I'm a beginner. Can any one teach me avoid missile?

[GGTharos]

By the way, since y'all like number so much, I'll toss a coupe out there.

 

Unclassified seeker-slew rate for earlier sidewinders is about 16deg/s.

 

Lock On's seeker scan rate is 0.1sec.

 

You might assume that a modern radar guided missile can slew its seeker just as fast if not faster.

 

You do the math - good luck ;)

[Vati]

GGTharos, actually I do, but I see no use arguing about.

However just for you, the "fighter pilot's" words on the orthogonal roll at: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1999/articles/oct_99/oct3a_99.html (use search function on the phrase). Tho I guess SAM missile still uses "outdated" physics so it doesnt count ;)

 

Personally, you guys are way too much concentrated only to the bits of the bigger picture. For example your last post on doing the math. You forget to add into the account aerodynamics. Just because you can slew seeker on target doesnt mean you can follow the target.

[GGTharos]

GGTharos, actually I do, but I see no use arguing about.

However just for you, the "fighter pilot's" words on the orthogonal roll at: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1999/articles/oct_99/oct3a_99.html (use search function on the phrase). Tho I guess SAM missile still uses "outdated" physics so it doesnt count ;)

 

Personally, you guys are way too much concentrated only to the bits of the bigger picture. For example your last post on doing the math. You forget to add into the account aerodynamics. Just because you can slew seeker on target doesnt mean you can follow the target.

Thanks for not reading what I've been writing. ;)

 

I suggest you read my posts again - not only have I mentioned orthogonal rolls, but the situation you're describing is also quite different: The SA-3 isn't known to be particularely maneuverable (but maneuverable enough that the method of dodging SA-2's didn't work on it!) but it's also a CLOS missile, and there are videos out there indicating miss distances between 10-18 meters against a parachuting radar target (ie. non-maneuvering, low speed) for this particular SAM.

 

By comparison the miss distance from the AMRAAM against aircraft is somewhere around zero, at least in tests (and hey - those SA-3 shots were 'tests' too, just not against maneuvering aircraft ... )

 

Does that invalidate the orthogonal roll? No. Time and again pilots have said that this is their last ditch maneuver, and I already mentioned it.

 

Have you watched Reaper's tracks? It's a -completely- different situation, and in case you haven't gotten the point yet, the greatest seeker slew rate that LOMAC can simulate where it -counts- is 10deg/s which is greately exceeded by modern missiles.

 

Now, go ahead and tell me that you 'can't follow' a target that's pulling a 5g barrel roll with a missile that has a 'terminal target loading' of 12g, and the missile's motor hasn't or has -just- burned out.

[Frostie]

The Patriot still hit barrel rolling SCUDs (doing about 5g at mach 3) without too much trouble. Due to the closure, I'd consider that much more of a feat.

 

Patriots were not as successful as broadcasts made out ,only a 25% hit rate is not what i'd class as 'without too much trouble':)

[GGTharos]

Patriots were not as successful as broadcasts made out ,only a 25% hit rate is not what i'd class as 'without too much trouble':)

 

The devil, again, is in the details.

 

They hit the missiles, they failed to stop them from coming down near their targets though - pure physics. 'Success' there counts as destroying the warhead. In that it was definitely unsuccessful.

[NEODARK]

TOPIC: I'm a beginner. Can any one teach me avoid missile:music_whistling::megalol:

 

 

[Vati]

Thanks for not reading what I've been writing.

I guess you do not know what were you writing then ;)

If not that, then you do not understand what orthogonal roll is and why it works.

 

for the rest, an A+ mark for red herring

[GGTharos]

I guess you do not know what were you writing then ;)

 

No, you're just not reading.

 

If not that, then you do not understand what orthogonal roll is and why it works.

 

for the rest, an A+ mark for red herring

 

Care to qualify your remarks?

 

Or should I just say 'You don't know what you're talking about' and we can go on like that in circles? ;)

 

FYI - yeah, I know what an orthogonal roll is, and why it works, from the kinematics, to its effects on the fuze.

 

The method demonstrated in LO completely misses the second point - as I understand it anyway.

 

So hey, if I'm wrong, go ahead and tell me where and why.

[GGTharos]

http://www.sal.tkk.fi/Opinnot/Mat-2.108/pdf-files/ehyt04.pdf

 

Relevant excerpts from the conclusion portion:

 

Results seem to suggest that under some circumstances, the missile lock-on can

be broken by exceeding the gimbal limit of the missile. This, however, requires

a suitable initial state and the probability of success depends on several aspects.

