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

Well, the question. Is there a golden limit irl where sub 10m-flying completely makes a2a radar missiles useless?

I realize of course that ground clutter can play a significant role, but a fast head-on target below 10m should be trackeable. Seeing as airborne radars do track it well in game, I am a bit curious why missiles (non-IR) seem to just DIE 100% of the time against extremely low-flying targets. This got me iced a few times earlier (sry could not resist ^^)

Somewhere I read the r-27EM for example can track targets below 10m irl (normal weather/humidity), although it wont in lomac. Ofc we cannot have pure realism, but having flown these tactics myself, I eventually found it utterly boring "going amraam immunity mode". I have not been able to find any information on the amraams real life minimum altitude under normal weather conditions.

The only thing you can try to do is outfly/outmaneuver people who use these methodsand nail'em with a heater or guns :)

I am well aware of that, but the question was something else ^^

The answer is 'it's not getting fixed any time soon' AFAIK. :/

20m and under, dependingo on the missile.

Why would it need to be fixed if the RL limit is around 10-20m?

GG must be on a laptop right now...

Who said there is such a limit?

20m and under, dependingo on the missile.

The problem is not the missiles as such. Its the perfectly flat seas. However on the other hand if the seas were choppy or a bit swelly (wouldnt get a swell in the Black Sea) Im sure the clutter effect would be higher.

This debate has been had in the past and it was basically agreed that under 10m radar missiles would find it difficult or impossible to track a target.

Maybe now we'll see more F15's carrying something other than just slammers.

Cool-T may have to revise his tactics as well :smilewink:

Yep. While missiles will have issues operating this low - and I'm only guessing here - mostly due to the fuze - you can program an alternate flight path for the missile so it can dive onto the target at the right moment and avoid problems. Since that cannot be simulated though, there's the artificial limit.

It makes sence to me. Water would be like a roughened piece of glass and radar reflections would be scattered all over the place when flying that low.

The problem is not the missiles as such. Its the perfectly flat seas. However on the other hand if the seas were choppy or a bit swelly (wouldnt get a swell in the Black Sea) Im sure the clutter effect would be higher.

 

This debate has been had in the past and it was basically agreed that under 10m radar missiles would find it difficult or impossible to track a target.

 

Maybe now we'll see more F15's carrying something other than just slammers.

 

Cool-T may have to revise his tactics as well :smilewink:

Err....so now we got Ice vs GG here. Very interesting indeed ;)

My question is really about IRL performance. Weather the game models this or not is somewhat secondary here for me, believe it or not.

On the other hand, if we are to model airplanes as invincible to radar missiles below 10m meters, we might as well throw some water into the intakes of the aircraft when they are closer than 2-3 m to the ground. Would create some interesting situations!

(long term effects not recommended! - also how come the aircraft radar so perfectly has no problems with the water then :))

hmm....If we look at radar wavelengths perhaps we could create some nice interference patterns with the water, who knows, might be very confusing, for BOTH missile and attacking aircraft.

This debate has been had in the past and it was basically agreed that under 10m radar missiles would find it difficult or impossible to track a target.

Who agreed to that? Tracking wasn't an issue for SARH or ARH missiles with the correct trajectory - it's fuzing issues, not tracking. Lock on has it wrong.

Err....so now we got Ice vs GG here. Very interesting indeed ;)

Where exactly has this study been done? My question is really about IRL performance. Weather the game models this or not is somewhat secondary here for me, believe it or not.

The Navy came up with solutions to this sort of issue back in '53 or so ... or was it '63? ... there's a declass Navy research paper pertaining to intercept of superrsonic sea-skimmers using different radar guidance methods.

Issue mentioned were fuzing, and radar beam bounce for beam-riders, as well as target RCS reflection from the water for SARH weapons.

Cali: There's some anectodal reference to an F-15 'shooting down' a truck speeding on the highway with an AIM-7 because it was mis-identigied as a heli by AWACS.

u the man, GG ^^

You mean just plain old fire within parameters and no track? I suspect they bite off on chaff off the rail.

I really ddont know what all the fuss is about. IR missiles work just fine and so do cannon. Change your tactics.

Its like anything in the sim thats not perfect. You arent going to stop people from doing it. You'll just have to use different tactics to counter it. flying under 10m does not make you invincible.

I assure you there are some players who dont have a problem shooting a non evading sub-10m su33

It was an inquiry into the game mechanics and the realism thereof.

And ... some of us would like to see missiles become more realistic.

I myself have a very hard time figuring out (and havent done so yet!) why SARH missiles even start following chaff even if the radar of the firing plane does not, but that's another story entirely :). (Answer : Radioactive chaff!)

I really ddont know what all the fuss is about. IR missiles work just fine and so do cannon. Change your tactics.

 

Its like anything in the sim thats not perfect. You arent going to stop people from doing it. You'll just have to use different tactics to counter it. flying under 10m does not make you invincible.

 

I assure you there are some players who dont have a problem shooting a non evading sub-10m su33

I have to disagree. If you make a decision to model a game to a certain level of realism, that level should be reflected throughout the game, and should not completely mess up balance, and this is a matter of system balance, not MP balance. What I'm saying is :

If you make one system of a certain level of realism, then the countering system imo should be of the same (yes, this also includes eccm :). This often translates in a balanced game, but even though I want this to be the same, it sometimes is not. (Think Falcon4 ramp start with lomac easy radar ^^)

Nope, it's an issue with the code that could not be fixed without ripping out and redesigning the missile code, AFAIK.

Keep in mind that it is likely chaff would be illuminated by sidelobes etc ...

Anyway, missiles shouldn't be biting on chaff when the target is head-on and there's no chaff between missile and target.

Nope, it's an issue with the code that could not be fixed without ripping out and redesigning the missile code, AFAIK.

 

Keep in mind that it is likely chaff would be illuminated by sidelobes etc ...

Anyway, missiles shouldn't be biting on chaff when the target is head-on and there's no chaff between missile and target.

Well perhaps in the distant future then we might be seeing some improvements here with wasm :).

Yes sidelobes, but thats only for a VERY short while, unless low aspect ofc.

I think major fixage is slated for the fighter project ... some ways away I['m afraid :/

Food for thought..

Low Flying French Fighters

Meaningless in the context of this discussion.