vs. SARH

[GGTharos]

In principle you should care about real life if you want fixes.

 

Comparing the missiles to one another is neat and all, but utterly meaningless unless they can somehow be compared to real life weapons. Otherwise, we may as well have them have the exact same performance.

[Ironhand]

...Comparing the missiles to one another is neat and all, but utterly meaningless unless they can somehow be compared to real life weapons. Otherwise, we may as well have them have the exact same performance.

I believe what Cali is referring to is that it doesn't matter what the current versions of the missiles can do. What matters is what they were able to do back in the late 80s-early 90s which is the time period this sim was originally trying to capture. Those are the RL missiles we should be comparing to.

 

Rich

[D-Scythe]

Incidentally, because I know someone's going to ask ...

Source of R-77/Izd-170 loft profile (high angle of deflection trajectory) is Tejnika i Voruzhenie Journal 02/06 journal, special edition on soviet/russian air to air radar missiles.

 

Hmm, will check out, thanks.

[GGTharos]

Ah, I see what you mean. Unfortunately it's hard to tell when things were done to what. By the 1994, the R-77 had been in development for over 10 years.

[porky]

Thanks for all the help, especially Ardillita and Ironhand for the tracks. You really should make that track into a proper tutorial Ardillita, it's brilliant...after trying a few times to dodge ERs with the pull up at last minute method and failing, I tried your break into the missile at last minute method and evaded every one :)

 

As far as testing goes, I'm gonna start some AIM-120 vs R-77, and R-27ER vs R-27EM now. Will post results as soon as I get them :)

 

Oh and after destroying my target on evasion practice I went for some low-flying fun under pylons...and caught the screenie of the week :lol:

 

Flying too low and scraping my left wingtip along the ground my Su-33 got into a tangled mess and was about to hit the ground, when me, not wanting to see the beautiful creature in a burning wreck, hit the Escape key. And the whole of LockOn Land flooded instantly :D:D:D

 

http://xs413.xs.to/xs413/07105/lockonscreen.jpg

[GGTharos]

Forget the EM. It never entered service and I'm pretty certain it will be removed for this reason; if not, it will be adjusted to have the same kinematics as the ER, since the only thing that had changed was the seeker.

[porky]

Okay this is just raw data, no calculations done for speed lost etc. From just looking at the speeds it seems at these altitudes R-77 is much faster than the 120. Just compare the flight and distance from launch aircraft at detonation...the R-77 has travelled further in less time. Oh, and both missiles hit the target.

 

Target: UK C-130

Range: 20km

Speed: 380

Alt: 5000

 

AIM-120C

 

Flight time: 36.12s

Burn time: 7.63s

Speed at burn: 3131

Speed at detonation: 1119

Speed at 20s: 1850

Speed at 30s: 1278

Distance from launch aircraft at 20s: 11.5km

Distance from launch aircraft at 30s: 14.5km

Distance from launch aircraft at detonation: 15.6km

 

R-77

 

Flight time: 31.33s

Burn time: 8.81s

Speed at burn: 3425

Speed at detonation: 1217

Speed at 20s: 1941

Speed at 30s: 1260

Distance from launch aircraft at 20s: 12.6km

Distance from launch aircraft at 30s: 15.7km

Distance from launch aircraft at detonation: 16.0km

[Ardillita]

Thanks for all the help, especially Ardillita and Ironhand for the tracks. You really should make that track into a proper tutorial Ardillita, it's brilliant...after trying a few times to dodge ERs with the pull up at last minute method and failing, I tried your break into the missile at last minute method and evaded every one :)

 

I wouldn´t call it "MY METHOD", in fact it is just what I learnt from Ironhand´s site.