To achieve the largest value for the gimbal angle, the final break turn need to

be executed as late as possible. This introduces another risk, if the final distance

between the missile and its target gets too small. The aircraft might not be able to

escape the missile blast even if the lock-on of the missile were broken. According

to the results, the velocities of both the aircraft and the missile also seem to be

of critical importance in trying to break the lock-on. In optimal trajectories, the

aircraft almost always pulls down to obtain more velocity. This naturally requires

that the initial altitude of the aircraft is large enough so that a deep dive is possible.

Also other factors, such as other threats nearby might limit the execution of the

maneuver. As stated by R. L. Shaw in [13]

“For nearly head-on or tail-on threats, the break direction is the pilot’s

choice, with vertically nose-down usually preferable if that option is

available.”

Another critical factor is naturally the launch distance of the missile. As the

missile rocket motor is used only during the early phases of the flight, the missile

launched from large distance slows significantly down before reaching the aircraft.

And as the results show, much larger gimbal angles can be obtained if the velocity

difference between the aircraft and the missile is small.

 

There's more, of course.

[NEODARK]

I give up... :doh::megalol:

[D-Scythe]

So you really don't know, please remember that lower down.

 

Yes, I admit, I really don't know the specs on the AMRAAM. I doubt you do either, or Mr. Shaw, or Mil, or any public source. No offense to anyone, but that's just a fact. All this speculation by public sources are also based on estimates.

 

I on the other hand have produced documents and thier authors, many of whom work for or are enlisted in the Military.

 

Tell me, do they ever mention the AMRAAM (or a contemporary missile) specifically? I don't mean to be rude or show disrespect, I'm just genuinely interested.

 

The latest material I produced was from Aug. 2002 on exactly that. If you want newer material, buy a subscription. As it is I have provided you with your best material on the subject.

 

I'm not questioning whether you have material or not. I'm questioning whether your sources state that the barrel roll maneuver is an effective defense in a situation involving modern radar guided missiles.

 

Since I don't have any sources (AMRAAM data is hard to come by), I'm interested in yours.

 

You have produced...nothing, just self admitted lack of knowledge, see above.

 

Well, better to admit that I don't know things than pretend that you know more than everyone else and yourself the guru of the subject. I doubt you know more than the next guy either, frankly. Again, no disrespect intended, but hard data on missiles are hard to come by, especially when they are still in service.

 

So they stopped doing it one way and did it another...Change of Tactics, a commander can do what he will with intel, act on or ignore. One way things change the other they don't.

 

More like a change in strategic approach, IMO. The Persians maneuvered behind the Greeks and attacked them in two directions.

 

 

Kinda like all those people who said "The Dog Fight" is dead this is the age of air to air missiles eh ?

 

Dogfighting is completely irrelevent to the topic. It is far more complex and can be initiated in many more different ways than the maneuver we are talking about.

 

Fine, yeah, I don't know if barrel rolling around an AMRAAM would work or not IRL. My position is just that it probably will not. If Raytheon could make the Patriot engage a barrel rolling SCUD at Mach 3 (or try to at least), I'm sure Raytheon has already done something through its software updates in the AMRAAM to make it at least a credible threat to any target who attempts to barrel roll around it. A barrel rolling fighter at Mach 0.7-1.0 is a much easier target than a SCUD at Mach 3, and Patriots have been hitting some of those SCUDs, in OIF at least.

 

Opinion does not level the REAL MATERIAL I have produced.

 

Material that nobody can prove whether it applies to modern radar guided missiles or not, for the simple fact that it is public and the information needed to settle this is classified.

 

So no, IRL, I don't know, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. If that AMRAAM hits you, you're dead - either because of the G's after it detonates close by and throws your fighter to the ground, or from a direct hit in the face.

 

The bottom line in all this is, Until you can produce something more than opinion, don't say anything.

 

Cut the drama and stop pretending you know more than everyone else. You actually don't in the matter, and that's not an insult to you. This stuff is classified.

 

And yes, there is some good material that states barrel rolling works against older radar missiles...and apparently you have it. More power to you.

[GGTharos]

Actually none of these sources state anything that proves barrel rolling around a missile is 100% effective ... which is exactly what Reaper's tracks demonstrate: LOMAC's missile's are 100% defeatable by a 5-5.5g barrel roll head on or tail on.

 

All these sources say is that a high-g barrel roll increases miss distance, with no reference to orientation.

