Jump to content

F-15 Eagle - what's happened?!


Recommended Posts

I guess the crux of the problem is no one but the military knows the exact performance of the aim120 in the field. We do know what its published limits are but we don't know how well the missile performs against enemy countermeasures like chaffing or jamming etc. In most of the sims before lomac you would get a sure kill at 15nm with the aim120, most of the time you could even get one at 20nm. Watching a missile with a published range of 30nm missing at 10nm (what is supposed to be aim9 territory) is a little hard to swallow.

 

But then again, the new missile code affects all the other missiles so the playing field is still balanced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the crux of the problem is no one but the military knows the exact performance of the aim120 in the field. We do know what its published limits are but we don't know how well the missile performs against enemy countermeasures like chaffing or jamming etc. In most of the sims before lomac you would get a sure kill at 15nm with the aim120, most of the time you could even get one at 20nm. Watching a missile with a published range of 30nm missing at 10nm (what is supposed to be aim9 territory) is a little hard to swallow.

 

But then again, the new missile code affects all the other missiles so the playing field is still balanced.

 

 

There are videos of 120's missing closer still. They're no different than any other missile in that respect - seeker settling time, countermeasures, LOS tracking rate problems and all those good things affect it like they affect any other missiles.

AFAIK it would seem that RL missiles really do need to be fired in parameters to have a chance of scoring a hit - and from what I hear, if you haul hard enough you can get away from a 120 fired at you from 8nm away, though apparently not on kinematics alone (but at that range, if you react very quickly, kinematics will be an issue)

 

SK has the performance charts of the original R-27 which allowed him to come up with some of the parameters he needed for minizap. In that, a tail-chase with an AMRAAM you barely get a 6nm range agaisnt a receding target moving at 350kts. The R-77 fares only slightly worse, insignificantly so. That's without any maneuvering involved.

 

I think that pretty much justifies LOMAC's 6nm kinematic NEZ for the 120 at least.

 

Insofar as susceptibility to chaff goes, anyone's guess is good. That chaff is easy to detect and reject is not really an excuse; as I've mentioned before, chaff can blind the missile to the target merely by being in the FoV - you can't ignore it no matter how hard you try. A smart jammer however could bounce transmission off the chaff and the missile WILL GO RIGHT FOR IT. Even teh 120 - because you can make it look -just- like a moving aircraft even if it's just sitting there at zero speed. This is a limitation of what the seeker can detect vs. what you need to do to fool it, nothing else.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can't argue with you, I don't agree. Sure, the ECM+Chaff combination can pose a significant obstacle for the missiles' guidance to overcome, but it cannot be as dire as you say it is, or else radar missiles would've been on their way out a long time ago, and long-range IIR missiles with datalink would've taken over. Think about it - Raytheon and Vympel spent years, decades even, and millions of dollars and rubels which ultimately produced the two most feared missiles in the world, and they are both active radar guided.

 

I just can't believe things are quite as black and white as you say it is. At the very least, active radar missiles have classified counters to such tactics we don't know about - there has the be something there.

 

And yes, AMRAAMs do miss from close range IRL - when fired against drones that are jamming, kicking out chaff and programmed to dodge missiles to perfection, it's not surprising. That's still no excuse for it to be not a threat at 15 nm, and I highly doubt a pilot can replicate the complicated maneuvers of a drone without some Red Flag or Top Gun type practice. And a max NEZ of 6 miles is tiny against a head on target. This is a Mach 4 missile we are talking about - at that range and a reasonable altitude, any BVRAAM should be kinematically superior to its target at just about any point in its flight envelope.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi jaws,

Your absolutely right. First of all a f-15 HOJ shot is not passive this means the enemy knows you have him locked and he knows when you have fired. This is a huge bug that has been posted about time after time on this forum. Adversly to this a russian plane firing a HOJ shot gives no warning so basically you dont know when they have fired on you they know when you have fired on them. Rule of thumb is dont use ecm unless for defensive purposes.

This brings up another bug the tws does not work properly they get a warning as well so its useless.

The aim 120c does not track properly it will fly off the rail on a HOJ shot and usually start to track the closest target.

Burn through has been reduced to 10 -12 miles.

There is a lot of work to do on the eagle.

Try this though take a mig fly low switch to close combat vertical scan mode and you will lock a target as far as 40km out thats 24 miles.

The game is bugged and needs fixing.

 

OMG. Is this really true? HOJ and TWS both now screwed for the F-15? Can someone confirm this for me with a simple answer? If this is true no wonder I'm getting nailed, the Eagle is now at a complete disadvantage regardless of whether the 120 and 77 are equally modelled.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back over the water...

