only show you what it knows at that instant.

 

As to why there is a discrepancy in data between the two aircraft that I cannot speak to. Other than to suggest it might be because you are comparing a higher fidelity model to one not as high fidelity?

Rne is meant to represent the range at which even if the target turns and flies directly away from you, the missile would have enough energy to reach them (and so they need to defeat the missile with countermeasures, beaming or terrain etc). So it shouldn't matter what happens after the missile is fired, if they were within Rne when you launched, then the missile should be capable of reaching them with enough energy to manoeuvre when it gets to them. Its been wrongly displayed since the beginning (fire a missile at Rne and it'll run out of energy and stall long before catching the enemy if they fly away). I've reported it as a bug with tracks a couple of times but it has been ignored - I suspect it's one of the aspects of the sim that ED is deliberately getting wrong so as to obscure the true performance of the aircraft.

I think it has to do with the missile guidance aerodynamics. Right now, both the AIM120 and AIM54 run out of energy well before they should based on their respective aircraft’s radar cues. If you watch the missile in F6 view with the data bar on, you will see that the missile executes max performance turns in response to every small movement of the target, and each one of these turns bleeds massive amounts of energy. The missile should be guiding much more smoothly than this, retaining its energy.

There’s hope though. I remember an update a while back fixed this for the sparrow, and doing some testing last night I could see the sparrow guiding much more smoothly and retaining its energy.

ED may be working on redoing the AMRAAM (and hopefully Phoenix) guidance algorithms, after which perhaps we will see the Rne cues become more realistic?

Of course, the hole in my theory is the F15 and why it’s numbers are different...:dunno:

The other hole is that the AIM-7 Rne cues are as wildly optimistic as the AIM-120.

i find it realy weird the the Rmax and the Rne are ontop of eachother in a headon

beause if you think of it the Rmax means the max range to hit a non-maneuvering target

and the Rne means the range to hit even if the target turns instantaneously 180 degrees aspect

it makes no sens that both indication are so close together, there should be a discrepanc

between each other

the range in that you can hit non-maneuvering target cant be the same in that you can

hit a target makes a instantaneously U turn and runs away

The other hole is that the AIM-7 Rne cues are as wildly optimistic as the AIM-120.

Yet it has been the far more reliable of the 2 lately, at least when employed on the Tomcat. I never use it on the hornet.

The NEZ means that the missile will have enough kinetic energy to reach the target, even if the target goes defensive, pulls a certain amount of G and turns away. That's the point of the Rne cue, to show when you have a high Pk.

Doesn't mean that the missile will hit 100%, just means that its kinetic energy is enough to reach the target, no matter the target's actions.

Well if that is the standard to go by, "no matter the target's actions", then the Rne should always be right up around Rmin since if the target turns off and converts that 20k feet into airspeed and low altitude that makes life way more difficult for the missile.

The missile might still miss because of chaff or might not be able to turn sharply enough, but in this case it'll overshoot the target, rather than be unable to reach it.

Yeah modern missiles can take many more Gs then aircraft so modern day missiles being out turned isn't a thing unless the launch platform was that far off boresight and that close to the target at launch.

The target can't drag the missile in order to bleed its speed within the NEZ.

Which, once again, would call for a static Rne right up around the Rmin to assume worst case scenario for the missile.

Of course the Rne changes depending on both ownship and target speed, altitude and aspect, but it's the job of the MC to judge if the target has the capability to escape (eg, a contact can't reasonably go from Mach 0.7 to 2.2, in a way that will trash the missile).

That isn't the way the F/A-18 is doing it as of right now. Every single time I've gone up against the Su-27/33 where they convert altitude into airspeed and run the result is the same since those birds can get up and go fast the Rne shoots all the way back up close to or at Rmin. What you are looking for is more of a static Rne that only changes based on the capabilities of the aircraft you are facing. Which means with powerful aircraft like the Su-27 a Rne almost at Rmin.

And yes, I do think that the Rne cue is not working correctly now. I've engaged many targets well within Rne that managed to drag my missile and bleed its energy. Rne displays too soon.

Yes as a cue to know when to get a high PK shot Rne in the F/A-18 is pretty useless as it is today.