 

Fact 2: Lomac's missile seekers cannot track faster than 10deg/s at close ranges, which is not representative of real missile seekers, when older missile unclassified figures for seeker slewing exceed 15 deg/s.

 

At close ranges, the target simply 'leaves' the FoV of the missile's seeker inside that 0.1s, which the missile should have been able to track.

 

Wether the missile is KINEMATICALLY capable of following the target or no is then irrelevant, because the seeker is defeated due to undermodelled specifications to begin with, and there's simply not a chance to test the aerodynamics of the encounter at this point.

[Kula66]

It's B) and it affects _ALL_ missiles.

 

As mentioned on these forums before, this is because the seeker 'senses' what's in it's FoV only 10 times every second. Decreasing this interval would cause a lot of lag when missiles would start homing.

 

And the second part of the question? Will they get fixed in LO? Given A2A missile modelling is fairly fundamental to a modern air combat sim ...

[nscode]

So no, IRL, I don't know, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. If that AMRAAM hits you, you're dead - either because of the G's after it detonates close by and throws your fighter to the ground, or from a direct hit in the face.

 

There are people who have survived it head on. There's even a case of the plane returning to base (no radar cone, windshield, etc..) but i can't be sure if that was amraam.

[GGTharos]

It probably was :)

 

AAMs have been pretty survivable for pilots typically, while SAMs (big SAMs) no. Probably the big difference in warhead there ...

 

But it was still a 'hit' ... LOMAC doesn't model system damage well enough I think so they have to resort to completely destroying the aircraft for now, and killing the pilot.

[Reaper-6]

LMAO, good ‘ole missile thread…until it gets locked lol.

 

Looks like some got up cranky this morning, long search…no facts, just jaw jackin’ as usual :D

 

Reaper-6, now sit back and wait for them to find 1 source out of zillion to comply w/ their POV and you shall read how they were right and you are wrong ;)

 

Yes sir, I also expected it to play out like this as I thought of it at work today, what neither of us could anticipate is that the Beta Testers who insist they are correct that are here arguing against, would have crapped out on even the saddest supportable of data.

 

Another unfortunate and unforeseeable end game is the crap flinging flailing that would occur in absence of any supporting data on their side. Here D-Scythe’s “special” oversized Sig is ironically prophetic.

 

Left to just nit-pick in the face of facts, ultimately it leaves them gripping “their precious” unsupported argument as they plunge deeper into the abyss.

 

We must feel pity for these things, If only we could give them a simulation or some type of accredited relevant data that spanned the according time line, or damnit-man...a real life pilot !…we could save these wretched beings…..oh wait….never mind. :D :D :D

 

…Some Peoples Kids…

[Reaper-6]

I am a bit confused now.

If that technique is not effective IRL as you say, than LockOn has a serious bug.

It wouldnt be unthinkable to me that LockOn has a bug (can happen to anyone).

It would however be unthinkable to me that the manufacturer (ED) would teach you how to exploit their bug. Why brag about it?

Please make two things clear to me:

1.Is mission #8 in TopGun teaching me how to exploit LockOn's bug?

2.Are there any more training missions/demos in LockOn that are teaching me to do something that wouldnt be propper/realistic technique IRL?

 

ps. not trying to be a smart a$$, still learning here.

 

 

GG, D-Scythe, you overlooked this question. I am also interested in the answer.

 

Anyone...anyone...Beuller ?

[GGTharos]

Where's the conclusion part of the articles you posted, BTW - do you have that part?

 

I'm considering buying those papers anyway, though I'll see if I can find someone with access to the journals first.

[Reaper-6]

Where's the conclusion part of the articles you posted, BTW - do you have that part?

 

I'm considering buying those papers anyway, though I'll see if I can find someone with access to the journals first.

 

Yes, anyone can buy them at small cost.

[GGTharos]

GG, D-Scythe, you overlooked this question. I am also interested in the answer.

 

Anyone...anyone...Beuller ?

Because it works in Lock On? :)

 

There's plenty of stuff that's not very realistic in LOMAC, like in any sim.

The ability of aircraft to fly at an altitude where enemy missiles won't even track them, for example, yet they can still launch their own missiles safely (or track a target for that matter).