Flight Lieutenant "Jaws"

169th Panthers

Link to post
Share on other sites

HOJ definitely gives a lock warning and a launch warning if a 120 is used. TWS doesn't give any warnings as far as I know, but I haven't tested it in many situations. The biggest problem is that 120s don't follow guidance from the launching a/c, they just seem to attack the largest radar return they can find. I've made many kills with the 120 after 1.1, but never a HOJ kill and mostly maddog shots. Maddog doesn't give a warning, even though it should. I've tested 120 HOJ shots and seen them loft to 55k and just stop tracking. I've seen SARH missles make sharp turns toward their targets after the launching plane has been killed. I've been outrun by a MiG.

 

1.1 needs a patch, and I've advised every 15 driver who is thinking of buying it to wait until one is released.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The day an F-15C pilot faces a good Flanker pilot in RL, the Eagle WILL LOSE. So *ehem* it's not deadly as you think it is.

 

ehem, you can't really compare one aircraft to another when one has 104 confirmed kills (including 8 MiG-29 Fulcrums) and zero losses (worlds only jet fighter with a perfect combat record) compared to an aircraft with no combat record... :icon_roll

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I just ask one simple question. Why were these aspects of radar functionality and missile code changed from what it was in 1.02?

 

Because they were WAY too scripted IMHO. ED is trying to model real world variables into their missile code, and I appreciate that a lot. To me the missiles in 1.02 were too infallible. They didn't feel like they behaved with any believable real-world limitations. It seemed like they were just following a given intercept point A for a designated target B, and unless target B caused the missile to run out of energy before reaching point A, the missile found its magic mark. Now missiles seem to actually work their intercept based on what information is available or masked in the theatre, rather than the ideal intercept flight path just being handed to them by the omnipotent game engine (with a small margin for error provided by counter measures).

 

Yes, there are some obvious deficits with the current missile code. I set to the missile slider to 100% to compensate for those problems currently, and I quite enjoy the feel game at those settings. Everything I've read says that ED is re-working the missile code for the next version to get around the current limitations with their missile code anyway. I really hope they don't feel pressed to fall back to 1.02 missile logic.

 

Personally, I would much much rather dynamic missiles that sometimes fall short of expectations, than scripted uber-missiles that seem to fly by the all seeing hand of god and always make the numbers.

 

For the record, I've flown the Eagle extensively in 1.1 and have no major complaints about its performance (with the possible exception of no STT IFF and the HOJ lock warning it gives the enemy).

Play Hard - Play Fair

Squadron Leader "DedCat"

169th Panthers - http://www.169thpanthers.net

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeathAngelBR
ehem, you can't really compare one aircraft to another when one has 104 confirmed kills (including 8 MiG-29 Fulcrums) and zero losses (worlds only jet fighter with a perfect combat record) compared to an aircraft with no combat record... :icon_roll

 

WAAAAAAAAAA THE EAGLE SHOT DOWN SHITTY PILOTS WAAAAAAAA THAT PROVES IT'S THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE WORLD WAAAAAAAAAAAA

Link to post
Share on other sites
ehem, you can't really compare one aircraft to another when one has 104 confirmed kills ...

 

I enjoy flying both the Eagle and the Flanker in LOMAC. You will never win this argument with DeathAngelBR because it is entirely based on a highly restrictive personal bias, and very little else. When DeathAngelBR or any other uni-plane fan says something as pointless and inane as they often do (see post directly above this one), it is usually best to just ignore them less another useful thread degrade into yet one more "Well, my dad can beat up your dad!" type childish, pointless, flame war.

Play Hard - Play Fair

Squadron Leader "DedCat"

169th Panthers - http://www.169thpanthers.net

Link to post
Share on other sites
OMG. Is this really true? HOJ and TWS both now screwed for the F-15?

 

TWS works fine... bug a target, fire an AMRAAM, and they won't know it is coming until the missile goes active. The brightness contrast of the IFF icons in TWS could stand to be improved though.

 

Eagle HOJ is messed however. A HOJ track in the Eagle will give the enemy a lock warning, however if you fire a HOJ Sparrow at them they won't receive a launch warning. ARH HOJ shots will give a launch warning I believe, but I think that's because they start pounding the jammer source with their radar as soon they come off the rail. I have no idea if that's what they do in real life. If there is a lot of music in the theatre (which there tends to be since everyone seems to flick their on SPJ and give away their location the moment they see a radar spike) I stay in RWS until I'm ready to engage.

Play Hard - Play Fair

Squadron Leader "DedCat"

169th Panthers - http://www.169thpanthers.net

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont you guys ever get tired of this s*it ? stop whining and start playing.. It's not the PLANE that gets the kills ITS THE PILOT!!!!

 

so if you get shoot down all the time, or your missiles NEVER hit a target.. just face it ; you suck!