Rne is meant to represent the range at which even if the target turns and flies directly away from you, the missile would have enough energy to reach them (and so they need to defeat the missile with countermeasures, beaming or terrain etc). So it shouldn't matter what happens after the missile is fired, if they were within Rne when you launched, then the missile should be capable of reaching them with enough energy to manoeuvre when it gets to them. Its been wrongly displayed since the beginning (fire a missile at Rne and it'll run out of energy and stall long before catching the enemy if they fly away). I've reported it as a bug with tracks a couple of times but it has been ignored - I suspect it's one of the aspects of the sim that ED is deliberately getting wrong so as to obscure the true performance of the aircraft.

Well either that or a really under-performing AIM-120. Yes your description of Rne is what it should be but, as you also point out, that isn't what the F/A-18 is doing. Especially when going up against powerful aircraft like the Su-27 the Rne in tail aspect is showing Rne right up or at Rmin. Call it an under tuned missile or over tuned Su-27/33 either way it doesn't seem right.

I linked you to a timestamp that explains the problem. ED simply doesn't understand what U.S. definitions of Raero, Rmax, Rne, Rmin, etc. mean so their range cues are wrong.

I think everyone agrees on most parts. I wasn't describing the Rne cue in the DCS Hornet before, but rather how I think it should be, based on other aircraft and external sources. In my experience, Rne should certainly be closer to Rmin than Rmax, at least in a standard head-on case. The opposite is true for the DCS Hornet, right now.

I don't think that Rne should necessarily be almost the same as Rmin, since the only thing that Rmin indicates is the minimum distance that allows the missile to maneuver towards the target after ensuring correct separation from ownship.

Rne is, in my experience much less affected by the target's actions than what we see in the Hornet right now. It's supposed to show the launch distance that would not allow the target to defeat the missile kinematically no matter what. As such, it's largely a factor of the 1) speed difference between the two aircraft, 2) altitude difference, 3) aspect with respect to the target and most importantly, 4) the selected missile's performance (the elephant in the room).

So even against high-performance aircraft, such as the Su-27, it shouldn't matter that much. The MC should assume that the target can turn and burn and turn altitude into speed and that is normally taken into account in the Rne calculation.

The Rne cue in the DCS Hornet is too optimistic right now, unless it was never supposed to consider changes in the target's speed when turning 180 or any kind of evasive maneuvers. Just a level turn at constant speed. Which would make Rne cue largely useless and I doubt it's implemented like that IRL. Currently, Rne has no real value if it changes from 15nm down to 5nm because the target turned.

All of the ranges are too optimistic for the reasons IASGATG explains. ED's definitions of missile range cues are wrong (for U.S. built fighters anyway). This has the added effect of making them basically worthless, since the underlying assumptions behind them range from tactically inferior to illogical.

I linked you to a timestamp that explains the problem. ED simply doesn't understand what U.S. definitions of Raero, Rmax, Rne, Rmin, etc. mean so their range cues are wrong.

I did some testing. Me vs an Su-27 on Excellent, both at 30,000ft, Mach 0.9, head on. The Su-27 had no chaff, in order to limit the problem to simple kinematics.

The Su-27 had ROE=Weapons Hold, Reaction to Threat=Allow Abort Mission and a trigger to turn and burn immediately upon me launching my missile, which means that the bandit will react to a missile launch immediately with a turn-and-burn and evasive maneuvering.

I used the F-15C and F/A-18C. Straight level flight at 30,000ft, launched an AIM-120C at around Mach 1.05. The below values are averages of several attempts with each aircraft (about 15 per aircraft).

F-15C: Rmax at 32 NM. Rne at 11.5 NM. Firing at the beginning of Rne is 100% fatal, the bandit doesn't have enough time to react. The AMRAAM's speed was 1500+ knots upon impact.

F/A-18C: Rmax at 35 NM. Rne at 31 NM. Firing at the beginning of Rne resulted in no hits at all. The AMRAAM's speed fell to ~500 knots a good distance from the evading bandit.

I then tried to determine an actual Rne for the Hornet.

Conclusions:

1) It seems that the F/A-18C's Rne is about the the same as the F-15C's Rmax, for a head on scenario.

2) Firing from 50% of Rne (~15 NM) yields good results, with high Pk. Firing from 11 NM (the F-15C's Rne), produces the same results as with the F-15C, with the bandit getting splashed every time.

3) Using the AIM-7H without loft produces better results than the AMRAAM, because the AMRAAM's appears to be flying a pursuit trajectory immediately after leaving the rail, while the Sparrow actually tries to intercept the target, retaining its energy better.