 

Anyway, I digress. Barrel rolling may well apply to a slow missile, but the only 'barrel roll' I've heard of being used as a last ditch defense is the orthogonal barrel roll, which is definitely -not- along the missile's flight vector - and yes, it matters - this is a fuze issue now ... by performing the barrel roll in that manner you give a low cross-section to the fuze, so it might not fire at all -or- if it does, the expanding rod has much less chance to actually hit the aircraft (less surface area presented - the idea is that you're got your wing 'pointing' at the missile, as I've understood the maneuver)

 

This is why you want to be beaming a missile when evading it, aside from the other problems it causes, and -not- rolling aorund its path which presents the -largest- possible cross section for it to hit in proximity.

 

I think Mr. Shaw mentions this in his book in fact, IIRC, maybe not in quite as much detail - I do have the book, I've read it from cover to cover. He really focuses a whole lot more on the gunfight and his material on combatting missiles isn't as plentiful, but always nice.

[Reaper-6]

That wasn't an answer

[D-Scythe]

Yes sir, I also expected it to play out like this as I thought of it at work today, what neither of us could anticipate is that the Beta Testers who insist they are correct that are here arguing against, would have crapped out on even the saddest supportable of data.

 

Man, there's no point in having a meaningful conversation with you. I openly admitted that, no, I do not have the data to justify my position, simply my conclusions. I even openly stated that I do not have even a single source to justify my position.

 

Then, you accuse me of "crapping out data" (when I admitted I have none), and also accuse me of proclaiming myself to be correct, when I explicitly stated "I do not know."

 

Another unfortunate and unforeseeable end game is the crap flinging flailing that would occur in absence of any supporting data on their side. Here D-Scythe’s “special” oversized Sig is ironically prophetic.

 

Quote me where I said you were wrong, or any where I appear to be throwing a hissy fit. I merely pointed out that although you may be right, you don't have the hard data either to support your position, as your sources are a bit dated when considering missiles like the AIM-120B/C whose specs are mostly classified anyway. I also stated that, if I'm wrong about your sources, I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on how your sources describe how barrel rolling would work against a modern incoming radar missile.

 

Instead of proving that, you get all dramatic and accusatory instead of trying to have a meaningful discussion.

 

Left to just nit-pick in the face of facts, ultimately it leaves them gripping “their precious” unsupported argument as they plunge deeper into the abyss...

We must feel pity for these things, If only we could give them a simulation or some type of accredited relevant data that spanned the according time line, or damnit-man...a real life pilot !…we could save these wretched beings….

 

See what I mean about drama? I asked for you to elaborate on your sources, and you give me this spiel that has nothing to do with the already off-topic topic.

[Reaper-6]

If you didn't know anything, not even the data I presented to you and others yesterday. When GG and I have been lip-lashing this same material for close to 2 yrs now...

 

...why did you feel the need to cock-block the questions I posed to GG just to get yourself into the fight ?

 

For a second I thought he had his hand up your bum.

 

I'll address everything you've writen here, as you have me.

[Weta43]

Prompt

"you overlooked this question. I am also interested in the answer."

 

and an actual answer

"There's plenty of stuff that's not very realistic in LOMAC, like in any sim.

The ability of aircraft to fly at an altitude where enemy missiles won't even track them, for example, yet they can still launch their own missiles safely (or track a target for that matter)."

 

Gunja - a while ago (1.11?) ED tried to improve the seeker performance & make it more realistic by imposing seeker view angle & gimbal limits & by making the seeker scan for a target. It seems that to have this happen at anything more than 0.1 sec introduced too high a workload & caused lag (never heard about this reason for seeker underperformance till this thread)

It will get fixed when they can work out a better solution.

Is the training teaching you a responce that doesn't work in real life?

No-one knows. That's not the intention. AS can be read above, some real life pilots have recomended the barrel roll as a real life technique.

Some people (GG & D-Scythe among them) believe this wouldn't work against modern missiles.

If you do it as the training shows then to the extent it works in real life - that's how you do it.

In LO it works well. In real life - again - no one REALLY knows, they just have more or less informed opinions.

All agree that as a last ditch excercise it's better than crossing your fingers.

What else works in LO but doesn't in real life - invert the question what works in real life but doesn't in LO - now read the bug thread.

It's a $30 dollar relatively hard core amatuer sim, not a multi million dollar millitary flight sim or (god forbid) real life.

[GGTharos]

To clarify - the scan timing was always 0.1sec, that never changed, other things about missiles did change though :)

 

My position is that this leads to an unrealistic representation of missile guidance because at short ranges it causes the seeker to uderperform the slew rate.

 

Where this barrel rolling technique may work is at long ranges - it would force the missile to fly a constant high-AoA flight which would kill its speed pretty quickly, and it would fall out of the sky before reaching the target. But this is just speculation on my part.