 

And the one thing you need to do then, is to start changing tactics and train.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about what you just said, and what I just said. In a -simulator-, -everything- is supposed to be simulated. Right now, all the bad stuff (ECM, chaff, etc.) is modelled, while the stuff a missile can do to overcome the bad stuff are not. Thus, overall, reality isn't simulated :rolleyes:

 

In any case, if you want a REAL, reality-is-absolutely-simulated simulation, why are you playing Lock On? There's a really cool simulator, called Falcon 4, that simulates everything to the Nth degree. But even there, AIM-120s usually *hit* their targets, so getting inside the no-escape zone and firing off your missiles actually become *fun*, a challenge, instead of the frustrating experience it currently is in LOMAC.

 

 

Gotta Agree with you there Scythe,

 

The Slammer is no longer as effective as it used to be. Folks... If you want to see what a real aim 120 can do, install Falcon 4, patch the hell out of it and watch.... I flew it for 4 years before switching to LOMAC and the community is absolutely fixated on realism. There are countless threads out there in the F-4 Falcon Forum argueing the modelling of the aircraft and the missiles. just go back a few years and you'll see all the debates. It was incredible!!! This prompted the community to make F-4 as real as possible which they've done.... Now if they can only make it feel faster and look better!!!! Then I would go back ;)

 

http://forums.prospero.com/Falcon4/messages

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
While I can't argue with you, I don't agree. Sure, the ECM+Chaff combination can pose a significant obstacle for the missiles' guidance to overcome, but it cannot be as dire as you say it is, or else radar missiles would've been on their way out a long time ago, and long-range IIR missiles with datalink would've taken over. Think about it - Raytheon and Vympel spent years, decades even, and millions of dollars and rubels which ultimately produced the two most feared missiles in the world, and they are both active radar guided.

 

I just can't believe things are quite as black and white as you say it is. At the very least, active radar missiles have classified counters to such tactics we don't know about - there has the be something there.

 

And yes, AMRAAMs do miss from close range IRL - when fired against drones that are jamming, kicking out chaff and programmed to dodge missiles to perfection, it's not surprising. That's still no excuse for it to be not a threat at 15 nm, and I highly doubt a pilot can replicate the complicated maneuvers of a drone without some Red Flag or Top Gun type practice. And a max NEZ of 6 miles is tiny against a head on target. This is a Mach 4 missile we are talking about - at that range and a reasonable altitude, any BVRAAM should be kinematically superior to its target at just about any point in its flight envelope.

 

 

 

No, no, no. I'm not talking black and white. I'm saying it's not 'shoot and hit' black and white. That's my point.

 

And yes, there are ways to deal with chaff - like I said, one thing that was suggested were special trajectories. The point here is that people seem to think that chaff shouldn't be a factor at /all/, which is wrong. As for the drones, they are piloted by people from the ground.

The NEZ of 6nm is low-alt. High-alt the 120 can chase things down out to 10-12nm. The missiles migh tbe billed as Mach 4, but this is only the max velocity when launched under certain conditions...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overmodelling happens when you program marginal conditions as if they where fundamental ones. I think ED has some bad luck overmodelling ECM and chaff. Fundamental ECM is noise jamming, which is easy to simulate: it just subtracts from detection range. Noise jamming is also a strategic factor, since you can calculate fairly easily what power you need to reduce locking range sufficiently. Many strategic bombers like B-52 where equipped with noise jammers effectively reducing the classic SAM threat. Essentially, chaff adds to the noise and is not really comparable to flares, that really have a deceptive nature against heaters.

 

Deceptive jamming is to my opinion very difficult to model. And anyway, it has only marginal impact. The whole idea that an angry Amraam heading its way to your aircraft will suddenly feel the need to follow some chaff is bull. Chaff just adds to the noise preventing ground-based SAM-batteries to have a good lock on your plane. In my opinion, modelling an ARH missile like Amraam to be essentially fooled by ECM or chaff is overmodelling. It can only be marginally fooled. Think about it this way: if the chaff is released to early, the missile will easily reject it; if it is released to late, it cannot travel enough distance to get the missile at a safe distance from the plane. We're talking tenths of a second here. This can work very well in the phone-booth knife-fight with some Aim-9L heaters: if you can overload the heater for a fraction of a second, the lock is gone and there is no time left to react. In a medium-range scenario, it’s just a lot of crap. If an Amraam is heeding my way, and I have the choice to pull the ejection handle or press the chaff release button, I’d know what to do!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting this?

 

According what's publically written on the subject, it really seems like neither ECM nor chaff are 'marginal' ... in fact, they are heavily used, and with the proper tactics, very effective.

 

Noise jamming doesn't 'reduce lock range' ... it reduces it to NIL! There is ECCM to deal with it, which is highly classified. Deception jammers are also pretty nasty, and can give you a target where it doesn't exist. If it'll foll your aircraft's radar, it'll foll the 120, too, given that it's dumber, and in general features lesser equipment due to space restrictions.