But be ccarefull, evadingthe missiles is important but is not the important thingt in the engagement. The thing you have to have in mind from the begining is haveing a very agressive attitude all the time. You must force those eagles into a defensive position. look again at the track and see how I maneouver in relation to the eagles position so all the timeI have them on sight. You need good evading skills later to mantein this agressive position since it is imposible to avoid them shoot least 2 missiles (and if you pay atention, you will notice that it is not matter of just fireing all your missiles to get them defensive, in the end, with 2 eagles down, I still have enough missiles to shoot another 2 jeje)

Despite Im succesul in the engagement, a 1vs 2 situation should always be avoided, at least in this circunstances, and awacs for example would be something we could use to say that would be somenting more "sane".

[Alfa]

I believe what Cali is referring to is that it doesn't matter what the current versions of the missiles can do. What matters is what they were able to do back in the late 80s-early 90s which is the time period this sim was originally trying to capture. Those are the RL missiles we should be comparing to.

 

Rich

 

Sorry Rich, but where the devil did you get that idea?!.

 

Apart from the fact that Lock-on(and Black Shark even more so) is full of things that quite simply didn't exist back then, I believe that the standard reply to question of time-frame always was either: "Lock-on does not have a set time frame" or "present day - near future" :) .

[tflash]

Indeed, from previous threads I also recall that Lockon does not go for a timeframe, but ED tries to model things on the basis on public available info, like flight manuals.

 

In the early nineties, the R-77 was just some vapourware. The risk you would face it was virtually nil.

 

The one and only problem is they modelled an established, proven, killer missile like Amraam as a failed near-WVR airbrake that chases chaff like a little poodle doggie. OK, the Russian's were'nt supposed to have real data on the Amraam, but the combat record should be tell-taling on this subject, no?

 

They got it completely wrong: the Amraam IRL gives s**t about ECM & chaff and is just a simple death ray. How ED can still believe they modelled this threat the right way is a puzzle to me. It is almost "negligence", because I really hope no one in CIS believes the Amraam is the toy weapon it is in Lockon. It would be such a suicidal mistake to believe that. :D

 

Oops I added an emoticon to tone down, I was just speaking metaphorically ;)

[GGTharos]

Those are some big words. Be careful ;)

 

I'll parrot what a certain F-15 pilot told me:

 

The Falcon 4 AMRAAM is overmodelled.

The LOMAC AMRAAM is undermodelled.

 

The Falcon AMRAAM is more realistic; in other words, it's not overmodelled as much as the LOMAC AMRAAM is undermodelled.

 

Another little gem, paraphrased: 'We would -never- fly straight into a missile. It might be that Russian missiles suck, but not as much as LO - and the Russians would be spamming them, so their Pk wouldn't be so bad in a plane vs. plane exchange.'

 

In other words, they'd respect a missile shot, be it an R-27 or R-77 or R-73 or whatever. After all, do you REALLY wanna take the chance that you'll die?

 

This is why BVR in LO is unrealistic, and why there is a push to change it. This push is very simple: Eliminate front-aspect chaff sensitivity for radar homing missiles.

[Ironhand]

Sorry Rich, but where the devil did you get that idea?!.

 

Apart from the fact that Lock-on(and Black Shark even more so) is full of things that quite simply didn't exist back then, I believe that the standard reply to question of time-frame always was either: "Lock-on does not have a set time frame" or "present day - near future" :) .

That had always been my understanding but I guess I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

Rich

[504Goon]

This is why BVR in LO is unrealistic, and why there is a push to change it. This push is very simple: Eliminate front-aspect chaff sensitivity for radar homing missiles.

 

I personally feel that this is the most important fix for the BVR combat right now. The notch is a very valid RL tactic to use against missiles. Pilot's just don't turn slightly away from the missile and start punching out chaff. In fact, from what i have learned, the chaff modelling in LO atm makes F-pole pretty useless.. Chaff resistance itself is what i would believe to be realistic..in beam!

 

Second thing that i would like to see, is is the RWR strenght indicator. Sure, it can give some rough data.. but enough data to make timed evasive action against AR-missile? Don't think so.

 

What i believe, these two changes would improve the Pk of all the missiles drastically, up to more realistic values.