4) The F-15C's Rne may appear to be a tad too conservative, since every missile hit the target with a speed higher than 1500 knots when firing head-on. But this also guaranteed that anything launched within Rne would hit, even shots fired after the bandit turned-and-burned (with a newly calculated Rne, not 11 NM).

Obviously, my test is not enough to give a definitive answer, but it does indicate that the Rne in the Hornet is vastly overestimated.

I did some testing. Me vs an Su-27 on Excellent, both at 30,000ft, Mach 0.9, head on. The Su-27 had no chaff, in order to limit the problem to simple kinematics.

The Su-27 had ROE=Weapons Hold, Reaction to Threat=Allow Abort Mission and a trigger to turn and burn immediately upon me launching my missile, which means that the bandit will react to a missile launch immediately with a turn-and-burn and evasive maneuvering.

I used the F-15C and F/A-18C. Straight level flight at 30,000ft, launched an AIM-120C at around Mach 1.05. The below values are averages of several attempts with each aircraft (about 15 per aircraft).

F-15C: Rmax at 32 NM. Rne at 11.5 NM. Firing at the beginning of Rne is 100% fatal, the bandit doesn't have enough time to react. The AMRAAM's speed was 1500+ knots upon impact.

F/A-18C: Rmax at 35 NM. Rne at 31 NM. Firing at the beginning of Rne resulted in no hits at all. The AMRAAM's speed fell to ~500 knots a good distance from the evading bandit.

I then tried to determine an actual Rne for the Hornet.

 

Conclusions:

1) It seems that the F/A-18C's Rne is about the the same as the F-15C's Rmax, for a head on scenario.

2) Firing from 50% of Rne (~15 NM) yields good results, with high Pk. Firing from 11 NM (the F-15C's Rne), produces the same results as with the F-15C, with the bandit getting splashed every time.

3) Using the AIM-7H without loft produces better results than the AMRAAM, because the AMRAAM's appears to be flying a pursuit trajectory immediately after leaving the rail, while the Sparrow actually tries to intercept the target, retaining its energy better.

4) The F-15C's Rne may appear to be a tad too conservative, since every missile hit the target with a speed higher than 1500 knots when firing head-on. But this also guaranteed that anything launched within Rne would hit, even shots fired after the bandit turned-and-burned (with a newly calculated Rne, not 11 NM).

 

Obviously, my test is not enough to give a definitive answer, but it does indicate that the Rne in the Hornet is vastly overestimated.

That's very interesting. Thank you for doing those tests! I'd love to see the same test done at 5,000 ft. What is clear to me is the hornet RNE calculation is pretty borked. I have hopes that when ED releases the new missile SDK that we'll see improvements in guidance logic realism and turn performance.

I have to agree that the AIM-7 flies the best out of all the missiles, but the drag is still a little high, just like with the 120s, but the targeting logic is still messed up. It is much more vulnerable to notching aircraft than it was before ED updated it. You can notch the AIM-7 inside 3 miles and it just goes stupid... not even worth carrying most of the time, as an AIM-9 will track better and have a much higher chance of impact, even with a flaring bandit.

This all shows what I think any of us who fly the Hornet could tell you, which is that the missile range cues are useless. My question is why they should be any different than the F-15 or any other aircraft that uses the AIM-120. If the cues are based on current state (i.e. speed, altitude, aspect) and missile performance, why don't ED just use info that is somewhat aligned with in-game performance (i.e. F-15 cues) for the Hornet while they theoretically improve both the cues and missile performance to better match reality?

This all shows what I think any of us who fly the Hornet could tell you, which is that the missile range cues are useless. My question is why they should be any different than the F-15 or any other aircraft that uses the AIM-120. If the cues are based on current state (i.e. speed, altitude, aspect) and missile performance, why don't ED just use info that is somewhat aligned with in-game performance (i.e. F-15 cues) for the Hornet while they theoretically improve both the cues and missile performance to better match reality?

Who knows? Different systems, different implementations I guess (with the Hornet's clearly having some issues). Same missile though... I've been flying the Hornet since its release and the only times I've scored a BVR kill by firing from Rne were against bandits that evaded very badly. After a while I realized that Rne was practically useless and just made a habit of using a little less than half of Rne as the "effective" Rne, which works OK most of the time.