 

Noise jamming BTW as used to 'distract' SAMs by making one return appear larger han another (the larger one woudl be sitting out of SAM range) while a non-jamming bomber would run in to cause suffering.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ruggbutt
If you want to see what a real aim 120 can do, install Falcon 4, patch the hell out of it and watch.... I flew it for 4 years before switching to LOMAC and the community is absolutely fixated on realism.

 

Priceless! A real AIM 120? You do realize that F4 is a sim. Real life performance of the 120 is classified, so your comments above are at the very least misinformed. Go play F4 if you like the performance, cuz we all know that your real life F16 pilotage and the fact that you've fired several real AMRAAM's in anger show us that you know what the real score is.

 

Next time trim your toenails before you make comments like that, you'll end up cutting your tongue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, for sure, the AIM-120s in Falcon 4 are overmodelled. They have a huge blast radius (80+ ft) even with realistic weapons effect on, are virtually immune to chaff and have enough energy to expand the NE to ridiculous proportions.

 

But there are some good points. And it can be modded - someone just needs to come along and do it. In any case, I think that the perfect balance for Pk would be between the 50% slider setting for AIM-120s in V1.1 and the Deathrays of F4.

 

Oh, and BTW, even at 100% missile slider, it sometimes takes 3-4 AIM-120s to bring down an AI bandit (usually, it takes an AMRAAM at 2-3 nm to kill them). I can't imagine what it's like to fly at 50%.

 

In any case, back to the problem at hand, I'm still willing to bet that everyone here agrees that ARH missiles (AIM-120, MICA. R-77) are undermodelled in some way or another, except for the one or two posters in this thread who only posted to look for a fight. I think it's safe to say that the basic fact is that active radar missiles aren't what they should be.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruggbutt, would your friend be able to comment on anything at all? Perhaps, specifically, on how chaff affects radar in general ... my main concern is to find out wether the chaff can force a missile's seeker to reduce gain tot he point where a real aircraft is ignored, even if the chaff is rejected by doppler effect.

 

I don't care which missile, it's just a general question :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are you getting this?

 

Noise jamming doesn't 'reduce lock range' ... it reduces it to NIL!

 

This is simply NOT true. You can perfectly calculate burn-through given a given amount of jamming power.

 

Where are you getting this?

 

There is ECCM to deal with it, which is highly classified. Deception jammers are also pretty nasty, and can give you a target where it doesn't exist. If it'll foll your aircraft's radar, it'll foll the 120, too, given that it's dumber, and in general features lesser equipment due to space restrictions.

 

Noise jamming BTW as used to 'distract' SAMs by making one return appear larger han another (the larger one woudl be sitting out of SAM range) while a non-jamming bomber would run in to cause suffering.

 

I'm not saying ECM is marginal as such. What I'm sayeing is hat noise jamming is the basic concept: add noise to the return signal and you reduce locking range. This gives a netto, direct and unreductible result.

 

Of course, you can enhance your noise jamming with blink jamming, spot jamming, barrage jamming etc. to exploit this to a maximum. You can also choose and alternate a lot of frequencies to jam.

 

Anyway, nothing beats powerfull noise jamming, as it is done by prowler aircraft with ALQ-99 pods. Noise jamming has of course a lot of drawbacks. But in the end, what you can add with several more sophisticated deceptive jamming techniques (range-gate stealing, terrain-bounce, crosspole, ...) is only marginal.

 

This doens't mean that the latter is unimportant, but it is more susceptible to ECCM. The problem is: you can defeat deceptive jamming through ECCM; on the other hand, it is virtually impossible to completely deny the effect of noise jamming.

 

The only real way to cope with noise jamming is indeed HOJ, which forces the emmitter basically to shut down its ECM.

 

As for chaff; you must realize the physical limitations of chaff: the size, the radar signature it can produce, and the flight-path it can simulate. A perfect chaff launch where you brake away in the other direction and the missile's radar could temporarily be undecisive which direction to take is a difficult feat. Certainly because after a few seconds, in the next couple of radar sweeps, the chaff cloud will be dissipated and not moving fast at all anymore.

 

If you shoot your missiles in pairs, I guess it would be very difficult to save your plane with chaff. In my view chaff is a good choice to protect yourself from SAM's, but I wouldn't bet my life on it in air-to-air.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
And if 2 f15's had a head2head with 2 Russian Mig29 skilled pilots IRL , i also think the f15's would bite the dust.

 

Why? because it can do the cobra?doubtful.gif

Because of the R-77? The F-15 can take 8 AMRAAM's, and engage 4 targets simultaneously.

 

And its not the range for sure...

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...