/rant mode off

 

*goes back to his cave to build missions...ground targets..unit groups...mmm...

[Frostie]

Could it be possible that ED messed up in designating the AMRAAM in LO the 'Aim-120C' instead of 'Aim-120B' which could have explained away a lower PK.

[GGTharos]

No, it wouldn't have. Even the AMRAAM-A was pretty frightening.

 

The main, most immidiately visible difference between old and new AMRAAMs is range, especially Rtr.

 

Do not even for a -moment- think that could treat ANY real version of the AMRAAM or R-77, or R-27 series missiles in real life with the lack of respect your treat them in LOMAC.

 

You would die. Just like that.

[GGTharos]

I still wouldn't want one shot at me.

[Frostie]

Do not even for a -moment- think that could treat ANY real version of the AMRAAM or R-77, or R-27 series missiles in real life with the lack of respect your treat them in LOMAC.

 

Don't worry when the moment comes, erm , I won't.:D

 

But the B's are pretty poor in Fudgepacker 4.0.

[GGTharos]

Ahahah :D

Well, they shouldn't be - in theory they could be about as good as the C's (not in ALL respects, but in some) because they feature a programmable processor ... the B's were not upgraded further because production stopped in favor of the C's

[Kula66]

That had always been my understanding but I guess I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

Rich

 

It would seem much more sensible to pick a time point and stick to it ... more unclassified data available and you don't end up with the silly situation of modelling an engagement where one a/c has a an early 1980s missile v an opponenent with a late 1990s missile ...

 

But, hey ... that discussion was lost ages ago :(

 

James

[Bimbac]

No, it wouldn't have. Even the AMRAAM-A was pretty frightening.

 

The main, most immidiately visible difference between old and new AMRAAMs is range, especially Rtr.

 

Do not even for a -moment- think that could treat ANY real version of the AMRAAM or R-77, or R-27 series missiles in real life with the lack of respect your treat them in LOMAC.

 

You would die. Just like that.

 

Yes, sir! :thumbup: The very thing I was trying to say to most of the virtual pilots here. But I guess they just don't listen anyway :dunno:

[Pilotasso]

It would seem much more sensible to pick a time point and stick to it ... more unclassified data available and you don't end up with the silly situation of modelling an engagement where one a/c has a an early 1980s missile v an opponenent with a late 1990s missile ...

 

But, hey ... that discussion was lost ages ago :(

 

James

 

Dont be sad, after al the 90's stuff right now is pretty much inferior to the 80's stuff in LOMAC. ;)

[*Rage*]

This push is very simple: Eliminate front-aspect chaff sensitivity for radar homing missiles.

 

Absolutely.

 

I wouldnt mind waiting till xmas if they can sort this out.

[Kula66]

Dont be sad, after al the 90's stuff right now is pretty much inferior to the 80's stuff in LOMAC. ;)

 

True enough - definately a classic decade ... now its all systems!

 

Most modern stuff is way too complex to model the cockpit systems accurately! As well as being super-secret!

 

James

[Kula66]

here is the track:

 

http://flanker-argentina.com.ar/vs_2F15_solos.trk

 

Comments are preciated

 

I've just watched your track ... very interesting. Has anyone else notice the apparent problems with AMRAAM and 9M fuses?

 

You have at least 3 missiles fly past you, all very close, certainly within the length of a 27, and not go off!!!! I know the US has historical problems making fuses ... but really!

 

Are all fuses modelled the same? Or are there differences for each missile?

 

That ET is certainly an uber missile ... launched BVR and starts tracking at over 4Ks ... and boom! Any news if this will be neutered in BS?

 

James

[GGTharos]

US fuzes are typically superior, from what I hear. The length of a Su-27 is a little far though! The AMRAAM has a 15m fuze in LOMAC - unfortunately that's counted as distance from the center of the model.

 

Heaters will have 'launch without lock' capability removed - though the MICA IR should keep it.